Attempts have been made to skew that the book is not the work of one writer throughout. But these have only had the effect of bringing out more clearly and fully the evidences of the opinion they are designed to overthrow. The linguistic peculiarities of the book, its pervading style, the references from one part to another, the unity of the leading ideas, and the connection of the whole, conspire to support the position that it is the pro duction of one author (Gersdorf, Beitriige cur Spmch- Chasakteristik Sclzrzylsteller d. N. T., p. 160 ; Credner, Einl. i. p. 132 ; Lekebusch, Composition and Enstehung a'. Apostelgesch, p. 37 ; De Wette, Eiu1. § 115; Meyer, Kr. Exeget. Comment. lib. d. N. T. iii. 3; Davidson, Intro duction ii. p. 4). Attempts have also been made to ascribe the authorship of the book, in whole or in part, to others than Luke, especially to Timothy (Schleiermacher, Einleit. ins N. T.; Bleek, Stud. and Brit. 1S36, p. 1025 ; Ulrich Ibid. p. 367, IS4o p. foo3 ; De Wette, Einl. p. 114 ; Mayerhoff, Eini. in d. Petrin. Schriften p. 6), and to Silas (Schwanbeck, Veb. die Quellen d. Se/in:fief: d. Lukas; Gander, Literary Ilistoy of the N. T.); but the gratuitousness and utter untenability of thes hypotheses have been fully exposed by several writer. (Davidson, Intivd. p. 9 ff.; Schneckenburger ueb. d. Zweck d Apostelgesclzichtc; Zeller, in his bach for I S49, Pt. I. ; Alford, Greek Test., vol. ii. ; Meyer, Comment. lab. N. T. vol. iii. ; Lange Apostal. Zeitalter i. 1, p. 90).
Many critics are to regard the Gospel by Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as having formed originally only one work, consisting of two parts. For this opinion, however, there does not appear to be any satisfactory authority; and it is hardly accordant with Luke's own description of the relation of these two writings to each other ; being called by him, the one the former and the other the latter treatise a term which would not be appropriate had he intended to designate by it the first and second parts of the same treatise. It would be difficult, also, on this hypothesis to account for the two, invariably and from the earliest times, appearing with distinct titles.
That the author of the Acts was a companion of Paul in the travels which this book records, and that consequently lie was a witness of most of the events he records, is a position which modern criticism has set itself earnestly to disprove, but without effect. It has been alleged that there are passages in the Acts which are contradicted by the Pauline epistles, that some of the accounts are unsatisfactory, that things are omitted which a companion of Paul would have detailed, that the early part of the book has an unhistoric character, and that it is full of what is un-Pauline (De Wette Einl. ; Schwegler Nach-apostolisch. Zeitalter; Zeller, 7ahrbuch, etc.) To this it may suffice here to reply, on the one hand, that we can never know so certainly what is Pauline and what un-Pauline, as to be able to say that any statement is so absolutely the latter, that it could not have pro ceeded from one who had been the companion of Paul ; and on the other hand, that even were it made out that some things in the Acts are not wholly in accordance with some things in Paul's epistles, and that from the latter source some things are to be supplied which the former omits, there is no proof in this that a companion of Paul did not write the Acts. Such cavilling objections are of no avail to set aside the constant tradition of the church as to the authorship of this book, especially as the use of the first person ibis by the writer falls in with this and the numerous undesigned coincidences between this book and Paul's epistles, so happily elucidated by Paley in his Hone Paul ind, confirm it.
The writer begins to narrate in the first person at ch. xvi. where he is for the first time introduced into the narrative, and where he speaks of accom panying Paul to Philippi. He then disappears from the narrative until Paul's return to Philippi, more than two years afterwards, when it is stated that they left that place in company (xx. 6) ; from which it may be justly inferred that Luke spent the interval in that town. From this time to the close of the period embraced by his narrative he appears as the companion of the apostle. For the materials, therefore, of all he has recorded from ch, xvi. I1, to xxviii. 31, he may be regarded as having drawn upon his own recollection or on that of the apostle. To the latter source, also, may be confidently traced all he has recorded concerning the earlier events of the apostle's career; and as respects the circumstances recorded in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, and which relate chiefly to the church at Jerusalem and the labours of the apostle Peter, we may readily suppose that they were so much matter of general notoriety among the Christians with whom Luke associated, that he needed no assistance from any other merely human source in recording them. Some of the German critics have laboured hard to shew that he must have had recourse to written documents, in order to com pose those parts of his history which record what did not pass under his own observation, and they have gone the length of supposing the existence of a work in the language of Palestine, under the title of NVZ1 +1Zjm or Nritin.:, of which the Apocryphal books, lipdEris Ilerpou and Kilptwa likpou, mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, were interpolated editions (Heinrichs, Pivitgg. in Ada App. p. 21; Kuinoel, Prohgg. p. 14). All this, however, is mere ungrounded sup position (Heinrtchs I. c. p. 21). Nor have the attempts which have been made to shew from the book itself that the author used written documents, proved very successful. We may admit, indeed, that the letters cited, xv. 23-29, and xviii. 26-30, which are avowedly copies of written documents, were given from such sources ; but beyond this, we see no adequate evidence of the truth of the assertion. We cannot trace the alleged difference in point of style between the earlier and later portions of the book ; and as for the speeches of Peter and Paul resembling, in style and sentiment, the writings of those apostles, this is only a matter of course if they are faithfully reported, whatever was the source of Luke's acquaintance with them. There is not the shadow of 'evidence that any written documents were extant from which Luke could have drawn his materials, and with regard to the alleged impossibility of his learning from tra ditionary report the minute particulars he has re corded (which is what these critics chiefly insist on), it is to be remembered that, in common with all the sacred writers, he enjoyed the superintend. ing and inspiring influence of the Divine Spirit, whose office it was to preserve him from all error and to guide him into all truth.