Acts Of The Apostles

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

A canonical book of the New Testament, written by Luke as a sequel to his gospel, and a history in part of the early church. It is not, however, a record of the acts of all the apostles, but chiefly of those of Peter and Paul. In his gospel, Luke described the founding of Christianity in what Christ did, taught, and suffered; in the Acts he illustrates its diffusion, selecting what was best fitted to show how the first followers of Christ in building up his church. Beginning were his gospel indeed, he narrates the ascension of the Savior and the conduct of the disciples thereupon; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise; the miraculous preaching of the apostles, their amazing success, and the persecutions raised against them; with other events of moment to the church at Jerusalem, till they were scattered abroad. He then shows how Judaism was superseded, and how Peter was led to receive to Christian fellowship converts from the Gentiles. The remainder of the narrative is devoted to the conversion and calling of the apostle Paul, his missionary zeal, labors, and sufferings, and the ends with his two years’ imprisonment at Rome.

Luke himself witnessed, to a great extent, the events he narrates. His Greek is the most classical in the New Testament; and the view he gives of the spirit of the early church so many of whose members had “been with the Lord,” is invaluable. The book was probably written about A. D. 64, that is, soon after the time at which the narration terminates. The place where it was written is not known.

In order to read the Acts of the Apostles with intelligence and profit, it is necessary to have a sufficient acquaintance with geography, with the manners of the times and people referred to, and with the leading historical events. The power of the Romans, with the nature and names of the public offices they established, and the distinctions among them, must be understood, as well as the disposition and political opinions of the unconverted Jewish nation, which were to prevalent among the Christianized Hebrews.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Acts Of The Apostles

I.Text-

1.Greek MSS. [Note: manuscripts.]

2.The Latin Versions.

3.The Syriac Versions.

4.The Egyptian Versions.

5.Secondary Versions.

6.Early Quotations.

7.Textual theories: Westcott and Hort, Rendel Harris, Chase, Blass, von Soden.

II.Tradition as to authorship-

1.In favour of Lucan authorship.

2.Against the tradition.

III.The date of Acts and reception in the Canon-

1.The data of the Lucan Gospel.

2.The abrupt termination or Acts.

3.Knowledge of Josephus in Acts.

4.Reception in the Canon.

IV.The composition of Acts-

1.The obvious facts.

2.The purpose of the whole narrative.

3.The sources used in Acts.

(1)The we-clauses.

(2)The earlier chapters.

(a)The Antiochene tradition.

(b)The Jerusalem tradition.

V.Historical value of the various traditions-

1.The Gospel of Luke and Acts 1.

2.The Jerusalem and Galilaean traditions.

VI.Chronology of Acts-

1.The death of Herod Agrippa.

2.The famine in Judaea .

3.Gallios proconsulate.

4.The expulsion of the Jews from Rome.

5.The arrival of Festus in Judaea .

VII.The theology of Acts-

1.Christology.

2.Eschatology.

3.The OT and Jewish law.

4.The Spirit.

5.Baptism.

I. Text.-The text of the Acts is preserved in Greek Manuscripts , in Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian, and other secondary Versions, and quoted extensively, though not nearly so fully as the Gospels, by the early Fathers.

1. Greek Manuscripts .-The most complete study of the whole mass of Greek Manuscripts is that of von Soden in his Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1902-10). As his grouping of the Manuscripts is almost entirely independent of his theories as to the early history of the text, and represents facts which cannot be overlooked, it is best to give the main outlines of his classification, dividing the Manuscripts into H, K, and I recensions, and following his numeration; in the brackets are given the numbers of these Manuscripts in Gregorys Prolegomena to Tischendorfs Editio Major octava. It has not seemed necessary to give also Gregorys new numeration, as this is not any better known than von Sodens, and does not belong (and apparently will not belong in the immediate future) to a full critical edition.

(1) H.-This is represented by 1 (B), 2 (), 3 (C), 4 (A), 6 (). 48 (13), 74 (389), 1008 (Pap. Amh. 8. saec. v.-vi.), 103 (25), 162 (61), 257 (33). Of these Manuscripts 1 and 2 represent a common archetype 1-2, which is much the best authority for H. 1 is better than 2, which is, however, somewhat better in Acts, apart from scribal errors, than it is in the Gospels. 74 and 162 are specially good representatives of H, but no single witness is free from K or I contamination. There is a special nexus between 48 and 257, but 48 is considerably the better of the two.

(2) K.-It is impossible to give here the full list of K Manuscripts ; roughly speaking, 90 per cent of the later Manuscripts belong to this type. Two groups may be distinguished from the purer K Manuscripts :-Kr, a mediaeval revision of K for lectionary purposes, critically quite valueless; and Kc, a text with enough sporadic I readings to raise the question whether it be not an I text which has been almost wholly corrected to a K standard; it is called Kc because Manuscripts of this type seem to be represented in the Complutensian edition.

(3) I.-The I recension is found in three forms: Ia Ib Ic. Ia best represented by 5 (D=Codex Bezae* [Note: This MS is adequately described by F. G. Kenyon (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT2, 88ff.) or in other well-known handbooks.] , 1001 (E=Codex Laudianus [Note: Besides the details noted in the handbooks, it should be observed that this MS, after being used by Bede in North-umbria, passed to Germany, whence it was probably obtained by Laud, who gave it to the Bodleian Library.] ); by three pairs of connected Manuscripts , 7 (Apl. 261)-264 (233), 200 (83)-382 (231), 70 (505)-101 (40); and by a few other Manuscripts which have suffered more or less severely from K contamination. It is also well represented in the text of the commentary of Andreas (A). Ib is found in two branches, Ib1 and Ib2. The best representatives of Ib1 are 62 (498), 602 (200), 365 (214=ascr) and a few other minuscules; the best representatives of Ib2 are the pair 78 (von der Goltzs manuscript ) and 171 (7) which are almost doublets, and 157 (29). Ic is also found in two branches Ic1 and Ic2. The best representatives of Ic1 are 208 (307), 370 (353), 116 (-), 551 (216); the best representatives of Ic2 are 364 (137) [Note: As an instance of the advance in knowledge which von Sodens labours have produced, it should be noted that this MS used to be regarded as one of the principal authorities for the Western text, and was at one time deemed worthy of a separate edition.] and a series or other Manuscripts contaminated in varying degrees by K.

2. The Latin Versions.-The Old Latin or ante-Hieronymian test is not well represented. As in the Gospels, it may be divided into two main branches, African and European.

(1) The African is represented by Codex Floriacensis (h), now at Paris, formerly at Fleury, containing a text which is almost identical with that of Cyprian; it is in a very fragmentary condition, but fortunately the quotations of Cyprian and Augustine (who uses an African text in Acts, though he follows the Vulgate in the Gospels) enable much of the text to be reconstructed. (The best edition of h is by E. S. Buchanan, Old Latin Biblical Texts, v. [Oxford, 1907].) According to Wordsworth and White, a later form of the African text can be found in the pseudo-Augustinian de Divinis Scripturis sive Speculum (CSEL [Note: SEL Corpus Script. Eccles. Latinorum.] xii. 287-700), but the character of this text is still somewhat doubtful.

(2) The European text is best represented by g (Gigas) at Stockholm, which can be supplemented and corrected by the quotations in Ambrosiaster and Lucifer of Cagliari (see esp. A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Texts and Studies vii. 4 [1905]). A branch of the European text of a Spanish or provenal type is found in p, a Paris manuscript from Perpignan, and in w, a Bohemian manuscript now in Wernigerode, but in both Manuscripts there is much Vulgate contamination. Other primarily European mixed Manuscripts are s, a Bobbio palimpsest (saec. v.-vi.) at Vienna, x in Oxford, and g2 in Milan.

A Spanish lectionary of perhaps the 7th cent. known as the Liber Cmicus, which has many early readings, has been edited by G. Morin from a Paris manuscript of the 11th cent. and is quoted by Wordsworth and White as t.

(3) Besides these purely Latin Manuscripts , we have the Latin sides of the Graeco-Latin manuscript 5 (D) or d (Codex Bezae), and of the Latino-Greek manuscript 1001 (E) or e. The latter of these agrees in the main with the European text as established by g-Ambrosiaster-Lucifer, but the text of d is in many ways unique, and may possibly have been made for the private use of the owner of 5, or perhaps of the archetype of 5.

(4) The Vulgate.-It is impossible here to enumerate the hundreds of Vulgate Manuscripts of the Acts. Their study is a special branch of investigation, which has little bearing on the Acts, and for all purposes, except that of tracing the history of the Vulgate, the edition of Wordsworth and White may be regarded as sufficient.

3. The Syriac Versions.-It is probable from the quotations in Aphraates and Ephraim that there existed originally an Old-Syriac Version of Acts, corresponding to the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe represented by the Curetonian and Sinaitic Manuscripts ; but no manuscript of this type has survived.

(1) The oldest Syriac Version of the Acts is therefore the Peshita, probably made by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411-435) (see F. C. Burkitt, S. Ephraims Quotations from the Gospel, Texts and Studies vii. 2 [1901] p. 57f.). (N.B.-The Peshita quoted by Tischendorf as Syrsch.)

(2) Besides the Peshita we have the Harklean made by Thomas of Heraclea. This was based on an earlier Syriac text, made in 506 by Polycarp for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis, the modern Membij on the Euphrates), which is no longer extant for Acts. Thomas of Heraclea revised the Philoxenian with the help of Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Enaton at Alexandria, and enriched his edition with a number of critical notes giving the variants of these Greek Manuscripts which often have a most remarkable text agreeing more closely with Codex Bezae than with any other known Greek manuscript . (N.B.-It is quoted by Tischendorf as Syrp.)

(3) There is also a lectionary of the so-called Palestinian type, which was probably in use about the 7th cent. in the neighbourhood of Antioch. (On the nature of the Palestinian Syriac literature see F. C. Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies ii. [1901] 174-185.)

4. The Egyptian Versions.-The two Versions, Bohairic and Sahidic, which are extant for the Gospels, exist also for Acts, and there are a few fragments of Versions in other dialects. The relative date of these Versions has not been finally settled, but the opinion of Coptic scholars seems to be increasingly in favour of regarding the Sahidic as the older form. The Bohairic agrees in the main with the H text, but the Sahidic has many I readings (see E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts, London, 1912, for the best Sahidic text).

5. Secondary Versions.-Versions of Acts are also found in Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Persian, and other languages; but none of them is of primary importance for the text.

6. Quotations in early writers.-The earliest quotations long enough to have any value for determining the text are in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, who may be regarded as representing the text of the end of the 2nd cent. in Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. For the 3rd cent. we have Origen and Didymus, representing the Alexandrian school; Cyprian for Africa, and Novatian for Italy. For the 4th cent. Athanasius and Cyril represent the later development of the Alexandria text; Lucifer, Jerome, and Ambrosiaster represent the text of Rome and Italy; Augustine, that of Africa; Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem the Palestinian text, which according to von Soden is I; the later Church writers mostly use the K text, though they sometimes show traces of probably local contamination with H and I.

7. Textual theories.-As soon as textual criticism began to be based on any complete view of the evidence, it became obvious that the chief feature to be accounted for in the text of Acts was the existence of a series of additions in the text in the Latin Versions and Fathers, usually supported by the two great bilingual Manuscripts 5 and 1001 (D and E), frequently by the marginal readings in SyrHarcl, and sporadically by a few minuscules; opposed to this interpolated test stood the Alexandrian text of 1, 2 (B ), and their allies; while between the two was the text of the mass of Manuscripts agreeing sometimes with one, sometimes with the other, and sometimes combining both readings.

(1) The first really plausible theory to meet even part of the facts was Westcott and Harts (The New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. [Cambridge, 1882]), who suggested that the later text (K) was a recension based on the two earlier types. They regarded 5 (Codex Bezae) as representing the Western text, and 1 and 2 as representing as nearly as possible the original text. The weak point in their theory was that they could not explain the existence of the Western text.

(2) Founded mainly on the basis of their work, two theories were suggested to supply this deficiency.

(a) Rendel Harris (A Study of Codex Bezae in Texts and Studies ii. 1 [1891], and Four Lectures on the Western Text, Cambridge, 1894) and F. H. Chase (The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae, London, 1893) thought that retranslation from Latin and Syriac would solve the problem; but no amount or retranslation will account for the relatively long Bezan additions.

(b) F. Blass (Acta Apostolorum secundum formam qu videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1897, and also in his commentary. Acta Apostolorum, Gttingen, 1895) thought that Luke issued the Acts in two forms: one to Theophilus (the Alexandrian text), and the other for Rome (the Western text); but his reconstruction of the Roman text is scarcely satisfactory, and the style of the additions is not sufficiently Lucan.

(3) More recently von Soden (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1902-1910, p. 1834ff.), using the new facts as to the Manuscripts summarized above, has revived Blasss theory in so far that be thinks that the interpolated text witnessed to by 5 and the Latin Versions and Fathers really goes back to a single original; but, instead of assigning this original to Luke, he attributes it to Tatian, who, he thinks, added a new recension of Acts to his Diatessaron. The weak point in this theory is that the only evidence that Tatian edited the Acts is a passage in Eusebius* [Note: (Eus. HE iv. 29. 6). This scarcely sounds as though a series of interpolations was intended.] which states that he emended the Apostle, This may refer to Acts, but more probably refers to the Epistles. According to von Soden, the I text did not contain all the interpolations, K contained still fewer, and H contained none. He thinks that in the 2nd cent. there existed side by side the Tatianic text and a non-interpolated text which he calls I-H-K. From these two texts there arose the Latin Version-predominantly Tatianic-and most of the early Fathers were influenced by Tatian. Later on, in the 4th cent., three revisions were made: (a) H, by Hesychius in Alexandria, which preserved in the main the text of I-H-K without the Tatianic additions, but with a few other corruptions; (b) K, by Lucian, in Antioch, which had many Tatianic corruptions, as well as some of its own; (c) I, in Palestine, possibly in Jerusalem, which preserved many Tatianic additions, though in a few cases keeping the I-H-K text against H. 5 (D) is the best example of this text, but has suffered from the addition of a much greater degree of Tatianic corruption than really belongs to the I text, owing to Latin influence.

Obviously this complicated theory cannot be dismissed without much more attention than it has yet received. It may prove that the text with additions is not Tatianic but is nevertheless a single text in origin. It is also very desirable to investigate how far it is possible to prove that there was an I text, derived from I-H-K, which nevertheless did not possess, in its original state, all the Bezan interpolations.* [Note: The de Rebaptismate has not yet been sufficiently studied from this point of view. A monograph analyzing its evidence on the lines of F. C. Burkitts Old Latin and the Itala might be valuable.] If it were possible to say that the interpolations were a connected series (whether Tatianic or not is of minor importance), the text in which they are imbedded would become extremely valuable, and we should have do right to argue, as is now often done, that, because the interpolations are clearly wrong, therefore the text in which they are found is to be condemned. For instance, in Act 15:28 the Latin text interpolates the Golden Rule into the Apostolic decrees. That is no doubt wrong. But it does not follow that the text omitting , in which this interpolation is placed, is not original.

Literature.-The general textual question can be studied in H. von Soden, Die Schriften des NT, Berlin, 1902-1910, esp. pp. 1649-1840; F. G. Kenyan, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT2, London, 1912; E. Nestle, Einfhrung in das griech. NT3, Gttingen, 1909 (the Eng. translation is from an older edition of the period before von Soden); K. Lake, The Text of the NT6, London, 1911. Important for the study of the Latin are von Soden, Das lat. NT in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians, Texte and Untersuchungen xxxiii. [Leipzig, 1909] and Wordsworth-White, Nov. Test. Dom. nost. Ies. Christi Secundum edit. S. Hieronymi, vol. ii. pt. i. [Oxford, 1905] which also gives a clear statement of the best editions of the separate Manuscripts of the Old Latin and the Vulgate (pp. v-xv).

II. Tradition as to Authorship.-So far back as tradition goes, the Acts is ascribed to St. Luke, the author of the Third Gospel, and companion of St. Paul (see, further, Luke). This tradition can be traced back to the end of the 2nd cent. (Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12; Tertull. de Jejuniis, 10; Iren. adv. Hr. I. xxiii. 1, III. xii. 12ff., IV. xv. 1; and the Canon of Muratori). If the connexion with the Third Gospel be accepted, as it certainly ought to be, the fact that Marcion used the Gospel is evidence for the existence of Acts, unless it be thought that the Gospel was written by a contemporary of Marcion who had not yet written Acts. Farther back tradition does not take us: there are no clear proofs of the use of Acts in the Apostolic Fathers (see The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905) or in the early Apologists. (For the later traditions concerning Luke and his writings see Luke.)

The value of this tradition must necessarily depend on the internal evidence of the book itself. The arguments can best be arranged under the two heads of favourable and unfavourable to the tradition.

1. In favour of the tradition of Lukes authorship is the evidence of the we-sections, or passages in which the writer speaks in the first person. These are Act 16:10-17; Act 20:4; Act 21:18; Act 27:1; Act 28:16. They form together an apparent extract from a diary, which begins in Troas and breaks off in Philippi, on St. Pauls second journey; begins again in Philippi, on his last journey to Jerusalem; and continues (with only the apparent break of the episode of St. Paul and the Ephesian elders [20:18-38] which is told in the third person) until Jerusalem is reached and St. Paul goes to see James; then breaks off again during St. Pauls imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea; begins again when St. Paul leaves Caesarea; and continues until the arrival in Rome, when it finally ceases.

It is, of course, theoretically possible that these sections are merely a literary fiction, but this possibility is excluded by the facts (a) that there is no conceivable reason why the writer should adopt this form of writing at these points, and these only, in his narrative; (b) that by the general consent of critics these passages have all the signs of having really been composed by an eye-witness of the events described. It is, therefore, only necessary to consider the other possibilities: (1) that we have here from the writer of the whole work the description of incidents which he had himself seen; (2) that the writer is here using an extract from the writing of an eye-witness and has preserved the original idiom.

The only way of deciding between these two possibilities is to make use or literary criteria, and this has been done in recent years with especial thoroughness by Harnack in Germany and Hawkins in England. For any full statement of the case reference must be made to their books; the principle, however, and the main results can be summarized.

If the writer of Acts is merely using the first person in order to show that he is claiming to have been an eye-witness, the writer of the we-clauses is identical with the redactor of the Gospel and Acts. Now, in the Gospel we know that he was using Mark in many places, and, by noting the redactorial changes in the Marcan sections of Luke, we can establish his preference for certain idioms. If these idioms constantly recur in the we-clauses, it must be either because the we-clauses were written by the redactor, or because the redactor also revised the we-clauses, but without changing the idiom. As a fact we find that the we-clauses are more marked by the characteristic phraseology of the redactor than any other part of the Gospel or Acts. We are, therefore, apparently reduced to a choice between the theory that the redactor of the Gospel and Acts wrote the we-clauses, and the theory that he redacted them with more care than any other part of his compilation, except that he allowed the first person to stand. The former view certainly seems the more probable, but not sufficient attention has been paid to the observation of E. Schrer (ThLZ [Note: hLZ Theologische Litteraturzeitung.] , 1906, col. 405) that the facts would also be explained if the writer of the we-clauses and the redactor of Acts came from the same Bildungs-sphre. It would be well if some later analyst would eliminate from both sides the idioms which are common to all writers of good Greek at the period, for undoubtedly an element of exaggeration is introduced by the fact that in the Marcan source there were many vulgarisms which all redactors would have altered, and mostly in the same way. It should also be noted that there are a few Lucanisms which are not to be found in the we-clauses.

The details on which this argument is based will ha found best, in J. C. Hawkins, Hor Synoptic2, Oxford, 1909, pp. 174-193; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig 1906, pp. 19-85. There is also a good rsum in J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., p. 294ff.

2. Against the tradition it is urged (1) that the presentment of St. Paul is quite different from that in the Pauline Epistles, (2) that on definite facts of history the Acts and Epistles contradict each other; and it is said in each case that these facts exclude the possibility that the writer of Acts was Luke the companion of St. Paul.

(1) The presentment of St. Paul in the Epistles and in Acts.-It has been urged as a proof that the writer of Acts could not have been a companion of St. Paul, that whereas St. Paul in the Epistles is completely emancipated from Jewish thought and practice, he is represented in the Acts as still loyal to the Law himself, and enjoining its observance on Jews. The points which are really crucial in this argument are () St. Pauls circumcision of Timothy (Act 16:3), as contrasted with his teaching as to circumcision in the Epistles; () his acceptance of Jewish practice while he was in Jerusalem (Act 21:21 ff.), as contrasted with his Epistles, especially Galatians and Romans; () the absence of Pauline doctrine in the speeches in Acts; () St. Pauls acceptance of a compromise at the Apostolic Council (Acts 15), as contrasted with the complete silence of the Epistles as to this agreement.

If these four propositions were sound, they would certainly be strong evidence against the Lucan authorship of Acts. But there is much to be said against each of the in on the following, lines.

() In Act 16:3, St. Paul circumcises Timothy, but the reason given is that he was partly Jewish. There is no evidence in the Epistles that the Apostle would ever have refused circumcision to a Jew: it was part of the Law, and the Law was valid for Jaws. The argument in the Epistles is that it is not valid for Gentiles; and, though logic ought perhaps to have led St. Paul to argue that Jews also ought to abandon it, there is no proof that he over did so. It is also claimed that the incident of Titus in Gal 2:3 shows St. Pauls strong objection to circumcision; but in the first place it is emphatically stated that Titus was not a Jew, and in the second place it is quite doubtful whether Gal 2:3 means that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised, or that, being a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised, though as an act of grace he actually was circumcised. () It is quite true that in Act 21:21 ff. St. Paul accepts Jewish custom: what is untrue is that it can be shown from his own writings that he was likely to refuse. () There certainly is an absence of Pauline doctrine in the speeches in the Acts, if we accept the reconstructions which are based on the view that in the Epistles we have a complete exposition of St. Pauls teaching. But, if we realize that the Epistles represent his treatment by letter of points which he had failed to bring home to his converts while he was with them, or of special controversies due to the arrival of other teachers, there is really nothing to be said against the picture given in the Acts. () If the exegesis and text of Acts be adopted which regard the Apostolic decrees as a compromise based on food-laws, it is certainly very strange that St. Paul should have said nothing about it in Galatians or Corinthians, and this undoubtedly affords a reasonable argument for thinking that the account in Acts 15 is unhistorical, and that it cannot have been the work of Luke. But it must be remembered that there is serious reason for doubting (i.) that the text and exegesis of Act 15:28 point either to a food-law or to a compromise, (ii.) that Galatians was written after the Council (see G. Resch, Das Aposteldecret, Texte and Untersuchungen xxviii. [1905] 3; J. Wellhausen, Noten zur Apostelgeschichte, in GGN [Note: GN Nachrichten der knigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen.] , Gttingen, 1907; A. Harnack, Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig, 1908, p. 188ff.; K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, pp. 29ff., 48ff.).

(2) Rather more serious are the objections raised to the accuracy of certain definite statements, in the light of contrasting statements in the Epistles, and the conclusion suggested that the writer of Acts cannot have been a companion of St. Paul, Many objections of this kind have been made, but the majority are trivial, and the serious ones are really only the following; (a) the description of glossolalia in Acts 2 as compared with 1 Corinthians 12 ff.; (b) the account of St. Pauls visits to Jerusalem in Acts as compared with Galatians 2; (c) the movements of St. Pauls companions in Macedonia and Achaia in Act 17:15; Act 18:5 as compared with 1Th 3:1 f., 6.

(a) The account given of glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14 shows that it was in the main unintelligible to ordinary persons. He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the congregation (1Co 14:4; cf. 1Co 14:5; cf. 1Co 14:14; cf. 1Co 14:23; If any man speaketh in a tongue let one interpret (1Co 14:27). On the other hand, the narrative in Acts 2 describes the glossolalia of the disciples as a miraculous gift of speech that was simultaneously intelligible to foreigners of various nations, each of whom thought that he was listening to his own language. It is argued that this latter glossolalia is as unknown to the historian of psychology as the glossolalia described in 1 Cor. is well known; and it is suggested that Luke or his source has given a wrong account of the matter. In support of this it must be noted that the immediate judgment of the crowd, on first hearing the glossolalia of the disciples, was that they were drunk, and Peters speech was directed against this imputation. It is not probable that any foreigner ever accused any one of being drunk because he could understand him, and so far the account in Acts may be regarded as carrying its own conviction, and showing that behind the actual text there is an earlier tradition which described a glossolalia of the same kind as that in 1 Corinthians 12-14. But, if so, is it probable that a companion of St. Paul would have put forward so un-Pauline a description of glossolalia? There is certainly some weight in this argument; but it is to a large extent discounted by the following considerations. () It is not known that Luke was ever with St. Paul at any exhibition of glossolalia. Certainly there is nothing in Acts to suggest that he was in Corinth. () In all probability we have to deal with a tradition which the writer of Acts found in existence in Jerusalem more than twenty years after the events described. Let any one try to find out, by asking surviving witnesses, exactly what happened at an excited revivalist meeting twenty years ago, and he will see that there is room for considerable inaccuracy. () To us glossolalia of the Pauline type is a known phenomenon and probable for that reason; it is a purely physical and almost pathological result of religious emotion, while glossolalia of the foreign language type as described in Acts is improbable. But to a Christian of the 1st cent. both were wonderful manifestations of the Spirit, and neither was more probable than the other.

The whole question of glossolalia can be studied In H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, Gttingen, 1899; H. Lietzmanns Commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch zum NT, iii. 2, Tbingen, 1909; J. Weiss, 1 Cor. in Meyers Krit.-Exeg. Kommentar, Gttingen, 1910 (9th ed. of 1 Cor.).

(b) The accounts given in Acts and Galatians of St. Pauls visits to Jerusalem.-The points of divergence, which are serious, are concerned with () St. Pauls actions immediately after the convention; () his first visit to Jerusalem; () his second visit to Jerusalem,

() St. Pauls actions immediately after the conversion.-The two accounts of this complex of incidents are Act 9:10-30 and Gal 1:15-24. The main points in the two narratives may be arranged thus in parallel columns:-

Acts.Galatians.

1. Visit to Damascus immediately after the conversion.1. Visit to Arabia immediately after the conversion.

2. Escape from Damascus and journey to Jerusalem.2. A return to Damascus.

3. Retreat from Jerusalem to Tarsus in Cilicia.3. A visit to Jerusalem after three years.

4. Departure to the districts of Syria and Cilicia.

The difference between these accounts is obvious, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Acts is here inaccurate. It should be noted, however, that the inaccuracy apparently consists in telescoping together two visits to Damascus and omitting the Arabian journey which came between them. St. Paul, by speaking of his return to Damascus, implies that the conversion had been in that city, and in 2Co 11:32 f. (in Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes to take me, and I was let down in a basket through a window) we have a corroboration of the escape mentioned in Acts, though it cearly must come after the visit (probably of a missionary character) to Arabia, in order to account for tile hostility of Aretas. Thus, so far as the enumeration of events is concerned, the inaccuracy of Acts resolves itself into the omission of the Arabian visit, and the consequent telescoping together of two visits to Damascus along with a proportionate shortening of the chronology.

() St. Pauls first visit to Jerusalem.-The details of this visit are a more serious matter, and Acts and Galatians cannot fully be reconciled, as is plain when the narratives are arranged in parallel columns.

Act 9:26-30.Gal 1:18-23.

And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and the? were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them going in and coming out at Jerusalem, and he spake and disputed against the Hellenists; but they went about to kill him.After three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother. Now touching the things which I write to you, before God, I lie not. Then I came into the districts of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: but they only heard say, He that persecuted us once now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc.

No argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks of a period of preaching in Jerusalem which attracted sufficient attention to endanger St. Pauls life, while Galatians describes an essentially private visit to Peters; probably both documents refer to the same visit, as they place it between St. Pauls departure from Damascus and his arrival in Cilicia, but they give divergent accounts of it.

() St. Pauls second visit to Jerusalem.-It is possible that the difficulties here are due to a mistaken exegesis rather than to any real divergence between Acts and Galatians. If we start from the facts, it is clear that St. Paul describes in Gal 2:1-10 his second visit to Jerusalem. In the course of this he held a private interview with the apostles in Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was free to continue his preaching to the Gentiles without hindrance. It is also clear from Act 11:27 ff; Act 12:25 that St. Pauls second visit to Jerusalem was during the time of the famine. If we accept the identification of the second visit according to Acts with the second visit according to Galatians, there is no difficulty beyond the fact that Acts does not state that St. Paul and the other apostles discussed their respective missions when they met in Jerusalem; but, since this discussion altered nothing-the Gentile mission had already begun-there was no special reason why Luke should have mentioned it. Usually, however, critics have assumed that the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal 2:1-10 is not the second but the third visit referred to in Acts, so that the interview with the apostles described in Galatians 2 is identified with the Apostolic Council in Acts 15. Great difficulties then arise: it is obviously essential to St. Pauls argument that he should not omit any of his visits to Jerusalem, and it is not easy to understand why, if he is writing after the Apostolic Council, he does not mention the decrees. There would seem to have been a party in Galatia which urged that circumcision was necessary for all Christians; this point had been settled at the Apostolic Council. If the Council had taken place, why did St. Paul not say at once that the judaizing attitude had been condemned by the heads of the Jerusalem Church?

These difficulties have been met in England since the time of Lightfoot by assuming that the Apostolic decrees had only a local and ephemeral importance, in which case it does not seem obvious why they are given so prominent a place in Acts. In Germany this difficulty has been more fully appreciated, and either the account in Acts 15 -identified with Galatians 2 -has been abandoned as wholly unhistorical, or the suggestion has been made that the account in Galatians 2 is really a more accurate statement of what happened during St. Pauls interview with the apostles, which probably took place during the famine, while the decrees mentioned in Acts really belong to a later period-perhaps St. Pauls last visit to Jerusalem-and have been misplaced by Luke.

All these suggestions (and a different combination is given by almost every editor) agree in giving up the accuracy of Acts 15. On the other hand, if the view be taken that Galatians 2 refers to an interview between St. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the time of the famine, and that it settled not the question of circumcision, but that of continuing the mission to the Gentiles which had been begun in Antioch, there is no further difficulty in thinking that Acts 15 represents the discussion of the question of circumcision which inevitably arose as soon as the Gentile mission expanded. It is, therefore, desirable to ask whether the reasons for identifying Galatians 2 and Acts 15 are decisive. The classical statement in English is that of Lightfoot (Epistle to the Galatians, p. 123ff.), who formulates it by saying that there is an identity of geography, persons, subject of dispute, character of the conference, and result. Of these identities only the first is fully accurate; and it applies equally well to the visit, to Jerusalem in the time of the famine. The persons are not quite the same, for Titus and John are not mentioned in Acts. The subject is not the same at all, for in Galatians the question of the Law is not discussed (and was apparently raised only by St. Peters conduct later on in Antioch), but merely whether the mission to the uncircumcised should be continued,* [Note: From the context it is Clear that means the gospel for the Uncircumcision (i.e. the Gentiles) and the Circumcision (i.e. the Jews).] while in Acts the circumcision of the Gentiles is the main point. The character of the conference is not the same at all, for in Galatians it is a private discussion, in Acts a full meeting of the Church; and the result is not the same, for the one led up to the Apostolic decrees, while the other apparently did not do so. Lightfoot to some extent weakens these objections by suggesting that St. Paul describes a private conference before the Council, but in so doing he weakens his own case still more, for he can give no satisfactory reason why St. Paul should carefully describe a private conference, but omit the public meeting and official result to which it was preliminary.

Thus, if the identification of Galatians 2 and Acts 15 be abandoned, the objections which are raised against the account in Acts fall to the ground, and the resultant arguments against the identification of the writer of Acts with Luke are proportionately weakened.

The question may he studied in detail in C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897; A. Harnack, Apostelgesch., Leipzig, 1908; J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, Cambridge, 1865; K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911; C. W. Emmet, Galatians, London, 1912.

(c) The movements of St. Pauls companions in Macedonia and Achaia in Act 17:15; Act 18:5 compared with 1Th 3:1 f, 6.-The difference between these narratives is concerned with the movements of Timothy and Silas. According to Acts, when St. Paul went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas in Bera, and sent a message to them either from Athens or from some intermediate point, asking them to rejoin him as soon as possible, but they did not actually join him until he reached Corinth (Act 18:5). This arrival of Timothy at Corinth is mentioned in 1Th 3:6, but, according to the implication of 1Th 3:1 f, Timothy (and Silas?) had already reached Athens and been sent away again with a message to Thessalonica. In this case Acts omits the whole episode of Timothys arrival at and departure from Athens, and telescopes together two incidents in much the same way as seems to have been done with regard to St. Pauls visits to Damascus immediately after the conversion. This is the simplest solution of the question, though it is possible to find other conceivable theories, such as von Dobschtzs suggestion that 1Th 3:1 need not mean that Timothy came to Athens, as the facts would be equally covered if a message from St. Paul had intercepted him on his way from Bera to Athens and sent him to Thessalonica.

