THE APOSTLE OF THE RECONCILIATION

`Then returned they unto

`And they worshipped Him,

and returned to Jerusalem with

Jerusalem  from  the  Mount

great joy: and were continually in

called Olivet, which is from

the temple, praising and blessing

Jerusalem  a  sabbath  day's

journey. And when they were

come in, they went up into an

upper  room  ...  These  all

continued with one accord in

prayer and supplication'.

According to the purpose with which Luke resumes the pen, the names of the eleven apostles are given together

with the women, Mary the mother of the Lord, and His brethren.

It will be seen that Acts proper commences with verse 15; the fourteen opening verses being a résumé of the

conclusion of the Gospel narrative. This has an important bearing upon the Structure of the book, which will appear

later in this work.

Luke is not mentioned by name in any part of the Acts of the Apostles, but the evidence we have already

considered is more than confirmed by the internal testimony of the book itself.  T.R. Birks, in his HORAE

APOSTOLICAE, No. 25, `Internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles', shows by a careful examination of the subject

that no other writer than Luke can satisfy the requirements or fulfil all the conditions. The following is a synopsis of

the argument. The reader is referred for fuller details to the original work.

In Acts 16:10 the writer of the book associates himself with the apostle; and we learn from the record that he was

with the apostle in his journey from Troas to Philippi; was absent after Paul's departure from Philippi during his

double stay at Corinth and Ephesus; joined him again at Philippi; continued with him from Greece to Palestine

during his imprisonment at Caesarea, his voyage, and at least the earlier part of his imprisonment at Rome. None of

the epistles were written until after the arrival at Corinth. Six epistles (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and

2 Corinthians and Romans) were written during the writer's absence; his name therefore will not occur in the lists

mentioned in these epistles as Paul's companions at the time. Four epistles written during the Roman imprisonment

were Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians; the writer's name therefore will probably appear in these

epistles: hence we may infer that the writer of the Acts was either Tychicus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, Epaphras,

Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, Jesus Justus, Luke, or Demas.

Timothy, Tychicus, and Aristarchus. - These accompanied both Paul and the writer from Greece (Acts 20:4,5),

and so are excluded.

Onesimus, being converted during Paul's imprisonment at Rome (Philemon 10), is excluded.

Marcus is mentioned in Acts as being rejected by Paul as a companion on that very journey wherein the writer

joins the apostle.

Epaphroditus was not with the apostle at the beginning of his imprisonment.

Epaphras arrived at Rome after his imprisonment began.

Jesus Justus, being a Jew, is excluded, for the writer of the Acts is evidently a Gentile.

Demas forsook Paul at the end, whereas Luke remained faithful; and, as the choice lies between Demas and

Luke, none can hesitate in accepting this most circuitous evidence that Luke, and none other, was the writer of the

Acts of the Apostles.

The `we' sections.- The sections of the Acts where the writer is introduced by the first personal pronoun `we'

have come to be called the `we' sections; and these have been exhaustively examined and compared, both with the

rest of the Acts, and with the Gospel of Luke, noticeably by Harnack. Literary criticism can produce no clearer

evidence of the unity of authorship. Again the character of this volume permits only of a synopsis: the reader is

referred to the English translation of Harnack's work.