(9) Time and Place. Respecting the time when this book was written it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul's imprison ment at Rome, it could not have been written before A. D. 63. A number of New Testament critics contend that Luke's gospel not only pre supposes sufficient time for the writing of many other treatises (Luke in), but also the destruc tion of Jerusalem (Luke xxi :2o), and hence could not have been composed before A. D. 70. This means for the Acts a date as late as A. D. 75 or 80. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was pre pared.
(10) Style. The style of Luke in Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. These speeches are in deed, for the most part, to be regarded rather as summaries than as full reports of what the speaker uttered ; but as these summaries are given in the speakers' own words, the appearance of Hebraisms in them is as easily accounted for as if the addresses had been reported in full. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively ; and, as Michaelis observes, he 'has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators' (Introduction, vol. iii, p. 332).
(11) Chronology of Events. Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown (Lardner's Credibility, \\Yorks, vol. i ; Biscoe, On the Acts; Paley's Hone Paulina'; Benson's History of the First Plonting of Christianity, vol. ii., etc.), the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, but a very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Of the many conflicting systems which have been published for the purpose of settling the questions that have arisen on this head, it is impossible within such limits as those to which this article is neces sarily confined, to give any minute account. As little do we feel ourselves at liberty to attempt an original investigation of the subject, even did such promise to be productive of any very satis factory result. The only course that appears open to us is to present, in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writ ers whose authority is most deserving of con sideration in such an inquiry.