The best account of various ways of dealing with the question is given by E. von Dobschtz, Die Thessalonicherbriefe, in Meyers Krit.-Exeget. Kommmentar7, Gttingen, 1909.

Summary.-The general result of a consideration of these divergences between Acts and the Epistles suggests that the author was sometimes inaccurate, and not always well informed, but it is hard to see that he makes mistakes which would be impossible to one who had, indeed, been with St. Paul at times but not during the greater part of his career, and had collected information from the Apostle and others as opportunity had served. On the other hand, the argument from literary affinities between the we-clauses and the rest of Acts remains at present unshaken; and, until some further analysis succeeds in showing why it should be thought that the we-clauses have been taken from a source not written by the redactor himself, the traditional view that Luke, the companion of St. Paul, was the editor of the whole book is the most reasonable one.

III. Date of Acts and Reception in the Canon.-The evidence for the date is very meagre. If the Lucan authorship be accepted, any date after the last events chronicled, i.e. a short time before a.d. 60 to c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 100, is possible. The arguments which have been used for fixing on a more definite point are: (1) the date of the Lucan Gospel, which by the evidence of Act 1:1 is earlier; (2) the abrupt termination of Acts; (3) the possibility that the writer knew the Antiquities of Josephus, which cannot be earlier than a.d. 90.

1. The date of the Lucan Gospel.-It has usually been assumed that this must be posterior to the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, but it is doubtful whether there are really any satisfactory proofs that this was the case. The only argument of importance is that in the apocalyptic section of Mark (ch. 13) expressions which might be supposed to refer to the fall of Jerusalem have been altered to correspond with the real facts of the siege. Actually, however, the most striking change is merely that the vague Marcan reference to Daniels abomination of desolation has been replaced by a description of Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Of course, if we knew that Luke was later than the fall of Jerusalem, it would be a rational assumption to think that the change was due to the influence of the facts on the writer; but the force of the argument is not so great if we reverse the proposition, for to explain the abomination of desolation as a prophecy of a siege is not specially difficult. The most, therefore, that can be said is that this argument raises a slight presumption in favour of a date later than a.d. 70.

2. The abrupt termination of Acts.-Acts ends apparently in the middle of the trial of St. Paul: he has been sent to Rome, and has spent two years in some sort of modified imprisonment, but no verdict has been passed. From this Harnack has argued (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, p. 65ff.) that the Acts must have been written before the end of the trial was known.

This argument would be important if it were the only explanation of the facts. But two other possibilities have to be considered. In the first place, it is possible, though perhaps not very probable, that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third book beginning with the account of St. Pauls trial in Rome. In the second place, it is possible that the end of Acts was not so abrupt to the ears of contemporaries as it is to us, for the two years may be the recognized period during which a trial must be heard, and after which, if the prosecution failed to appear, the case collapsed. The case of St. Paul had been originally a prosecution by the Jews, and probably it still kept this character, even though the venue was changed to Rome. But the Jews, as Luke says in Act 28:21, did not put in an appearance, and therefore the case must have collapsed for lack of a prosecution, after a statutory period of waiting. What this period was we do not know, but a passage in Philos in Flaccum points to the probability that it was two years. According to this, a certain Lambon was accused of treason in Alexandria, and the Roman judge, knowing that he was dangerous, but that the evidence was insufficient to justify a condemnation, kept him in prison for two years (), which Philo describes as the longest period ( ). If this be so, Lukes termination of Acts is not really so abrupt as it seems, but implies that St. Paul was released after the end of the two years, because no Jews come forward to prosecute; it is easy to understand that, as this was not a definite acquittal, Luke had no interest in emphasizing the fact.

3. The knowledge of Josephus shown in Acts.-The evidence for this is found in the case of Theudas. The facts are as follows. In Act 5:35 Gamaliel is made to refer to two revolts which failed-first, that of Theudas, and after him that of Judas the Galilaean in the days of the Census (i.e. a.d. 6). Both these revolts are well known, and are described by Josephus; but the difficulty is that Judas really preceded Theudas, whose revolt took place in the procuratorship of Fadus (circa, about a.d. 43-47).

The revolt of Theudas was thus most probably later than the speech of Gamaliel, and the reference to it must be a literary device on the part of Luke, who no doubt used the speeches which he puts into the mouths of the persons in his narrative with the same freedom as was customary among writers of that period. But the remarkable point is that Josephus in Ant. XX. also mentions Judas of Galilee after speaking of Theudas;* [Note: After describing Theudas revolt, Josephus continues: , , , (Ant. xx. v. 2).] and the suggestion is that Luke had seen this and was led into the not unnatural mistake of confusing the dates. He apparently knew the correct date of Judas, and remembered only that Josephus had spoken of him after Theudas, and was thus led into the mistake of thinking that Theudas must have been earlier than Judas.

If the case of Theudas be admitted, it is also possible that in the description of the death of Herod Agrippa some details have been taken by Luke from the description of the death of Herod the Great as given by Josephus. But the evidence is here; much less striking, and, if Theudas be not conceded, has no real strength. The case of Theudas is, however, very remarkable; it falls short of demonstration, but not so far short as the other arguments for dating the Acts.

So far it has been assumed that Luke was the writer of Acts; and in this case the probable length of his life gives the terminus ad quem for dating his writings, i.e. c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 100. If his authorship be disputed, the terminus ad quem is the earliest known use of the book or of its companion Gospel. This is to be found in the fact that Marcion (circa, about a.d. 140) used the Gospel of Luke. It is, of course, possible that some of the isolated Evangelical quotations in the Apostolic Fathers may be from Luke; but no proof of this can be given. As, however, Marcions text is a redaction of the canonical text, and Lukes Gospel was taken into the Four-Gospel Canon not long afterwards, it must have been in existence some time previously, so that, even if the Lucan authorship be doubted, a.d. 130 is the latest date that can reasonably be suggested. Even this appears to be very improbable if attention be paid to some of the characteristics of Acts. For instance, Acts never uses the triadic formula: baptism is always in the name of the Lord, or of Jesus; there is no trace of the developed Docetic controversy of the Johannine Epistles or of Ignatius; is habitually used predicatively, and not as a proper name, and in this respect Acts is more primitive than St. Paul.

On the other hand, the weakening of the eschatological element, and the interest in the Church, as an institution in a world which is not immediately to disappear, point away from the very early date advocated by Harnack and others. The decennium 90-100 seems, on the whole, the most probable date, but demonstrative proof is lacking, and it may have been written thirty years earlier, or (but only if the Lucan authorship be abandoned) thirty years later.

4. Reception in the Canon.-There is no trace of any collection of Christian sacred books which included the Four-Gospel Canon, but omitted the Acts. That is to say, throughout the Catholic Church within the Roman Empire, Acts was universally received as the authoritative and inspired continuation of the Gospel story.

It appears also probable that in the Church of Edessa Acts was used from the earliest time as the continuation of the Diatessaron, for the Doctrine of Addai specifies as the sacred books the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, of which the last item probably means the canonical Acts (see F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, London, 1904, p. 59).

Moreover, the Marcionites and other Gnostic Christians do not appear to have ever used the Acts. Later on the Manichaeans seem to have used a corpus of the five Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas, as a substitute for the canonical Acts; and the Priscillianists in Spain so far adopted this usage as to accept this corpus as an adjunct to the canonical Acts. (For the more detailed consideration of these Acts, both as a corpus and as separate documents, see Acts of the Apostles [Apocryphal].)

IV. The Composition of Acts.-The question of the composition of this or any other book is one partly of fact, partly of theory. In the sense of determining the arrangement of the sections, and the relations which they bear to one another, it is a question of fact and observation; hut, when the question is raised why the sections are so arranged, and how far they represent older sources used by the writer, it becomes a question of theory and criticism.

1. The obvions facts.-The first point, therefore, is the establishment of the facts, and in the main these admit of little discussion. Acts falls immediately into two chief parts-the Pauline, and the non-Pauline parts-with a short intermediate section in which St. Paul appears at intervals. The Pauline section, again, falls into the natural divisions afforded by his two (or three) great journeys; and a cross-division can also be made by noting that the author sometimes uses the first person plural, sometimes writes exclusively in the third person. The earlier sections in the same way can be divided-though the division is here much less clear-into those in which the centre of activity is Jerusalem, and those in which it is Antioch, while a further series of subdivisions can be made according as the chief actor is Peter, Philip, or Stephen. Finally, still smaller subdivisions can be made by dividing the narrative into the series of incidents which compose it.

The table on p. 22 serves to give a general conspectus of the facts; a somewhat more minute system of subdivision has been adopted in the earlier chapters, which are especially affected by the question of sources, than in the-from this point of view-more straightforward later chapters. This analysis is sufficient to show that the writer must have been drawing on various sources or traditions for his information, and we have to face three problems: What was the purpose with which the writer put together this narrative? How far is it possible to distinguish the sources, written or oral, which he used? What is the relative value of the sources which he used?

2. The purpose with which the whole narrative was composed.-It is, of course, clear that the writer has not attempted to give a colourless story of as many events as possible, but is using history to commend his own interpretation of the facts. This is corroborated by his own account at the beginning of the Gospel, in which he defines his purpose as that of convincing Theophilus of the certainty of the narratives in which he had been instructed ( [Luk 1:4]). In other words, he wishes to tell the story of the early days of Christianity in order to prove the Christian teaching.

If we consider the narrative from this point of view, we can see several motives underlying it. (a) The desire to show that the Christian Church was the result of the presence of the Spirit (, , are the usual expressions, but in Act 5:9; Act 8:39 [the text is doubtful], in Act 16:7), which is the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus to send it to His disciples (Act 1:5 ff.; cf. Luk 3:16; Luk 24:48 f.). The Spirit manifested itself in glossolalia, in the working of miracles of healing, and in the surprising growth of Christianity. This is perhaps the main object of Lukes writings, and to it is subordinated, both in the Gospel and in Acts, the eschatological expectation which is most characteristic of Mark and Matthew; though many traces of this still remain.-(b) The desire to show the unreasonableness and wickedness of Jewish opposition is also clearly marked, and is contrasted with the attitude of Roman officials. It is, therefore, not impossible that the writer desired to dissociate Christianity from Judaism, and to defend Christians from the imputation of belonging to a sect forbidden by the State. If we knew the time when Christianity was, as such, first forbidden and persecuted, this might be a valuable indication of date, but at present all that is known with certainty is that (cf. Plinys correspondence with Trajan) it was forbidden by the beginning of the 2nd cent., and that in 64 it was probably (but not certainly) not forbidden, as the Neronic persecution was not of the Christians as such, but of Christians as suspected of certain definite crimes. It is, however, in any case clear that this feature of Acts supports the view that one purpose cherished by the writer was the desire to protest against the view that Christians had always been, or could ever be, regarded as a danger to the Empire.-(c) As a means towards the accomplishment of his other purposes, the writer is desirous of showing how Christianity had spread from Jerusalem to the surrounding districts, from there to Antioch, and from Antioch through the provinces to Rome. He also explains in what way the Christians came to preach to Gentiles without insisting on the Jewish Law, and how this had been perceived to be the work of the Spirit by the Jewish apostles who recognized the revelation to this effect to St. Paul and to St. Peter (Act 9:15 ff; Act 22:21; Act 11:18; Act 15:1 ff).

3. The sources used in Acts.-The most superficial examination of Acts shows that it is divided most obviously into a Peter part and a Paul part; it is, therefore, not strange that the critics of the beginning of the 19th cent. thought of dividing Acts into narratives derived from a hypothetical Acts of Peter and a hypothetical Acts of Paul. But further investigation has gone behind this division: it has been seen that important questions are involved in the relation of the we-clauses to the rest of the narrative relating to St. Paul, the story of the Antiochene Church, and the early history of the Church in Jerusalem. In discussing them it is simplest to begin with the most marked feature-the we-clauses-and then work back to the earlier chapters.

Reference.Place.General Description.Cheif Actors.

Act 1:1-11.Jerusalem.The Ascension and promise of the Spirit.Jesus and the Twelve

Act 1:12-26.Jerusalem.Choice of Matthias.Peter and the Twelve

Speech of Peter.

Act 2:1-47Jerusalem.Gift of the Spirit.Peter and the Twelve.

Glossolalia.

Speech of Peter.

Healing miracle by Peter and John.Peter [and John].

Speech of Peter.

Act 4:1-22Jerusalem.Imprisonment of Peter and John.Peter [and John].

Speech of Peter.

Act 4:22-31.Jerusalem.Their release.Peter [and John].

Meeting of the Church.

Gift of the Spirit.

Act 4:32 to Act 5:16.Jerusalem.Communism in the Church.Peter, Barnabas [Ananias, Sapphira].

Act 5:17-42.Jerusalem.Imprisonment of Peter and John.Peter [and John].

Speech of Gamaliel.

Act 6:1-7.Jerusalem.Appointment of the Seven.The apostles.

Act 6:8-15.Jerusalem.Preaching of Stephen.Stephen.

His arrest.

Act 7:1 to Act 8:3Jerusalem.Speech of Stephen.Stephen.

His Death.

Act 8:4-25Samaria.Philips preaching.Philip, Peter [and John].

Simon Magus.Simon Magus.

Act 8:26-40.The road to Gaza.Philips conversion of the Ethiopian.Philip.

Act 9:1-31.The road to Damascus.Conversion of Saul, and extension of the Church.Paul.

Act 9:32 to Act 10:48.Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea.Peters journey through Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea.Peter.

Conversion of Cornelius.

Speech of Peter.

Act 11:1-18.Jerusalem.Peters speech on Cornelius conversion.Peter.

Act 11:19-26.Antioch.Foundation of Gentile Christianity.Hellenistic Jews, Barnabas, Paul.

Act 11:27-30.Antioch.Collection for Jerusalem.Barnabas, Paul.

Act 21:1-24.Jerusalem.Herods persecution.Peter.

Peters imprisonment.

Death of Herod.

Act 12:25.Return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch.Barnabas, Paul.

Act 13:1 to Act 14:28.Journey.First missionary journey.Paul.

Act 15:1-35.Jerusalem.Apostolic Council.Peter, James, Paul.

Act 15:36 to Act 18:22.Journey.Second missionary journey.Paul.

Act 18:23 to Act 21:16.Journey.Third missionary journey.Paul.

Act 21:17 to Act 23:11.Jerusalem.Pauls dealings with James. His arrest.Paul.

Speech to Sanhedrin.

Act 23:12 to Act 26:32.Caesarea.Pauls imprisonment in Caesarea. Felix.Paul.

Festus. Agrippa.

Act 27:1 to Act 28:16.Journey.Journey to Rome.Paul.

Act 28:17-31.Rome.Paul and Jews in Rome.Paul.

(1) The we-clauses.-As was shown above, the balance of evidence seems at present to be strongly in favour of the view that the writer of these sections intended to claim that he had been a companion of St. Paul, and that he was himself the editor of the whole book. If this be so, we have for the rest of the Paul narrative a source ready to our hand-the personal information obtained by Luke from St. Paul himself, or from other companions of St. Paul whom he met in his society. This may cover as much as Act 9:1-30; Act 11:27-30; Act 12:25 or even more. There is nothing in these sections which cannot have come from St. Paul or his entourage, and the inaccuracies in the narrative, as compared with the Epistles, do not seem to point to any greater fallibility on the part of the writer than that to be found in other historical writers who are in the possession of good sources. At the same time, this does not mean that the assignment of these chapters to a Paul source is final or exclusive of others. Some sections within these limits (e.g. Acts 15) may come from some other Jerusalem or Antiochene source, and some sections outside them (e.g. the story of Stephens death) may have come from the Paul source.

If, on the other hand, it should ultimately appear that the evidence from style has been exaggerated or misrepresented, it will be necessary to regard the we-sections as representing a separate source, and consider the question whether the rest of the chapters mentioned above came from one or several sources. At present, however, no one has shown any serious ground for thinking that we can distinguish any signs of change of style, or of doublets in the narrative, to point in this direction.

(2) The problems presented by the earlier chapters are much more complicated. The chief point which attracts attention is that in the first half of these chapters the centre of interest is Jerusalem, or Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, while in the second half it is Antioch. Here again it is easier to begin by taking the later chapters first, and to discuss the probable limits of the Antiochene tradition, together with the possibility that it may have lain before the writer of Acts as a document, before considering the Jerusalem tradition of the opening chapters.

(a) The Antiochene tradition.-The exact limits of this tradition are difficult to fix. It is clear that to it the section describing the foundation of the church at Antioch and its early history (Act 11:19 ff.) must be attributed; but difficulties arise as soon as an attempt is made to work either backwards or forwards from this centre, as the later sections, which can fairly be attributed to Antiochene tradition, can also be attributed to the Pauline source, while the earlier sections of the same kind might be attributed to the Jerusalem tradition. It is obvious that the of Act 11:19 picks up the narrative of Act 8:1-4. In Act 8:1; Act 8:4 the story of Stephens death is brought to a close by the statement that . . Then the writer gives two instances of this evangelization by Philip and Peter in Samaria, and by Philip alone on the road to Gaza. Next he explains how the conversion of St. Paul put an end to the persecution, and how the conversion of Cornelius led to the recognition of preaching to Gentiles by the Jerusalem community. Finally, he returns to where he started from, and picks up his story as to the Christians who were dispersed after the death of Stephen, with the same formula- in Act 11:19.

Thus there is an organic unity between Act 8:4 and Act 11:19. But Act 8:4 is the end of the story of the Hellenistic Jews, their seven representatives, and the persecution which befell them; and the beginning of this story is in Act 6:6. Between Act 6:6 and Act 8:4 there is no break-unless it be thought that the whole speech of Stephen is the composition of the editor, as may very well be the case. Is, then, Act 6:6 to Act 8:4 to be regarded as belonging to the Antiochene tradition? Harnack thinks so, and it is very probable. But it is also true that Act 6:6 to Act 8:4 might have come either from Jerusalem or from St. Paul himself, and it is hard to see convincing reasons why the Antiochene source which Harnack postulates should not have come from the Paul source.

The same sort of result is reached by considering the sections following Act 11:19-24. Is Act 11:25-30 Pauline or Antiochene? The following section, Act 12:1-24, is clearly part of the Jerusalem tradition, but what follows, Act 12:25 to Act 13:3, might again be either Pauline or Antiochene, and the same is true of Act 15:1-35, in which the account of the Council might be Antiochene or Pauline, but is less likely to represent Jerusalem tradition. These exhaust the number of the passages which are ever likely to be attributed to the Antiochene source. To the present writer it seems that, unless it prove possible (so far it has not been done) to find some literary criterion for distinguishing between the Pauline and Antiochene sources, it will remain permanently impossible to draw any line of demarcation between what Luke may have heard about the early history of Antioch from St. Paul and what he may have learnt from other Antiochene persons. It also seems quite impossible to say whether he was using written sources, This, of course, does not deny that the so-called Antiochene source represents Antiochene tradition. All that is said is that this Antiochene tradition may have come from St. Paul quite as well as from anyone else. On the merits of the case we can go no further (for the possibility that Luke was himself an Antiochene see Luke).

(b) The Jerusalem tradition.-It is obvious that Act 1:1 to Act 5:42 represents in some sense a Jerusalem tradition, and it is scarcely less clear that Act 8:5-40; Act 9:31 to Act 11:18; Act 12:1-24 represent a tradition which is divided in its interests between Jerusalem and Caesarea. It is, therefore, necessary to deal first with the purely Jerusalem sections, and afterwards with the Jerusalem-Caesarean narrative, before considering whether they are really one or more than one in origin.

() The purely Jerusalem sections.-The most important feature of Act 1:1 to Act 5:42 is that Act 2:1-47 seems to contain doublets of Act 3:1 to Act 4:35, and that the suggestion of a multiplicity of sources is supported by some linguistic peculiarities.

Act 2:1-13The gift of the Spirit, accompanied by the shaking of the house in which the Apostles were.Act 4:31

Act 2:14-36A speech of Peter.Act 4:26-31

Act 2:37-41The result of this speech is an extraordinarily large number of converts (5000, 3000).Act 4:4

Act 2:42-47The communism of the Early Church.Act 4:34-35

Of this series of doublets the twice-told story of the early communism of the first Christians and the repetition of the shaking of the house at the outpouring of the Spirit are the most striking, but the cumulative effect is certainly to justify the view that we have two accounts, slightly varying, of the same series of events.

This result finds remarkable corroboration in certain linguistic peculiarities of Acts 3 f. as compared with ch. 2. In the former the word is used in the sense raised up to preach (Act 3:26; cf. Act 3:22), and is used of the Resurrection, but in the latter is used of the Resurrection. In Acts 3 f. Jesus is described as a (Act 3:13; Act 3:26; Act 4:27; Act 4:30), but in ch. 2 as . In Acts 3 f. Peter is almost always accompanied by John (Act 3:1; Act 3:8; Act 3:4; Act 3:11; Act 4:19), but in ch. 2 he appears alone or with the other apostles.

That Acts 2, 3 f. are doublets is thus probable; moreover, as the linguistic characteristics of 3f. are peculiar and not Lucan, it is more probable here than anywhere else in Acts that we are dealing with traces of a written Greek document underlying Acts in the same way as Mark and Q underlie the Lucan Gospel. To this branch of the Jerusalem tradition Harnack has given the name of source A, and to Acts 2 the name of source B. According to him, the continuation of A can be found in Act 5:1-16, and he also identities it with the Jerusalem-Caesarean source (see below). B is continued in Act 5:17-42, Acts 1 more probably, he thinks, belongs to B than to A, but may have a separate origin.

If A be followed, we get a clear and probable narrative of the history of the Jerusalem Church, but it begins in the middle. According to it, Peter and John went up to the Temple and healed a lame man; in connexion with the sensation caused by this wonder Peter explained that he wrought the cure in the name of Jesus, whom he announced as the predestined Messiah. As the result of this missionary speech a great number of converts were made (about 5000 [acts 4:4]). Peter and John were arrested, but later on released after a speech by Peter, and a practical defiance of the command of the authorities not to preach in the name of Jesus. Then Follows a description of the joy of the Church at the release of Peter and John, and an account of their prayer- . In answer to their prayer, the Spirit was outpoured amid the shaking of the room in which they were, after which they were able, as they had asked, to speak the word . Finally, a picture is drawn of the prosperity of the Church, and of the voluntary communism which prevailed.

The narrative gives an intelligible picture of the events which led to the growth of the Jerusalem Church and of an organization of charitable distribution that ultimately led to the development described in Acts 6. Moreover, it has several marks of individuality, and an early type which suggests that we have here to do with a source used by Luke, probably in documentary form, rather than a Lucan composition. This applies especially to Peters speech, which is in some ways one of the most archaic passages in the NT. Peter does not describe Jesus as having been the Messiah, but as a (more probably Servant of God than Child of God, and perhaps with a side reference to the Servant of Jahweh in Isa 53, etc.)-a phrase peculiar to source A, 1 Clement, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Didache. He then goes on to announce that God has glorified this by the Resurrection, and that He is the predestined Messiah ( ), who will remain in the Heavens until the restoration of all things. Recent research in the field of eschatology and Messianic doctrine has brought out clearly the primitive character of this speech. The same can also be said of the prayer of the Church in Act 4:24 f. in which the phrase , (made Christ?) is very remarkable.

Thus source A commends itself as an early and good tradition, but it begins in the middle and tells us nothing about the events previous to the visit of Peter and John to the Temple. Apparently it was to fill up this gap that Luke turned to source B, which seems to relate some of the same events, but in a different order; and, though Harnack doubts this, it seems, on the whole, probable that Acts 1, or at least Act 1:6-12, ought to be regarded as belonging to it. According to this narrative, the disciples received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost amid the shaking of the room, after which Peter made a speech, in many points resembling that in Acts 3, but without the characteristic phraseology of A, and with the addition of many more testimonia as to the Resurrection. A great number of converts (about 3000) were made; and, in the enthusiasm which prevailed, a spirit of voluntary communism flourished, and an organization of charitable distribution came into being.

This narrative does not seem so convincing as that of source A. But if Acts 1 be regarded as belonging to it, it has the advantage of connecting the story of the Church at Jerusalem directly with the events that followed the Crucifixion-a period on which A is silent. Now, it is tolerably clear that A was a written Greek source used by Luke, just as he used Mark in the Gospel; for, although it has been Lucanized, it still retains its own characteristic expressions. Presumably, therefore, a copy of this document came into Lukes possession, and he supplemented it at the beginning with B; but, whether B was a written source or oral tradition, it is impossible to say. The question presents in this respect a remarkable parallel to the state of things in the last chapters of the Gospel of Luke. Here also the writer made use of a Greek document-Mark-and supplemented it with a Jerusalem tradition-whether written or oral it is impossible to say-either because the Marcan narrative broke off, as it breaks off in the existent text of Mark, or because he desired to correct the Marcan tradition. It is, moreover, plain that this Jerusalem tradition at the end of Luke is the same as that in source B of the Acts. The question then suggests itself whether source A-the written source of Acts-may not belong to the same document as Mark-the written source of the Gospel. If we suppose that the original Mark contained a continuation of the Gospel story down to the foundation of the Church in Jerusalem, and either that Luke disliked the section referring to the events after the Crucifixion, or perhaps that his copy had been mutilated, the composition of this part of Acts becomes plain;* [Note: See Burkitt, Earliest Sources of the Gospels, London, 1911, p. 79f., where the suggestion is made that the early part of Acts may represent a Marcan tradition, though the bearing on this theory of the double source A and E in Acts is not mentioned.] but it also becomes a question whether the John who accompanies Peter in source A (and nowhere else) is not John Mark, rather than John the son of Zebedee.

All this, however, is hypothetical. The actual existence of the source A in ch. 3f. and of the supplementary source B in ch. 2 is a point for which comparative certainty may be claimed.

The problem then arises, how far these sources can be traced in the following chapters of Acts. Harnack is inclined to see in Act 5:17-41 a doublet of Act 4:1-22, and to assign the latter to A, the former to B. This is not improbable, but it is not so certain as the previous results. It is, for instance, by no means improbable that the apostles were twice arrested, and, as the story is told, Act 5:17 seems a not unnatural continuation of ch. 4. It is, however, true that the characteristic Peter and John is not found in Act 5:17 ff.; but, on the other hand, the rather curious phrase is applied to Jesus in Act 3:15 and Act 5:31 (elsewhere in NT only in Heb 2:10; Heb 12:2), which militates somewhat against the view that these chapters belong to different sources. In the same way the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Act 5:1-11 would fit quite as well on to B as on to A, with which Harnack connects it. Linguistically there is no clear evidence, but it may be noted that is a characteristic of the Christian community in B in Act 2:43, and is repeated in Act 5:5; Act 5:11. It is not found in A, though from the circumstances of the case not much weight can be attached to this. It therefore must remain uncertain whether Acts 5 ought to be regarded as wholly A, wholly B, or be divided between the two sources.

() The Jerusalem-Csarean sections.-These are Act 8:5-40, Act 9:31 to Act 11:18; Act 12:1-23, which describe Philips evangelization of Samaria, followed by the mission of Peter and John, Philips conversion of the Ethiopian on the road to Gaza, and his arrival in Caesarea, Peters mission to Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea, and return to Jerusalem, Peters arrest, imprisonment, and escape in Jerusalem, and Herods death in Caesarea. Harnack thinks that all these passages represent a Jerusalem-Caesarean tradition, which he identifies with source A. It is certainly probable that Act 8:14-25 belongs to A, owing to the characteristic combination of Peter and John, and it may be regarded as reasonable to think that this also covers the rest of the section, so that Act 8:5-40 may be attributed to A. It is more doubtful when we come to the two other sections. If, however, any weight be attached to the suggestion that A is connected with Mark, it is noteworthy that Act 12:1-23 is also very clearly connected with the house of Mark and his mother.

The section Act 9:31 to Act 11:18 remains. This is much more clearly Caesarean than either of the others, and might possibly be separated from them and ascribed to a distinct Caesarean source. If so, the suggestion of Harnack and others that the source might be identified with the family of Philip, which was settled in Caesarea, is not impossible; from Act 21:8 (a we-clause) we know that Luke came into contact with him there. It is also obvious that the information given by Philip might be the source of much more of that which has been tentatively attributed to source A, or on the other hand might conceivably be identified with source B; the truth is, of course, that we here reach the limit of legitimate hypothesis, and pass into the open country of uncontrolled guessing.

The result, therefore, of an inquiry into the sources of the Jerusalem tradition is to establish the existence of a written Greek source, A, in Acts 3 f., with a parallel narrative B-apparently the continuation of the Lucan Jerusalem narrative in the Gospel; and these two sources, or one of them, are continued in ch. 5. In Act 8:5-40 is a further narrative which has points of connexion with A. Act 9:31 to Act 11:18 is a Caesarean narrative, probably connected with Philip, and this raises difficulties in relation to A, for Act 8:5-40 has also points of connexion with Philip. Finally Act 12:1-23 is a Jerusalem narrative connected with Peter and Mark; but here also the possibility of a connexion with Caesarea remains open.

V. HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE VARIOUS TRADITIONS.-So far as the we-clauses and the probably Pauline tradition are concerned, this question has already been discussed. While there are traces of probable inaccuracy, there is no reason to doubt the general trust worthiness of the narrative. The Antiochene narrative and the Jerusalem-Caesarean narrative (the Philip clauses) can be judged with more difficulty, as we have no means of comparing the narratives with any other contemporary statements. Here, however, we have another criterion. It is probable that Luke is dealing with traditions, and, at least in the case of A, with a document. We cannot say how far he alters his sources, for we have no other information as to their original form, but we can use the analogy of his observed practice in the case of the Gospel. Here we know that he made use of Mark; and we can control his methods, because we possess his source. In this way we can obtain some idea of what he is likely to have done with his sources in Acts. On the whole, it cannot be said that the application of this criterion raises the value of Acts. In the Gospel, Luke, though in the main constant to his source Mark, was by no means disinclined to change the meaning of the story as well as the words, if he thought right. It is possible that he was justified in doing so, but that is not the question. The point is that he did not hesitate to alter his source in the Gospel; it is therefore probable that he did not hesitate to do so in the Acts.

Besides this, on grounds of general probability, various small points give rise to doubt, or seem to belong to the world of legend rather than to that of history-for instance, the removal of Philip by the Spirit (or angel?) from the side of the Ethiopian to Azotus; but the main narrative offers no real reason for rejection. The best statement of all the points open to suspicion is still that of Zeller-Overbeck (The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. translation , London, 1875-76), but the conclusions which Zeller draws are often untenable. He did not realize that in any narrative there is a combination of really observed fact and of hypotheses to explain the fact. The hypotheses of a writer or narrator of the 1st cent. were frequently of a kind that we should now never think of suggesting. But that is no reason why the narrative as a whole should not be regarded as a statement of fact. The existence, in any given narrative, of improbable explanations as to how events happened is not an argument against its early date and general trustworthiness, unless it can be shown that the explanation involves improbability not only in fact but also in thought-it must not only be improbable that the event really happened in the manner suggested, but it must be improbable that a narrator of that age would have thought that it so happened. Judged by this standard, the Antiochene and Jerusalem-Caesarean traditions seem to deserve credence as good and early sources.

The same thing can be said of source A in the purely Jerusalem tradition. But the problem raised by source B is more difficult. If it be assumed that Acts 1 does not belong to it, it can only be compared with source A. To this it seems in ferior, but on the whole it narrates the same events, and it would certainly be rash to regard B as valueless. No doubt it is true that, if the events happened in the order given in A, they cannot have happened in the order given in B, but it is quite possible that many details in B may be correct in spite of the fact that they are told otherwise or not bold at all in A.

If, on the other hand, Acts 1 he assigned to B, the question is more complicated. According to Acts 1, the Ascension took place near Jerusalem forty days after the Resurrection, and the inference is suggested that the disciples, including Peter, never left Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. That this was Lukes own view is made quite plain from the Gospel, except that there does not appear to be any room in the Gospel narrative for the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The problems which arise are therefore: (1) How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be reconciled? (2) Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee?

