My Detective Work on the Book of Acts

Why do we think Luke write the book of Acts? It has long been the tradition that it was Luke, the one ascribed as writing the gospel of Luke, but some scholars question that. I have discovered some interesting clues pointing to Luke that I had never previously come across.

I recently read the entire book of Acts, paying close attention to many details that I had formerly ignored. Although I am not a theology school graduate, my father was a well educated minister of the Gospel and a very good teacher of the Bible, so I grew up knowing the basics of the book of Acts. I have read it many times over the course of my adulthood, but had paid very little attention to the “we’s” of Acts. These were places where the author placed himself in the narrative with '“we.” I knew these “we’s" were there and had even heard about a vague theory that some people thought that much of Acts had been combined with somebody’s travelogue.

This past reading revealed some very interesting facts which support the understanding that Luke, the “beloved physician” is correctly identified as the one who wrote about Paul’s journeys and thus quite likely the whole book of Acts.

The “we’s” start abruptly when Paul leaves the city of Troas on his second missionary trip, so this person is probably a Greek. They stop for several chapters after Paul leaves Philippi. According to the absence of the ‘we’s,” the writer is not with Paul for over three years while Paul continues his second and performs his third missionary trip. However, the “we’s" begin again after Paul goes back to Philippi after his third missionary trip and starts his trip to Jerusalem for the celebration of Pentecost.

Once in Jerusalem when Paul gets arrested, the “we’s” stop briefly, but start again when Paul begins his trip to Rome, as a prisoner, and continue throughout the adventures on the sea. The assumption that the writer of the " we's” is Luke, as claimed by scholars for years, is supported by the fact that Paul writes from prison to Colossae during the first year of his house arrest, and mentions that Luke is with him (Colossians 4:14). That likely would have been the one who had traveled with him in the ship from Jerusalem.

Now what is the explanation for the cessation of the “we’s” when Paul leaves Philippi and then start-up again on Paul’s final return trip? Why would Luke not continue with Paul? Here is my explanation: Luke became a convert when Paul preaches in Troas. Luke, being a humble, although well educated physician, does not want to talk about himself at all, not even about his own conversion. The first '“we” starts very abruptly when Paul leaves Tarsus. The author appears to want the full attention of the reader to be on Paul and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Paul’s converts. No doubt, Paul found Luke to be a highly intelligent person and a very quick learner. I can imagine on that trip from Troas to Philippi that Paul was constantly teaching Luke, down to every detail, Paul’s version of the gospel, which was based on salvation by faith, not by works of the Law. Luke, being a Greek (his name, Lucanus, is Greek) was not likely a Jew, but being a physician was probably a quick learner and readily understood and accepted Paul’s teachings about the faith.

When Paul left Philippi, he was leaving some brand new Christians. He was not able to spend much time there after the conversion of the Philippian jailer and some other new Christians, but he probably realized that Luke, the brilliant physician, could help the new converts grow in the faith. Therefore, it’s my opinion that Luke was left there on purpose to disciple the new Christians. It turned out to be for more than three years. Then, low and behold, the “we’s” start back up when Paul stops at Philippi on his way to Jerusalem after his third missionary trip.

I believe my explanation shows that the “we’s” were not just a part of some random log added to the rest of Acts, because what would be the reason for the “we’s” to stop and start again? My explanation is the only one that makes sense. Another objection might be that the author of Acts made up the “we’s” on the trip to put himself there. If they were being made up, the “we’s” would probably have continued throughout Paul’s missionary trips. That did not happen. We also know that the “we’s” accompany Paul from Jerusalem to Rome. Not only does Paul mention Luke’s presence to the church in Colossae, during his first year there, but he also mentions Luke’s presence there to Philemon and to Timothy. We also know Paul was under house arrest meaning it was easy for people to come and stay there with him. So, we see the strong likelihood that Luke was traveling with Paul and became the writer of Acts and Luke as tradition strongly maintains. Why else was his name attached to those books?

However, for many skeptics there is a question about some parts of Acts being in conflict with what Paul wrote in the first chapter of Galatians, particularly about Paul’s first time visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. My guess is that when Luke was traveling with Paul on the trip back to Jerusalem that Paul was telling him about his second and third missionary trips. That would have been a lot for Luke to write down, plus there would be the normal discussions about theology and the ongoing trip. It’s entirely possible that Luke did not get the accounts of Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem from Paul himself. After all, that had happened many years before Luke met Paul. Luke would have been busy, trying to get the details from Paul about his other missionary trips, since they had been absent from each other for over three years.

It’s also possible that while Luke was staying with Paul after arriving in Rome that he started working on his Gospel. It’s obvious from the beginnings of each book that these books were written by the same person and that he wrote his gospel first.

Also, while in Jerusalem, before they left for Rome, Paul was soon put in jail, so it’s possible that Luke was busy talking to the leaders there, particularly James, the brother of Jesus to learn about Jesus’ ministry. Luke’s Gospel is the one which relates about Jesus going to the synagogue in Nazareth, where James, Jesus’ brother lived. It’s quite likely that James was there at the synagogue during that episode.

During this time, Luke also might have been talking to other Christian leaders about the early history of the Church, following Jesus’s death and resurrection. He would have wanted to make sure his notes and/or memory was being written down before he forgot it. If they were telling him the history that he wrote about, they probably also told him their version of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion and Luke would assumed their memories were accurate. However that first visit might have been confused with later visits since Paul said on his first visit, he only saw Peter and James, so if Luke got information from someone else, that other person might have forgotten about Paul’s first trip or might not have even known about it.

A good question is how did Luke support himself? Since he didn’t seem to ever require any help paying for his physical needs, he likely was from a wealthy family and had an independent means of financial support. Being a physician, as Paul describes him (Colossians 4:14), he might have come from a wealthy family since it would have taken a wealthy family to finance his education.

This has been fun, writing about Luke and his writings! I will write more about the book of Acts later. There are actually some possible indications of the presence and influence of the Essenes in the early church. I did not get this on my own, and it might not be true, but the evidence is fascinating for sure and it does not take away from the valuable witness of the work of God found in the book of Acts.