Agnosticism - A Reply to Professor Huxley #270905

It may be important to observe that this admission has been supported by M. Renan's further investigations, as expressed in his subsequent volume on The Apostles. In the Preface to that volume he discusses fully the nature and value of the narrative contained in the Acts of the Apostles, and he pronounces the following decided opinions as to the authorship of that book, and its connection with the Gospel of St. Luke (p. X sq.) One point which is beyond question is that the Acts are by the same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of that Gospel. One need not stop to prove this proposition, which has never been seriously contested. The prefaces at the commencement of each work, the dedication of each to Theophilus, the perfect resemblance of style and of ideas, furnish on this point abundant demonstrations. A second proposition, which has not the same certainty, but which may, how ever, be regarded as extremely probable, is that the author of the Acts is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him for a considerable part of his travels. At a first glance, M. Renan observes, this proposition appears indubitable, from the fact that the author, on so many occasions, uses the pronoun 'we,' indicating that on those occasions he was one of the apostolic band by whom St. Paul was accompanied. One may even be astonished that a proposition apparently so evident should have found persons to contest it.' He notices, how ever, the difficulties which have been raised on the point, and then proceeds as follows (p. Xiv) Must we be checked by these objections? I think not; and I persist in believing that the person who finally prepared the Acts is really the disciple of Paul, who says we' in the last chapters. All difficulties, however insoluble they may appear, ought to be, if not dismissed, at least held in suspense, by an argument so decisive as that which results from the use of this word we.'