1. How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 he reconciled?-Various attempts have been made to find room in the Gospel for the forty days. They have not, however, been successful, as the connecting links in the Gospel narrative are quite clear from the morning of the Resurrection to the moment of the Ascension, which is plainly intended to be regarded as taking place on the evening of the same day. According to Luk 24:5 ff., the sequence of the events was the following. Early on Sunday morning certain women went to the tomb, and to them two men appeared who announced the Resurrection; the women believed, but failed to convince the disciples. Later on in the same day ( ) two disciples saw the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and at once returned to Jerusalem to tell the news ( ). While they were narrating their experience the Lord appeared, led them out to Bethany, and was taken up to heaven. The only place where there is any possibility of a break in the narrative is Luk 24:44 ( ), but this possibility (in any case contrary to the general impression given by the passage) is excluded by the facts that is a peculiarly Lucan phrase (59 times in Luke , 15 times in Acts, only once elsewhere in the NT), and that it never implies that a narrative is not continuous, and usually the reverse. Moreover, that Luk 24:52, whatever text be taken, refers to the Ascension is rendered certain by the reference in Act 1:2. Thus, there is no doubt that the Gospel places the Ascension on the evening or night of the third day after the Crucifixion. It is equally clear that Acts places the Ascension forty days later, if the text of Act 1:3 ( ) is correct; and, though there is, it is true, some confusion in the text at this point, it is not enough to justify the omission of forty days (see esp. F. Blass, Acts Apostolorum secundum formam qu videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1896, p. xxiii). The only possible suggestion therefore, is that the writer found some reason to modify his opinions in the interval between writing the Gospel and the Acts. Whether he was right to do so depends on the judgment passed on various factors, which cannot be discussed here, but may be summed up in the question whether the evidence of the Pauline Epistles does not suggest that the earliest Christian view was that Ascension and Resurrection were but two ways of describing the same fact, and whether this is not also implied in the speeches of Peter in Acts 2, 3* [Note: Of course, if this be so, there is a contradiction between Acts 1, 2, and it becomes more probable (a) that Acts 1 is from a separate tradition from source B; (b) that source B, like A, was a written document when used by Luke.] (cf. especially Rom 8:24, Php 1:23, Act 2:33; Act 3:13-15). The evidence is not sufficient to settle the point, but it shows that the problem is not imaginary.

2. Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee?-The evidence that the disciples went to Galilee is found in Mark, [Note: Secondary evidence is to be found in Matthew 28, John 21, and the Gospel of Peter, but Mark is the primary evidence.] The end of Mark is, of course, missing, but there are in the existing text two indications that the appearances of the risen Christ were in Galilee, and therefore that the disciples must have returned there after the Crucifixion, (a) Mar 14:27 f., All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. This seems intended to prepare the way for the flight of the disciples after the arrest in Gethsemane; the meaning of the second part, I will go before you into Galilee, is obscure, but in any case it implies a return to Galilee. (b) Mar 16:7 (the message of the young man at the tomb), Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee, there shall you see him. Here it is quite clearly stated that the first appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples is to be in Galilee, and once more it must be urged that this implies that the disciples went there.

On the other hand, the evidence of Luke and the Acts is that the disciples did not leave Jerusalem, and that, so far from the risen Lord announcing His future appearance to the disciples in Galilee, He actually told them to remain in Jerusalem.

That the two traditions thus exist cannot be questioned, nor can they be reconciled without violence. If, however, we have to choose between them, the Galilaean tradition seems to deserve the preference. It is in itself much more probable that the disciples fled to Galilee when they left Jesus to be arrested by Himself, than that they went into Jerusalem. If they were, as the narrative says, panic-stricken, Jerusalem was the last place to which those who were not inhabitants of that city would go. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the tendency of Christian history would have naturally emphasized Jerusalem and omitted Galilee, for it is certainly a fact that from the beginning the Christian Church found its centre in Jerusalem and not in Galilee. Why this was so is obscure, and there is a link missing in the history of the chain of events. This must be recognized, but what either source B or Luke himself (if Acts 1 be not part of source B) has done is to connect up the links of the chain as if the Galilaean link had never existed. So far as this goes, it is a reason for not accepting Acts 1 as an accurate account of history; and this judgment perhaps reflects on source B and certainly in some measure on Luke. It must, however, be noted that it ought not seriously to affect our judgment on Lukes account of later events. The period between the Crucifixion and the growth of the Jerusalem community was naturally the moat obscure point in the history of Christianity; and, even if Luke went wrong in his attempt to find out the facts at this point, that is no special reason for rejecting his evidence for later events when he really was in a position to obtain sound information. All that is really shown is that, unlike Mark, he was never in close contact with one of the original Galilaean disciples.

VI. Chronology of Acts.-There are no definite chronological statements in the Acts, such as those in Luk 3:1. But at live points synchronisms with known events can be established and used as the basis of a chronological system. These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Act 12:23 f.); the famine in Judaea (Act 11:27 ff, Act 12:25); Gallios proconsulate in Corinth (Act 18:12); the decree of Claudius banishing all Jews from Rome (Act 18:2); and the arrival of Festus in Judaea (Act 25:1).

1. The death of Herod Agrippa.-Agrippa I., according to the evidence of coins* [Note: See F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews, London, 1881, p. 130.] (if these be genuine), reigned nine years. The beginning of his reign was immediately after the accession of Caligula, who became Emperor on 16 March, a.d. 37, and within a few days appointed Agrippa, who was then in Rome, to the tetrarchy of Philip, with the title of king; to this in 39-40 the tetrarchy of Antipas was added. Later on, Claudius added Judaea , Samaria, and Galilee. The difficulty is that Josephus says that Agrippa died in the seventh year of his reign. This would be between the spring of 43 and that of 44, but it does not agree with the evidence of the coinage, unless it be supposed that Agrippa dated his accession from the death of Philip rather than from his appointment by Caligula.

2. The famine in Judaea .-Our information for the date of this event is found in Josephus and Orosius. Josephus (Ant. xx. v.) says that the famine took place during the procuratorship of Alexander. Alexanders term of office ended in a.d. 48, and this is therefore the terminus ad quem for the date of the famine. His term of office began after that of Fadus. It is not known when Fadus retired, but he was sent to Judaea after the death of Herod Agrippa I. in a.d. 44, so that Alexanders term cannot have begun before 45, and more probably not before 46. Thus Josephus fixes the famine within a margin of leas than two years on either side of 47.

Orosius (VII. vi.), a writer of the 5th cent., is more definite, and fixes the famine in the fourth year of Claudius, which, on his system of reckoning (see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? London, 1898, p. 223, which supplements and corrects the statement in St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, do. 1895, p. 68f.), was probably from Sept. 44 to Sept. 45, or possibly from Jan. 45 to Jan. 46. This statement has, of course, only the value which may be attributed to the sources of Orosius, which are unknown; but it supports Josephus fairly well, and it is not probable that Orosius was acquainted with the Antiquities, so that his statement has independent value.

3. Gallios proconsulate.-This date has recently been fixed with considerable definiteness by the discovery of a fragment of an inscription at Delphi [Note: First published by A. Nikitsky in Russian, in Epigraphical Studies at Delphi, Odessa, 1898, and now most accessible in Deissmanns Paulus, Tbingen, 1911.] which contains a reference to Gallio as proconsul (winch must be proconsul of Achaia), and bears the data of the 26th acclamation of the Emperor Claudius. This acclamation was before 1 Aug. a.d. 52 (CIL [Note: IL Corpus Inscrip. Latinarum.] vi. 125b), as an inscription of that date refers to the 27th acclamation, and after 25 Jan. 51, as his 24th acclamation came in his 11th tribunician year (i.e. 25 Jan. 51-24 Jan. 52). Moreover, it must have been some considerable time after 25 Jan. 51, as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclamations all came in the 11th tribunician year, and the 25th acclamation has not yet been found, so that really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date for the 26th acclamation. Thus the Delphi inscription must be placed between the end of 51 and 1 Aug. 52. At this time Gallio was in office. The proconsul usually entered on his office in the middle of the summer (cf. Mommsen, Rm. Staatsrecht3, ii. [Leipzig, 1888] 256), and normally held it for one year only, though sometimes he continued in it for another term. According to this, Gallio must have come to Corinth in July 51. Twelve months later is not absolutely impossible, though it is improbable, for we do not know whether Claudius had been acclaimed for a long or a short time before 1 Aug. 52, merely that by then his 27th acclamation had taken place. According to Act 18:12, St. Pauls trial took place , and this is usually taken to mean as soon as Gallio became proconsul. Probably this is correct exegesis, though scarcely an accurate translation; and, if so, St. Pauls trial must have been in the summer of 51, or, with later date for Gallio, in the summer of 52.

4. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome.-According to Act 18:2, the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome. The same fact is mentioned by Suetonius (Claudius, 25), who says: Iudaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit, but no date is given. Tacitus does not mention the fact; nor does Josephus. Orosius (VII. vi. 15) states that it was in the ninth year of Claudius, which probably means Sept. 49-Sept. 50. He states that this date is derived from Josephus, which is clearly a mistake, unless he is referring to some other writer of that name (cf. Deissmann, Paulus), but the date agrees very well with that of Gallios proconsulate; for, if the trial before Gallio was in Aug. 51, and St. Paul had been in Corinth 18 months (Act 18:12), the Apostle must have reached Corinth in April 50, at which time Aquila had just arrived in consequence of the decree of Claudius.

5. The arrival of Festus in Judaea .-This date is unfortunately surrounded by great difficulties. The facts are as follows: Eusebius, in his Chronicon, places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero, which probably means not Oct. 55-Oct. 56-the true second year of his reign-but, according to the Eusebian plan of reckoning, Sept. 56-Sept. 57. Josephus states that Felix, whom Festus replaced, was prosecuted on his return to Rome, but escaped owing to the influence of Pallas his brother. But Pallas was dismissed, according to Tacitus, before the death of Britannicus, and Britannicus was, also according to Tacitus, just 14 years old. Britannicus was born in Feb. 41, so that Festus must have entered on his office, according to this reckoning, before a.d. 55. Nevertheless, Josephus appears to place the greater part of the events under Felix in Neros reign, and this can hardly be the case if he retired before Nero had reigned for three months. It is thought, therefore, either that Tacitus made a mistake as to the age of Britannicus, or that Pallas retained considerable influence even after his fall. Various other arguments have been used, but none is based on exact statements or has any real value. Thus, in view of the fact that the combination of statements in Josephus and Tacitus seems to give no firm basis for argument, we have only Eusebius and general probability to use. General probability really means in this case considering whether the Eusebian date fits in with the date of St. Pauls trial by Gallio, and has, therefore, most of the faults of circular reasoning. Still, the Eusebian date comes out of this test fairly well. St. Paul was tried by Gallio in Aug. a.d. 51. We may then reconstruct as follows:-

Trial by Gallio-Aug. 51.

Corinth to Antioch-end of 51.

Arrival at Ephesus-summer of 52.

Departure from Ephesus and arrival at Corinth-autumn of 54.

Arrival at Jerusalem and arrest-summer of 55.

Two years imprisonment-55 to summer 57.

Trial before Festus-summer 57.

In view of the evidence as to Gallio, this is the earliest possible chronology, unless we suppose that two years in prison moans June 55-summer 56, which is, indeed, part of two years, though it is doubtful whether it could have been described as -the phrase used in Act 24:27.

Summary.-These are the only data in Acts for which any high degree of probability can be claimed. The date of Gallio is by far the most certain. If we combine with them the further data in Galatians, we obtain a reasonably good chronology as far back as the conversion of St. Paul. The second visit to Jerusalem in Galatians is identical either with the time of the famine or with that of the Council. If the former, it can be placed in 46, if the latter, in 48; and the conversion was either 14 or 17 years before this, according to the exegesis adopted for the statements in Galatians; though, owing to the ancient method of reckoning, 14 may mean a few months more than 12, and 17 a few months more than 15. Thus the earliest date for the conversion would be a.d. 31, the latest 36.

It should, however, be remembered that the period of 14 years reckoned between the first and second visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem depends entirely on the reading in Gal 2:1, which might easily have been a corruption for (= after 4 years), and that the 14 years in question are always a difficulty, as events seem to have moved rapidly before and after that period, but during it to have stood relatively still. The possibility ought not to be neglected that the conversion was 10 years later than the dates suggested, i.e. in 41 or 46. This is especially important, in view of the fact that the evidence of Josephus as to the marriage of Herod and Herodias suggests that the death of John the Baptist, and therefore the Crucifixion, were later than has usually been thought (see K. Lake, Date of Herods Marriage with Herodias and the Chronology of the Gospels, in Expositor, 8th ser. iv. [1912] 462).

Literature.-For literature on the subject see A. Harnack, Chronologie, Leipzig, 1897-1904, i. 233-9; the article in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) on Chronology by C. H. Turner (older statements are almost entirely based on K. Wieselers Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, Hamburg, 1848); C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904.

VII. The Theology of Acts.-The theology of Acts is, on the whole, simple and early, showing no traces of Johannine, and surprisingly few of Pauline, influence. In common with all other canonical writings, it regards the God of the Christians as the one true God, who had revealed Himself in time past to His chosen people the Jews; and it identifies Jesus with the promised Messiah, who will come from heaven to judge the world, and to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on the earth. There is, however, just as in the Third Gospel, a noticeably smaller degree of interest in the Messianic kingdom than in Mk. and Mt., and a proportionately increased interest in the Spirit. This may probably be explained as due to the fact that the writer belonged to a more Gentile circle than those in which Mk. and Mt. were written. It is strange that in some respects Acts is less Gentile or Greek than the Epistles. This is partially explained by the fact that much of so-called Paulinismus has been read into the Epistles; but, even when an allowance has been made for this fact, the difficulty remains. The points on which the theology of Acts requires discussion in detail are its christology, eschatology, attitude to the OT and Jewish Law, doctrine of the Spirit, and doctrine of baptism.

1. Christology.-In Acts Jesus is recognized as the Christ, but the Christology belongs to an early type. There is no suggestion of the Logos-Christology of the Fourth Gospel, or even of the Epistles of the Captivity. The Christ appears to have the quite primitive meaning of the king of the kingdom of God, who is appointed by God to judge the world (cf. , , Act 17:31). At what point Jesus became Christ, according to Acts, is not quite clear. Harnack (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgesch., p. 75ff.) thinks that Luke regarded the Resurrection as the moment, in agreement with one interpretation of Rom 1:4. In favour of this view can be cited Act 13:32 f. (St. Pauls speech at Antioch in Pisidia), [i.e. ] , , , which, strictly interpreted, must mean that Jesus became Gods Son at the Resurrection, for in the context can be given no other translation. On the other hand, it must be remembered that many critics think that this same quotation from Psalms 2 is connected with the Baptism in Luk 3:22,* [Note: The text is doubtful: the editors usually give , with B L 33 fam 1, fam 13, and the mass of MSS (i.e. the H and K texts, and at least two important branches of I [J and Hr]), but Harnack prefers to read the quotation from Psalms 2 with D a b c ff al. Aug. Clemalex. (thus possibly the test of Ia and certainly of a text coeval with I-H-K [if such a text existed]); probably he is right.] in which case the further quotation in Luk 4:18, , , ., acquires increased force, for the connexion of with is obvious. This, again, reflects light on Act 10:38 ( ) and the similar phrase in Act 4:27. It must remain a problem for critics how far this difference between Act 13:32 f. and Act 10:38 and Act 4:27 is accidental (or merely apparent), and how far it is justifiable to connect it with the fact that Acts 13 (which agrees with Rom 1:4) belongs to the Pauline source, while Acts 4, 10 belong to the Jerusalem source A and the closely connected or identical Jerusalem-Caesarean source (which agree with at all events one interpretation of the meaning of the Baptism in Mark 1).

The possible difference must, however, in any case not be exaggerated. The whole of early Christian literature outside Johannine influence is full of apparent inconsistencies, because sometimes means the person who is by nature and predestination the appointed Messiah, sometimes more narrowly the actual Messiah reigning in the Kingdom of God. In the former sense it was possible to say [Note: This must mean that the Messiah (of whom all men know) is Jesus (of whom they had previously not heard); and emphasizes the fact that, whereas Christology means to most people of this generation an attempt to give an adequate doctrinal statement of Jesus, it meant for the earliest generation an attempt to show that Jesus adequately fulfilled an already existing doctrinal definition of the Messiah.] (Act 18:28), or that (Act 17:3). In the latter sense it was possible to speak of Jesus as (Act 3:20), where, in the light of the whole passage, the most probably has reference to the Resurrection, though other interpretations are possible; or to say (Act 2:36), which with less doubt may be referred to the Resurrection. The point seems to be that, on the one hand, Luke wishes to say that Jesus is the Christ, and that, on the other, he does not wish to say that the life of Jesus was the Messianic Parousia or Coming, and does wish to say that by the Resurrection Jesus became the heavenly, glorious Being who would come shortly to judge the world.

It should be noted, as an especially archaic characteristic, that in Acts is not used as a name except in the phrase (Act 2:38; Act 3:6; Act 4:10; Act 8:12; Act 10:48; Act 15:28; Act 16:18); elsewhere is always predicative. In this respect Acts seems to be more archaic than the Pauline Epistles.

The death of the Christ has in Acts but little theological importance. In one place only (Act 20:28 [but B vg, a few other authorities, and the TR [Note: Textus Receptus, Received Text.] ] ) is there anything which approaches the Pauline doctrine, and it is noticeable that this passage is from the speech of Paul to the Ephesian elders. In the speeches of Peter and Stephen, the death of the Christ is regarded as a wicked act of the Jews rather than as a necessary part of a plan of salvation. The most important passage Isa 3:17 ff.: , , , . . , , , , , . Here there is a verbal connexion between the suffering of the Christ and the blotting out of sins, but no suggestion of any causal connexion. The writer says that the Jews put the Messiah to death, as had been foretold, but they did it in ignorance; and, if they repent, this and other sins will be blotted out, and Jesus will come as the predestined Messiah. The cause of the blotting out of sins is here, as in the OT prophets, repentance and change of conduct (); nothing is said to suggest that this would not have been effective without the suffering of the Messiah.

2. Eschatology.-There is comparatively little in Acts which throws light on the eschatological expectation of the writer. As compared with Mark or St. Paul, he seems to be less eschatological, but traces of the primitive expectation are not wanting. In Act 1:11 the Parousia of the Messiah is still expected: This Jesus who has been taken up into Heaven shall so come as ye have seen him go into Heaven; and, though it is not here stated that the witnesses of the Ascension shall also live to see the Parousia, this seems to be implied. The same sort of comment can he made onacts 3:20 f. and Act 17:31; but otherwise there is little in Acts to bear on the eschatological expectation. This was, indeed, to be expected in a book written by Luke, who in his Gospel greatly lessened the eschatological elements found in Mark and Q.

3. The OT and Jewish Law.-For the writer of Acts the OT was the written source of all revelation. The sufficient proof of any argument or explanation of any historical event was to be found in the fact that it had been prophesied. Like all Greek-writing Christians, he uses the Septuagint and does not stop to ask whether it is textually accurate.

But a distinction must be made between the OT as prophecy and the OT as Law. In the latter sense the position taken up in Acts is that the Law of the OT is binding in every detail on Jewish Christians, but not binding at all on Gentile Christians. The most remarkable example of this is the picture given in ch. 25 of St. Pauls acceptance of the Law in Jerusalem, and the circumcision of Timothy, Whether this can be reconciled with the Apostles own position is a point for students of the Epistles to settle; the present writer believes that in this respect Acts gives a faithful representation of St. Pauls own view (see the admirable discussion in Harnack, Apostelgesch., pp. 8 and 211-217). The reason for thinking that the Law was still binding on Jews but not on Gentiles must be sought in a distinction between the Law as source of salvation-it was not this for any one-and the Law as command of God-this it was for the Jew, but not for the Gentile.

As prophecies, the OT books are accepted without question, and there is no trace of the Jewish controversy which raised the dispute as to the correct exegesis of the OT. This controversy can be traced in the Epistle of Barnabas, and found its extreme result in the attitude of Marcion, but in Acts it cannot be found, and apparently this is because the dispute had not yet arisen. (For the best summary of this question see Harnack, Apostelgesch., p. 8 n. [Note: . note.] )

4. The Spirit.-It is not quite clear whether Acts regards all Christians as inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is at least certain that it regards this as true of all the leaders, and of all who were fully Christians. It would appear possible, however, from such episodes as that of the Christians in Ephesus who had been baptized only in Johns baptism, that a kind of imperfect Christianity was recognized; these Ephesians are described as , even before they had been baptized. On the other hand, the inadequacy of their baptism was discovered by St. Paul because they had not received the Spirit, so that even from this passage it would seem that Christians were regarded normally as inspired by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is usually referred to as or (21 times), or as (9 times), or as (16 times), once as , once as , and once as .

A problem which has as yet scarcely received the attention which it deserves is, whether the Spirit was regarded as one or many (or, in other words, what is the difference between and ). The exact meaning of the very important phrase is also obscure. Was it the Spirit which had been in Jesus, with which God had anointed () Him? Or was it the Spirit-Jesus, as He had become after the Resurrection, in agreement with the Pauline phrase The Lord is the Spirit (2Co 3:17)? In any case it is clear that the gift of the Spirit was regarded as in some sense the work of the exalted Jesus (Act 2:33; cf. Luk 24:49) but ultimately derived from God.

A further development is found in Acts-that the gift of the Spirit can be ensured either by baptism (see 5) or, more probably, by the laying on of hands of the Apostles ( ; cf. Act 8:17 ff.; Act 9:17; Act 19:6), though this power, if one may judge from Act 8:17 ff., was not shared by all other Christians.

This developed doctrine of the Spirit is the most marked feature of Acts, and the Lucan Gospel is clearly intended to lead up to it. The Christians were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the Resurrection and Ascension of the Christ are related to this fact, rather than, as seems to be the case in Mark, to the coming of the Messianic kingdom. It is true that in Acts 2 the gift of the Spirit and the consequent glossolalia are explained as a sign that the last days are at hand, but the whole tendency of the Acts is to look on the possession of the Spirit as the characteristic of the Church, rather than of an eschatological kingdom, and the work of Christ is already regarded as the foundation of this inspired Church in the world, rather than as the inauguration of the Kingdom of God instead of the world. In some respects Luke is more archaic than St. Paul, but not in this.

5. Baptism.-There is no doubt that the writer of Acts regarded baptism as the normal means of entry into the Christian Church. There is also no doubt that he represents an early stage of Christian practice in which baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus (or of Jesus Christ), not in the triadic formula (Act 2:38; Act 8:16; Act 10:48; Act 19:5). This agrees with the practice of St. Paul so far as it can be discovered (Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27; cf. 1Co 1:14 ff.), with Didache 8 (but not 7), Hermas, Sim. ix. 17. 4, and the Eusebian text (if that refer, as is probable, to baptism) of Mat 28:19 (but not with the usual text of this passage, or with the later Christian practice). Difficulty is, however, raised by the question whether the writer (or his sources) makes the gift of the Spirit depend on baptism or on the laying on of hands, either invariably or as a general rule. It is, on the whole, most probable that he regards baptism as a necessary preliminary to the gift of the Spirit, but not as the direct means by which the Spirit was given, whereas the laying on of hands was the direct means of imparting this gift; though, under some exceptional circumstances, the gift was directly conferred by God without any ministerial interposition.

The passages which seem at first to identify baptism with the gift of the Spirit are especially Act 2:38; Act 19:2-6. In Act 2:38 St. Peter says: Repent and be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. This seems decisive, but in the context we are not told that those baptized received the Spirit-only that they were added to the Church. Was this the same thing for the writer? Or did he mean that after reception into the Church they would receive it? In the same way in Act 19:2-6 St. Paul asks the Ephesians whether they have not received the Spirit; and, hearing that this is not so, he inquires further into their baptism. Nevertheless, in the end, the gift of the Spirit in their case is directly connected with the laying on of hands. This conclusion is, of course, supported by the other passages in which baptism and the gift of the Spirit are distinguished: of these Act 8:12 ff. and Act 10:47 are the most important. (A full discussion will be found in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics ii. 382ff.)

Literature.-See at the end of the various sections and throughout the article.

Kirsopp Lake.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

One of the sacred books of the New Testament containing the history of the infant church during the space of twenty-nine or thirty years from the ascension of our Lord to the year of Christ 63. It was written by Luke, and addressed to Theophilus, the person to whom the evangelist had before dedicated his gospel. The style of this work, which was originally composed in Greek, is much purer than that of the other canonical writers. For the contents of this book we refer the reader to the book itself. There have been several acts of the apostles, such as the acts of Abdias, of Peter, of Paul, St. John the Evangelist, St. Andrew, St. Thomas, St. Phillip and St. Matthias; but they have been all proved to be spurious.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Acts of the Apostles

The name of the book in the New Testament which follows the Gospels. It narrates some the important acts of Saints Peter and Paul, and mentions more briefly acts of Saints John, James the Less, James the Greater, and Barnabas. Of the 28 chapters , 12 mainly concern Saint Peter, and the others Saint Paul. The author is Saint Luke, who was physician, artist, and competent historian. As an eyewitness, he wrote an authentic account of the origins of Christianity . The Ascension of Christ into Heaven, the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, Peter’s first sermon and conversions, Paul’s converions, missions, and journeyings are all told as historical events. The Acts were written about A.D. 63 in Greek, and very likely when the writer was in Rome.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Acts of the Apostles

In the accepted order of the books of the New Testament the fifth book is called The Acts of the Apostles (praxeis Apostolon). Some have thought that the title of the book was affixed by the author himself. This is the opinion of Cornely in his “Introduction to the Books of the New Testament” (second edition, page 315). It seems far more probable, however, that the name was subsequently attached to the book just as the headings of the several Gospels were affixed to them. In fact, the name, Acts of the Apostles, does not precisely convey the idea of the contents of the book; and such a title would scarcely be given to the work by the author himself.

CONTENT

The book does not contain the Acts of all the Apostles, neither does it contain all the acts of any Apostle. It opens with a brief notice of the forty days succeeding the Resurrection of Christ during which He appeared to the Apostles, “speaking the things concerning the Kingdom of God”. The promise of the Holy Ghost and the Ascension of Christ are then briefly recorded. St. Peter advises that a successor be chosen in the place of Judas Iscariot, and Matthias is chosen by lot. On Pentecost the Holy Ghost descends on the Apostles, and confers on them the gift of tongues. To the wondering witnesses St. Peter explains the great miracle, proving that it is the power of Jesus Christ that is operating. By that great discourse many were converted to the religion of Christ and were baptized, “and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls”. This was the beginning of the Judeo-Christian Church. “And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.” Peter and John heal a man, lame from his mother’s womb, at the door of the Temple which is called Beautiful. The people are filled with wonder and amazement at the miracle and run together unto Peter and John in the portico that was called Solomon’s. Peter again preaches Jesus Christ, asserting that by faith in the name of Jesus the lame man had been made strong. “And many of them that heard the word believed”, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. But now “the priests, and the prefect of the Temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sorely troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they laid hands on them, and put them in prison unto the morrow.” On the morrow Peter and John are summoned before rulers, elders, and scribes, among whom were present Annas, the High-Priest, Caiphas, and as many as were of the kindred of the High-Priest. And when they had set Peter and John in the midst they inquired: “By what power, or in want name have ye done this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, answering gave utterance to one of the most sublime professions of the Christian faith ever made by man: “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in this name doth this man stand here before you whole. He [Jesus] is the stone which was set at naught by you the builders, which was made the head of the corner [Isaias, xxviii, 16; Matt., xxi, 42]. And in no other is there salvation: For neither is there any other name under Heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved.” The members of the council were brought face to face with the most positive evidence of the truth of the Christian religion. They command the two Apostles to go aside out of the council, and then they confer among themselves, saying “What shall we do with these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been wrought through them, is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it”. Here is one of the splendid instances of that great cumulus of evidence upon which the certitude of the Christian Faith rests. A bitterly hostile council of the chief Jews of Jerusalem is obliged to declare that a notable miracle had been wrought, which it cannot deny, and which is manifest to all that dwell in Jerusalem.

With dreadful malice the council attempts to restrain the great movement of Christianity. They threaten the Apostles, and charge them not to speak at all or teach in the name of Jesus; Peter and John contemn the threat, calling upon the council to judge whether it be right to hearken unto the council rather than unto God. The members of the council could not inflict punishment upon the two Apostles, on account of the people, who glorified God on account of the great miracle. Peter and John, being freed from custody, return to the other Apostles. They all give glory to God and pray for boldness to speak the word of God. After the prayer the place shakes, and they are filled with the Holy Ghost.

The fervour of the Christians at that epoch was very great. They were of one heart and soul; they had all things in common. As many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and delivered the price to the Apostles, and this money was distributed as anyone had need. But a certain Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, the wife being accessory to the deed. St. Peter is inspired by the Holy Ghost to know the deception, and rebukes Ananias for the lie to the Holy Ghost. At the rebuke the man falls dead. Saphira, coming up afterwards, and knowing nothing of the death of her husband, is interrogated by St. Peter regarding the transaction. She also keeps back a part of the price, and lyingly asserts that the full price has been brought to the Apostles. St. Peter rebukes her, and she also falls dead at his words. The multitude saw in the death of Ananias and Saphira God’s punishment, and great fear came upon all. This miracle of God’s punishment of sin also confirmed the faith of those that believed and drew disciples to them. At this stage of the life of the Church miracles were necessary to attest the truth of her teaching, and the power of miracles was abundantly bestowed upon the Apostles. These miracles are not reviewed in detail in Acts, but it is stated: “And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people” (Acts 5:12). Multitudes both of men and women were added to the Christian community. The people of Jerusalem carried out the sick and laid them on beds and couches in the streets that the shadow of St. Peter might fall on them. They brought the sick from the cities round about Jerusalem, and every one was healed.

The most powerful sect among the Jews at this epoch were the Sadducees. They were especially opposed to the Christian religion on account of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The cardinal truth of the Apostles’ teaching was: Life Everlasting through Jesus, Who was crucified for our sins, and Who is risen from the dead. The High-Priest Annas favored the Sadducees, and his son Ananus. who afterwards became High-Priest, was a Sadducee (Josephus, Antiq., XX, viii). These fierce sectaries made with Annas and Caiphas common cause against the Apostles of Christ, and cast them again into prison. The Acts leaves us in no doubt as to the motive that inspired the High-Priest and the sectaries: “They were filled with jealousy”. The religious leaders of the Old Law saw their influence with the people waning before the power which worked in the Apostles of Christ. An angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought the Apostles out, and bade them go and preach in the Temple. The council of the Jews, not finding Peter and John in the prison, and learning of their miraculous deliverance, are much perplexed. On information that they are teaching In the Temple, they send and take them, but without violence fearing the people. It is evident throughout that the common people are disposed to follow the Apostles; the opposition comes from the priests and the classes, most of the latter being Sadducees. The council accuses the Apostles that, contrary to its former injunction not to teach in Christ’s name, they had filled Jerusalem with Christ’s teaching. Peter’s defence is that they must obey God rather than men. He then boldly reiterates the doctrine of the Redemption and of the Resurrection. The council is minded to kill the Apostles. At this point Gamaliel, a Pharisee, a doctor of the Jewish law, held in honour of all the people, arises in the council in defence of the Apostles. He cites precedents to prove that, if the New Teaching be of men, it will be overthrown; and if it be of God, it will be impossible to overthrow it. Gamaliel’s counsel prevails, and the council calls the Apostles, beats them, and lets them go, charging them not to speak in the name of Jesus. But the Apostles departed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name. And every day, in the Temple and privately they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus the Christ.

A murmuring having arisen of the Grecian Jews, that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, the Apostles, deeming it unworthy that they should forsake the word of God and serve tables, appoint seven deacons to minister. Chief among the deacons was Stephen, a man full of the Holy Spirit. He wrought great signs and wonders among the people. The anti-Christian Jews endeavour to resist him, but are not able to withstand the wisdom and the spirit by which he speaks. They suborn witnesses to testify that he has spoken against Moses and the Temple. Stephen is seized and brought into the council. False witnesses testify that they have heard Stephen say that “this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us”. All who sat in the council saw Stephen’s face, as it had been the face of an angel. He makes a defence, in which he reviews the chief events in the first covenant, and its relation to the New Law. They rush upon Stephen, drag him out of the city, and stone him to death. And he kneels down and prays: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge”, and dies. Beginning with the martyrdom of Stephen, a great persecution arose against the Church at Jerusalem; all were scattered abroad throughout Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles. The leader of the persecution was Saul, afterwards to become the great St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles. The deacon Philip first preaches in Samaria with great fruit. Like all the preachers of the first days of the Church, Philip confirms his preaching by great miracles. Peter and John go up to Samaria and confirm the converts whom Philip had made. Philip, commanded by an angel, goes down the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and on the way converts and baptizes the eunuch of Candace Queen of Ethiopia. Philip is thence transported by Divine power to Azotus and preaches to all the coast cities until be comes to Cæsarea.

Saul, breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, sets out for Damascus to apprehend any Christians whom he may find there. As he draws near to Damascus, the Lord Jesus speaks to him out of the heavens and converts him. St. Paul is baptized by Ananias at Damascus, and straightway for some days abides there, preaching in the synagogues that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He withdraws into Arabia; again returns to Damascus; and after three years be goes up to Jerusalem. At Jerusalem Paul is at first distrusted by the disciples of Jesus; but after Barnabas narrates to them Paul’s marvellous conversion, they receive Paul, and he preaches boldly in the name of Jesus, disputing especially against the Grecian Jews. They plot to kill him; but the Christians bring Paul down to Cæsarea, and send him forth to Tarsus, his native city.

