To this linguistic evidence of authenticity we can add archaeological evidence. The discoveries of the last thirty years have greatly confirmed the accuracy of the writer in points where a writer of the 2nd century would have betrayed his ignorance. In fact, we are able to compare his accuracy with the inaccuracy of the writing known as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a 2nd century blend of sensationalism and piety based on a document of the 1st century. Now, in almost every point where we are able to test the knowledge possessed by the author of Acts with regard to the topography of Asia {105} Minor and the details of Roman government, it can be pronounced correct. This has been admirably shown by Prof. Ramsay's works on The Church in the Roman Empire and St. Paul. St. Luke knows that Cyprus was governed by a pro-consul, which had ceased to be the case early in the 2nd century; that the magistrates at Philippi were called strategoi, and were attended by lictors, while those at Thessalonica were called politarchai (xvii. 6), a title which has been verified by inscriptions. He is aware that the governor of Malta was only called the head-man (xxviii. 7). He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not Iconium, were cities of Lycaonia, and that "great Artemis" was the cry used at Ephesus in invoking the patronal goddess of the city (xix. 28). We must not assert that these and similar details absolutely prove that the writer was a companion of St. Paul; but we can say that he was peculiarly well acquainted with the life of that period. The account of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck is equally accurate.
A very favourite argument against the genuineness of Acts is that Acts xv., in its account of St. Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, A.D. 49, is inconsistent with Gal. ii. It is asserted that the author deliberately falsified the story in order to represent the older apostles as promoting the union of Gentile and Jewish Christians, some modern critics assuming that the apostles would never have done anything so Catholic. But there is no real discrepancy between the two accounts, if we are ready to believe that St. Luke gives the public and exterior view of the proceedings, while St. Paul, as is natural, describes the personal aspect of those proceedings. According to Acts xv. 2, St. Paul and St. Barnabas were deputed to go to Jerusalem by the Church at Antioch; according to Gal. ii. 2, St. Paul went there "by revelation." The internal motive is surely compatible with the external. Again, both Acts xv. and Gal. ii. show that the momentous Council at Jerusalem included private and public meetings. The two accounts fit one another all the better in consequence of the fact that Acts {106} lays stress upon the public settlement (xv. 7 f.) and Galatians upon a private conference (ii. 2). Acts shows that there was much dispute, and Galatians shows that the dispute included opposition to St. Paul's methods. Acts shows that St. Paul greatly desired to be on good terms with the older apostles, Galatians shows that they gave him the right hand of fellowship. The historical situation, the occasion of dispute (viz. the attempt to impose circumcision on the Gentiles), the chief persons concerned and the feelings which they entertained, are the same in both books.[3]
As to the fact that St. Paul in Galatians makes no mention of a second visit to Jerusalem about A.D. 46, he ignores it because it was devoted to the specific business mentioned in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25. Nothing arose out of it affecting his relations with the first apostles or his own apostleship. A description of this visit was therefore quite beside the argument of Galatians. We cannot therefore say that its omission in Galatians proves that it was an invention of the author of Acts.
The fact that Acts does not depend upon St. Paul's writings and nevertheless shows many undesigned points of contact with them, leads us to a very important conclusion. This conclusion is that the writer of Acts was a companion of St. Paul. It is incredible that a later writer, who took an eager interest in St. Paul's adventures, should have made no use of St. Paul's letters. Those letters made a deep impression upon St. Paul's contemporaries (cf. 2 Cor. x. 10), and they were carefully treasured by all succeeding generations. We can only explain the relation between Acts and the Pauline Epistles by the theory that the author of Acts was sufficiently intimate with the apostle to be able to write his book without feeling the necessity of enriching it by references to those Epistles. The theory, then, fits with the theory which is suggested to us by the "we sections." The only remaining question is whether this companion was, or was not, St. Luke. {107} He was evidently with St. Paul at Rome, and this makes it impossible to attribute the authorship of Acts to Titus, as there is no hint in the New Testament of Titus being there. Nor was the author Silas, for Silas was not with St. Paul on the third missionary journey, while the author of Acts was. Acts xx. 5, 6 seems to prove that the book was not written by Timothy. No one seems so likely to have been the author as St. Luke. For the writer of Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 evidently accompanied St. Paul to Rome, and we learn from Col. iv. 14 and Philem. 24 that St. Luke was with the apostle during his first imprisonment in that city. We may therefore say that every line of evidence points to the truth of the ancient tradition that St. Luke wrote Acts.
The sources of information employed by St. Luke can sometimes be determined with a high degree of probability. Where he did not draw upon his own recollections he could often rely upon those of St. Paul. The apostle was, as we should expect, in the habit of narrating his own experiences (cf. 2 Cor. i. 8-10; xii. 9; Gal. i. 11-ii. 14; Phil. iii. 3-7; Rom. xv. 16-32). Acts xxi. 19; xiv. 27; xv. 3, 12, 26, show how St. Paul related his travels. Acts i.-v. probably incorporates an early Jewish Christian document, and contains features which unmistakably point to the truthfulness of the record. A good deal of information was probably obtained from John Mark: it was to the house of Mark's mother that St. Peter made his way after his escape from prison recorded in ch. xii. As St. Mark was with St. Luke and St. Paul at Rome, and acted as St. Peter's interpreter, St. Luke had the opportunity of learning from him many facts concerning St. Peter. St. Barnabas also perhaps furnished some details concerning the history of the early Church at Jerusalem. Some of the converts who fled from Judaea to Antioch (xi. 19) were probably men who witnessed the wonders of the Day of Pentecost. And if St. Luke was a Christian of Antioch, as tradition says, he may have made inquiries of these converts.
{108}
From Philip the evangelist, St. Luke may have learnt the history of events with which Philip was concerned, as he stayed with him at Caesarea (xxi. 8-12), and he also knew Mnason, who was one of the "original" disciples of Pentecost (xxi. 16). Finally, we notice that St. Luke had intercourse with St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, himself (xxi. 18).
[Sidenote: Date.]
We have seen above (p. 68) that St. Luke's Gospel was probably written soon after A.D. 70. As Acts i. 1 shows that Acts was written later than the Gospel, and as there is just enough difference in style between the two books to encourage the idea that Acts was not written immediately after the Gospel, we may reasonably place Acts between A.D. 75 and 80.
One obvious objection to placing the date of Acts so late is the fact that the writer does not record the death of St. Paul. This is certainly startling, for the martyrdom of the great apostle would have formed an impressive conclusion to the book. But there are several reasons which may be appropriately suggested to account for the omission. Possibly the author intended to write a third "treatise," in which the story of the martyrdom of his two great heroes, St. Peter and St. Paul, would be recounted; possibly Acts, which ends very abruptly, was never completed by the author. It is also possible that, after showing that the Roman civil power had generally been tolerant towards Christianity, he did not wish to endanger the circulation of his book by giving an account of Nero's brutal persecution of the Christians. If the book had contained any such history, the possession of it would have been regarded as no small offence by the civil authorities. Several years later, when the Church was probably much stronger, St. John, in writing the Revelation, disguised his description of Nero in symbolical language. In any case, St. Luke may have wished both to show Theophilus that Christianity was compatible with loyalty to the government, {109} and that the government had for a long time been tolerant towards Christianity.