In the essay on Luke have already
discussed the authorship of Luke for both his Gospel and Acts, and his purpose for writing. To summarise:
Luke's authorship of both the Gospel and Acts is virtually unquestioned by scholars, based on several compelling lines of evidence.
Early Christian tradition also unanimously attributes both works to Luke.
Linguistically, both works display the same sophisticated literary Greek, use similar grammatical constructions, and share distinctive vocabulary rarely found elsewhere in the New Testament.
The structure of the two volumes forms a continuous narrative: Luke's Gospel ends with Jesus's ascension and instruction to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49-51), while Acts begins with the same ascension and immediately describes the disciples waiting in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4-12).
Luke again addresses Part Two of his double-book to Theophilus, who could have been a wealthy individual or a reference to all lovers of God, or (as indicated in the text of Unit 9) he might very well have been Paul's lawyer at his first trial, with Luke's Gospel and Acts intended as his legal brief on the origin and spread of the Christian faith.
A number of facts support this theory:
When Paul stood trial before governor Festus in Caesarea (Acts 26:25), he addressed Festus as "most excellent Festus", and he uses the same legal term for Theophilus, suggesting that Theophilus was in a legal profession. Why would Luke give such a detailed account of the start and spread to (probably) a lawyer? Likely to be used as a defence brief in Paul's defence before Ceasar.
Both books show that Luke went to great lengths to interview many of the important figues in the early church, to offer first-hand testimony and eyewitness accounts of events and fine details of events and persons, and present this in an orderly (lawyerly?) manner.
Luke takes great care to portray the Roman Empire and its officials in a positive light, mentioning Corenelius' good works when relating his interaction with Peter. When Paul is attacked by the crowd, he is rescued by a sympathetic Roman officer and reveives proper protection as a Roman citizen. Luke also repeatedly shows Roman authorities finding Christians innocent:
during the trial of Jesus he quotes Pilate stating three times that Jesus was innocent,
Gallio dismisses charges against Paul (Acts 18:12-17),
the Ephesian city clerk defends Paul's companions (Acts 19:35-41), and
multiple officials declare Paul blameless (Acts 23:29, 25:25, 26:31-32).
From the sparse information available from history and early Christian tradition it would seem that this positive attitude bears fruit and that Paul was released from house arrest for at least a few years.
As soon as Paul appears in the narrative, he remains the focus - about two-thirds of the account deals almost exclusively with him. This focus seems to act as a defence of Paul, depicting him as an upstanding Roman citizen, not guilty of subversive actions and therefore innocent under Roman law.
And finally, Luke's account ends with Paul in house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial. Luke didn't include the outcome of the trial because they were still waiting for it. And he didn't resume his account, suggesting that no more was necessary at that point.