At this epoch Acts describes the Church in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee as “at peace, being builded up, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and by the strength of the Holy Ghost it was multiplied”. Peter now goes throughout all parts comforting the faithful. At Lydda he heals the palsied Æneas; and at Joppa he raises the pious widow Tabitha (Greek, Dorcas) from the dead. These miracles still more confirm the faith in Jesus Christ. At Joppa Peter has the great vision of the sheet let down from Heaven containing all manner of animals, of which he, being in a trance, is commanded to kill and eat. Peter refuses, on the ground that he cannot eat that which is common and unclean. Whereupon it is made known to him from God, that God has cleansed what was before to the Jew unclean. This great vision, revealed three times, was the manifestation of the will of Heaven that the ritual law of the Jews should cease; and that henceforth salvation should be offered without distinction to Jew and Gentile. The meaning of the vision is unfolded to Peter, when he is commanded by an angel to go to Cæsarea, to the Gentile centurion Cornelius, whose messengers were even then come to fetch him. He goes, and hears from Cornelius also the centurion’s own vision. He preaches to him and to all assembled; the Holy Ghost descends upon them, and Peter commands that they be baptized. Returning to Jerusalem, the Jews contend with Peter that he has gone in to men uncircumcised, and eaten with them. He expounds to them his vision at Joppa, and also the vision of Cornelius, wherein the latter was commanded by an angel to send and fetch Peter from Joppa, that he might receive from Peter the Gospel. The Jews acquiesce, glorifying God, and declaring that “unto the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life”. Those who had been scattered abroad from Jerusalem at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom had travailed as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch preaching Christ; but they preached to none save the Jews. The calling of the Gentiles was not yet understood by them. But now some converts from Cyprus and Cyrene come up to Antioch, and preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. A great number believe, and turn to the Lord. The report of the work at Antioch comes to the ears of the Church in Jerusalem; and they send Barnabas, “a good man full of the Holy Ghost and of faith”, to them. He takes Paul from Tarsus, and they both dwell at Antioch a whole year, and teach many people. The disciples of Christ are called Christians first at Antioch.

The rest of Acts narrates the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the mission of Paul and Barnabas from Antioch by the Holy Ghost, to preach to the Gentile nations; the labours of Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and in Asia Minor, their return to Antioch; the dissension at Antioch concerning circumcision; the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, the decision of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the separation of Paul from Barnabas, in whose stead he takes Silas, or Silvanus; Paul’s visit to his Asiatic Churches, his foundation of the Church at Philippi; Paul’s sufferings for Jesus Christ; Paul’s visit to Athens, his foundation of the churches of Corinth and of Ephesus; Paul’s return to Jerusalem, his persecution by the Jews; Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea; Paul’s appeal to Cæsar, his voyage to Rome; the shipwreck; Paul’s arrival at Rome, and the manner of his life there. We see therefore that a more proper title of this book would be “The Beginnings of the Christian Religion”. It is an artistic whole, the fullest history which we possess of the manner in which the Church developed.

THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH

In Acts we see the fulfilment of Christ’s promises. In Acts, i, 8, Jesus had declared that the Apostles should receive power when the Holy Ghost should come upon them, and should be His witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. In John, xiv, 12, Jesus had declared: “He that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater works than these shall he do. Because I go to the Father”. In these passages is found the key-note of the origin of the Church. The Church developed according to the plan conceived by Christ. There is, assuredly, in the narration evidence of the working out of a great plan; for the reason that the writer records the working out of the great design of Christ, conceived in infinite wisdom, and executed by omnipotent power. There is throughout a well-defined, systematic order of narration, an exactness and fullness of detail. After the calling of the first twelve Apostles, there is no event in the history of the Church so important as Paul’s conversion and commission to teach in Christ’s name. Up to Paul’s conversion, the inspired historian of the Acts has given us a condensed statement of the growth of the Church among the Jews. Peter and John are prominent in the work. But the great message is now to issue forth from the confines of Judaism; all flesh is to see the salvation of God; and St. Paul is to be the great instrument in preaching Christ to the Gentiles. In the development of the Christian Church Paul wrought more than all the other Apostles; and therefore in Acts St. Paul stands forth, the prominent agent of God in the conversion of the world. His appointment as the Apostle of the Gentiles does not prevent him from preaching to the Jews, but his richest fruits are gathered from the Gentiles. He fills proconsular Asia, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome with the Gospel of Christ; and the greater part of Acts is devoted exclusively to recording his work.

DIVISION OF BOOK

In the Acts there are no divisions of the narration contemplated by the author. It is open to us to divide the work as we deem fit. The nature of the history therein recorded easily suggests a greater division of Acts into two parts: The beginning and propagation of the Christian religion among the Jews (1-9); The beginning and propagation of the Christian religion among the Gentiles (10-28). St. Peter plays the chief role in the first part; St. Paul, in the second part.

OBJECT

The Acts of the Apostles must not be believed to be an isolated writing, but rather an integral part in a well-ordered series. Acts presupposes its readers to know the Gospels; it continues the Gospel narrative. The Four Evangelists close with the account of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ. St. Mark is the only one who essays to give any of the subsequent history, and he condenses his account into one brief sentence: “And they went forth and preached everywhere: the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed” (Mark 16:20). Now the Acts of the Apostles takes up the narrative here and records succinctly the mighty events which were wrought by the Holy Ghost through chosen human agents. It is a condensed record of the fulfilment of the promises of Jesus Christ. The Evangelists record Christ’s promises which He made to the disciples, regarding the establishment of the Church and its mission (Matthew 16:15-20); the gift of the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 14:16, 17); the calling of the gentiles (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46, 47). Acts records the fulfilment. The history begins at Jerusalem and ends at Rome. With divine simplicity Acts shows us the growth of the religion of Christ among the nations. The distinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished by the revelation to St. Peter; Paul is called to devote himself specially to the Gentile ministry, the Holy Ghost works signs in confirmation of the doctrines of Christ; men suffer and die, but the Church grows; and thus the whole world sees the Salvation of God. Nowhere in Holy Writ is the action of the Holy Ghost in the Church so forcibly set forth as in the Acts. He fills the Apostles with knowledge and power on Pentecost; they speak as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak; the Holy Ghost bids Philip the deacon go to the eunuch of Candace; the same Spirit catches up Philip, after the baptism of the eunuch, and brings him to Azotus; the Holy Ghost tells Peter to go to Cornelius; when Peter preaches to Cornelius and his family the Holy Ghost falls on them all; the Holy Ghost directly commands that Paul and Barnabas be set apart for the Gentile ministry; the Holy Ghost forbids Paul and Silas to preach in Asia; constantly, by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands, the Holy Ghost comes upon the faithful; Paul is directed by the Holy Ghost in everything; the Holy Ghost foretells to him that bonds and afflictions await him in every city; when Agabus prophesies Paul’s martyrdom, he says: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost: ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles’ “. Acts declares that on the Gentiles the grace of the Holy Ghost is poured out; in the splendid description of St. Stephen’s martyrdom he is declared full of the Holy Ghost; when Peter makes his defense before rulers, elders, and scribes, he is filled with the Holy Ghost; often it is declared that the Apostles are filled with the Holy Ghost; Philip is chosen as a deacon because be is full of faith and the Holy Ghost; when Ananias is sent to Paul at Damascus he declares that he is sent that Paul may receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ is declared to be anointed with the Holy Ghost; Barnabas is declared to be full of the Holy Ghost; the men of Samaria receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of Peter and John. This history shows the real nature of the Christian religion; its members are baptized in the Holy Ghost, and are upheld by His power. The source in the Church of infallible truth in teaching, of grace, and of the power that resists the gates of Hell is the Holy Ghost. By the power of the Spirit the Apostles established the Church in the great centres of the world: Jerusalem, Antioch Cyprus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Beræa, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome. From these centres the message went to the surrounding lands. We see in the Acts the realization of Christ’s promises just before his Ascension: “But ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth”. In the New Testament Acts forms a necessary connecting-link between the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. It gives the necessary information concerning the conversion of St. Paul and his apostolate, and also concerning the formation of the great Churches to which St. Paul wrote his Epistles.

AUTHENTICITY

The authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles is proved be intrinsic evidence; it is attested by the concordant voice of tradition. The unity of style of Acts and its artistic completeness compel us to receive the book as the work of one author. Such an effect could never arise from the piecing together bits of writings of different authors. The writer writes as an eyewitness and compaction of Paul. The passages xvi, 10 – 17; xx, 5-15; xxi, 1-18; xxvii, 1; xxviii, 16 are called the We passages. In these the writer uniformly employs the first person plural, closely identifying himself with St. Paul. This excludes the theory that Acts is the work of a redactor. As Renan has well said, such use of the pronoun is incompatible with any theory of redaction. We know from many proofs that Luke was the companion and fellow-labourer of Paul. Writing to the Colossians, in his salutation Paul associates with himself, “Luke, the beloved physician” (iv, 14). In II Tim., iv, 11 Paul declares: “Only Luke is with me”. To Philemon (24) Paul calls Luke his fellow-worker. Now in this article, we may suppose the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel as proved. The writer of Acts in his opening sentence implicitly declares himself to be the author of the third Gospel. He addresses his work to Theophilus, the addressee of the third Gospel; he mentions his former work and in substance makes known his intention of continuing the history which, in his former treatise, he had brought up to the day when the Lord Jesus was received up. There is an identity of style between Acts and the third Gospel. An examination of the original Greek texts of the third Gospel and of the Acts reveals that there is in them a remarkable identity of manner of thinking and of writing. There is in both the same tender regard for the Gentiles, the same respect for the Roman Empire, the same treatment of the Jewish rites, the same broad conception that the Gospel is for all men. In forms of expression the third Gospel and the Acts reveal an identity of authorship. Many of the expressions usual in both works occur but rarely in the rest of the New Testament; other expressions are found nowhere else save in the third Gospel and in the Acts. If one will compare the following expressions in the Greek, he will be persuaded that both works are of the same author: Luke, i, 1-Acts, xv, 24-25; Luke, xv, 13-Acts, i, 5, xxvii, 14, xix, 11; Luke, i, 20, 80-Acts, i, 2, 22, ii, 29, vii, 45; Luke, iv, 34-Acts, ii, 27, iv, 27, 30; Luke, xxiii, 5-Acts, x, 37; Luke, i, 9-Acts, I, 17; Luke, xii, 56, xxi, 35-Acts xvii, 26. The last-cited parallel expression, to prosopon tes ges, is employed only in the third Gospel and in Acts. The evidence of the Lucan authorship of Acts is cumulative. The intrinsic evidence is corroborated by the testimonies of many witnesses. It must be granted that in the Apostolic Fathers we find but faint allusions to the Acts of the Apostles. The Fathers of that age wrote but little; and the injury of time has robbed us of much of what was written. The Gospels were more prominent in the teachings of that day and they consequently have a more abundant witness. The canon of Muratori contains the canon of Scriptures of the Church of Rome in the second century. Of Acts it declares: “But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in one book, which for the excellent Theophilus Luke wrote, because he was an eyewitness of all”. In “‘The Doctrine of Addai”, which contains the ancient tradition of the Church of Edessa, the Acts of the Apostles are declared to be a part of the Holy Scriptures (Doctrine of Addai, ed. Phillips, 1876, 46). The twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth chapters of St. Irenæus’s third book “Against Heresies” are based upon the Acts of the Apostles. Irenæus convincingly defends the Lucan authorship of the third Gospel and Acts, declaring: “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so, by the truth itself. . . And all the remaining facts of his courses with Paul, he recounts. . . As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, etc.” Irenæus unites in himself the witness of the Christian Church of the East and the West of the second century. He continues unchanged the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers. In his treatise “On Fasting” Tertullian accepts Acts as Holy Scripture, and calls them the “Commentary of Luke”. In his treatise “On Prescription against Heretics”, xxii, Tertullian is strong in asserting the canonicity of Acts: “And assuredly, God fulfilled his promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Ghost, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to be a church themselves, who positively have no means of proving when, and with what infant-nursings this body was established.” Again, in chapter xxiii of the same treatise, he issues a challenge to those who reject Acts: “I may say here to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was; both what he was before he became an Apostle, and how he became an Apostle” etc. Clement of Alexandria is a clear witness. In “Stromata”, v, 11, he declares: “Most instructively, therefore, says Paul in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘The God that made the world, and all things in it, being the Lord of Heaven and of earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands’ ” etc. (Acts 17:24, 25). Again, in chapter xii, he states: “As Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, relates that Paul said: ‘Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things, ye are greatly superstitious’ “. In Hom., xiii, on Genesis, ii, Origen asserts the Lucan authorship of Acts as a truth that all the world accepted. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxv) places Acts among ta homologoumena, the books of which no one has doubted. The authenticity of Acts is so well proved that even the sceptical Renan was forced to declare: “A thing beyond all doubt is that the Acts have the same author as the third Gospel, and are a continuation of the same. One finds no necessity to prove this fact, which has never seriously been denied. The prefaces of the two writings, the dedication of both the one and the other to Theophilus, the perfect resemblance of ideas and manner of expression furnish a convincing demonstration of the fact” (Les Apôtres, Introd., p. x). Again he says: “The third Gospel and the Acts form a well-ordered work, written with reflection and even with art, written by the same hand, and with a definite plan. The two works taken together form a whole, having the same style, presenting the same characteristic expressions, and citing the Scripture in the same manner” (ibid., p. xi).

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY

Nevertheless this well-proved truth has been contradicted. Baur, Schwanbeck, De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff, Schleiermacher, Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts. An objection is drawn from the discrepancy between Acts ix, 19-28 and Gal., i, 17, 19. In the Epistle to the Galatians, i, 17, 18, St. Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.” In Acts no mention is made of St. Paul’s journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul’s preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and St. Paul. Their charge is vain: There is here verified what is the usual fact when two inspired writers narrate synchronistic events. No writer of either Testament had in mind to write a complete history. Out of the great mass of words and deeds they grouped together those things which they deemed best for their scope. They always concur on the great lines of the doctrines and the main facts; they differ in that one omits certain things which another relates. The writers of the New Testament wrote with the conviction that the world had already received the message by oral communication. Not all could have a manuscript of the written word, but all heard the voice of those who preached Christ. The intense activity of the first teachers of the New Law made it a living reality in every land. The few writings which were produced were considered as supplementary to the greater economy of preaching. Hence we find notable omissions in all the writers of the New Testament; and every writer has some things proper to himself. In the present instance the writer of Acts has omitted St Paul’s journey into Arabia and sojourn there. The evidence of the omission is in the text itself. In Acts, ix, 19, the writer speaks of St. Paul’s sojourn in Damascus as covering a period of “certain days”. This is the indefinite description of a relatively short space of time. In Acts, ix, 23, he connects the next event narrated with the foregoing by declaring that it came to pass “after many days were fulfilled”. It is evident that some series of events must have had place between the “certain days” of the nineteenth verse, and the “many days” of the twenty-third verse; these events are Paul’s journey into Arabia, his sojourn there, and his return to Damascus. Another objection is urged from I Thess., iii, 1, 2, compared with Acts xvii, 14, 15, and xviii, 5. In Acts, xvii, 14, 15, Paul leaves Timothy and Silas at Beræa, with a commandment to come to him at Athens. In Acts, xviii, 5, Timothy and Silas come out of Macedonia to Paul at Corinth. But in I Thess., iii, 1, 2, Timothy is sent by Paul out of Athens to Thessalonica, and no mention is made of Silas. We must appeal to the principle that when a writer omits one or more members in a series of events he does not thereby contradict another writer who may narrate the thing omitted. Timothy and Silas came down from Beræa to Paul at Athens. In his zeal for the Macedonian churches, Paul sent Timothy back from Athens to Thessalonica, and Silas to some other part of Macedonia. When they return out of Macedonia they come to Paul at Corinth. Acts has omitted their coming to Athens and their return to Macedonia. In Acts many things are condensed into a narrow compass. Thus, to the Galatian ministry of Paul, which must have lasted a considerable time, Acts devotes the one sentence: “They passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia” (Acts 16:6). The fourth journey of Paul to Jerusalem in described in one verse (Acts 18:22). The objection is urged that, from Acts, xvi, 12, it is evident that the author of the Acts was with Paul in the foundation of the Church at Philippi. Therefore, they say that, since Luke was at Rome with Paul when he wrote thence to the Philippians, had Luke been the author of Acts, Paul would have associated Luke with himself in his salutation to the Philippians in the letter which he wrote them. On the contrary, we find in it no mention of Luke; but Timothy is associated with Paul in the salutation. This is a mere negative argument, and of no avail. The apostolic men of that day neither sought nor gave vain personal recognition in their work. St. Paul wrote to the Romans without ever mentioning St. Peter. There was no struggle for place or fame among those men. It may hare been that, though Luke was with St. Paul at Philippi, Timothy was the better known to that Church. Again, at the moment of St. Paul’s writing Luke may have been absent from Paul.

The rationalists allege that there is an error in the discourse of Gamaliel (Acts 5:36). Gamaliel refers to the insurrection of Theodas as a thing that had happened before the days of the Apostles, whereas Josephus (Antiq., XX, v, 1) places the rebellion of Theodas under Fadus, fourteen years after the date of the speech of Gamaliel. Here, as elsewhere, the adversaries of Holy Scriptures presuppose every writer who disagrees with the Holy Scriptures to be right. Every one who has examined Josephus must be struck by his carelessness and inaccuracy. He wrote mainly from memory, and often contradicts himself. In the present instance some suppose that he has confused the insurrection of Theodas with that of a certain Mathias, of whom he speaks in Antiq., XVII, vi, 4. Theodas is a contraction of Theodoros, and is identical in signification with the Hebrew name Mathias, both names signifying, “Gift of God”. This is the opinion of Corluy in Vigouroux, “Dictionnaire de la Bible”. Against Corluy’s opinion it may rightly be objected that Gamaliel clearly intimates that the author of the insurrection of which he speaks was not actuated by holy motives. He speaks of him as a seditious man, who misled his followers, “giving himself out to be somebody”. But Josephus describes Mathias as a most eloquent interpreter of the Jewish law, a man beloved by the people, whose lectures those who were studious of virtue frequented. Moreover, he incited the young men to pull down the golden eagle which the impious Herod had erected in the Temple of God. Certainly such an act was pleasing to God, not the act of an impostor. The argument of Gamaliel is based on the fact that Theodas claimed to be something which he was not. The character of Theodas as given by Josephus, XX, v, 1, accords with the implied character of the Theodas of Acts. Were it not for the discrepancy of dates, the two testimonies would be in perfect accord. It seems far more probable, therefore, that both writers speak of the same man, and that Josephus has erroneously placed his epoch about thirty years too late. Of course it is possible that there may have been two Theodases of similar character: one of the days of Herod the Great, whom Josephus does not name, but who is mentioned by Gamaliel; and one in the days of Cuspius Fadus the procurator of Judea, whose insurrection Josephus records. There must have been many of such character in the days of Herod the Great, for Josephus, speaking of that epoch, declares that “at this time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judæa which were like tumults” (Antiq., XVII, x, 4).

It is urged that the three accounts of the conversion of St. Paul (Acts 9:7; 22:9; 26:14) do not agree. In Acts, ix, 7, the author declares that “the men that journeyed with Paul stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man”. In xxii, 9, Paul declares: “And they that were with me beheld indeed the light; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me”. In xxvi, 14, Paul declares that they all fell to the earth, which seems to contradict the first statement, that they ” stood speechless”. This is purely a question of circumstantial detail, of very minor moment. There are many solutions of this difficulty. Supported by many precedents, we may hold that in the several narrations of the same event inspiration does not compel an absolute agreement in mere extrinsic details which in nowise affects the substance of the narration. In all the Bible, where the same event is several times narrated by the same writer, or narrated by several writers, there is some slight divergency, as it is natural there should be with those who spoke and wrote from memory. Divine inspiration covers the substance of the narration. For those who insist that divine inspiration extends also to these minor details there are valid solutions. Pape and others give to the eistekeisan the sense of an emphatic einai, and thus it could be rendered: “The men that journeyed with him became speechless”, thus agreeing with xxvi, 14. Moreover, the three accounts can be placed in agreement by supposing that the several accounts contemplate the event at different moments of its course. All saw a great light; all heard a sound from Heaven. They fell on their faces in fear; and then, arising, stood still and speechless, while Paul conversed with Jesus, whose articulate voice he alone heard. In Acts, ix, 7, the marginal reading of the Revised Edition of Oxford should be accepted: “hearing the sound”. The Greek is akoyontes tes phones. When the writer speaks of the articulate voice of Christ, which Paul alone heard, he employs the phrase outer phrase, ekousan phonen. Thus the same term, phone, by a different grammatical construction, may signify the inarticulate sound of the voice which all heard and the articulate voice which Paul alone heard.

It is urged that Acts, xvi, 6 and xviii, 23 represent Paul as merely passing through Galatia, whereas the Epistle to the Galatians gives evidence of Paul’s longer sojourn in Galatia. Cornely and others answer this difficulty by supposing that St. Paul employs the term Galatia in the administrative sense, as a province, which comprised Galatia proper, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Isauria, and a great part of Phrygia; whereas St. Luke employs the term to denote Galatia proper. But we are not limited to this explanation; St. Luke in Acts often severely condenses his narrative. He devotes but one verse (xviii, 22) to Paul’s fourth journey to Jerusalem; he condenses his narrative of St. Paul’s two years of imprisonment at Cæsarea into a few lines. Thus he may also have judged good for his scope to pass over in one sentence Paul’s Galatian ministry.

DATE OF COMPOSITION

As regards the date of the Book of Acts, we may at most assign a probable date for the completion of the book. It is recognized by all that Acts ends abruptly. The author devotes but two verses to the two years which Paul spent at Rome. These two years were in a certain sense uneventful. Paul dwelt peaceably at Rome, and preached the kingdom of God to all who went in unto him. It seems probable that during this peaceful epoch St. Luke composed the Book of Acts and terminated it abruptly at the end of the two years, as some unrecorded vicissitude carried him out into other events. The date of the completion of Acts is therefore dependent on the date of St. Paul’s Roman captivity. Writers are quite concordant in placing the date of Paul’s coming to Rome in the year 62; hence the year 64 is the most probable date for the Acts.

TEXTS OF THE ACTS

In the Græco-Latin codices D and E of Acts, we find a text widely differing from that of the other codices, and from the received text. By Sanday and Headlam (Romans, p. xxi) this is called the delta text; by Blass (Acta Apostolorum, p. 24) it is called the beta text. The famous Latin Codex now at Stockholm, from its size called the Codex Gigas, also in the main represents this text. Dr. Bornemann (Acta Apost.) endeavoured to prove that the aforesaid text was Luke’s original, but his theory has not been received. Dr. Blass (Acta Apost., p. vii) endeavours to prove that Luke wrote first a rough draft of Acts, and that this is preserved in D and E. Luke revised this rough draft, and sent it to Theophilus; and this revised copy he supposes to be the original of our received text. Belser, Nestle, Zoeckler, and others have adopted his theory. The theory is, however, rejected by the greater number. It seems far more probable that D and E contain a recension, wherein the copyists have added, paraphrased, and changed things in the text, according to that tendency which prevailed up to the second half of the second century of the Christian era.

THE BIBLICAL COMMISSION

The Biblical Commission, 12 June, 1913, published the following answers to various questions about the Acts: The author of the Acts of the Apostles is Luke the Evangelist, as is clear from Tradition, internal evidence in the Acts themselves and in their relation to the third Gospel (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2). The unity of their authorship can be proved critically by their language, style and plan of narrative, and by their unity of scope and doctrine. The occasional substitution of the first person plural for the third person so far from impairing, only establishes more strongly their unity of composition and authenticity. The relations of Luke with the chief founders of the Church in Palestine, and with Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles; his industry and diligence as an eyewitness and in examining witnesses; the remarkable agreement of the Acts of the Apostles with the Epistles of Paul and with the more genuine historical records, all go to show that Luke had at his command most trustworthy sources, and that he used them in such a manner as to make his work historically authoritative. This authority is not diminished by the difficulties alleged against the supernatural facts he records, by his manner of condensing statements, by apparent disagreements with profane or Biblical history, or by apparent inconsistencies with his own or with other scriptural writings.

———————————–

BEELEEN, Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum (2d ed., Louvain); BELSER, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte, in Theol. Quartalschrift (1895), 50-96, Lukas und Josephus, ibid. (1896),1-78; Die Selbstvertheidigung des H. Paulus im Galaterbriefe in Biblishe Studien (Freiburg, 1896), 1 – 3; Beiträge zur Erklärung der Apostelgeschichte auf Grund der Lesarten des Codex D und seiner Genossen, ibid.. (1897); BLASS, Die zweifache Textüberlieferung in der Apostelgeschichte, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken (1894), 86-119; Acta Apostolorum, sive Lucæ ad Teophilum liber alter (Göttingen, 1895); De duplici forma Actorum Lucæ in Hermathena, (1895), 121-143; Ueber die verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Lukas, in Neue kirchl. Zeit. (1895), 712-725; Acta Apostolorum secundum formam qua videtur Romana (Leipzig, 1896); Neue Texteszeugen für die Apostelgeschichte, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. (1896), 436 – 471; Zu Codex D, in der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1898), 539 – 542; Zu den zwei Texten der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1900), 5-28; Priscilla und Aquila, ibid. (1901), 124 – 126; BORNEMANN, Acta Apostolorum ad Codicis Cantabrigiensis fidem (Grossenhain, 1848); CONYBEARE, On the Western Text of the Acts, in Am. J. Phil. (1896), 135-172; Papias and the Acts of the Apostles, in Class. Rev. (1895), 258; COPPIETERS, De Hist. Text. Act. Apost. (Louvain, 1902); CORNELY, Introductio in Utriusque Test. Libros Sacros (Paris, 1895); ID., Introductio Specialis in Singulos Novi Testamenti Libros (Paris, 1897); CORSSEN, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (Berlin, 1892); Cross, Note on Acts in (1900), 19-25; GAGNÆUS, Scholia in Actus Apost. (Paris, 1552); HARNACK, Das Aposteidecret und die Blass’sche Hypothese (Berlin, 1899), 150-176; Ueber den ursprünglichen Text Act. Apost. xi, 27-28 (Berlin, 1899), 316 – 327; HEADLAM, Acts of the Apostles, in Dict. Bibl. (Edinburgh, 1898); HILGENFELD, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellenschriften untersucht, in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. (1895 and 1896); Der Eingang der Apostelgeschichte, ibid. (1898), 619-625; KNABENBAUER, Commentarius in Actus Apostolorum (Paris, 1899); LUCAS, Textual Criticism and the Acts of the Apostles, in Dub. Rev. (1894), 30-53; RAMSAY, Professor Blass on the two Editions of Acts (1895), 129-142, 212-225; Are there two Lucan texts of Acts? in The Expositor (1897), 460 – 471; St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. (London, 1900); Some recent Editions of the Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositor (1900, Nov.), 321-335; SABATIER, L’auteur du livre des Actes des Apôtres, a-t-il connu et utilisé dans son récit le Epitres de St. Paul?, in Bioliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1889), I, 202-229; SOROF, Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte (Berlin, 1890); SPITTA, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlichen Wert (Halle, 1891). Acta Apostolicae Sedis (26 June, 1913); Rome (5 July, 1913).

A.E. BREEN Transcribed by Vernon Bremberg Dedicated to the Cloistered Dominican Nuns of the Monastery of the Infant Jesus, Lufkin, Texas

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Acts of The Apostles

( ), the fifth book of the New Testament, and the last of those properly historical. It obtained this title at a very early period, though sometimes the epithet holy was prefixed to apostles, and sometimes also it was reckoned among the gospels, and called the Gospel of the Holy Ghost, or the Gospel of the Resurrection. (See; generally, Dr. Tregelles, in Horne’s Introd. last ed. 4, 476 sq;)

I. Authorship. The Acts were evidently written by the same author as the third Gospel (comp. Luk 1:1-4, with Act 1:1), and tradition is firm and constant in ascribing them to Luke (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. lib. 1, c. 31; 3, 14; Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 5, p. 588; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, 5, 2; De Jejun. c. 10; Origen, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 6, 23, etc. Eusebius himself ranks this book among the , H. E. 3, 25). The fact that Luke accompanied Paul to Rome (28), and was with him there (Col 4:14; Philippians 24), favors the supposition that he was the writer of the narrative of the apostle’s journey to that city. See PAUL. The identity of the writer of both books is strongly shown by their great similarity in style and idiom, and the usage of particular words and compound forms. (See Tholuck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, 3; Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucance, Gott. 1866.) The only parties in primitive times by whom this book was rejected were certain heretics, such as the Marcionites, the Severians, and the Manichaeans, whose objections were entirely of a dogmatical, not of a historical nature (so those of Baur and his school). At the same time we find Chrysostom complaining that by many in his day it was not so much as known (Hom. 1, in Act. s. init.). Perhaps, however, there is some rhetorical exaggeration in this statement; or it may be, as Kuinol (Proleg. in Acta App. Comment. 4; 5) suggests, that Chrysostom’s complaint refers rather to a prevalent omission of the Acts from the number of books publicly read in the churches (see Salmerson, De libri Actorum auctoritate, in his Opera, vol. 12).

II. Source of Materials. The writer is for the first time introduced into the narrative in Act 16:11, where he speaks of accompanying Paul to Philippi. He then disappears from the narrative until Paul’s return to Philippi, more than two years afterward, when it is stated that they left that place in company (Act 20:6), 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 Act 16:11, to Act 28:31, 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 labors 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 (see Zeller, Die Apostelgesch. nach ihrem Inhalt u. Ursprung kritisch untersucht, Stuttg. 1854) have labored hard to show that he must have had recourse to written documents, in order to compose 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 Acts of Cephas or his Preaching ( or ), of which the apocryphal book of the same title ( or ), mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 7, p. 736) and Origen (Comment. in Joh. p. 298), was an interpolated edition (Heinrichs, Proleg. in Acta App. p. 21; Kuinol, Proleg. p. 5). All this, however, is mere ungrounded supposition; and such Hebrew editions, if they at all existed, must have been versions from the Greek (Reland, Palest. p. 1038). SEE PETER.

III. Design. A prevalent opinion is, that Luke, having in his Gospel given a history of the life of Christ, intended to follow that up by giving in the Acts a narrative of the establishment and early progress of his religion in the world. That this, however, could not have been his design, is obvious from the very partial and limited view which his narrative gives of the state of things in the Church generally during the period through which it extends. As little can we regard this book as designed to record the official history of the Apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars concerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2Co 11:1-33; Gal 1:17; Gal 2:11; 1Pe 5:13. See also Michaelis, Introduction, 3, 328; Hanlein’s Einletung, 3, 150). Heinrichs, Kuinol, and others are of opinion that no particular design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this book beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own personal notice, either immediately through the testimony of his senses or through the medium of the reports of others; but such a view savors too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the Church universal. Much more deserving of notice is the opinion of Hanlein, with which that of Michaelis substantially accords, that the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the divinity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion (Einleitung, 3, 156. Comp. Michaelis, Introduction, 3, 380). Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his Gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luk 24:47). Hence, as justly stated by Baumgarten in his work on the Acts, Jesus, as the already exalted king of Zion, appears, on all suitable occasions, as the ruler and judge of supreme resort; the apostles are but his representatives and instruments of working. It is He who appoints the twelfth witness, that takes the place of the fallen apostle (Act 1:24); He who, having received the promise from the Father, sends down the Holy Spirit with power (Act 2:33); He who comes near to turn the people from their iniquities and add them to the membership of his Church (Act 2:47; Act 3:26); He who works miracles from time to time by the hand of the apostles; who sends Peter to open the door of faith to the Gentiles; who instructs Philip to go and meet the Ethiopian; who arrests Saul in his career of persecution, and makes him a chosen vessel to the Gentiles; in short, who continually appears, presiding over the affairs of his Church, directing his servants in their course, protecting them from the hands of their enemies, and in the midst of much that was adverse, still giving effect to their ministrations, and causing the truth of the gospel to grow and bear fruit. We have therefore in this book, not merely a narrative of facts which fell out at the beginning of the Christian Church, in connection more especially with the apostolic agency of Peter and Paul, but we have, first of all and in all, the ever-present, controlling, administrative agency of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, shedding forth the powers of his risen life, and giving shape and form to his spiritual and everlasting kingdom.

IV. Time and place of Writing. These are still more uncertain. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 56; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the close of the year 58 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it; but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared. Had any considerable alteration in Paul’s circumstances taken place before the publication, there can be no reason why it should not have been noticed. And on other accounts also this time was by far the most likely for the publication of the book. The arrival in Rome was an important period in the apostle’s life; the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no immediate determination of his cause. SEE THEOPHILUS.

V. Style. This, like that of Luke’s Gospel, is much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. These speeches are indeed, for the most part, to be regarded rather as summaries than as full reports of what the speaker uttered; but as these summaries are given in the speaker’s own words, the appearance of Hebraisms in them is as easily accounted for as if the addresses had been reported in full. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, he has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators (Introduction, 3, 332). SEE LUKE.

