The Acts of the Apostles.
The Acts of the Apostles.
§ 253. In his commentary, Chrysostom notes that already at his time there was doubt as to “who is the author of that account.” Erasmus, however, rightly admonishes that “only the unlettered and inept” doubted or could have doubted it. For in fact, with careful planning, immediately in the introduction to Acts, Luke mentions the Gospel that he wrote to declare that he was the author of both writings and, by the memory of the Gospel that many already accepted with praise and veneration, to obtain the same confidence and grace for the book of the “Acts of the Apostles.” From this, in his preface to this book, Jerome writes: “There is no doubt that Luke, the physician from Antioch, wrote this book.” Jerome again, De vir. illustr.: “Luke, the disciple of the apostle (Paul) and his companion on every journey, wrote a Gospel …. He also published another fine book that is known by the title the ‘Acts of the Apostles,’ “etc. Sophronius, on Luke: “He wrote his Gospel in accord with what he had heard; however, the Acts of the Apostles he arranged in accord with what he himself observed.” Bede, on Acts: “Luke wrote the things that the apostles did, which he believed were enough to edify the faith of those who read and heard. He did this in such a way that this is the only book worthy of confidence in the Church that tells about the activities of the apostles, whereas all those are reproved who have dared to write what the apostles said and did without that faithfulness which was necessary.” This monostich is prefixed to the scholia of Oecumenius: “The Book of Acts that Luke wrote.” Bishop Dorotheus of Tyre relates that Luke wrote this book “at Paul’s command,” and Nicephorus also confirms this (Hist., bk. 2, c. 43). The primary, predisposing [
] cause, however, is the Holy Spirit Himself, who wanted to have down in writing what is contained in this book for the advantage of the Church until the end of the world. Therefore He impelled His instrument to do this holy work.
In De vir. illustr., Jerome mentions that Luke wrote this book in Rome. The time of writing they set as AD 60, in the fourth year of Nero’s rule and the twenty-seventh year after Paul’s conversion. They also note that it contains as many chapters as records of years contained therein. Although Luke was Syrian by nationality, he nevertheless wrote this account in Greek, as he did also his Gospel. Epiphanius reports (Haeres. 30, contra Ebionaeos): “This book was formerly preserved in Hebrew in the treasuries of the Jews in Tiberias.” Let the trustworthiness of this matter be in the hands of the reader. Even if there were such a thing, it has to be certain that it was a translation rather than the original writing. Jerome points out (on Isaiah 6): “The Greek language that Luke uses is quite elegant, in which Hebraisms are scattered occasionally.” Anyone who reads it will grasp that Luke used a style not unlike that which is used in the Greek version of the Old Testament. From this, one concludes that Luke was studiously explaining [the Greek Old Testament].
Acts consists of twenty-eight chapters, and it can be divided into two principal parts. The first contains the general history of those things that were common to the entire college of the apostles. The latter reveals the account of certain apostles specifically—namely, of Peter, Paul, and Philip, but especially of Paul, whose inseparable companion was the author of this book. It clearly explains Paul’s miraculous calling, Baptism, sermons, journeys, miracles, and persecutions.
§ 254. In Hist. eccles., bk. 4, c. 27, Eusebius reports regarding the Severians and, in c. 29, regarding Tatian and Cerinthus; Tertullian, in De praescript., reports concerning Cerdo; and Augustine, in Contra Adimantium and De utilit. cred., c. 3, reports regarding the Manichaeans that they “had the Book of Acts in no repute.” But that heretical depravity is of so little service in lessening the authority of this book that instead it gains more weight for it. For in fact, according to Eusebius (Hist., bk. 3, c. 25) and all the ancients who list the canonical books of the New Testament, Acts was counted as canonical by the approbation of the entire Church.
The introduction to the book reveals that it contains the second part of the Gospel account. “In the Gospel account, a grain of corn planted in the soil is described, but here it is described as having sprouted and gradually providing its fruits,” as Erasmus says in his Annot. on this passage. Therefore if one excludes the Book of the Acts of the Apostles from the canon, nothing else can happen but that he also excludes the Gospel of Luke from it. The truth of the history that is described in this book has been placed in such a bright light that not even the Jews, its most bitter enemies, have dared to deny it.
Luke also describes in this book the fulfillment of the prophets’ prophecies regarding the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, the calling of the Gentiles to Christ’s kingdom, the persecutions of the Church, etc. The style agrees in every respect with the rest of the canonical writings, the majesty of its subject matter and vocabulary sparkles everywhere, and as a result, the devout ancients adorn this book with their greatest praises. Jerome, preface to Acts, and, from him, Bede: “The Acts of the Apostles indeed seems to utter bare history and to tell of the infancy of the growing Church. If we know, however, that its author is Luke the physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, we shall notice that all his words likewise are medicine for the languishing soul.” Chrysostom, homily 1 on Acts, and from him, Theophylact:
Let us scrutinize this book with all care and diligence. Indeed, here we can see that the prophecies that Christ had indicated in the Gospel actually happened and were fulfilled, and we can see the truth resplendent in these happenings. In addition, the great change of the disciples for the better, a change implanted in them by the Spirit, is seen. In addition, here definite and solid statements can be found that, were this book not extant, no one would know so plainly. Instead, the Head and Summit of our salvation would lie hidden, and some things that pertain to life and to certain and solid statements about faith would be unknown and uncertain.
Especially memorable is what Jerome relates in De script. eccles.: that a presbyter from Asia dared to corrupt this book. He inserted into the accounts that Luke had published the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the entire account of the baptized lion. However, he was convicted of this fraud before the apostle John and frankly repented of this. In Haeres. 30, Epiphanius also says that the Ebionites added many not only false but also even wicked and disgraceful things to the apostolic Acts that Luke wrote. Purer antiquity, however, immediately wiped away these stains from it.