VI. Contents. Commencing with a reference to an account given in a former work of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, its author proceeds to acquaint us succinctly with the circumstances attending that event, the conduct of the disciples on their return from witnessing it, the outpouring on them of the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise to them before his crucifixion, and the amazing success which, as a consequence of this, attended the first announcement by them of the doctrine concerning Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the world. After following the fates of the mother church at Jerusalem up to the period when the violent persecution of its members by the rulers of the Jews had broken up their society and scattered them, with the exception of the apostles, throughout the whole of the surrounding region, and after introducing to the notice of the reader the case of a remarkable conversion of one of the most zealous persecutors of the Church, who afterward became one of its most devoted and successful advocates, the narrative takes a wider scope and opens to our view the gradual expansion of the Church by the free admission within its pale of persons directly converted from heathenism, and who had not passed through the preliminary stage of Judaism. The first step toward this more liberal and cosmopolitan order of things having been effected by Peter, to whom the honor of laying the foundation of the Christian Church, both within and without the confines of Judaism, seems, in accordance with our Lord’s declaration concerning him (Mat 16:18), to have been reserved, Paul, the recent convert and the destined apostle of the Gentiles, is brought forward as the main actor on the scene. On his course of missionary activity, his successes and his sufferings, the chief interest of the narrative is thenceforward concentrated, until, having followed him to Rome, whither he had been sent as a prisoner to abide his trial, on his own appeal, at the bar of the emperor himself, the book abruptly closes, leaving us to gather further information concerning him and the fortunes of the Church from other sources. SEE PAUL.

VII. History. While, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown (Lardner’s Credibility, Works, 1; Biscoe, On the Acts; Paley’s Horae Paulinoe; Benson’s History of the First Planting of Christianity, 2, etc.), the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events (see Davidson’s Introd. to the N.T., 2, 112 sq.; Alford’s Greek Test., 2, Proleg. p. 23 sq.; Meyer, Commentar, 3d ed. pt. 3, s. fin.).

The following is probably the true order of events in the Acts (see Meth. Quar. Review, 1856, p. 499 sq.). For further discussion, see Burton, Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts (Lond. 1830); Anger, De temporum in Actis Apostolorum ratione (Lips. 1834); Greswell, Dissert. 2, 1, etc.; Wordsworth, Greek Test. pt. 2; Wieseler, Chron. d. ap. Zeit (Gott. 1848).

DATE. LEADING EVENTS. CHAPTER.

May, A.D. 29. Election of Matthias…….. Act 1:15-26. May A.D. 29. Descent of the Holy Spirit. Act 2:1-41. June, A.D. 29. Cure of the cripple, etc …. Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37. July, A.D. 29. Judgment of Ananias and Sapphira …. Act 5:1-42. Sept., A.D. 29. Appointment of Deacons…. Act 6:1-15. Dec., A.D. 29. Martyrdom of Stephen…… Act 7:1-60. April, A.D. 30. Conversion of the Eunuch .. Act 8:1-40. May, A.D. 30. Conversion of Paul……… Act 9:1-21. A.D. 31. Prosperity of the Church…. Act 9:31. A.D. 31. [Matthew’s Gospel written in Hebrew.]

Summer, A.D. 32. Peter’s preaching tour …… Act 9:32-43. Sept., A.D. 32. Conversion of Cornelius….. Act 10:1-48; Act 11:1-18. Spring, A.D. 33. Paul’s escape from Damascus to Jerusalem. Act 9:22-30. A.D. 34. Founding of the Church at Antioch…….. Act 11:19-26. Spring, A.D. 44. Martyrdom of James and imprisonment of Peter. Act 7:1-60. A.D. 44. Paul’s eleemosynary visit to Jerusalem ……. Act 11:21-30. A.D. 44, 45. Paul’s first missionary tour . Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43. Spring, A.D. 47. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem . Act 15:1-35. A.D. 47. [Matthew’s Gospel published in Greek ]

May, A.D. 29. Election of Matthias…….. Act 1:15-26.

May A.D. 29. Descent of the Holy Spirit. Act 2:1-41.

June, A.D. 29. Cure of the cripple, etc …. Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37.

July, A.D. 29. Judgment of Ananias and Sapphira …. Act 5:1-42.

Sept., A.D. 29. Appointment of Deacons…. Act 6:1-15.

Dec., A.D. 29. Martyrdom of Stephen…… Act 7:1-60.

April, A.D. 30. Conversion of the Eunuch .. Act 8:1-40.

May, A.D. 30. Conversion of Paul……… Act 9:1-21.

A.D. 31. Prosperity of the Church…. Act 9:31.

A.D. 31. [Matthew’s Gospel written in Hebrew.]

Summer, A.D. 32. Peter’s preaching tour …… Act 9:32-43.

Sept., A.D. 32. Conversion of Cornelius….. Act 10:1-48; Act 11:1-18.

Spring, A.D. 33. Paul’s escape from Damascus to Jerusalem. Act 9:22-30.

A.D. 34. Founding of the Church at Antioch…….. Act 11:19-26.

Spring, A.D. 44. Martyrdom of James and imprisonment of Peter. Act 7:1-60.

A.D. 44. Paul’s eleemosynary visit to Jerusalem ……. Act 11:21-30.

A.D. 44, 45. Paul’s first missionary tour . Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43.

Spring, A.D. 47. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem . Act 15:1-35.

A.D. 47. [Matthew’s Gospel published in Greek ]

A.D. 47-51. Paul’s second missionary tour Act 15:36 – Act 18:22.

A.D. 49. [1st Epistle to the Thessalonians.]

A.D. 50. [2d Epistle to the Thessalonians.]

A.D. 51-55. Paul’s third missionary tour. Act 18:23 – Act 21:17.

A.D. 51. [Epistle to the Galatians.]

A.D. 54. [1st Epistle to the Corinthians.]

A.D. 54. [2d Epistle to the Corinthians.]

A.D. 55. [Epistle to the Romans.]

A.D. 56-58. Paul’s first visit and imprisonment at Rome…. Act 21:18 to Act 28:31.

A.D. 56. [Luke’s Gospel written.]

A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Ephesians.]

A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Colossians.]

A.D. 57. [Epistle to Philemon.]

A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Philippians.]

A.D. 58. [Epistle to the Hebrews.]

A.D. 58. [Acts of the Apostles written.]

A.D. 62. [Epistle of James.]

A.D. 62 [lst Epistle to Timothy.]

A.D. 63. [Epistle to Titus.]

A.D. 64. [Second imprisonment of Paul at Rome.]

A.D. 64. [2d Epistle to Timothy.]

A.D. 64. [lst Epistle of Peter.]

A.D. 65. [2d Epistle of Peter.]

A.D. 65. [Mark’s Gospel written.]

A.D. 66. [Epistle of Jude.]

A.D. 90. [John’s Gospel written.]

A.D. 92. [1st Epistle of John.]

A.D. 92. [2d Epistle of John.]

A.D. 92. [3d Epistle of John.]

A.D. 96. [John’s Revelation written.]

VIII. Commentaries. The following is a full list of separate exegetical and illustrative works on the entire Acts of the Apostles, the most important being indicated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Opera, 4, 457 sq.; Pampilus (in Hippolyti Opera, 2, 205 sq. and in the Bibl. Patr. Gall. 4, 3 sq.); Chrysostom Opera, 9, 1 sq. (also in Engl. Homilies, Oxf. 1851, 2 vols. 8vo); Cassiodorus, Acta Ap. (in Complexiones); Euthalius, Editio (in Bibl. Patr. Gall.10, 199); Arator, Carmen (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 10, 125); Theophylact, Opera, 3, 1 sq.; OEcumenius, Enarratio (in Opera, 1); Bede, Works, p. 184 sq.; Fathers, in Cramer’s Catena (Oxon. 1838, 8vo); Mene, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1524, 8vo); Bugenhagen, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1524, 1624, 8vo); Lambert, Commentarius (Arg. 1526; Francf. 1539, 4to); Card. Cajetan, Actus Apostolor. (Venice, 1530; Par. 1532, fol.; Par. 1540, 8vo); Gagnaeus, Scholia (Par. 1660, 8vo);

*Calvin, Commentaria, in his Opera (Gen. 1560, fol.; tr. into Eng., Lond. 1585, 4to; Edinb. 1844, 2 vols. 8vo); Bullinger, Commentaria (Tiguri. 1540, fol.); Jonas, Adnotationes (Norib. 1524; Basil. 1525, 1567, 8vo); Salmeron, Opera, p. 12 sq.; Brent, Predigten (Norimb. 1554, fol.); Camerarius, Notationes (Lips. 1556, 8vo); Capito, Explicatio (Venice, 1561, 8vo); *Gualtherus, Homilioe (Tiguri. 1557, 4to; in Engl., Lond. 1572); Losse, Adnotationes, (Francf. 1558, 2 vols. fol.); *Sarcer, Scholia (Basil. 1560, 8vo); Selnecker, Commentarius (Jen. 1567, 1586, 8vo); Junius, Tr. ex Arab. (L. B. 1578; Frcft. 1618, 8vo); Raude, Auslegung (Frcft. 1579, fol.); Aretius, Digestio (Lausan. 1579, Genev. 1583, Bern. 1607, fol.); Grynaeus, Commentarius (Basil. 1583, 4to); Crispold, Commentaria (Firm. 1590, 4to); Stapleton, Antidota (Antw. 1595-8, 3 vols. 8vo); Pelargus, Commentationes (Francf. 1599, 8vo); Arcularius, Commentarius (Franc. 1607, 8vo; Giess. 4to); Lorinus, Commentaria (Colossians Ag. 1609, fol.); Malcolm, Comnmentarius (Mediol. 1615, 4to); Sanctus, Commentarius (Lugd. 1616; Colossians 1617, 4to); *Petri, Commentarius (Duaci. 1622, 4to); Perezius, Commnentarius (Lugd. 1626, 4to); A Lapide, Acta Apostolor. (Antw. 1627, 4to); Menoch, Historia (Rome, 1634, 4to); De Dieu, Animadnersiones (L. B. 1634, 4to); Lenaeus, Commentarius (Holm. 1640, 4to); Novarinus, Actus Apostolor. (Lugd. 1645, fol.); Price, Acta Apostolor. (Par. 1647, 8vo; Lond. 1630, 4to); Major, Adnotata (Jen. 1647, 1655, 4to; 1668, 8vo); Amyrald, Paraphrase (Salmur, 1654, 8vo); Fromond, Actus Ap. (Lovan. 1654, 4to); Calixtus, Expositio (Brunsw. 1654, 4to); *Streso, Cornmentarius (Amst. 1658; Hafn. 1717, 4to); Faucheur, Sermons (Genev. 1664, 4 vols. 4to); Du Bois, Lectiones, pt. 1 (Louvain, 1666, 4to); Rothmaler, Predigten (Rudolst. 1671-2, 3 vols. 4to); Cradock, Apost. History (Lond. 1672, fol.); De Sylveira, Commentaria (Lugd. 1678, fol.); Lightfoot, Commentary (in Works, 8, 1 sq.; also Horoe Hebr., ed. Carpzov, Lips. 1679, 4to); Crell, Opera, 3, 123 sq.; Wolzogen, Opera, vol. 1; Cocceius, Opera, vol. 4; Micon, Apostolica Acta (Genev. 1681, fol.); Cappel, Hist. Apostolica (Salm. 1683, 4to); *De Veiel, Explicatio (Lond. 1684, 8vo; in Eng., Lond. 1685); Pearson, Works, 1, 317 sq.; Keuchen, Adtsotata (Amst. 1689, 1709, 4to); Valla and others, in the Critici Sacri, vol. 7; *Arnold and De Sacy, Note (Par., Lugd., Amst., Antw. 1700, 8vo; also in French often); *Van Leeuwen, Paraphrasis (Amst. 1704,1724, 8vo; also in Gorm., Brem. 1708, 4to); *Limborch, Conzmentarius (Roterd. 1711, fol.); Gerhard, Commentarius (Hamb. 1713, 4to); *Herberger, Stoppel-Postille (Lpz. 1715, fol.); Anon., Reflexions (Par. 1716, 12mo); Lang, Isagoge (Hal. 1718, 4to); Grammich, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1721, 4to); Petersen, Zusammenhang (Fr. ad M. 1722, 4to); Wolf, Anecdota, 3, 92 sq.; 9:1 sq.; Pyle, Paraphrase (Lond. 1725, 8vo); Plevier, Handelingen (Ultraj. 1725, 1734, 4to); *Lindhammer, Erldarung (Hal. 1725, 1734, fol.); Loseken, Erklarung (Hal. 1728, 4to); Negelin, Kern d. Apostelgesch. (Norimb. 1731, 4to); Anon., Paraphrase (Par. 1738, 12mo); *Biscoe, Hist. of the Acts, confirmed from other Sources, Authors, etc. (Lond. 1742, 2 vols. 8vo; Oxford, 1829, 1840, 1 vol. 8vo); Barrington, Works, vol. 1; Heylin, The 1. Lect. 2. 1 sq.; Rambach, Betrachtungen (F. ad M. 1748, 4to);

*Benson, Planting of the Chr. Rel. (2d ed. Lond. 1756, 3 vols. 4to);

*Walch, Dissertt. in Acta App. (Jen. 1756, 1761, 3 vols. 4to); Am-Ende, Carmen cum notis (Vitemb. 1759, 8vo); Semler, Illustratio (Hal. 1766, 4to); Coners, Auslegung (Brem. 1772, 8vo); Jacob, Uebersetz. (Hal. 1779, 8vo); Hess, Christenlehre (Winterth. 17819, 8vo, in parts); Paulus, De Consilio auctoris Act. (Jen. 1788, 4to); Willis, Actions of the Ap. (Lond. 1789, 8vo); Snell, Uebersetz. (Frkft. 1791, 8vo); Lobstein, Commentar, vol. 1 (Strasb. 1792, 4to); *Morus, Explicatio Act. App. (ed. Dindorf, Lips. 1794, 2 vols. 8vo); Clarisse, Gedenwaarigkeiten (Leyd. 1797, 4to);

*Thiers, Uebers. m. Anmerk. (Gera, 1800, 8vo); Stack, Lectures (London, 1805, 8vo); Venturini, Zusammenh. m. d. Weltgesch. in vol. 1 of his Urchristenth. (Copenh. 1807, 8vo); Brewster, Lectures (Lond. 1807, 2 vols. 8vo; 1830, 1 vol. 8vo); *Heinrich, Acta Apostol. perpet. Annott. illustrata (Gott. 1809, 2 vols. 8vo; also in the Nov. Test. Keppianum); Stabbock, Annotations, vol. 2: (Falm. 1809, 8vo); Elsley, Annotations, vol. 2; Valcknaer, Selecta (ed. Wessenberg, Amst. 1815, 8vo); *Kuinol, Comm. in Acta Apostol. (vol. 4 of his Comm. in Libros Hist. N.T., Lips. 1818, 8vo; vol. 3, Lond. 1835); Riehm, Defontibus Act. (Tr. ad Rh. 1821, 8vo); Thompson, Discourses (Lond. 1822, 8vo); Kistemaker, Gesch. d. Apos. tel (Miinst. 1822, 8vo); *Hildebrand, Gesch. d. ap. exeg. Hermeneut. (Lpz. 1824, 8vo); Blomfield, Lectures (Lond. 825, 8vo); De Meyer, De Lucae (Tr. ad R. 1827, 4to); Menken, Blicke (Brem. 1828, 8vo); *Stier, Reden d. Apostel (Lpz. 1829, 2 vols. 8vo); Wilson, Questions (Camb. 1830, 12mo) Anon., Annotations (Camb. 1831, 12mo); Wirth, Apostelgesch. (Ulm, 1831, 8vo); *Neander, Planting of the Church [German, Berl. 1832, Hamb. 1847, 8vo] (Edinb. 1842, Lond. 1851,2 vols. 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1834, 12mo); Povach, Sermons (Lond. 1836, 8vo); Sumner, Exposition (Lond. 1838, 8vo); Robinson, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1839, 8vo); Schneckenberger, Zweck d. Apostelgesch. (Berne, 1841, 8vo); Jones, Lectures (Lond. 1842, 2 vols. 12mo); Cary, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1842, 18mo); Livermore, Acts of Ap. (Bost. 1844, 12mo); Hodgson, Lectures (Lond. 1845, 8vo); Morison, Commentary (Lond. 1845, 18mo); Bennett, Lectures (Lond. 1846, 8vo); Maskew, Annotations (Lond. 1847, 12mo); Trollope, Commentary (Camb. 1847, 12mo); *Humphrey, Commentary (Lond. 1847, 8vo); Dick, Lectures (Glasgow, 1848, 8vo); Pierce, Notes (N. Y. 1848, 12mo); *Bornemann, Acta Apostolorum (Grossenh. 1849, 8vo); Mrs. Henderson, Lessons (Lond. 1849, 8vo); Etheridge, Tr. from the Syr. (Lond. 1849, 8vo); Beelen, Commentarius (Lovan. 1850, 2 vols. 4to);

*Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Lond. 1850, 1856; N. Y. 1855, 2 vols. 8vo); Cook, Acts (Lond. 1850,12mo); *Hackett, Commentary (Boston, 1852, 1858, 8vo); *Baumgarten, Apostelgeschichte (Braunschw. 1852, 2 vols. 8vo; tr. in Clarke’s Library, Edinb. 1854, 3 vols. 8vo); *Schaff, Gesch. d. Ap. Kirche (Lpz. 1854, 8vo; in English, Edinbl 1854, 2 vols. 8vo); *Zeller, Ursprung d. Apostelgesch. (Stuttg. 1854, 8vo); *Lekebusch, Entstehung d. Apostelgesch. (Gotha, 1854, 8vo); Ford, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1856, 8vo); Cumming, Readings (Lond. 1856, 12mo); *Alexander, Acts explained (N. Y. 1857, 2 vols. 8vo); Bouchier, Exposition (Lond. 1858, 12mo); Macbride, Lectures (Lond. 1858, 8vo); McGarvey, Commentary (Cincin. 1864, 12mo); Gloag, Commentary (Edinb. 1810, 2 vols. 8vo). SEE NEW TESTAMENT.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Acts of the Apostles

the title now given to the fifth and last of the historical books of the New Testament. The author styles it a “treatise” (1:1). It was early called “The Acts,” “The Gospel of the Holy Ghost,” and “The Gospel of the Resurrection.” It contains properly no account of any of the apostles except Peter and Paul. John is noticed only three times; and all that is recorded of James, the son of Zebedee, is his execution by Herod. It is properly therefore not the history of the “Acts of the Apostles,” a title which was given to the book at a later date, but of “Acts of Apostles,” or more correctly, of “Some Acts of Certain Apostles.”

As regards its authorship, it was certainly the work of Luke, the “beloved physician” (comp. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1). This is the uniform tradition of antiquity, although the writer nowhere makes mention of himself by name. The style and idiom of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts, and the usage of words and phrases common to both, strengthen this opinion. The writer first appears in the narrative in 16:11, and then disappears till Paul’s return to Philippi two years afterwards, when he and Paul left that place together (20:6), and the two See m henceforth to have been constant companions to the end. He was certainly with Paul at Rome (28; Col. 4:14). Thus he wrote a great portion of that history from personal observation. For what lay beyond his own experience he had the instruction of Paul. If, as is very probable, 2 Tim. was written during Paul’s second imprisonment at Rome, Luke was with him then as his faithful companion to the last (2 Tim. 4:11). Of his subsequent history we have no certain information.

The design of Luke’s Gospel was to give an exhibition of the character and work of Christ as See n in his history till he was taken up from his disciples into heaven; and of the Acts, as its sequel, to give an illustration of the power and working of the gospel when preached among all nations, “beginning at Jerusalem.” The opening sentences of the Acts are just an expansion and an explanation of the closing words of the Gospel. In this book we have just a continuation of the history of the church after Christ’s ascension. Luke here carries on the history in the same spirit in which he had commenced it. It is only a book of beginnings, a history of the founding of churches, the initial steps in the formation of the Christian society in the different places visited by the apostles. It records a cycle of “representative events.”

All through the narrative we See the ever-present, all-controlling power of the ever-living Saviour. He worketh all and in all in spreading abroad his truth among men by his Spirit and through the instrumentality of his apostles.

The time of the writing of this history may be gathered from the fact that the narrative extends down to the close of the second year of Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. It could not therefore have been written earlier than A.D. 61 or 62, nor later than about the end of A.D. 63. Paul was probably put to death during his second imprisonment, about A.D. 64, or, as some think, 66.

The place where the book was written was probably Rome, to which Luke accompanied Paul.

The key to the contents of the book is in 1:8, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” After referring to what had been recorded in a “former treatise” of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, the author proceeds to give an account of the circumstances connected with that event, and then records the leading facts with reference to the spread and triumphs of Christianity over the world during a period of about thirty years. The record begins with Pentecost (A.D. 33) and ends with Paul’s first imprisonment (A.D. 63 or 64). The whole contents of the book may be divided into these three parts:

(1.) Chaps. 1-12, describing the first twelve years of the Christian church. This section has been entitled “From Jerusalem to Antioch.” It contains the history of the planting and extension of the church among the Jews by the ministry of Peter.

(2.) Chaps. 13-21, Paul’s missionary journeys, giving the history of the extension and planting of the church among the Gentiles.

(3.) Chaps. 21-28, Paul at Rome, and the events which led to this. Chaps. 13-28 have been entitled “From Antioch to Rome.”

In this book it is worthy of note that no mention is made of the writing by Paul of any of his epistles. This may be accounted for by the fact that the writer confined himself to a history of the planting of the church, and not to that of its training or edification. The relation, however, between this history and the epistles of Paul is of such a kind, i.e., brings to light so many undesigned coincidences, as to prove the genuineness and authenticity of both, as is so ably shown by Paley in his _Horae Paulinae_. “No ancient work affords so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and topography, whether Jewish, or Greek, or Roman.” Lightfoot. (See PAUL)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Acts of the Apostles

The second treatise, in continuation of the Gospel as recorded by Luke. The style confirms the identity of authorship; also the address to the same person, Theophilus, probably a man of rank, judging from the title “most excellent.” The Gospel was the life of Jesus in the flesh, the Acts record His life in the Spirit; Chrysostom calls it “The Gospel of the Holy Spirit.” Hence Luke says: “The former treatise I made of all that Jesus began to do and teach;” therefore the Acts give a summary of what Jesus continued to do and teach by His Spirit in His disciples after He was taken up. The book breaks off at the close of Paul’s imprisonment, A.D. 63, without recording his release; hence it is likely Luke completed it at this date, just before tidings of the apostle’s release reached him.

There is a progressive development and unity of plan throughout. The key is Act 1:8; “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in (1) Jerusalem, and (2) in all Judaea, and (3) in Samaria, and (4) unto the uttermost part of the earth.” It begins with Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish dispensation, and ends with Rome, the metropolis of the whole Gentile world. It is divisible into three portions:

I. From the ascension to the close of Acts 11, which describes the rise of the first purely Gentile church, at Antioch, where the disciples consequently were first called See CHRISTIANS (see);

II. Thence down to the special vision at Troas (Acts 16), which carried the gospel, through Paul, to Europe;

III. Thence onward, until it reached Rome. In each of the three periods the church has a distinct aspect: in the first, Jewish; in the second, Gentile with a strong Jewish admixture; in the third, after the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), Gentile in a preponderating degree. At first the gospel was preached to the Jews only; then to the Samaritans (Act 8:1-5); then to the Ethiopian eunuch, a proselyte of righteousness (Act 8:27); then, after a special revelation as Peter’s warrant, to Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate; then to Gentile Greeks (not Grecians, i.e. Greek speaking Jews, but pagan Greeks, on the whole the best supported reading, Act 11:20); then Peter, who, as “the apostle of the circumcision,” had been in the first period the foremost preacher, gives place from Acts 13 to Paul, “the apostle of the uncircumcision,” who successively proclaimed the word in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome. Luke joined Paul at Troas (about A.D. 53), as appears from the “we” taking the place of “they” at that point in his history (Act 16:8-10). The repetition of the account of the ascension in Acts 1 shows that an interval of some time had elapsed since writing the more summary account of it at the end of Luke 24; for repetition would have been superfluous unless some time had intervened.

Matthew’s Gospel, as adapted to Jewish readers, answers to the first period ending about A.D. 40, and was written probably in and for Jerusalem and Judaea; Mark answers to the second or Judaeo-Gentile period, A.D. 40-50, as his Gospel abounds in Latinisms, and is suited to Gentile converts, such as were the Roman soldiers concentrated at Caesarea, their head quarters in Palestine, the second great center of gospel preaching, the scene of Cornelius’ conversion by Mark’s father in the faith, Peter. Luke’s Gospel has a Greek tinge, and answers to the third period, A.D. 50-63, being suited to Greeks unfamiliar with Palestinian geography; written perhaps at Antioch, the third great center of gospel diffusion.

Antioch is assigned by tradition as his residence (A.D. 52) before joining Paul when entering Europe. Beginning it there, he probably completed it under Paul’s guidance, and circulated it from Philippi, where he was left behind, among the Greek churches. Probably Paul (A.D. 57) alludes to his Gospel in 2Co 8:18; “the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches.” Certainly he quotes his Gospel as Scripture, and by inspiration stamps it as such in 1Ti 5:18. His having been chosen by the Macedonian churches joint trustee with Paul of their contributions to Jerusalem implies a long residence, during which he completed and circulated his work. As Acts was the fruit of his second connection with Paul, whose labors down to his imprisonment in Rome form the chief part of the book, so he wrote the Gospel through the help he got in his first connection with him, from Troas down to Philippi. (See Birks’ Horse Evarig., 192, etc., for the probability that Theophilus lived at Antioch.) Jerome says Luke published his Gospel “in the parts of Achaia and Baeotia.”

The Book of Acts links itself with the Gospels, by describing the foundation and extension of the church, which Christ in the Gospels promised; and with the Pauline epistles by undesigned, because not obvious, coincidences. It forms with the Gospels a historical Pentateuch, on which the Epistles are the inspired commentary, as the Psalms and Prophets are on the Old Testament historical books. Tertullian De Bapt., 17, and Jerome, Vir. Illustr., Luc., 7, mention that John pronounced spurious the Acts of Paul and Thecla, published at Ephesus. As Luke’s Acts of the Apostles was then current, John’s condemnation of the spurious Acts is a virtual sanction of ours as genuine; especially as Rev 3:2 assigns this office of testing the true and the false to John’s own church’ of Ephesus. The epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienna to those of Asia and Phrygia (A.D. 177) quotes it. Irenseus, Adv.

Hser., 1:31, Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., 5, and Origen, in Euseb. H. E., 6:23, attest the book. Eusebius, H.E., 3:25, ranks it among “the universally recognized Scriptures.” Its rejection by the Manicheans on purely doctrinal grounds implies its acceptance by the early church catholic. Luke never names himself. But the identity of the writer with the writer of the Gospel (Luk 1:3) is plain, and that the first person plural (Act 16:10; Act 16:17; Act 21:1; Act 21:18; Act 27:1; Act 28:16) includes the writer in the first person singular (Act 1:1). Paul’s other companions are distinguished from the writer (Act 20:4-5-6; Act 20:15). The sacred writers keep themselves in the background, so as to put forward their grand subject. The first person gives place to the third at Act 17:1, as Paul and Silas left Luke behind at Philippi. The nonmention of Luke in Paul’s epistles is due to his not having been with him at Corinth (Acts 18), whence the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written; nor at Ephesus (Acts 19), whence he wrote to the Romans; nor at Corinth again, whence he wrote to the Galatians.

The first person is not resumed until Act 20:5-6, at Philippi, the very place where the first person implies he was with Paul two years before (Acts 16); in this interval Luke probably made Philippi his head quarters. Thenceforward to the close, which leaves Paul at Rome, the first person shows Luke was his companion. Col 4:14; Phm 1:24, written there and then, declare his presence with Paul in Rome. The undesigned coincidence remarkably confirms the truth of his authorship and of the history. Just in those epistles written from places where in Acts the first person is dropped, Luke is not mentioned, but Silas and Timothy are; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 2Co 1:19 compared with Act 18:5.

But in the epistles written where we know, from Acts 28, the writer was with Paul we find Luke mentioned. Alford conjectures that as, just before Luke’s joining Paul at Troas (Act 16:10), Paul had passed through Galatia, where he was detained by sickness (Gal 4:13, Greek “Ye know that because of an infirmity of my flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first”), and Phrygia, and as the epistle to Colossae in Phrygia terms Luke “the beloved physician,” Luke became Paul’s companion owing to the weak state of the apostle’s health, and left him at Philippi when he was recovered, which would account for the warm epithet “beloved.”

In Act 21:10 Agabus is introduced as if he had never been mentioned before, which he was in Act 11:28. Probably Luke used different written sources of information, guided in the selection by the Holy spirit. This view accounts for the Hebraistic style of the earlier parts (drawn from Hebrew sources), and the Grecian style of the latter (from Luke himself). The speeches remarkably and undesignedly accord with all that is known of the speakers from other sources. Compare Peter’s speeches, Act 2:23; Act 4:11; Act 10:34, with 1Pe 1:17; 1Pe 1:19; 1Pe 2:7; Paul’s, Act 14:15-17; Act 17:24-31, with Rom 1:19-25; Rom 2:5; Rom 3:25 (Greek “the pretermission,” or passing over of sins, “winking” at them), Col 1:17; 2Th 2:4 (margin of Act 17:23 “gods worshipped,” the same Greek); Act 20:19; Act 20:31 with Phi 3:18; Act 20:32 with Eph 2:20; Act 20:24 with 2Ti 4:7; “seed according to the promise,” Act 13:23, with Rom 4:13; Gal 3:16.

The Hebraisms mostly found in the speeches, and not in the narrative, prove that the speakers’ very words are essentially though summarily given. Providence so ordered it that during Paul’s two years’ imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea, Luke his companion had the best opportunities for ascertaining the facts of the early part of his work from the brethren on the spot. At Caesarea dwelt Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven (Act 21:8), the best authority for Acts 6; 7; 8; also Cornelius the centurion, or at least some witnesses of the events (Acts 10) which initiated the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. Probably the portion Act 17:15-18;Act 17:5 was inserted by Paul himself, for he was then alone, and none but he could have supplied the facts. Moreover, in Act 17:16-21 eleven expressions foreign to Luke’s style occur, and in the speech 20 besides, some of which are found nowhere else but in Paul’s epistles.

Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given (Mat 16:19), opens it as the central figure of the first part, both to the Jews (Acts 3) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Another instrument was needed for evangelizing the world, combining the learning of both Hebrew and Greek, which the twelve had not, with the citizenship of Rome, the political mistress of the Gentile world; Paul possessed all these qualifications. A Jew by birth; educated in Hebrew divine truth at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem; in Greek literature at Tarsus, one of its most eminent schools (whence he derived his acquaintance with the writings of Aratus, a Cilician poet, his own countryman, Act 17:28, and Epimenides, Tit 1:12, and Menander, 1Co 15:33); and a Roman citizen, a privilege which would gain him influence and protect him from lawless and fanatical violence everywhere.

Hence Paul by his catholicity of qualifications and spirit (when his old pharisaism was completely eradicated by the revulsion of feeling attendant on his miraculous conversion) occupies the central place in which records the extension of the gospel to the metropolis of the world. Baumgarten remarks: “the twelve did not enter so fully into the catholic spirit of the new dispensation; a new intervention of the Lord was needed to create a new apostolate, not resting on the Israelite organization.” Three civilizations meet in the introduction of the gospel to the world: the polity of Rome, binding all nations together, securing peace, and facilitating the circulation of the gospel of peace; the intellectual and aesthetic culture of Greece, revealing man’s impotence by his own reasoning to find out God’s law, and yet preparing him for it when divinely revealed in the gospel; and the Judaic law, divinely perfect, but impotent to justify through man’s inability to keep it.

Alford rightly reasons that the date of composition must have been before the fulfillment of the prophecy, Act 27:24, “thou must be brought before Ceasar”; else Luke would have recorded it, as he does Paul’s trials before Felix and Festus. The most certain date from the New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus, is that of Porcius Festus arriving in Palestine in Felix’ room, A.D.

60. Paul therefore went to Rome A.D. 61, when Burrbus, a humane man, was captain of the guard. His successor, the cruel Tigellinus, would not have been likely to have left him “in free custody.”

Herod Agrippa’s death was A.D.

44. Therefore Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem with the contributions was about A.D. 42 (Act 11:30). 2Co 12:2 (written about A.D. 55-57) refers to this visit. “Fourteen years before” will bring us to about A.D. 41-42. The visit to Antioch, and Agabus’ prophecy fulfilled in Claudius’ reign (A.D. 41) preceded Act 11:28, namely, A.D.

40. The silence as to Paul, Act 12:1-19, shows he was not at Jerusalem then, A.D. 43-44, but just before it, A.D. 41-42. The stoning of Stephen was probably A.D. 33, Saul’s conversion A.D. 37, his first visit to Jerusalem A.D. 40, his third visit (Acts 15) fourteen years subsequently to his conversion, A.D. 51 (Gal 2:1).

After his conversion he went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, whence he escaped under Aretas (2Co 11:32); then to Jerusalem, after three years. His first visit was then A.D. 40 or 41, being succeeded by a cessation of persecution, owing to Caligula’s attempt to set up his statue in the temple. Next he was brought to Tarsus, to escape from Grecian conspirators in Jerusalem (Act 9:30; Gal 1:21). Thus only the period from A.D. 30 to A.D. 32-33 elapses between Christ’s ascension and the stoning of Stephen. All the hints in the first six chapters imply a miraculously rapid growth of Christianity, and an immediate antagonism on the part of the Jews. The only other cardinal point of time specified is in Act 18:2, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius Ceasar, A.D. 52.

No book of the New Testament has suffered more from variations of text. Probably these are due to attempts at clearing supposed difficulties, harmonizing Paul’s different accounts of his conversion, and bringing the text into exact likeness to the Gospels and Epistles. The book of Acts was so little read in the churches publicly that there was less opportunity to expunge interpolations by comparing different copies. The principal interpolations alleged are Act 8:37; Act 9:5-6; Act 24:6-8; Act 28:29.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

Acts Of The Apostles

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.The aim of this article is to answer the question, What does the Acts of the Apostles say of Christ?; otherwise expressed, How is the Book of Acts related to the gospel? or, What is the gospel of the Acts? We do not know the name of the author of the bookfor St. Luke or some other disciple of St. Paul did not compose it, but merely supplied valuable materials for its compositionbut his religious individuality may be ascertained from his work with sufficient clearness to enable us to answer the questions just stated. The problem is all the more interesting because the author can hardly have written before the end of the 1st cent., and thus cannot reckon himself among the first eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (Luk 1:2). What then is the picture of Christ that stamps itself on the heart of a man of the second generation? Has this man anything new, anything unique, to tell us of Him?

Before we go on to answer this question, we must make it clear to ourselves that our author, in what he writes, does not always speak in his own person. From the Gospel of St. Luke we know to what an extent he is depentant on sources. This may be observed and proved in particular instances by a close comparison with St. Mark and (in the case of the discourses) with St. Matthew. In the Gospel he is almost entirely a mere retailer of older tradition, and the lineaments of his own personality scarcely come into view. There can be no doubt that likewise in the Acts he largely reproduces early tradition, that he makes use of sources, sometimes copying them in full, at other times abbreviating or expanding them, grouping them and editing both their language and their contents. Modern criticism, however, has reached the conviction that in this second work more of the authors idiosyncrasy is to be detected than in his Gospel. Hence it will be necessary to make the attempt to distinguish the notions which reveal to us the educated writer of the last decade of the 1st cent. from those passages in which the rle is played by early popular tradition.

The authors personality undoubtedly shows itself more strongly in the second than in the first part of the book, but most clearly in the way in which the work is arranged in these two parts, so that the first is dominated by the person of Peter and the second by that of Paul. To him the Church rests upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (cf. Eph 2:20; Eph 3:5)not upon one Apostle, as in Mat 16:18, but upon the two great leaders, the head of the primitive Church who by a Divine dispensation was led to engage in a mission to the Gentiles, and the great Apostle of the heathen world who by Divine guidance had to turn his back on his own people and betake himself to the Gentiles. Peter and Paul is the watchword, the shibboleth of the Roman Church, as we find again in the First Epistle of Clement.

It is especially in the speeches contained in the second part of the book that the author reveals his conception of Christianity. When St. Paul discourses (Act 24:24) of the faith in Christ Jesus, the subjects of his address are given in Act 24:25 as righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. This future and not distant judgment is also the point that forms the climax of St. Pauls address at Athens (Act 17:31): He hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, and immediately thereafter, by a man whom he hath (thereto) ordained, having given him his credentials before all men by having raised him from the dead. This last is the essentially new point in contradistinction from the Jewish preaching in the Diaspora. That there is to be a judgment of the world had, indeed, been already declared, but that the Judge appointed by God over living and dead (Act 10:42) is already present in heaven (Act 3:21), has already been manifested on earth (Act 1:3, Act 10:40 f.), and accredited by God through an unprecedented miraclethis is the cardinal and significant message of the Apostles. Now, it is noteworthy how the author of the Acts gives point and practical application to this generally accepted idea. The resurrection of Jesus is the main content of the Apostolic preaching, so much so that in Act 1:22 the Apostles are roundly designated witnesses of the resurrection. In the eyes of our author it comes to this, that in the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus is implied the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in general. What St. Paul (1Co 15:12-19) seeks to prove to his readers, is to our author self-evident: the one special case implies the general. This is plainly declared in Act 4:2 they proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. So also in Act 17:18 he preached Jesus and the resurrection, and in Act 17:32 the resurrection of the dead is the point in St. Pauls address on which the Athenians fix. Before the Sanhedrin St. Paul declares: Touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question (Act 23:6); to Felix he says: I have the hope that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust (Act 24:15). The latter passage is specially important because in it the relation of Christianity to Judaism is defined to the effect that there is really no essential difference between them. St. Paul, like his accusers, serves, although after the new Way, the God of the fathers (Act 24:13); for the hope of Israel he bears his chain (Act 28:20). All Jews who believe in the resurrection ought really to be Christians. Why is it judged incredible with you if God doth raise the dead? (Act 26:8). Hence also the Pharisees, who believe in the resurrection of the dead, appear as the party favourable to Christianity; whereas the Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, are its enemies (Act 23:8). Resurrection, then, is the main theme of the new message, hence the preaching of the Apostles bears the designation words of this Life (Act 5:20). The Risen One is the Prince of Life (Act 3:15). By His resurrection and exaltation He is proved to be the Saviour (, the term best answering our authors purpose, and most intelligible to the Greeks of the time, Act 5:30 f, Act 13:23); the word is the word of salvation (Act 13:26); and the whole of the Acts of the Apostles might have this motto prefixed: In none other is there salvation, and neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved (Act 4:12). This religion is proved to be the superior of all earlier ones, superior alike to the darkness of heathendom (Act 26:18) and to Judaism, in this, that it tells of a Saviour who saves alive. The method is described in Act 10:43, Act 13:38 f, Act 26:18 as the forgiveness of sins, or, to use the designation adopted in one of St. Pauls addresses, justification (Act 13:39).

But who now is the Judge and Saviour accredited by the resurrection? It is very characteristic of our author that in those passages where for the most part it is himself that speaks, e.g. in the speeches put into the mouth of St. Paul before Agrippa or Felix or Festus (chs. 22, 23), we scarcely hear of the earthly Jesus but of the heavenly Lord. The appearance of the Exalted One near Damascus is the great matter which St. Paul has to communicate to his countrymen and to the Jewish king. It is the heavenly Lord that permeates the life of His Church and His apostles, the on whom Christians believe. This Divine name is very often applied in the Acts to God, but not infrequently also to Christ. Thus the Exalted Christ, working miracles from heaven by His name (Act 9:34), accredited by the miracle of the resurrection, and destined to come again with judgment and salvation, occupies the central point of the faith of our author.

But it would be a mistake to suppose that our author had no interest in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. As the heavenly Christ says to Saul, I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest (Act 22:8), so to the writer of the Acts the Christ and Jesus constitute an inseparable unity. He interchanges freely such expressions as proclaimed unto them the Christ (Act 8:5) and preached unto him Jesus (Act 8:35); cf. Act 5:42 to preach Christ Jesus ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 Jesus [as] the Christ), Act 9:20 proclaimed Jesus that he is the Son of God, Act 18:5 testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. And as our author in his Gospel narrative already calls Jesus Lord, it is always of the Exalted One that he thinks even when communicating what he knows of the earthly life of Jesus. More than once he defines the contents of the Apostolic preaching as the things concerning Jesus (Act 18:25) or the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 28:31), and this concise formula embraces far more than one might infer from the meagre sketches of St. Pauls address in Act 13:24-30 or St. Peters in Act 10:37-43. We must keep in mind that the first readers of the Acts, Theophilus in particular, when this work came into their hands, were already acquainted with the Third Gospel, and would thus, by means of the full details supplied in it, unconsciously clothe with meaning the brief formulae in question. Still more varied was the knowledge which our author possessed of the life of Jesus, for he was acquainted not only with St. Marks Gospel, but with other writings which he utilized merely for extracts; and how manifold may have been the oral tradition current at the same time, which he made use of in an eclectic fashion! The whole of this copious tradition we must think of as forming the background of the Acts if we are to appreciate rightly its picture of Christ.

A special charm of the Lukan writings arises from the fact that the author, with all his culture and Greek sympathies, has had the good taste to retain in large measure the peculiar, un-Greek, popular Palestinian character of his sources, and that both in language and contents. Some scholars, indeed, are of opinion that he himself deliberately produced the colouring appropriate to place and time, as in the case of an artificial patina. But this view is untenable. The more thoroughly the Third Gospel and the Acts are examined, the deeper becomes the conviction that the author worked upon a very ancient tradition which he has preserved in his own style. As in the early narratives of his Gospel he preserves almost unimpaired the colouring and tone of Jewish-Christian piety without any admixture of Graeco-Gentile-Christian elements, so also in the Acts, especially in the first part of the book, he has succeeded in presenting the original picture of the religious conceptions and the piety of the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. We are far from believing that everything here related is historical in the strict sense. For instance, it is in the highest degree improbable that the actual speeches of St. Peter have been preserved verbatim; all we assert is that these chapters are a true representation of the spirit of early Jewish Christianity. Very specially is this the case with the Christology. For such a doctrine of Christ as is represented by the Petrine discourses was scarcely to be found in the Church after the time of St. Paul and at the time when the Fourth Gospel was written. After the kenosis doctrine of St. Paul had been propounded, and then, as its counterpart, the Johannine picture of Christ, in which also the earthly Jesus wears the form of God, had taken hold of mens minds, a Christology such as the first part of the Acts exhibits could not have been devised. But we are grateful to the author for having preserved to us a picture of that earliest mode of thought. Let us examine its main features.

We may use as a collateral witness the words of the disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luk 24:19), for it is a mere accident, so to speak, that this story is found in the Gospel and not in the Acts: Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet ( ), mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. So also He is described by St. Peter: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you (Act 2:22). The peculiarity of this last statement is that the wonders and signs are not attributed to Jesus Himself: God wrought them through Him; He was simply Gods organ or instrument. The same thing is expressed in another passage (Act 10:38), where it is declared that in His going about and in His deeds God was with Him. In both instances the conception comes out clearly that Jesus was a man chosen and specially favoured of God. There is not a word in all these discourses of a Divine birth, no word of a coming down from heaven or of a Son of God in a physical or supernatural sense. On the contrary, Jesus is called more than once the Servant of God (Act 3:13; Act 3:26, Act 4:27). This designation suggests a prophet, and as a matter of fact Jesus is directly characterized as a prophet when in Act 4:22 the words of Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18 f. are applied to Him. At the same time He is no ordinary prophet, but the prophet like unto Moses; He is the second Moses predicted by Moses himself.

But it may be asked, Was Jesus then nothing more than this to the earliest disciples, was He not to them the Messiah? In a certain senseyes, and in another senseno. Certainly He had received the kingly anointing (Act 10:38); but, as David was anointed long before he received the kingdom, so Jesus was from the time of His baptism a king, indeed, but a secret one with an invisible crown. The primitive Jewish-Christian Church was far from saying: Jesus of Nazareth, as He journeyed through the land teaching and healing, was the Messiah; no, He was then merely the One destined for lordship. It was only at a later period that He received the crown, namely at His resurrection and exaltation. Here comes into view the saying of St. Peter in Act 2:36, which is a gem to the historian of primitive Christianity: This Jesus hath God made both Lord and Christ, namely by exalting Him to His right hand (Act 2:33) and thereby fulfilling the words of Psa 110:1 Sit thou at my right hand. The exaltation of Jesus marks His ascension of the throne; now He has become in reality what since His baptism He was in claim and anticipationthe Anointed. Now for the first time the name Lord is fully appropriate to Him. This is the principal extant proof passage for the earliest Christology. It reveals to us the conceptions of the primitive Church, which, as a matter of fact, still underlie the teaching even of St. Paul. For, in spite of his advanced speculations on the subject of Christ, in spite of his doctrine of pre-existence and his cosmological Christology, the Apostle holds fast in Rom 1:4 and Php 2:9 to the notion that Jesus became Son of God in power through His resurrection from the dead, and was invested with the title Lord at His exaltation. To the same effect St. Paul in Act 13:33 applies the words of Psa 2:7 (Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee) not to the birth nor to the baptism of Jesus, but to the day of His resurrection and exaltation. With this fundamental passage corresponds another. When in Act 3:19 f., speaking of the future, it is said that there may come the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus, this assumes that Jesus has not yet made His appearance as Messiah; in that capacity He belongs to the future; there is not a word of coming again or of a second sending. Such is the earliest primitive Christian conception, and it is this alone which is in harmony with the preaching and the self-estimate of Jesus when these are rightly understood.

But what now are the contents and the significance of the life-work of Jesus? Thoroughly in harmony with important words of Jesus, Act 10:36 replies: He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil. Just as the Third Gospel delights to represent the work of Jesus as a conflict with the devil, the brief formula we have quoted reproduces accurately the contents of His life work. Along with this, indeed, should be taken also Act 3:26 God sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from your iniquities. He was the Holy and Righteous One (Act 3:14), or, absolutely, the Righteous One (Act 7:52). The latter expression is chosen no doubt in order to emphasize His innocence in His sufferings and death, but it is certainly not contrary to the spirit of the Acts to find in it the testimony that it was He that was called to break the sway of sin in the world. Less clear is Act 10:36, according to which God caused peace to be preached by Jesus to the children Israel, a form of expression which recalls Eph 2:17, and in its abrupt conciseness no doubt reflects the conceptions of the author more than those of the early Church.

This brings us to the question, What view, judging from the evidence of the Acts, did the early Church take of the death of Christ? Repeatedly in the addresses of St. Peter it is urged upon opponents that this Jesus, the Holy and Righteous One, was put to death by the Jews (Act 2:23, Act 3:13, Act 4:10;Act 4:25 ff., Act 5:28 ff., Act 7:52, Act 10:39, Act 13:28), by the hands of wicked men (Act 2:23), although Pilate was prepared to acquit Him (Act 3:13). In all these instances, as was fitting in addresses meant to lead the hearers to conviction and repentance, the innocence of Jesus is emphasised as a point to awaken conscience, not as an element in a doctrine of the atoning death of Christ. Such an element is entirely lacking in these chapters, for in the passage from Isaiah 53 about the Suffering Servant, which Philip expounded to the Ethiopian ennuch, it is precisely the expressions about bearing our sins that are wanting. The early theology of the death of Christ confines itself entirely to the point that this event was in no way contrary to Gods saving purpose; on the contrary, it had long been foreseen (Act 2:23, Act 3:18, Act 4:28, Act 13:29). Hence the copious Scripture proofs, which, however, deal more with the resurrection than with the sufferings and death (Act 2:25 ff., Act 2:34 f, Act 4:11; Act 4:25 f, Act 8:32 f, Act 13:33 ff.).

The resurrection is not in these passages, as with St. Paul, regarded as a clothing of the Risen One with a glorified body, but as the revivification, or, to put it better, the conservation of the very same body of flesh which was laid in the grave. The principle that governs the conception is found in Psa 16:10 (quoted in Act 2:27), Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. For, if Christ did descend to Hades, He was not given over to its power (Act 2:31), God having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it (Act 2:24), nor did his flesh see corruption (Act 2:31). This is the essential point, that the same body which was laid in the grave was that which rose again. For this reason, as in St. Lukes Gospel (Luk 24:39-43), such emphasis is laid upon the eating and drinking of the Risen One (Luk 10:41); hence also the forty days intercourse with the disciples (Luk 1:3). Jesus, in short, actually returned again to earth in complete corporeality; hence the necessity, at the end of the forty days, of yet another special miracle, that of the Ascension (Luk 1:8). Like Moses or Elijah, He is carried up by a cloud, as He still walks on earth and still belongs to earth. This tradition says nothing about the necessary change whereby this fleshly body that rose from the grave was transformed into the glorified heavenly body that appeared to Saul of Tarsus in kingly splendour. We have here before us the popular view of the Resurrection in its crudest form. That an author whose ideas otherwise are cast in such a Greek mould should reproduce it, shows that the popular conceptions cannot have been so strange to him as we should have supposed. Conceptions which our intelligence thinks it necessary to separate, and which a St. Paul did separate, appear to have found a place in the same mind side by side.

We owe a special debt of gratitude to the author of the Acts for having drawn for us several pictures illustrating the prominent part played in the early Church by the Spirit and the Name of the exalted Christ. The Spirit sent by the latter is the proof of His exaltation and Messiahship (Act 2:33-36). This is the culminating point of St. Peters Pentecostal address (Act 2:14-36), whose order of thought forms a very interesting study for the historian of primitive Christianity. This proof is addressed primarily to the house of Israel (Act 2:36). The Jews have not, indeed, seen the Risen One (Act 10:41), but for that very reason His exaltation is designed as a final means of leading Israel to repentance (Act 5:31), for the coming of the era of salvation is bound up with this repentance (Act 3:19 f.). Through this Spirit the exalted Lord is ever present with His own; He imparts power and success to the words of the Apostles (Act 2:37, Act 5:33, Act 6:5); and miracles are wrought by the power of God (Act 6:8). It is noteworthy, however, that it is only rarely that the Spirit of God is introduced in this connexion; far more frequently it is the Name of Christ that, like a present representative of the Lord, works miracles (Act 3:16, Act 4:30). Specially instructive are Act 9:34 where the pronouncing of the Name effects healing, and Act 19:13 where the use of the Name is resorted to even by unbelievers.

Literature.Johannes Weiss, Absicht u. literar. Charakter der Apostelgeschichte; Weizscker, Apostolic Age; Pfleiderer, Urchristentum; McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostol. Age; Hort, Judaistic Christianity; Chase, Credibility of Acts; Expositor, iv. iv. [1891] 178ff.

J. Weiss.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Acts Of The Apostles

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

1. Summary of contents.The fifth book of our NT gives the history of the Church from the Ascension till c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history (Acts of Peter and Acts of the Hellenists), and the other the life of St. Paul (Acts of Paul) from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at Act 13:1, from which point forwards the Pauline journeys are described by one who for a considerable part of them was a fellow-traveller. The parallelism between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tbingen school to betray a fictitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equality of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the parallelism shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose.

2. Unity of authorship.From Act 16:10 onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays his presence as a fellow-traveller by using the pronoun we. It is generally conceded that these we sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated in his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces of four strata, and assert that it is a compilation of the same nature as the Pentateuch, the Book of Enoch, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent. compiler, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences of style (as we do in Apost. Const.), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary ability, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun we if he was a late writer copying a 1st cent. source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to him; his interests are those of the 1st, not of the 2nd century ( 8). Further, the Third Gospel is clearly, from identity of style and the express claim in Act 1:1 (cf. Luk 1:3), by our author, and yet the Gospel is now generally admitted to have been written by c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 80. Thus we may, with Harnack, dismiss the compilation theory.

3. The author.Internal evidence, if the unity of authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names of the Apostles companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that all but four must be excluded, whether as having joined him after his arrival at Rome (for the author made the voyage with him, Act 27:1), or as being mentioned in Acts in a manner inconsistent with authorship (so, e.g., Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, Trophimus must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman Christians and recent friends. Two of the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no specially intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for 2Ti 4:10 f. we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence ( 4) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. passim), but perhaps Lukes silence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. Exp. T. XVIII. [1907] 285, 335, 380.

The author was a Gentile, not a Jew (Col 4:10 f., Col 4:14), a conclusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us ( 8; see also Act 1:19 in their language). He was a physician (Col 4:14), and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens, where he seems quite at home though not present at the Athenian scenes he describes (Act 17:16 ff.). His native country is disputed. A Preface to Luke, thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was by nation a Syrian of Antioch; and Eusebius (HE iii. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, according to birth, of those from Antioch; while later writers like Jerome follow Eusebius. Certainly we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian Antioch is mentioned in Acts. Some (Rackham, Rendall) conjecture that Pisidian Antioch is really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the we sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a Macedonian of Philippi, since he took so great an interest in the claims of that colony (Act 16:12). Indeed, Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 202 ff.) propounds the ingenious conjecture that Luke, having met Paul at Troas accidentally (Act 16:10; it could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there), was the certain man of Macedonia who appeared in the vision (Act 16:9); it must have been some one whom the Apostle knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that against his having been a native of Philippi are the facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with Lydia (Act 16:15), and that he only supposed that there was a Jewish place of prayer at Philippi (Act 16:13 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by his having been left in charge of the Church there (Act 17:1, Act 20:5; in the interval between St. Pauls leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun they is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [Act 27:2 is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a Gentile not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese barbarians (Act 28:2), i.e. non-Greek speaking, and in many other ways.

4. Patristic testimony.There are probable references to Acts in Clement of Rome (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 95), who seems to refer to Act 13:22, Act 20:35 etc.; and in Ignatius (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4:41; also in Poly carp (c [Note: circa, about.] . 111); almost certainly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end of the 2nd cent. in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenus, all of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorian Fragment (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them of the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter.

5. Style.The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (Act 11:28, Act 24:27; cf. Luk 3:1), yet the writer often uses vague phrases like after some days, which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events of the years spent by St. Paul in Tarsus (Act 9:30), probably as being years of education in which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through Cyprus (Act 13:6), though much work must have been done among the Jews then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with Sergius Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, e.g. Act 13:8 (no reason given for Elymas opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), Act 13:13 (the reason for Marks departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and Barnabas going to Pisidian Antioch), Act 16:35 (no reason given for the Philippi prtors change of attitude), Act 17:15 (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from 1Th 3:1 we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at Athens and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in Act 18:5 to Corinth), Act 20:16 (not stated that they arrived in time for Pentecost, but it must be understood), Act 27:43 (it must be inferred that the injunction was obeyed).

6. Crises in the history.These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a proselyte of righteousness, i.e. a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode of Cornelius (who was only a proselyte of the gate, or God-fearing, one who was brought into relation with the Jews by obeying certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those of Act 15:29, but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas]; this means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the first meeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman official in the person of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, the initial step in the great plan of St. Paul to make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (see 7; henceforward the author calls Saul of Tarsus by his Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the Council of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especially the association for the first time with the author ( 3); the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallios action paved the way for the appeal to Csar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis is probably hinted at, the acquittal of St. Paul; for even if the book were written before that took place ( 9), the release must have become fairly obvious to all towards the end of the two years sojourn at Rome (cf. Php 2:24).

7. Missionary plan of St. Paul.(a) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews first; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, Act 13:5; Act 13:14, Act 14:1, Act 16:13 (no synagogue at Philippi, only a place of prayer) Act 17:1 f. (the words as his custom was are decisive) Act 17:10; Act 17:16 f., Act 18:4; Act 18:8; Act 18:19, Act 19:8 f., Act 28:17; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it is not expressly mentioned, Act 14:7; Act 14:21; Act 14:25, or the Jews may have been weak and without a synagogue in those places.(b) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. He was justifiably proud of his Roman citizenship (Act 16:37, Act 22:25 ff. etc.; cf. Php 1:27 [RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ] Act 3:20, Eph 2:19). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the idea of Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary journeys he confines himself (if the South Galatian theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic in the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread Christian influence, just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civilization in the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek; they clearly did not know Lycaonian (cf. Act 14:11 with Act 14:14). The Scriptures were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age.

Following the same idea, the author represents the Roman officials in the colonies as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek cities. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates at Iconium and Thessalonica who were active against him, or of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens who were contemptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Pisidian Antioch and Lystra, or the explicit statements about Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Claudius Lysias and Julius the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prtors at Philippi ended by apologizing profusely when they discovered Pauls status.

8. The writers interests.It is interesting to observe these, as they will lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an inquiry for the detection of a forgery or of a compilation. The principal interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St. Pauls dealings with Roman officials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect from the beloved physician; and the rival science of sorcery; the position and influence of women (Act 1:14, Act 8:3; Act 8:12, Act 9:2, Act 13:50, Act 16:14, Act 17:4; Act 17:12; Act 17:34, Act 21:5; Act 21:9, Act 22:4 etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in Greece proper); the organization of the Church (Act 2:41 ff., Act 4:31 ff., Act 6:1 ff., Act 8:5 ff., Act 15:2 ff., Act 19:1 ff. etc.); Divine intervention to overrule human projects (note especially the remarkable way in which St. Paul was led to Troas, Act 16:6-8); and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional sailor. He describes the drifting in Act 27:27 as a zigzag course when it must have been straight; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from that on which they had passed it going eastward (Act 27:4, Act 21:3), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writers interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler; e.g. the view of the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitianor even (we may add) after that of Nero.

9. Date.From the reasoning of 2, 8 (see also 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, Act 28:30 f. (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 7080 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke).(a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lords brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peters death in Joh 21:19), or to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from Ecclesiastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Csar. He could hardly have known that the Apostles expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left Act 20:38 without remark [but see Paul, i. 4 (d)]. The optimistic tone ( 8), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were written; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence.(b) For the later date, a.d. 7080, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. Act 1:1, properly first treatise, not former; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. 1Co 13:13 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). It is also thought that Luk 21:20 must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable.

10. Sources.The author had exceptional opportunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to Cyprus (Act 12:1 to Act 13:13). For the Acts of the Hellenists (chs. 68) and for the Cornelius episode he would have Philip the Evangelist as an authority, for he spent two years at Csarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) information about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Luk 1:1, though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark; this is pure conjecture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic.

11. The Bezan codex.This great Uncial MS (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , now at Cambridge), supported by some MSS of the Old Latin Version, presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great Greek MSS, and has also many additions, especially in Acts. Dr. Blass theory is that the variations in Acts come from Lukes having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D [Note: Deuteronomist.] are interpolations. He thinks that the Bezan Acts represents the first draft, the Bezan Luke the second draft. But the Bezan text of Acts is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent. by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful.In Act 11:28 this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting we, makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied.

12. Accuracy of Acts.This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (a) the proconsul in Cyprus (Act 13:7), which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governedotherwise the governor would have been a proprtor. An inscription in Cyprus is dated in the proconsulship of Paulus. (b) So the proconsul in Achaia (Act 18:12); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a proprtor and then united, a few years before St. Pauls visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul. (c) The first men at Pisidian Antioch (Act 13:50), i.e. the Duumviri and the First Ten. This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. (d) The first man in Malta (Act 28:7) and (e) the politarchs (rulers of the city) at Thessalonica (Act 17:6; probably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions. (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (Act 17:19), which really ruled the city,though it was a free city,as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority. (g) The Asiarchs at Ephesus (Act 19:31 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ), the presidents of the Common Council of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Rev 2:13; Rev 13:15 etc. No 2nd cent. author could have written thus. (h) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course.Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the South Galatian theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contemporary record.

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Acts of the Apostles

a-posls:

I.Title

II.Text

III.Unity of the Book

IV.The Author

V.Canonicity

VI.Date

VII.Sources Used by Luke

VIII.The Speeches in the Acts

IX.Relation of Acts to the Epistles

X.Chronology of Acts

XI.Historical Worth of Acts

XII.Purpose of the Book

XIII.Analysis

Literature

I. Title

It is possible, indeed probable, that the book originally had no title. The manuscripts give the title in several forms. Aleph (in the inscription) has merely Acts (Praxeis). So Tischendorf, while Origen, Didymus, Eusebius quote from The Acts. But BD Aleph (in subscription) have Acts of Apostles or The Acts of the Apostles (Praxeis Apostolon). So Westcott and Hort, Nestle (compare Athanasius and Euthalius). Only slightly different is the title in 31, 61, and many other cursives (Praxeis ton Apostolon, Acts of the Apostles). So Griesbach, Scholz. Several fathers (Clement of Alex, Origen, Dionysius of Alex, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom) quote it as The Acts of the Apostles (Hai Praxeis ton Apostolon). Finally A2 EGH give it in the form Acts of the Holy Apostles (Praxes ton Hagion Apostolon). The Memphitic version has The Acts of the Holy Apostles. Clearly, then, there was no single title that commanded general acceptance.

II. Text

(1) The chief documents. These are the Primary Uncials (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae), Codex Laudianus (E) which is a bilingual Uncial confined to Acts, later Uncials like Codex Modena, Codex Regius, Codex the Priestly Code (P), the Cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Harclean Syriac and quotations from the Fathers. We miss the Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus, and have only fragmentary testimony from the Old Latin.

(2) The modern editions of Acts present the types of text (Textus Receptus; the Revised Version (British and American); the critical text like that of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek or Nestle or Weiss or von Soden). These three types do not correspond with the four classes of text (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, Neutral) outlined by Hort in his Introduction to the New Testament in Greek (1882). These four classes are broadly represented in the documents which give us Acts. But no modern editor of the Greek New Testament has given us the Western or the Alexandrian type of text, though Bornemann, as will presently be shown, argues for the originality of the Western type in Acts. But the Textus Receptus of the New Testament (Stephanus’ 3rd edition in 1550) was the basis of the King James Version of 1611. This edition of the Greek New Testament made use of a very few manuscripts, and all of them late, except Codex Bezae, which was considered too eccentric to follow. Practically, then, the King James Version represents the Syriac type of text which may have been edited in Antioch in the 4th century. Various minor errors may have crept in since that date, but substantially the Syriac recension is the text of the King James Version today. Where this text stands alone, it is held by nearly all modern scholars to be in error, though Dean Burgon fought hard for the originality of the Syriac text (The Revision Revised, 1882). The text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is practically that of Codex Vaticanus, which is held to be the Neutral type of text. Nestle, von Soden, Weiss do not differ greatly from the text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, though von Soden and Weiss attack the problem on independent lines. The text of the Revised Version (British and American) is in a sense a compromise between that of the King James Version and the critical text, though coming pretty close to the critical text. Compare Whitney, The Reviser’s Greek Text, 1892. For a present-day appreciation of this battle of the texts see J. Rendel Harris, Side Lights on the New Testament, 1908. For a detailed comparison between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Acts see Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, xxii.

(3) In Acts the Western type of text has its chief significance. It is the meet of the late Friedrich Blass, the famous classicist of Germany, to have shown that in Luke’s writings (Gospel and Acts) the Western class (especially D) has its most marked characteristics. This fact is entirely independent of theory advanced by Blass which will be cussed directly. The chief modern revolt against theories of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is the new interest felt in the value of the Western type of text. In particular Codex Bezae has come to the front in the Book of Acts. The feeble support that Codex Bezae has in its peculiar readings in Acts (due to absence of Curetonian Syriac and of the Old Latin) makes it difficult always to estimate the value of this document. But certainly these readings deserve careful consideration, and some of them may be correct, whatever view one holds of the Codex Bezae text. The chief variations are, as is usual with the Western text, additions and paraphrases. Some of the prejudice against Codex Bezae has disappeared as a result of modern discussion.

(4) Bornemann in 1848 argued that Codex Bezae in Acts represented the original text. But he has had very few followers.

(5) J. Rendel Harris (1891) sought to show that Codex Bezae (itself a bilingual MS) had been Latinized. He argued that already in 150 ad a bilingual manuscript existed. But this theory has not won a strong following.

(6) Chase (1893) sought to show that the peculiarities were due to translation from the Syriac

(7) Blass in 1895 created a sensation by arguing in his Commentary on Acts (Acta Apostolorum, 24ff) that Luke had issued two editions of the Acts, as he later urged about the Gospel of Luke (Philology of the Gospels, 1898). In 1896 Blass published this Roman form of the text of Acts (Acta Apostolorum, secundum Formam quae videtur Romanam). Blass calls this first, rough, unabridged copy of Acts b and considers that it was issued at Rome. The later edition, abridged and revised, he calls alpha. Curiously enough, in Act 11:28, Codex Bezae has when we had gathered together, making Luke present at Antioch. The idea of two editions is not wholly original with Blass. Leclerc, a Dutch philologist, had suggested the notion as early as the beginning of the 18th century. Bishop Lightfoot had also mentioned it (On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, 29). But Blass worked the matter out and challenged the world of scholarship with his array of arguments. He has not carried his point with all, though he has won a respectable following. Zahn (Einl, II, 338ff, 1899) had already been working toward the same view (348). He accepts in the main Blass’ theory, as do Belser, Nestle, Salmon, Zckler. Blass acknowledges his debt to Corssen (Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum, 1892), but Corssen considers the a text as the earlier and the b text as a later revision.

(8) Hilgenfeld (Acta Apostolorum, etc., 1899) accepts the notion of two edd, but denies identity of authorship.

(9) Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) vigorously and at much length attacks Blass’ position, else the conclusions reached in the foregoing sections would have to be withdrawn. He draws his conclusions and then demolishes Blass! He does find weak spots in Blass’ armor as others have done (B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, 1897; Page, Class. Rev., 1897; Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, 45). See also Knowling, The Acts of the Apostles, 1900, 47, for a sharp indictment of Blass’ theory as being too simple and lacking verification.

(10) Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 48) doubts if Luke himself formally published the book. He thinks that he probably did not give the book a final revision, and that friends issued two or more editions He considers that the so-called b recension has a series of interpolations and so is later than the a text.

(11) Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, 150; St. Paul the Traveler, 27; The Expositor, 1895) considers the b text to be a 2nd-century revision by a copyist who has preserved some very valuable 2nd-century testimony to the text.

(12) Headlam (HDB) does not believe that the problem has as yet been scientifically attacked, but that the solution lies in the textual license of scribes of the Western type (compare Hort, Introduction, 122ff). But Headlam is still shy of Western readings. The fact is that the Western readings are sometimes correct as against the Neutral (compare Mat 27:49). It is not necessary in Act 11:20 to say that Hellenas is in Western authorities (AD, etc.) but is not a Western reading. It is at any rate too soon to say the final word about the text of Acts, though on the whole the a text still holds the field as against the btext. The Syriac text is, of course, later, and out of court.

III. Unity of the Book

It is not easy to discuss this question, apart from that of authorship. But they are not exactly the same. One may be convinced of the unity of the book and yet not credit it to Luke, or, indeed, to anyone in the 1st century. Of course, if Luke is admitted to be the author of the book, the whole matter is simplified. His hand is in it all whatever sources he used. If Luke is not the author, there may still have been a competent historian at work, or the book may be a mere compilation. The first step, therefore, is to attack the problem of unity. Holtzmann (Einl, 383) holds Luke to be the author of the we sections only. Schmiedel denies that the Acts is written by a companion of Paul, though it is by the same author as the Gospel bearing Luke’s name. In 1845 Schleiermacher credited the we sections to Timothy, not to Luke. For a good sketch of theories of sources, see Knowling on Acts, 25ff. Van Manen (1890) resolved the book into two parts, Acta Petri and Acta Pauli, combined by a redactor. Sorof (1890) ascribes one source to Luke, one to Timothy. Spitta also has two sources (a Pauline-Lukan and a Jewish-Christian) worked over by a redactor. Clemen (1905) has four sources (History of the Hellenists, History of Peter, History of Paul, and a Journey of Paul), all worked over by a series of editors. Hilgenfeld (1895) has three sources (Acts of Peter, Acts of the Seven, Acts of Paul). Jungst (1895) has a Pauline source and a Petrine source J. Weiss (1893) admits sources, but claims that the book has unity and a definite aim. B. Weiss (1902) conceives an early source for the first part of the book. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, 41 f) has small patience with all this blind criticism: With them the book passes as a comparatively late patchwork compilation, in which the part taken by the editor is insignificant yet in all cases detrimental; the ‘we’ sections are not the property of the author, but an extract from a source, or even a literary fiction. He charges the critics with airy conceit and lofty contempt. Harnack has done a very great service in carefully sifting the matter in his Luke the Physician (1907). He gives detailed proof that the we sections are in the same style and by the same author as the rest of the book (26-120). Harnack does not claim originality in this line of argument: It has been often stated and often proved that the ‘we’ sections in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style are most intimately bound up with the whole work, and that this work itself including the Gospel), in spite of all diversity in its parts, is distinguished by a grand unity of literary form (Luke the Physician, 26). He refers to the splendid demonstration of this unity by Klostermann (Vindiciae Lucanae, 1866), to B. Weiss, who, in his commentary (1893, 2 Aufl, 1902) has done the best work in demonstrating the literary unity of the whole work, to the admirable contributions of Vogel (Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, etc., 2 Aufl, 1899) to the yet more careful and minute investigations of Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, 1899, 2nd edition, 1909), to the work of Hobart (The Medical Language of Luke, 1882), who has proved only too much (Luke the Physician, 175), but the evidence is of overwhelming force (198). Harnack only claims for himself that he has done the work in more detail and with more minute accuracy without claiming too much (27). But the conversion of Harnack to this view of Acts is extremely significant. It ought not to be necessary any more to refute the partition theories of the book, or to set forth in detail the proofs for the unity of the book. Perhaps the compilation theory of Acts is nowhere set forth more cogently than in McGiffert’s The Apostolic Age (1897). See a powerful refutation of his argument by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies (1906, 302-21). I think his clever argumentation is sophistical (305). Harnack is fully aware that he has gone over to the rode of Ramsay, Weiss and Zahn: The results at which I have arrived not only approach very nearly to, but are often coincident with, the results of their research (The Acts of the Apostles, 302). He is afraid that if these scholars failed to get the ear of critics there is little prospect of claiming the attention of critics and compelling them to reconsider their position. But he has the advantage of coming to this conclusion from the other side. Moreover, if Harnack was won by the force of the facts, others may be. This brief sketch of Harnack’s experience may take the place of detailed presentation of the arguments for the unity of the book. Harnack sets forth in great wealth of detail the characteristic idioms of the we sections side by side with parallels in other parts of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. The same man wrote the rest of Acts who wrote the we sections. This fact should now be acknowledged as proven. This does not mean that the writer, a personal witness in the we sections, had no sources for the other parts of Acts. This aspect of the matter will be considered a little later.

IV. The Author

Assuming the unity of the book, the argument runs as follows: The author was a companion of Paul. The we sections prove that (Act 16:10-17; Act 20:6-16; 21; 27; 28). These sections have the fullness of detail and vivid description natural to an eye-witness. This companion was with Paul in the second missionary journey at Troas and at Philippi, joined Paul’s party again at Philippi on the return to Jerusalem during the third tour, and probably remained with Paul till he went to Rome. Some of Paul’s companions came to him at Rome: others are so described in the book as to preclude authorship. Aristarchus, Aquila and Priscilla, Erastus, Gaius, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Trophimus, Tychicus and others more or less insignificant from the point of view of connection with Paul (like Crescens, Demas, Justus, Linus, Pudens, Sopater, etc.) are easily eliminated. Curiously enough Luke and Titus are not mentioned in Acts by name at all. They are distinct persons as is stated in 2Ti 4:10. Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem at the conference (Gal 2:1) and was his special envoy to Corinth during the time of trouble there. (2Co 2:12; 2Co 12:18.) He was later with Paul in Crete (Tit 1:5). But the absence of mention of Titus in Acts may be due to the fact that he was a brother of Luke (compare 2Co 8:18; 2Co 12:18). So A. Souter in DCG, article Luke. If Luke is the author, it is easy to understand why his name does not appear. If Titus is his brother, the same explanation occurs. As between Luke and Titus the medical language of Acts argues for Luke. The writer was a physician. This fact Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882) has demonstrated. Compare Zahn, Einl, 2, 435ff; Harnack’s Luke the Physician, 177ff. The arguments from the use of medical terms are not all of equal weight. But the style is colored at points by the language of a physician. The writer uses medical terms in a technical sense. This argument involves a minute comparison with the writings of physicians of the time. Thus in Act 28:3 kathapto, according to Hobart (288), is used in the sense of poisonous matter invading the body, as in Dioscorides, Animal. Ven. Proem. So Galen, De Typis 4 (VII, 467), uses it of fever fixing on parts of the body. Compare Harnack, Luke the Physician, 177 f. Harnack agrees also that the terms of the diagnosis in Act 28:8 are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature (ibid., 176 f). Hobart has overdone his argument and adduced many examples that are not pertinent, but a real residuum remains, according to Harnack. Then pmprasthai is a technical term for swelling. Let these serve as examples. The interest of the writer in matters of disease is also another indication, compare Luk 8:43. Now Luke was a companion of Paul during his later ministry and was a physician. (Col 4:14). Hence, he fulfils all the requirements of the case. The argument thus far is only probable, it is true; but there is to be added the undoubted fact that the same writer wrote both Gospel and Acts (Act 1:1). The direct allusion to the Gospel is reinforced by identity of style and method in the two books. The external evidence is clear on the matter. Both Gospel and Acts are credited to Luke the physician. The Muratorian canon ascribes Acts to Luke. By the end of the 2nd century the authority of the Acts is as well established as that of the Gospel (Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1885, 366). Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, all call Luke the author of the book. The argument is complete. It is still further strengthened by the fact that the point of view of the book is Pauline and by the absence of references to Paul’s epistles. If one not Paul’s companion had written Acts, he would certainly have made some use of them. Incidentally, also, this is an argument for the early date of the Acts. The proof that has won Harnack, the leader of the left in Germany, to the acknowledgment of the Lukan authorship of Acts ought to win all to this position.

V. Canonicity

The use of the Acts does not appear so early or so frequently as is true of the gospels and the Pauline epistles. The reason obvious. The epistles had a special field and the gospels appealed to all. Only gradually would Acts circulate. At first we find literary allusions without the name of book or author. But Holtzmann (Einl, 1892, 406) admits the use of Acts by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp. The use of the Gospel according to Luke by Tatian and Marcion really revolves knowledge of the Acts. But in Irenaeus frequently (Adv. Haer., i. 23, 1, etc.) the Acts is credited to Luke and regarded as Scripture. The Canon of Muratori list it as Scripture. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria attribute the book to Luke and treat it as Scripture. By the times of Eusebius the book is generally acknowledged as part of the canon. Certain of the heretical parties reject it (like the Ebionites, Marcionites, Manicheans). But by this time the Christians had come to lay stress on history (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 184), and the place of Acts is now secure in the canon.

VI. Date

1. Luke’s Relations to Josephus

The acceptance of the Lukan authorship settles the question of some of the dates presented by critics. Schmiedel places the date of Acts between 105 and 130 ad (Encyclopedia Biblica). He assumes as proven that Luke made use of the writings of Josephus. It has never been possible to take with much seriousness the claim that the Acts shows acquaintance with Josephus. See Keim, Geschichte Jesu, III, 1872, 134, and Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, 1894, for the arguments in favor of that position. The words quoted to prove it are in the main untechnical words of common use. The only serious matter is the mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Act 5:36 and Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1 f). In Josephus the names occur some twenty lines apart and the resemblance is only slight indeed. The use of petho in connection with Theudas and apostesai concerning Judas is all that requires notice. Surely, then, two common words for persuade and revolt are not enough to carry conviction of the writer’s use of Josephus. The matter is more than offset by the differences in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa (Act 12:19-23; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 7, XIX, viii, 2). The argument about Josephus may be definitely dismissed from the field. With that goes all the ground for a 2nd-century date. Other arguments have been adduced (see Holtzmann, Einl, 1892, 405) such as the use of Paul’s epistles, acquaintance with Plutarch, Arrian and Pausanias, because of imitation in method of work (i.e. parallel lives of Peter and Paul, periods of history, etc.), correction of Gal in Acts (for instance, Gal 1:17-24 and Act 9:26-30; Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-33). The parallel with Plutarch is fanciful, while the use of Panl’s epistles is by no means clear, the absence of such use, indeed, being one of the characteristics of the book. The variation from Galatians is far better explained on the assumption that Luke had not seen the epistles.

2. 80 ad Is the Limit if the Book Is to Be Credited to Luke

The majority of modern critics who accept the Lukan authorship place it between 70 and 80 ad. So Harnack, Lechler, Meyer, Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn. This opinion rests mainly on the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. It is claimed that Luk 21:20 shows that this tragedy had already occurred, as compared with Mar 13:14 and Mat 24:15. But the mention of armies is very general, to be sure. Attention is called also to the absence of the warning in Luke. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 291 f) admits that the arguments in favor of the date 70 to 80 are by no means conclusive. He writes to warn critics against a too hasty closing of the chronological question. In his new book (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, etc., 1911, S. 81) Harnack definitely accepts the date before the destruction of Jerusalem. Lightfoot would give no date to Acts because of the uncertainty about the date of the Gospel.

3. Before 70 Ad

This date is supported by Blass, Headlam, Maclean, Rackham, Salmon. Harhack, indeed, considers that very weighty considerations argue for the early date. He, as already stated, now takes his stand for the early date. It obviously the simplest way to understand Luke’s close of the Acts to be due to the fact that Paul was still in prison. Harnack contends that the efforts to explain away this situation are not quite satisfactory or very illuminating. He does not mention Paul’s death because he was still alive. The dramatic purpose to bring Paul to Rome is artificial. The supposition of a third book from the use of proton in Act 1:1 is quite gratuitous, since in the Koine, not to say the earlier Greek, first was often used when only two were mentioned (compare our first story and second story, first wife and second wife). The whole tone of the book is that which one would naturally have before 64 ad. After the burning of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem the attitude maintained in the book toward Romans and Jews would have been very difficult unless the date was a long times afterward Harnack wishes to help a doubt to its lust dues. That doubt of Harnack is destined to become the certainty of the future. (Since this sentence was written Harnack has settled his own doubt.) The book will, I think, be finally credited to the time 63 ad in Rome. The Gospel of Luke will then naturally belong to the period of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea. The judgment of Moffatt (Historical New Testament, 1901, 416) that it cannot be earlier than 80 ad is completely upset by the powerful attack of Harnack on his own previous position. See also Moffatt’s Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911) and Koch’s Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes (1911).

VII. Sources Used by Luke

If we now assume that Luke is the author of the Acts, the question remains as to the character of the sources used by him. One is at liberty to appeal to Luk 1:1-4 for the general method of the author. He used both oral and written sources. In the Acts the matter is somewhat simplified by the fact that Luke was the companion of Paul for a considerable part of the narrative (the we sections, Act 16:11-17; Act 20:5; Act 21:18; 27 and 28). It is more than probable that Luke was with Paul also during his last stay in Jerusalem and during the imprisonment at Caesarea. There is no reason to think that Luke suddenly left Paul in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea only when he started to Rome (Act 27:1). The absence of we is natural here, since it is not a narrative of travel, but a sketch of Paul’s arrest and series of defenses. The very abundance of material here, as in Acts 20 and 21, argues for the presence of Luke. But at any rate Luke has access to Paul himself for information concerning this period, as was true of the second, from Acts 13 to the end of the book. Luke was either present or he could have learned from Paul the facts used. He may have kept a travel diary, which was drawn upon when necessary. Luke could have taken notes of Paul’s addresses in Jerusalem (Acts 22) and Caesarea (Acts 24 through 26). From these, with Paul’s help, he probably composed the account of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1-30). If, as I think is true, the book was written during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, Luke had the benefit of appeal to Paul at all points. But, if so, he was thoroughly independent in style and assimilated his materials like a true historian. Paul (and also Philip for part of it) was a witness to the events about Stephen in Acts 6:8 through 8:1 and a participant of the work in Antioch (Act 11:19-30). Philip, the host of Paul’s company (Act 21:8) on the last journey to Jerusalem, was probably in Caesarea still during Paul’s confinement there. He could have told Luke the events in Act 6:1-7 and 8:4-40. In Caesarea also the story of Peter’s work may have been derived, possibly even from Cornelius himself (9:32 through 11:18). Whether Luke ever went to Antioch or not we do not know (Codex Bezae has we in Act 11:28), though he may have had access to the Antiochian traditions. But he did go to Jerusalem. However, the narrative in Acts 12 probably rests on the authority of John Mark (Act 12:12, Act 12:25), in whose mother’s house the disciples were assembled. Luke was apparently thrown with Mark in Rome (Col 4:10), if not before. For Acts 1 through 5 the matter does not at first seem so clear, but these chapters are not necessarily discredited on that account. It is remarkable, as ancient historians made so little mention of their sources, that we can connect Luke in the Acts with so many probable fountains of evidence. Barnabas (Act 4:36) was able to tell much about the origin of the work in Jerusalem. So could Mnason. Philip also was one of the seven (Act 6:5; Act 21:8). We do not know that Luke met Peter in Rome, though that is possible. But during the stay in Jerusalem and Caesarea (two years) Luke had abundant opportunity to learn the narrative of the great events told in Acts 1 through 5. He perhaps used both oral and written sources for this section. One cannot, of course, prove by linguistic or historical arguments the precise nature of Luke’s sources in Acts. Only in broad outlines the probable materials may be sketched.

VIII. The Speeches in Acts

This matter is important enough to receive separate treatment. Are the numerous speeches reported in Acts free compositions of Luke made to order la Thucydides? Are they verbatim reports from notes taken at the times and literally copied into the narrative? Are they substantial reports incorporated with more or less freedom with marks of Luke’s own style? In the abstract either of these methods was possible. The example of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and Josephus shows that ancient historians did not scruple to invent speeches of which no report was available. There are not wanting those who accuse Luke of this very thing in Acts. The matter can only be settled by an appeal to the facts so far as they can be determined. It cannot be denied that to a certain extent the hand of Luke is apparent in the addresses reported by him in Acts. But this fact must not be pressed too far. It is not true that the addresses are all alike in style. It is possible to distinguish very clearly the speeches of Peter from those of Paul. Not merely is this true, but we are able to compare the addresses of both Paul and Peter with their epistles. It is not probable that Luke had seen these epistles, as will presently be shown. It is crediting remarkable literary skill to Luke to suppose that he made up Petrine speeches and Pauline speeches with such success that they harmonize beautifully with the teachings and general style of each of these apostles. The address of Stephen differs also sharply from those of Peter and Paul, though we are not able to compare this report with any original work by Stephen himself. Another thing is true also, particularly of Paul’s sermons. They are wonderfully stated to time, place and audience. They all have a distract Pauline flavor, and yet a difference in local color that corresponds, to some extent, with the variations in the style of Paul’s epistles. Professor Percy Gardner (The Speeches of Paul in Acts, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909) recognizes these differences, but seeks to explain them on the ground of varying accuracy in the sources used by Luke, counting the speech at Miletus as the most historic of all. But he admits the use of sources by Luke for these addresses. The theory of pure invention by Luke is quite discredited by appeal to the facts. On the other hand, in view of the apparent presence of Luke’s style to some extent in the speeches, it can hardly be claimed that he has made verbatim reports. Besides, the report of the addresses of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel (as in the other gospels) shows the same freedom in giving the substance exact reproduction of the words that is found in Acts. Again, it seems clear that some, if not all, the reports in Acts are condensed, mere outlines in the case of some of Peter’s addresses. The ancients knew how to make shorthand reports of such addresses. The oral tradition was probably active in preserving the early speeches of Peter and even of Stephen, though Paul himself heard Stephen. The speeches of Paul all show the marks of an eyewitness (Bethge, Die paulinischen Reden, etc., 174). For the speeches of Peter, Luke may have had documents, or he may have taken down the current oral tradition while he was in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Peter probably spoke in Greek on the day of Pentecost. His other addresses may have been in Aramaic or in Greek. But the oral tradition would certainly carry them in Greek, if also in Aramaic. Luke heard Paul speak at Miletus (Acts 20) and may have taken notes at the time. So also he almost certainly heard Paul’s address on the steps of the Tower of Antonia (Acts 22) and that before Agrippa (Acts 26). There is no reason to think that he was absent when Paul made his defenses before Felix and Festus (Acts 24 through 25) He was present on the ship when Paul spoke (Acts 27), and in Rome when he addressed the Jews (Acts 28) Luke was not on hand when Paul delivered his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13), or at Lystra (Acts 14), or at Athens (Acts 17) But these discourses differ so greatly in theme and treatment, and are so essentially Pauline that it is natural to think that Paul himself gave Luke the notes which he used. The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is probably given as a sample of Paul’s missionary discourses. It contains the heart of Paul’s gospel as it appears in his epistles. He accentuates the death and resurrection of Jesus, remission of sins through Christ, justification by faith. It is sometimes objected that at Athens the address shows a breadth of view and sympathy unknown to Paul, and that there is a curious Attic tone to the Greek style. The sermon does go as far as Paul can (compare 1Co 9:22) toward the standpoint of the Greeks (but compare Col and Eph). However, Paul does not sacrifice his principle of grace in Christ. He called the Athenians to repentance, preached the judgment for sin and announced the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man here taught did not mean that God yanked at sin and could save all men without repentance and forgiveness of sin. Chase (The Credibility of Acts) gives a collection of Paul’s missionary addresses. The historical reality and value of the speeches in Acts may be said to be vindicated by modern scholarship. For a sympathetic and scholarly discussion of all of Paul’s addresses see Jones, St. Paul the Orator (1910). The short speech of Tertullus (Acts 24) was made in public, as was the public statement of Festus in Acts 26. The letter of Claudias Lysias to Felix in Acts 23 was a public document. How Luke got hold of the conversation about Paul between Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26 is more difficult to conjecture.

IX. Relation of Acts to the Epistles

There is no real evidence that Luke made use of any of Paul’s epistles. He was with Paul in Rome when Col was written (Luk 4:14), and may, indeed, have been Paul’s amanuensis for this epistle (and for Eph and Philem). Some similarities to Luke’s style have been pointed out. But Acts closes without any narrative of the events in Rome during the years there, so that these epistles exerted no influence on the composition of the book. As to the two preceding groups of Paul’s epistles (1 and 2 Thess, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Romans) there is no proof that Luke saw any of them. The Epistle to the Romans was probably accessible to into while in Rome, but he does not seem to have used it. Luke evidently preferred to appeal to Paul directly for information rather than to his epistles. This is all simple enough if he wrote the book or made his data while Paul was alive. But if Acts was written very late, it would be strange for the author not to have made use of some of Paul’s epistles. The book has, therefore, the great advantage of covering some of the same ground as that discussed in the earlier epistles, but from a thoroughly independent stand-point. The gaps in our knowledge from the one source are often supplied incidentally, but most satisfactorily, from the other. The coincidences between Acts and Paul’s epistles have been well traced by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, still a book of much value. Knowling, in his Witness of the Epistles (1892), has made a more recent study of the same problem. But for the apparent conflict between Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 the matter might be dropped at this point. It is argued by some that Acts, written long after Gal, brushes to one side the account of the Jerusalem conference given by Paul. It is held that Paul is correct in his personal record, and that Acts is therefore unhistorical Others save the credit of Acts by arguing that Paul is referring to an earlier private conference some years before the public discussion recorded in Acts 15. This is, of course, possible in itself, but it is by no means required by the variations between the two reports. The contention of Lightfoot has never been really overturned, that in Gal 2:1-10 Paul gives the personal side of the conference, not a full report of the general meeting. What Paul is doing is to show the Galatians how he is on a par with the Jerusalem apostles, and how his authority and independence were acknowledged by them. This aspect of the matter came out in the private conference. Paul is not in Gal 2:1-10 setting forth his victory over the Judaizers in behalf of Gentile freedom. But in Acts 15 it is precisely this struggle for Gentile freedom that is under discussion. Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem apostles is not the point at all, though it in plain in Acts that they agree. In Galatians also Paul’s victory for Gentile freedom comes out. Indeed, in Acts 15 it is twice mentioned that the apostles and elders were gathered together (Act 15:4, Act 15:6), and twice we are told that Paul and Barnabas addressed them (Act 15:4, Act 15:12). It is therefore natural to suppose that this private conference narrated by Paul in Galatians came in between Gal 2:5 and Gal 2:6. Luke may not, indeed, have seen the Epistle to the Galatians, and may not have heard from Paul the story of the private conference, though he knew of the two public meetings. If he did know of the private meeting, he thought it not pertinent to his narration. There is, of course, no contradiction between Paul’s going up by revelation and by the appointment of the church in Antioch. In Gal 2:1 we have the second (Gal 1:18) visit to Jerusalem after his conversion mentioned by Paul, while that in Acts 15 is the third in Acts (Act 9:28; Act 11:29; Act 15:2). But there was no particular reason for Paul to mention the visit in Act 11:30, which did not concern his relation to the apostles in Jerusalem. Indeed, only the elders are mentioned on this occasion. The same independence between Acts and Gal occurs in Gal 1:17-24, and Act 9:26-30. In Acts there is no allusion to the visit to Arabia, just as there is no mention of the private conference in Acts 15. So also in Act 15:35-39 there is no mention of the sharp disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch recorded in Gal 2:11. Paul mentions it merely to prove his own authority and independence as an apostle. Luke had no occasion to record the incident, if he was acquainted with the matter. These instances illustrate well how, when the Acts and the epistles vary, they really supplement each other.

X. Chronology of Acts

Here we confront one of the most perplexing questions in New Testament criticism. In general, ancient writers were not so careful as modern writers are to give precise dates for historical events. Indeed, it was not easy to do so in view of the absence of a uniform method of reckoning times. Luke does, however, relate his narrative to outward events at various points. In his Gospel he had linked the birth of Jesus with the names of Augustus as emperor and of Quirinius as governor of Syria (Luk 2:1), and the entrance of John the Baptist upon his ministry with the names of the chief Roman and Jewish rulers of the time (Luk 3:1) So also in the Acts he does not leave us without various notes of times. He does not, indeed, give the date of the Ascension or of the Crucifixion, though he places the Ascension forty days after the Resurrection (Act 1:3), and the great Day of Pentecost would then come ten days later, not many days hence (Act 1:5) But the other events in the opening chapters of Acts have no clear chronological arrangement. The career of Stephen is merely located in these days (Act 6:1). The beginning of the general persecution under Saul is located on the very day of Stephen’s death (Act 8:1), but the year is not even hinted at. The conversion of Saul comes probably in its chronological order in Acts 9, but the year again is not given. We have no hint as to the age of Saul at his conversion. So again the relation of Peter’s work in Caesarea (10) to the preaching to the Greeks in Antioch (11) is not made clear, though probably in this order. It is only when we come to Acts 12 that we reach an event whose date is reasonably certain. This is the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 ad. But even so, Luke does not correlate the life of Paul with that incident. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 49) places the persecution and death of James in 44, and the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem in 46. About 44, then, we may consider that Saul came to Antioch from Tarsus. The fourteen years in Gal 2:1 as already shown probably point to the visit in Acts 15 some years later. But Saul had been in Tarsus some years and had spent some three years in Arabia and Damascus after his conversion (Gal 1:18). Beyond this it is not possible to go. We do not know the age of Saul in 44 ad or the year of his conversion. He was probably born not far from 1 ad. But if we locate Paul at Antioch with Barnabas in 44 ad, we can make some headway. Here Paul spent a year (Act 11:26). The visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11, the first missionary tour in 13 and 14, the conference at Jerusalem in 15, the second missionary tour in 16 through 18, the third missionary tour and return to Jerusalem in 18 through 21, the arrest in Jerusalem and two years in Caesarea in 21 through 26, all come between 44 ad and the recall of Felix and the coming of Festus. It used to be taken for granted that Festus came in 60 ad. Wieseler figured it out so from Josephus and was followed by Lightfoot. But Eusebius, in his Chronicle, placed that event in the second year of Nero. That would be 56, unless Eusebius has a special way of counting those years Mr. C. H Turner (art. Chronology in HDB) finds that Eusebius counts an emperor’s regnal year from the September following. If so, the date could be moved forward to 57 (compare Rackham on Acts, lxvi). But Ramsay (chapter xiv, Pauline Chronology, in Pauline and Other Studies) cuts the Gordian knot by showing an error in Eusebius due to his disregarding an interregnum with the reign of Mugs Ramsay here follows Erbes (Todestage Pauli und Petri in this discovery and is able to fix upon 59 as the date of the coming of Festus. Probably 59 will have to answer as a compromise date. Between 44 ad and 59 ad, therefore, we place the bulk of Paul’s active missionary work. Luke has divided this period into minor divisions with relative dates. Thus a year and six months are mentioned at Corinth (Act 18:11), besides yet many days (Act 18:18). In Ephesus we find mention of Three months (Act 19:8) and two years (Act 19:10), the whole story summed up as Three years (Act 20:31) Then we have the two years of delay in Caesarea (Act 24:27). We thus have about seven of these fifteen years itemized. Much of the remaining eight was spent in the journeys described by Luke. We are told also the times of year when the voyage to Rome was under way (Act 27:9), the length of the voyage (Act 27:27), the duration of the stay in Melita (Act 28:11), and the times spent in Rome at the close of the book, two whole years (Act 28:30). Thus it is possible to fix upon a relative schedule of dates, though not an absolute one. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, chapter i, Chronological Data) has worked out a very careful scheme for the whole of Acts. Knowling has a good critical resume of the present state of our knowledge of the chronology of Acts in his Commentary, 38ff, compare also Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe (1893). It is clear, then, that a rational scheme for events of Paul’s career so far as recorded in the Acts can be found. If 57 ad, for instance, should be taken as the year of Festus coming rather than 59 or 60 ad, the other dates back to 44 ad would, of course, be affected on a sliding scale. Back of 44 ad the dates are largely conjectural.

XI. Historical Worth of Acts

It was once fashionable to discredit Acts as a book of no real value as history. The Tbingen school regarded Acts as a late controversial romance, the only historical value of which was to throw light on the thought of the period which produced it (Chase, The Credibility of Acts, 9). There are not wanting a few writers who still regard Acts as a late eirenicon between the Peter and Paul parties, or as a party pamphlet in the interest of Paul. Somewhat fanciful parallels are found between Luke’s treatment of both Peter and Paul According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument for the critical position is the correspondence between the acts of Peter and the other apostles on the one rode and those of Paul on the other (Headlam in HDB). But this matter seems rather far fetched. Peter is the leading figure in the early chapters, as Paul is in the latter half of the book, but the correspondences are not remarkably striking. There exists in some minds a prejudice against the book on the ground of the miracles recorded as genuine events by Luke. But Paul himself claimed to have wrought miracles (2Co 12:12). It is not scientific to rule a book out beforehand because it narrates miracles (Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 8). Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 8) tells his experience in regard to the trustworthiness of Acts: I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tbingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It was by actual verification of Acts in points where it could be tested by inscriptions, Paul’s epistles, or current non-Christian writers, that it was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. He concludes by placing this great writer on the high pedestal that belongs to him (10). McGiffert (The Apostolic Age) had been compelled by the geographical and historical evidence to abandon in part the older criticism. He also admitted that the Acts is more trustworthy than previous critics allowed (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 5). Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) still argues that the writer of Acts is inaccurate because he was not in possession of full information. But on the whole Acts has had a triumphant vindication in modern criticism. Jlicher (Einl, 355) admits a genuine core overgrown with legendary accretions (Chase, Credibility, 9). The moral honesty of Luke, his fidelity to truth (Rackham on Acts, 46), is clearly shown in both his Gospel and the Acts. This, after all, is the chief trait in the true historian (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler, 4). Luke writes as a man of serious purpose and is the one New Testament writer who mentions his careful use of his materials (Luk 1:1-4). His attitude and spent are those of the historian. He reveals artistic skill, it is true, but not to the discredit of his record. He does not give a bare chronicle, but he writes a real history, an interpretation of the events recorded. He had adequate resources in the way of materials and endowment and has made conscientious and skillful use of his opportunity. It is not necessary here to give in detail all the points in which Luke has been vindicated (see Knowling on Acts, Ramsay’s books and Harnack’s Luke and Acts). The most obvious are the following: The use of proconsul instead of propraetor in Act 13:7 is a striking instance. Curiously enough Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long. An inscription has been found in Cyprus in the proconsulship of Paulus. The ‘first men’ of Antioch in Pisidia is like the (Act 13:50) First Ten, a title which was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East (MacLean in one-vol HDB). The priest of Jupiter at Lystra (Act 14:13) is in accord with the known facts of the worship there. So we have Perga in Pamphylia (Act 13:13), Antioch in Pisidia Act 13:14), Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (Act 14:6), but not Iconium (Act 14:1). In Philippi Luke notes that the magistrates are called stratego or praetors (Act 16:20), and are accompanied by lictors or rhabdouchoi (Act 16:35). In Thessalonica the rulers are politarchs (Act 17:6), a title found nowhere else, but now discovered on an inscription of Thessalonica. He rightly speaks of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens (Act 17:19) and the proconsul in Achaia (Act 18:12). Though Athens was a free city, the Court of the Areopagus at the times were the real rulers. Achaia was sometimes associated with Macedonia, though at this time it was a separate senatorial province. In Ephesus Luke knows of the Asiarchs (Act 19:31), the presidents of the ‘Common Council’ of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor (Maclean). Note also the fact that Ephesus is temple-keeper of the great Diana (Act 19:35). Then observe the town clerk (Act 19:35), and the assembly (Act 19:39). Note also the title of Felix, governor or procurator (Act 24:1), Agrippa the king (Act 25:13), Julius the centurion and the Augustan band (Act 27:1). Acts 27 is a marvel of interest and accuracy for all who wish to know details of ancient seafaring. The matter has been worked over in a masterful way by James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul. The title First Man of the Island (Act 28:7) is now found on a coin of Melita. These are by no means all the matters of interest, but they will suffice. In most of the items given above Luke’s veracity was once challenged, but now he has been triumphantly vindicated. The force of this vindication is best appreciated when one recalls the incidental nature of the items mentioned. They come from widely scattered districts and are just the points where in strange regions it is so easy to make slips. If space allowed, the matter could be set forth in more detail and with more justice to Luke’s worth as a historian. It is true that in the earlier portions of the Acts we are not able to find so many geographical and historical corroborations. But the nature of the material did not call for the mention of so many places and persons. In the latter part Luke does not hesitate to record miraculous events also. His character as a historian is firmly established by the passages where outside contact has been found. We cannot refuse him a good name in the rest of the book, though the value of the sources used certainly cuts a figure. It has been urged that Luke breaks down as a historian in the double mention of Quirinius in Luk 2:2 and Act 5:37. But Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?) has shown how the new knowledge of the census system of Augustus derived from the Egypt papyri is about to clear up this difficulty. Luke’s general accuracy at least calls for suspense of judgment, and in the matter of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5) Luke as compared with Josephus outclasses his rival. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 203-29) gives in his usual painstaking way a number of examples of inaccuracy and discrepancy But the great bulk of them are merely examples of independence in narration (compare Acts 9 with 22 and 26, where we have three reports of Paul’s conversion). Harnack did not, indeed, once place as high a value on Luke as a historian as he now does. It is all the more significant, therefore, to read the following in Harnack’s The Acts of the Apostles (298 f): The book has now been restored to the position of credit which is its rightful due. It is not only, taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the majority of its details it is trustworthy…. Judged from almost every possible standpoint of historical criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects an extraordinary work. That is, in my opinion, an understatement of the facts (see Ramsay), but it is a remarkable conclusion concerning the trustworthiness of Luke when one considers the distance that Harnack has come. At any rate the prejudice against Luke is rapidly disappearing. The judgment of the future is forecast by Ramsay, who ranks Luke as a historian of the first order.

XII. Purpose of the Book

A great deal of discussion has been given to Luke’s aim in the Acts. Baur’s theory was that this book was written to give a conciliatory view of the conflict between Peter and Paul, and that a minute parallelism exists in the Acts between these two heroes. This tendency theory once held the critical field, but it does not take into view all the facts, and fails to explain the book as a whole. Peter and Paul are the heroes of the book as they undoubtedly were the two chief personalities in apostolic history (compare Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, 17). There is some parallelism between the careers of the two men (compare the worship offered Peter at Caesarea in Act 10:25, and that to Paul in Act 14:11; see also the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira and that of Elymas). But Knowling (Acts, 16) well replies that curiously no use is made of the death of both Peter and Paul in Rome, possibly at the same time. If the Acts was written late, this matter would be open to the knowledge of the writer. There is in truth no real effort on Luke’s part to paint Paul like Peter or Peter like Paul. The few similarities in incident are merely natural historical parallels. Others have seen in the Acts a strong purpose to conciliate Gentile (pagan) opinion in the fact that the Roman governors and military officers are so uniformly presented as favorable to Paul, while the Jews are represented as the real aggressors against Christianity (compare Josephus’ attitude toward Rome). Here again the fact is beyond dispute. But the other explanation is the more natural, namely, that Luke brings out this aspect of the matter because it was the truth. Compare B. Weiss, Einl, 569. Luke does have an eye on the world relations of Christianity and rightly reflects Paul’s ambition to win the Roman Empire to Christ (see Rom 15), but that is not to say that he has given the book a political bias or colored it so as to deprive it of its historical worth. It is probably true (compare Knowling, Acts, 15; J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte) that Luke felt, as did Paul, that Judaism realized its world destiny in Christianity, that Christianity was the true Judaism, the spiritual and real Israel. If Luke wrote Acts in Rome, while Paul’s case was still before Nero, it is easy to understand the somewhat long and minute account of the arrest and trials of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome. The point would be that the legal aspect of Christianity before Roman laws was involved. Hitherto Christianity had found shelter as a sect of Judaism, and so was passed by Gallio in Corinth as a religio licita. If Paul was condemned as a Christian, the whole aspect of the matter would be altered. Christianity would at once become religio illicita. The last word in the Acts comments on the fact that Paul, though still a prisoner, was permitted to preach unhindered. The importance of this point is clearly seen as one pushes on to the Neronian persecution in 64. After that date Christianity stood apart from Judaism in the eye of Rome. I have already stated my belief that Luke closed the Acts when he did and as he did because the events with Paul had only gone thus far. Numerous scholars hold that Luke had in mind a third book (Act 1:1), a possible though by no means necessary inference from first treatise. It was a climax to carry the narrative on to Rome with Paul, but it is rather straining the point to find all this in Act 1:8. Rome was not the nethermost part of the earth, Spain more nearly being that. Nor did Paul take the gospel to Rome. Besides, to make the arrival of Paul in Rome the goal in the mind of Christ is too narrowing a purpose. The purpose to go to Rome did dominate Paul’s mind for several years (Act 19:21), but Paul cuts no figure in the early part of the book. And Paul wished to push on from Rome to Spain (Rom 15:24). It is probably true that Luke means to announce his purpose in Act 1:1-8. One needs to keep in mind also Luk 1:1-4. There are various ways of writing history. Luke chooses the biographical method in Acts. Thus he conceives that he can best set forth the tremendous task of interpreting the first thirty years of the apostolic history. It is around persons (compare Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, 117), two great figures (Peter and Paul), that the narrative is focused. Peter is most prominent in Acts 1 through 12, Paul in Act 13:1 through 28. Still Paul’s conversion is told in Acts 9 and Peter reappears in Acts 15. But these great personages do not stand alone. John the Apostle is certainly with Peter in the opening chapters. The other apostles are mentioned also by name (Act 1:13) and a number of times in the first twelve chapters (and in Acts 15). But after Acts 15 they drop out of the narrative, for Luke follows the fortunes of Paul. The other chief secondary figures in Acts are Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, James, Apollos, all Hellenists save James (Harnack, 120). The minor characters are numerous (John, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla, Aristarchus, etc.). In most cases Luke gives a distinct picture of these incidental personages. In particular he brings out sharply such men as Gallio, Claudius, Lysias, Felix, Festus, Herod, Agrippa I and II, Julius. Luke’s conception of the apostolic history is that it is the work of Jesus still carried on by the Holy Spirit (Act 1:1). Christ chose the apostles, commanded them to wait for power from on high, filled them with the Holy Spirit and then sent them on the mission of world conquest. In the Acts Luke records the waiting, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the planting of a powerful church in Jerusalem and the expansion of the gospel to Samaria and all over the Roman Empire. He addresses the book to Theophilus as his patron, a Gentile Christian plainly, as he had done with his gospel. The book is designed for the enlightenment of Christians generally concerning the historic origins of Christianity. It is in truth the first church history. It is in reality the Acts of the Holy Spirit as wrought through these men. It is an inspiring narration. Luke had no doubt whatever of the future of a gospel with such a history and with such heroes of faith as Peter and Paul.

XIII. Analysis

1.The Connection Between the Work of the Apostles and That of Jesus (Act 1:1-11)

2.The Equipment of the Early Disciples for Their Task (Acts 1:12 Through 2:47)

(a)The disciples obeying Christ’s parting command (Act 1:12 -44)

(b)The place of Judas filled (Act 1:15-26)

(c)Miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Holy Spirit (Act 2:1-13)

(d)Peter’s interpretation of the situation (Acts 2:14-36)

(e)The immediate effect of the sermon (Act 2:37-41)

(f)The new spirit in the Christian community (Act 2:42-47)

3.The Development of the Work in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1 Through 8:1a)

(a)An incident in the work of Peter and John with Peter’s apologetic (Acts 3)

(b)Opposition of the Sadducees aroused by the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:1-31)

(c)An internal difficulty, the problem of poverty (Acts 4:32 through 5:11)

(d)Great progress of the cause in the city (Act 5:12-16)

(e)Renewed hostility of the Sadducees and Gamaliel’s retort to the Pharisees (Acts 5:17-42)

(f)A crisis in church life and the choice of the seven Hellenists (Act 6:1-7)

(g)Stephen’s spiritual interpretation of Christianity stirs the antagonism of the Pharisees and leads to his violent death (Acts 6:8 through 8:1a)

4.The Compulsory Extension of the Gospel to Judea, Samaria and the Neighboring Regions (Acts 8:1b-40)

(a)The great persecution, with Saul as leader (Act 8:1-4)

(b)Philip’s work as a notable example of the work of the scattered disciples (Acts 8:5-40)

5.The Conversion of Saul Changes the Whole Situation for Christianity (Acts 9:1-31)

(a)Saul’s mission to Damascus (Act 9:1-3)

(b)Saul stopped in his hostile course and turns Christian himself (Act 9:4-18)

(c)Saul becomes a powerful exponent of the gospel in Damascus and Jerusalem (Act 9:19-30)

(d)The church has peace (Act 9:31)

6.The Door Opened to the Gentiles, Both Roman and Greek (Acts 9:32 Through 11:30)

(a)Peter’s activity in this time of peace (Act 9:32-43)

(b)The appeal from Cornelius in Caesarea and Peter’s response (Acts 10)

(c)Peter’s arraignment before the Pharisaic element in the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18)

(d)Greeks in Antioch are converted and Barnabas brings Saul to this work (Act 11:19-26)

(e)The Greek Christians send relief to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Act 11:27-30)

7.Persecution from the Civil Government (Acts 12)

(a)Herod Agrippa I kills James and imprisons Peter (Acts 12:1-19)

(b)Herod pays the penalty for his crimes (Act 12:20-23)

(c)Christianity prospers (Act 12:24)

8.The Gentile Propaganda from Antioch Under the Leadership of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13 Through 14)

(a)The specific call of the Holy Spirit to this work (Act 13:1-3)

(b)The province of Cyprus and the leadership of Paul (Act 13:4-12)

(c)The province of Pamphylia and the desertion of John Mark (Act 13:13)

(d)The province of Galatia (Pisidia and Lycaonia) and the stronghold of the gospel upon the native population (Acts 13:14 through 14:24)

(e)The return and report to Antioch (Act 14:25-28)

9.The Gentile Campaign Challenged by the Judaizers (Acts 15:1-35)

(a)They meet Paul and Barnabas at Antioch who decide to appeal to Jerusalem (Act 15:1-3)

(b)The first public meeting in Jerusalem (Act 15:4)

(c)The second and more extended discussion with the decision of the conference (Acts 15:6-29)

(d)The joyful reception (in Antioch) of the victory of Paul and Barnabas (Act 15:30-35)

10.The Second Great Campaign Extending to Europe (Acts 15:36 Through 18:22)

(a)The breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Act 15:36-39)

(b)From Antioch to Troas with the Macedonian Cry (Acts 15:40 through 16:10)

(c)In Philippi in Macedonia the gospel gains a foothold in Europe, but meets opposition (Acts 16:11-40)

(d)Paul is driven also from Thessalonica and Berea (compare Philippi), cities of Macedonia also (Act 17:1-15)

(e)Paul’s experience in Athens (Acts 17:16-34)

(f)In Corinth Paul spends nearly two years and the cause of Christ wins legal recognition from the Roman governor (Acts 18:1-17)

(g)The return to Antioch by way of Ephesus, Caesarea and probably Jerusalem (Act 18:18-22)

11.The Third Great Tour, with Ephesus as Headquarters (Acts 18:23 Through 20:3)

(a)Paul in Galatia and Phrygia again (Act 18:23)

(b)Apollos in Ephesus before Paul comes (Act 18:24-28)

(c)Paul’s three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:1 through 20:1a)

(d)The brief visit to Corinth because of the troubles there (Act 20:1-3)

12.Paul Turns to Jerusalem Again with Plans for Rome (Acts 20:4 Through 21:16)

(a)His companions (Act 20:4)

(b)Rejoined by Luke at Philippi (Act 20:5)

(c)The story of Troas (Act 20:7-12)

(d)Coasting along Asia (Act 20:13-16)

(e)with the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20:17-38)

(f)From Miletus to Tyre (Act 21:1-6)

(g)From Tyre to Caesarea (Act 21:7-14)

(h)From Caesarea to Jerusalem (Act 21:15)

13.The Outcome in Jerusalem (Acts 21:15 Through 23:30)

(a)Paul’s reception by the brethren (Act 21:15-17)

(b)Their proposal of a plan by Which Paul could undo the work of the Judaizers concerning him in Jerusalem (Act 21:18-26)

(c)The uproar in the temple courts raised by the Jews from Asia as Paul Was carrying out the plan to disarm the Judaizers (Act 21:27-30)

(d)Paul’s rescue by the Roman captain and Paul’s defense to the Jewish mob (Acts 21:31 through 22:23)

(e)Examination of the chief captain (Act 22:24-29)

(f)Brought before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30 through 23:10)

(g)Cheered by the Lord Jesus (Act 23:11)

(h)Paul’s escape from the plot of Jewish conspirators (Acts 23:12-30)

14.Paul A Prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 23:31-26:32)

(a)The flight to Caesarea and presentation to Felix (Act 23:31-35)

(b)Paul’s appearance before Felix (Acts 24)

(c)Paul before Festus (Act 25:1-12)

(d)Paul, as a matter of curiosity and courtesy, brought before Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13 through 26:32)

15.Paul Going to Rome (Acts 27:1 Through 28:15)

(a)From Caesarea to Myra (Act 27:1-5)

(b)From Myra to Fair Havens (Act 27:6-8)

(c)From Fair Havens to Malta (Acts 27:9 through 28:10)

(d)From Malta to Rome (Act 28:11-15)

16.Paul in Rome At Last (Acts 28:16-31)

(a)His quarters (Act 28:16)

(b)His first interview with the Jews (Act 28:17-22)

(c)His second interview with the Jews (Act 28:23-28)

(d)Two years afterward still a prisoner, but with freedom to preach the gospel (Act 28:30)

Literature

Besides the works referred to above see Wendt’s edition of Meyer’s Kommentar (1899); Headlam in HDB; Knowling on Acts in Expositor’s Greek Testament (1900); Knowling, Witness of the Epistles (1892), Testimony of Paul to Christ (1905); Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901).

Here is a selected list of important works:

1. Introduction

Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament (1900); Bennett and Adeney, Biblical Introduction (1899); Bleek, Einleitung in das New Testament (4 Aufl, 1900); S. Davidson, (3rd edition, 1894); C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907), H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das New Testament (3 Aufl, 1892), Jacquies, Histoire des livres du New Testament (1905-8); Jlicher, Introduction to the New Testament (translation, 1904); Peaks, Critical Introduction to the New Testament (1909); Reuss, Canon of the Holy Scriptures (translation, 1886); Salmon, Hist Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (7th edition, 1896), von Soden, The History of Early Christian Lit. (translation, 1906), B. Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament (translation, 1889), Westcott, History of the Canon of the New Testament (1869), Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (translation, 1909), Moffatt, Introduction to the Lit. of the New Testament (1911).

2. Text

See general works on textual criticism of the New Testament (Gregory, Kenyon, Nestle, Tischendorf, Scrivener, von Soden, B. Weiss, Westcott, etc.). Of special treatises note Blass, Philology of the Gospels (1898). Acta Apostolorum (1895); Bornemann, Acta Apostolorum (1848); Chase, Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae (1893), Corssen, Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum (1892); Klostermann, Probleme im Apostel Texts (1883), Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucanae (1866); Nestle, Philologia (1896); J. Rendel Harris, Study Codex Bezae (1891).

3. Apostolic History

For literature on the life of Paul see Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul (1909), 321-27, and article PAUL in this encyclopedia. Important general works are the following: Bartlet, The Apostolie Age (1899); Baumgarten, The Apostolic History (translation, 1854); Blunt, Studies in the Apostolic Age (1909); Burton, Records and Letters of the Apostolic Age (1895); Doellinger, The First Age of the Church (translation, 1867); Dobschtz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (translation, 1904); Ewald, History of the Apostolic Times (translation, Vol VI in History of Israel); Farrar, Early Days of Christianity (1887); Fisher, The Beginnings of Christianity (1877); Gilbert, Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1908); Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First three Centuries (translation, 1904-5); Hausrath, Neut. Zeitgeschichte (Bd. 2, 1872); Heinrici, Das Urchristentum (1902); Holtzmann, Neut. Zeitgeschichte (1895); Hort, Judaistic Christianity (1898); Organization of the Early Christian Churches (1895); Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (translation, 1886); Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (1892); Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries (1902); McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1897); Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church (1889); Pfleiderer, Christian Origins (1906), Pressonse, The Early Years of Christianity (1870); Purves, Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1901), Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche (1857); Ropes, The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (1906); Weizscker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (translation, 1894-95); Pictures of the Apostolic Church (1910).

4. Special Treatises on the Acts

Belser, Beitrage zur Erklarung der Apostelgeschichte (1897); Benson, Addresses on the Acts of the Apostles (1901); Bethge, Die paulinischen Reden der Apostelgeschichte (1887); Blass, Acta Apostolorum secundum Formam quae videtur Romanam (1896); Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (1902); Clemen, Die Apostelgeschichte, im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (1905); Fiene, Eine vorkanonische Nebenlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte (1891); Harnack, Luke, the Physician (translation, 1907); The Acts of the Apostles (1909); Hilgenfeld, Acta Apostolorum Graece et Latine (1899); Jungst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte (1895); Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas (1894); Luckok, Footprints of the Apostles as Traced by Luke in the Acts (1897); J. Lightfoot, Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations on the Acts of the Apostles (1768); Paley, Horae Paulinae (Birks edition, 1850); Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler (1896); Pauline and Other Studies (1906); Cities of Paul (1908), Luke the Physician, and Other Studies (1908); J. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul (4th edition, 1880); Sorof, Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte (1890); Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Worth (1891); Stiffler, An Introduction to the Book of Acts (1892); Vogel, Zur Characteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (1897); J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht und die literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte (1897); Zeller, The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles (translation, 1875); Maurice Jones, Paul the Orator (1910).

5. Commentaries

There are the great standard works like Bede, Bengel, Calvin, Chrysostom, Grotius. The chief modern commentaries are the following: Alexander (1857), Alloral (6th edition, 1868), Bartlet (1901), Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 1895), Ewald (Apostelgeschichte, 1871), Felten (Apostelgeschichte, 1892), Hackett (1882), Holtzmann (Hand-Commentar, 3 Aufl, 1901), Knabenbauer (Actus Apostol, 1899), Knowling (Expositor’s Greek Text, 1900), Luthardt and Zoeckler (Apostelgeschichte, 2nd edition, 1894), McGarvey (1892), Meyer (translation by Gloag and Dickson, 1885), Meyer-Wendt (Apostelgeschichte, 1888), Noesgen (Apostelgeschichte, 1882), Olshausen (1832), Page (1897), Rackham (1901), Rendall, (1897), Stokes (1892), B. Weiss (Apostelgeschichte, 1892, 2nd edition).

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Acts of the Apostles

This is the title of one of the canonical books of the New Testament, the fifth in order in the common arrangement, and the last of those properly of an historical character. Commencing with a reference to an account given in a former work of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, its author proceeds to conduct us to an acquaintance with the circumstances attending that event, the conduct of the disciples on their return from witnessing it, the outpouring on them of the Holy Spirit according to Christ’s promise to them before his crucifixion, and the amazing success which, as a consequence of this, attended the first announcement by them of the doctrine concerning Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the World. After giving the history of the mother-church at Jerusalem up to the period when the violent persecution of its members by the rulers of the Jews had broken up their society and scattered them, with the exception of the apostles, throughout the whole of the surrounding region; and after introducing to the notice of the reader the case of a remarkable conversion of one of the most zealous persecutors of the church, who afterwards became one of its most devoted and successful advocates, the narrative takes a wider scope and opens to our view the gradual expansion of the church by the free admission within its pale of persons directly converted from heathenism and who had not passed through the preliminary stage of Judaism. The first step towards this more liberal and cosmopolitan order of things having been effected by Peter, to whom the honor of laying the foundation of the Christian church, both within and without the confines of Judaism, seems, in accordance with our Lord’s declaration concerning him (Mat 16:18), to have been reserved, Paul, the recent convert and the destined apostle of the Gentiles, is brought forward as the main actor on the scene. On his course of missionary activity, his successes and his sufferings, the chief interest of the narrative is thenceforward concentrated, until, having followed him to Rome, whither he had been sent as a prisoner to abide his trial, on his own appeal, at the bar of the emperor himself, the book abruptly closes, leaving us to gather further information concerning him and the fortunes of the church from other sources.

Respecting the authorship of this book there can be no ground for doubt or hesitation. It is, unquestionably, the production of the same writer by whom the third of the four Gospels was composed, as is evident from the introductory sentences of both (comp. Luk 1:1-4, with Act 1:1). That this writer was Luke has not in either case been called in question, and is uniformly asserted by tradition. From the book itself, also, it appears that the author accompanied Paul to Rome when he went to that city as a prisoner (Acts 28). Now, we know from two epistles written by Paul at that time, that Luke was with him at Rome (Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11), which favors the supposition that he was the writer of the narrative of the apostle’s journey to that city. It was rejected by certain heretics in the primitive times, such as the Marcionites, the Severians, and the Manicheans, or we should rather say, it was cast aside by them because it did not favor their peculiar views. A complaint made by Chrysostom would lead us to infer that in his day, though received as genuine, the Acts was generally omitted from the number of books publicly read in the churches, and had consequently become little known among the people attending those churches.

Many critics are inclined to regard the Gospel by Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as having formed originally only one work, consisting of two parts. But this opinion is at variance 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); and also with the fact that the two works have invariably, and from the earliest times, appeared with distinct titles.

Of the greater part of the events recorded in the Acts the writer himself appears to have been witness. He is for the first time introduced into the narrative in Act 16:11, where he speaks of accompanying 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 (Act 20:6); 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 Act 16:11, to Act 28:31, 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 labors of the apostle Peter, we may readily suppose that they were so much the 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.

With regard to the design of the evangelist in writing this book, a prevalent popular opinion is, that Luke, having in his Gospel given a history of the life of Christ, intended to follow that up by giving in the Acts a narrative of the establishment and early progress of his religion in the world. That this, however, could not have been his design is obvious from the very partial and limited view which his narrative gives of the state of things in the church generally during the period through which it extends. As little can we regard this book as designed to record the official history of the apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars concerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2 Corinthians 11; Gal 1:17; Gal 2:11; 1Pe 5:13). Some are of opinion that no particular design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this book beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own notice; but such a view savors too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers, to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the church universal. Much more deserving of attention is the opinion that ‘the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the dignity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion.’ Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his Gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced ‘to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem’ (Luk 24:47).

Respecting the time when this book was composed it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 63; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the interval between the year 63 and the year 65 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared.

The style of Luke in the Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books in the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, ‘he has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators.’

While, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown, the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Our space will not permit us to enter at large into this point, we shall therefore content ourselves with merely presenting, in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writers whose authority is most deserving of consideration in such an inquiry.

UsherPearsonMichaelisHugHaenleinGreswellAger

The Ascension of Christ33333331333031

Stoning of Stephen3434363737

Conversion of Paul353537?3536-383738

Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem (Act 9:26)383838394141

James’s Martyrdom, etc.44444444444343

Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem (Act 11:30)44444444444344

Paul’s first missionary tour45-4644-47444444

Paul’s third journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15)53495249?4848

Paul arrives at Corinth545254?53545052

Paul’s fourth journey to Jerusalem565455545254

Paul’s abode at Ephesus56-5954-5756-5853-5555-59

Paul’s fifth journey to Jerusalem (Act 21:17)59586059605658

Paul arrives in Rome63616362635961

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Acts of the Apostles

The introduction to this book compared with the introduction to the gospel by Luke makes it plain that the two were written by the same person. The Acts ends with the two years’ imprisonment of the apostle Paul at Rome: it could not therefore have been written before the end of that time, and was probably written very soon afterwards or it would have given the issue of Paul’s trial. This would place the date about A.D. 63.

The ‘Acts’ forms a link between the Gospels and the Epistles, as the ascension of Christ formed a link between the Gospels and the Acts. It occupies a sort of transition time, for though the church was soon formed, the doctrine of the church was not made known until Paul’s epistles. The title, ‘Acts of the Apostles,’ might have led us to expect a more general account of the labours of all the Twelve; but their mission in the ways of God is superseded by that of Paul, both as minister of the gospel of the glory of Christ, and of the church. A wise selection of the fruits of apostolic energy has been made, verifying some things stated in the Gospels, and forming an indispensable introduction to the Epistles.

After the ascension of the Lord, and the choosing an apostle to fill the place of Judas, the first great event recorded is the day of Pentecost. The Lord had said, “I will build my church,” Mat 16:18 ; and the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is the answer to the question, when did the incorporation of the church begin? 1Co 12:13 proves that it was by the gift of the Holy Spirit, though, as it has been said, the doctrine of the church was not revealed till afterwards.

Ananias was charged with lying to the Holy Spirit, by whom God was then dwelling in the church. Our Lord had promised that on His departure He would send them another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to abide with and be in them. This also was fulfilled at Pentecost. Peter, Stephen, etc. were full of the Holy Spirit: cf. Act 4:31.

After this another call was made to Israel to receive Jesus as the Christ. They had killed the Prince of life, but God had raised Him from the dead, and now in mercy and on the ground of their ignorance one more appeal was made to them to repent and be converted that their sins might be blotted out, and that God might send again Jesus Christ who was then in heaven. The rulers however were grieved that they preached by Jesus the resurrection from among the dead, and commanded Peter and John not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus. Stephen, being accused before the Sanhedrim, rehearsed the history of Israel from the beginning, and charged them with resisting the Holy Spirit, as their fathers had done. The indictment of Israel as man in the flesh, and the exposure of his enmity to God led to the final sin of rejecting the glorified Christ, expressed by the stoning of Stephen who calling upon the Lord not to lay the sin to their charge, exemplified the life of Christ in his body.

This ends the first phase of the acts of the Holy Spirit, and clears the way for the going out of the gospel and the revelation of the truth of the church. The persecution that followed led to the spread of the gospel. Philip preached Christ to the Samaritans and many believed. Peter went from Jerusalem, laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. Peter was then used at Caesarea in opening the door to the Gentiles (answering to his having the keys of the kingdom committed to him, Mat 16:19), and they also received the Holy Spirit.

In the meantime Saul had been converted, and immediately preached that Jesus was the Son of God. The churches had rest, and walking in the fear of the Lord and comfort of the Holy Spirit, were multiplied. Act 9:31. Herod Agrippa however soon began to persecute the church; he killed James the brother of John, and put Peter into prison, who was however miraculously delivered. Herod died a miserable death; and the word of God grew and multiplied. Acts 12. This ends the phase of the church’s history in connection with the remnant of Israel.

Antioch, instead of Jerusalem, now became a centre of evangelisation, independent of apostolic authority, yet without breaking the unity of the Spirit by forming a separate church. Barnabas and Saul are separated to the work by the Holy Spirit, and with John Mark take a missionary journey.

Certain persons from Judaea insisting at Antioch that the Gentile converts must be circumcised or they could not be saved, the question was referred to the church at Jerusalem. In their decision they could say, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Act 15:28-29.

Paul with Silas took a second missionary journey, extending to Europe and returned to Antioch. Act 18:22. From thence Paul went a third journey. (For the particulars of these journeys and from whence Paul wrote some of his epistles, see the article PAUL.) It may be noted that while at Ephesus, because of the opposition of the Jews in the synagogues, Paul separated the disciples and they met in a building distinct from the synagogue, commencing a further development of the church’s history. Act 19:9.

At the close of the third missionary journey Paul, led by deep spiritual affection for his nation, but forbidden by the Spirit in whose energy the ministry entrusted to him had hitherto been carried out, went up to Jerusalem, where he was arrested. The rest of the book details his trials and danger from the Jews; his journey to Rome, where he calls together the chief of the Jews, to whom he preaches Jesus. We read no more of any of his labours, and the Acts leaves him a prisoner.

The book embraces a period of about thirty years: the mystery of the church, and the gospel of the glory committed to Paul, as well as the state of the assemblies must be gathered from the Epistles. During the above period Paul wrote the two epistles to the Thessalonians, the two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, Romans, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Acts of the Apostles

Acts of the Apostles. The book so called is the fifth and last of the historical books of the New Testament; it connects the Gospels with the Epistles, being a fitting supplement to the former and a valuable introduction to the latter. There can be no reasonable question that Luke was the writer of this book. Its date is pretty well determined by the time at which its narrative closestwo years after Paul’s being brought a prisoner to Rome. We may, therefore, with much probability assign it to 63 a.d. The title “Acts of the Apostles,” by which this book is commonly known, would seem to be a later addition. It does not describe accurately the contents. For the object of the evangelist was neither to give a complete history of the church during the period comprised, nor to record the labors of all the apostles: it was rather to exhibit the fulfillment of promise in the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the consequent planting and growth of the Christian church among Jews and Gentiles by the establishment of centres of influence in various provinces of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Home. Keeping this idea steadily in view, we shall see that all the events recorded fall naturally into their places, and that any seeming abruptness is sufficiently accounted for. This book divides itself into two main parts; each being grouped around a central figure.1. The planting and extension of the church among the Jews by the ministry of Peter. Chs. 1-12. Subdivisions are (1) the organization of the church in Jerusalem, 1-7; (2) the branching forth of the gospel in various directions from the mother church. 8-12. 2. The planting and extension of the church among the Gentiles by the ministry of Paul. 13-28. Subdivisions are (1) Paul’s ministry at large, 13-22:26; (2) his ministry in bonds. 22:27; 28. It must be carefully observed that these two parts are closely connected as belonging to one great system. For it is Peter who first introduces a Gentile convert into the church; and Paul, during the whole of his administrations, is careful to proclaim the gospel, in every place where he has opportunity, first to the Jews and afterwards to the Gentiles. There is on the face of it a truthfulness in this book which strongly commends itself to the reader. Thus the speeches attributed to different individuals are in full accordance with their respective characters and the circumstances in which they stood. The author was himself present at several of the events which he narratesand this he carefully notes by change of person and in the verbs and pronouns he uses; he had, moreover, as a companion of the apostles, the best opportunities of knowing accurately the things he did not personally witness. The book of Acts has sometimes been called the “first missionary report, but with no financial account.” The personal presence of the Lord Jesus Christ with his church adding to its numbers, calling Paul, speaking with him, and also of the Holy Ghost directing the church, are especially noticeable in the Acts of the Apostles. Act 2:4; Act 2:47; Act 4:31; Act 8:39; Act 9:6; Act 9:6; Act 9:10; Act 10:19; Act 13:2; Act 16:6; Act 18:9.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Acts of The Apostles

Acts of the Apostles. The fifth book in the New Testament and the second treatise by the author of the third Gospel, traditionally known as Luke. The book commences with an inscription to one Theophilus, who was probably a man of birth and station. The readers were evidently intended to be the members of the Christian Church, whether Jews or Gentiles; for its contents are such as are of the utmost consequence to the whole Church. They are the fulfillment of the promise of the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the results of that outpouring by the dispersion of the gospel among the Jews and Gentiles.

Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may be arranged. First, St. Peter becomes the prime actor under God in the founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first group of sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews, Acts 2, and Gentiles, Acts 10, is his office, and by him, in good time, is accomplished.

Then the preparation of Saul of Tarsus for the work to be done, the progress, in his hand, of that work, his journeyings, preachings and perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem and being brought to testify in Rome, — these are the subjects of the latter half of the book, of which the great central figure is the apostle Paul.

The history given in the Acts occupies about 33 years, and the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. It seems most probable that the place of writing was Roma, and the time about two years from the date of St. Paul’s arrival there, as related in Act 28:30. This would give us fro the publication about 63 A.D.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Acts Of The Apostles

This book, in the very beginning, professes itself to be a continuation of the Gospel of St. Luke; and its style bespeaks it to be written by the same person. The external evidence is also very satisfactory; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the Apostles are not only quoted by Irenaeus, as written by Luke the evangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not mentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the later fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to this book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and also in the old Syriac version.

2. This is the only inspired work which gives us any historical account of the progress of Christianity after our Saviour’s ascension. It comprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains a general history of the church during that time. The principal facts recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room of the traitor Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the Apostles at Jerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and dispersion of the Christians; the preaching of the Gospel in different parts of Palestine, especially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the latter part of the book is confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom St. Luke was the constant companion for several years.

3. As this account of St. Paul is not continued beyond his two years’ imprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon after his release, which happened in the year 63; we may therefore consider the Acts of the Apostles as written about the year 64.

4. The place of its publication is more doubtful. The probability appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria in Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of some Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the best critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this case they are not supported by any ancient authority.

5. It must have been of the utmost importance in the early times of the Gospel, and certainly not of less importance to every subsequent age, to have an authentic account of the promised descent of the Holy Ghost, and of the success which attended the first preachers of the Gospel both among the Jews and Gentiles. These great events completed the evidence of the divine mission of Christ, established the truth of the religion which he taught, and pointed out in the clearest manner the comprehensive nature of the redemption which he purchased by his death.

OEcumenius calls the Acts, the Gospel of the Holy Ghost; and St. Chrysostom, the Gospel of our Saviour’s resurrection, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Here, in the lives and preaching of the Apostles, we have the most miraculous instances of the power of the Holy Ghost; and in the account of those who were the first believers, we have received the most excellent pattern of the true Christian life.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary