Appendix A

Appendix A

Lightfoot’s Article on Acts for Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible

Acts of the Apostles 1. The Title. The title of this Book, as given in the oldest authorities is either ‘Acts’ or ‘Acts of Apostles.’ The former (πράξεις) appears at the commencement and in the headings of the pages in א; the latter (πράξεις ἀποστόλων) in B, D (but with the itacism πράξις in D), and in the subscription of א. Accordingly, the Book is quoted indifferently by the early Fathers as ‘Acts,’ ‘The Acts’ (Origen, Op. I p. 434, iv. pp. 6,25; comp. Eusebius H.E. vi.25; Tertullian c. Marc. v.3, de Praescr. 22, and elsewhere), or ‘Acts of Apostles,’ ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ (Irenaeus iii.13,3; Clement of Alexandria Strom. v.12, p. 696; Tertullian, c. Marc v. 1,2, and elsewhere; Origen, Op. I p. 22, ii. p.538 & c.). Longer titles, such as ‘Acts of the Holy Apostles’ (πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἁποστόλων), found in the subcription of E, G, H may be dismissed at once from our consideration. The author of the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180?) refers to the Book as containing ‘acta omnium apostolorum’ (p. 18, ed. Tregelles); but he does not give this definitely as a title, and by inserting ‘omnium’ which however is not a correct description, he obviously desires to distinguish it from apocryphal histories of individual Apostles, such as the ‘Acta Petri’ etc. Whether we should consider the larger title a later expansion of the shorter, or whether on the other hand ‘Acts’ is an abridgement of ‘Acts of Apostles’ for convenience, may be a matter of question. On the whole, perhaps the latter view is the more probable; since the long and short forms are found in the same writers, and moreover whenever the title of the Book is distinctly recorded as such—for instance by Eusebius (H.E. iii.25) and by Athanasius (Op. ii. p. 767) and by Chrysostom (Op. iii. p. 54) and by Euthalius and by Photius (Amphil. Qu. 123)—the word ἀποστόλων is never wanting. We gather also from the evidence, that in the original form the definite article was absent. Thus for instance, Chrysostom (in the passage just referred to), having distinctly given the title without the articles (πράξεις ἀποστόλων) nevertheless in the same context writes τῶν πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων. This example shows that no stress can be laid on the fact that elsewhere the Book is quoted in early writers as ‘The Acts of the Apostles.’ In Wycliffe’s Version which was translated from the Vulgate it is headed ‘Deeds of the Apostles’; but in the Authorized Version (1611) the heading is ‘The Acts of the Apostles’ as also in the previous English Versions of the 16th century generally, which were made from the Greek. But, though it seems clear that the earlier title was ‘Acts of Apostles’ (πράξεις ἀποστόλων) without the definite article, the value of the fact in its bearing on the contents is diminished by the consideration that in titles and headings the omission of the article was common in ancient times, as it is with ourselves. Thus in Mt 1:1 the words are ‘book of generation (or genealogy) of Jesus Christ’ (Βίβλος γενέσεως κ.τ.λ.). Moreover, we have no ground for assuming that this title, whether πράξεις ἀποστόλων or πράξεις simply, was given to the Book by the writer himself. In other cases in the New Testament we find indications that the earliest existing headings are somewhat later than the writings themselves (Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 16). The later word πράξαποστόλος is not a title of this individual Book; but, being compounded of πράξεις and ἀποστόλος, designates lectionaries which contained lessons from the Acts and Apostolic Epistles (Scrivner’s Introduction, pp. 71, 279, 301).

2. The Scope and Contents. The Acts of the Apostles, like the Third Gospel, is addressed to one Theophilus. Was he an actual person, a disciple or friend of the writer? Or have we here a fictitious name, a representative of the Christian reader generally? The former is the view commonly taken by modern writers. He has been made a native of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Rome, etc. by different critics, all without any shadow of authority that deserves consideration. If he were a real person, we might with greater probability place him at Philippi, for the writer of Acts apparently had close relations with this place. Yet the other opinion is not to be hastily rejected; for it is at least consonant with the literary character of St. Luke’s two treatises, and more especially of the prefaces. This view is thrown out as a suggestion by Epiphanius (Haer. li.7). It seems also to be present to the mind of Origen, though he does not express himself very clearly (Hom. In Luc. 1, Op. iii. p. 933 Delarus). So also St. Ambrose, ‘Scriptum est evangelium ad Theophilum hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit’ (Exp. Evang. Luc. 1.12, Op. i. p. 1270, ed. Bened.). In modern times it has found some rather lukewarm supporters (e.g. Renan, L’Eglise Chretienne, p. 256). As the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Jedidiah, Theophilus is not uncommon as a Jewish name. Thus it is borne by the Jewish high-priest (A.D. 37–41) the son of Annas (Josephus, Ant. xviii.5.3; xix.6.2), who has been identified—an extremely improbable identification—with the persons here addressed by St. Luke. Again, we find two persons so called in an inscription in a Jewish cemetery at Rome (Schürer, Gemeindeverf. Der Juden in Rom, p. 39). It was a frequent heathen name likewise (Pape, Worterb. Griech. Eigennamen, s.v., Fabric, Bibl. Graec. vii. p. 106 sq. ed Harles; compare Tacitus, Ann. ii.55). Naturally also it was common among the Christians e.g. the apologist Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 180). A reminiscence of this later Theophilus combined with the tradition that St. Luke himself was an Antiochene, may have given rise to the Clementine statement that Theophilus was a person of importance in Antioch (Recogn. x.71, ‘Theophilus qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior’), who consecrated his house as a basilica, where the chair of St. Peter was established. In Apost. Const. vii.46, a Theophilus is represented as the third Bishop of Caesarea of Palestine, and appointed to the see by the Apostles themselves, his predecessors being Zacchaeus and Cornelius. Probably our Theophilus is meant, as it is the practice of this writer to find an episcopal see for every worthy whose name is mentioned in the New Testament. In the Armenian Epistle of the Corinthians to St. Paul (Aucher, Armen. Gramm. p. 177) one Theophilus is represented as a joint writer of the letter.

The adoption of the name Theophilus or Philotheus as a representative godly Christian, has parallels in both ancient and modern times. Thus the treatise of Hippolytus, de Antichristo (pp. 1, 36, Lagarde), is addressed to his ‘beloved brother Theophilus,’ evidently a fictitious name; and in the Symposium of Methodius (ii. 1, p. 14, Jahn) one of the divine maidens bears the name Theophila. So likewise Law’s Atonement is a Dialogue between Eusebius and Theophilus, and Wordsworth’s treatise on the Church is designated Theophilus Anglicanus; while in Ken’s Manual of Prayer for the Winchester scholars he addresses his reader as Philotheus.

If this view be correct, this second treatise is drawn up, like the first for the instruction of the godly reader who seeks information respecting the foundation of the Church (here addressed under the imaginary name Theophilus). It is no objection that he is designated κράτιστος (Luke 1:3), a title given to those in high position (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25); for there is no reason why the writer should not have wished to commend the faith of Christ to persons of this class.

Its aim, purport, and contents are set forth in the preface (Acts 1:1-8). The first treatise is there described as an account of ‘all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach (ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν) until the day on which, having given the commandment through the Holy Ghost to the Apostles whom He had chosen, He was taken up (into heaven).’ This language suggests: 1) that, if the writer had given any title to the work, he might well have styled it ‘Second Treatise’ (δεύτερος λόγος); and 2) that he regards it as strictly a continuation of the first, for this is implied in ἤρξατο, ‘began.’ But here a question arises. Is the ‘doer and teacher’ the same person in the second part as in the first? In other words, is Jesus Himself here regarded as continuing in the history of the Church the work that He began in His personal ministry? This is Baumgarten’s view, and it has been followed by some later critics. In its favor are the facts: a) that the form of the sentence suggests the same agent, and b) that our Lord is again and again represented as interposing in person in the course of the narrative. If so, the title πράξεις ἀποστόλων is misleading, and obscures the author’s main conception. But this view is not altogether free from the charge of artificiality. At all events we might expect that, if this had been the writer’s leading idea, he would have emphasized it more plainly. It seems on the whole therefore more probable that the Apostles are represented as continuing the work which Jesus inaugurated in person. If so, the common title of the Book is fairly adequate, and Photius (Amphil. 123, p. 716, Migne) is right when he speaks of the Gospel as ‘comprising the Acts of the Lord.’ Similarly Irenaeus (iii.15.1) describes the second treastise as ‘sequens testificatio ejus (Lucae), quam habet de actibus et doctrina apostolorum,’ with an obvious reference to the ‘doing and teaching’ of our Lord as contained in the first. In this case the ἤρξατο may be answered by ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘the whole history of the doings and teachings of Jesus from the beginning until the final day of the Ascension,’ as it is taken by Chrysostom (Op. ix. p. 5). This view also accords with the fact that special stress is laid on the selection of and charge to the Apostles, that their names are given again (though previously mentioned in the Gospel), and that the completion of their number is recorded. Bengel, following Chrysostom, describes the relation of the two treatises somewhat differently ‘non tam Apostolorum quam Spiritus Sancti describens, sicut prior liber Acta Jesu Christi habet’; but this is not the antithesis present to the mind of the writer himself.

Thus the two treatises are regarded respectively as the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the Apostles, or (if we take the other view) the ministry of Jesus in his own person and the ministry of Jesus through the Apostles. The first has been given in full by St. Luke (περὶ πάντων κ.τ.λ.); the second, not being yet concluded, could not be so given. The contents of the first have been directly described. This description is expressed in such language (μὲν πρῶτον κ.τ.λ.) as to lead the reader to expect an antithetical clause . . . describing the contents of the second. But this antithetical clause never appears, and in place of it the sentence runs off into a narrative of facts. In this narrative of facts therefore we look for the explanation; and we are not disappointed. The Lord is represented as conversing with the disciples after the Resurrection and preparing them for their mission. His words are prophetic of the future, and thus implicitly involve a table of contents:

‘Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost,’ etc. (Acts 2:1-13)

‘And ye shall be witnesses unto Me,

1. Both in Jerusalem (2:14–8:1)

2. And in all Judaea and Samaria (8:2–11:18)

3. And to the uttermost parts of the earth’ (11:19–28:31).

The first two sections are complete; the fulfillment of the third is given not actually but potentially. Such an earnest of it is afforded as to leave no doubt of its ultimate accomplishment. St. Paul travels to the far West; he preaches the faith in Rome without hindrance; and thus Christianity has obtained a firm footing in the metropolis of the human race, the stronghold of heathendom.

After this anticipatory abstract of the history of the Christian Church, our thoughts are led forward to the great and terrible day, the consummation of all things, when this history shall be wound up. But again this is effected, not by his own words, but by the narrative of the sayings and doings of others (Acts 1:8-11). The departure of Jesus by the Ascension is thus linked with His return in the Second Advent. The narrative of the Acts spans over this interval potentially.

These considerations will explain the close of the Book. Whatever apparent abruptness there may be in the ending, the writer was clearly not interrupted so as to leave his work unfinished. He closes with the event that his aim required. The occupation of Rome, the capital of the world, was the one eventful crisis that closed an epoch. Nor did he contemplate a ‘third treatise,’ as some have imagined. There is indeed no conceivable plea for any third treatise if our view of his main design be correct. Nor again can any chronological argument be drawn from his stopping at this particular point; as, for instance, that he was unacquainted with St. Paul’s visit to Spain or with the martyrdom of the two Apostles. He was not writing the biography of either Apostle.

It will be observed also that the close of the second treatise is strictly analogous to the close of the first:

Fufillment of prophecies Luke 24:44-49/Acts 28:23-29

Joyful termination Luke 24:50-53/Acts 28:30, 31

The following then is the table of contents:

INTRODUCTORY

(i.) Connection with the previous narrative – 1:1-2

(ii.) Christ’s final commands and prophecies respecting the Kingdom of God – 1:3-8

(iii.) The resurrection, and announcement of the Second Advent – 1:9-11

(iv.) The names and attitude of the Apostles – 1:12-14

(v.) The vacant place in the apostolate filled – 1:15-26

THE MAIN NARRATIVE

A. The Hebraic Period (2–5).

(1) Consecration of the Apostles and first disciples by the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost – 2:1-13

(2) The ingathering of the first-fruits on the day of Pentecost – 2:14-41

(3) The inner life and the extension of the infant Church – 2:42-47

(4) The first miracle (of mercy and Restoration). The address of Peter and the conflict with the rulers consequent thereupon – 3:1–4:31

(5) The unity and communion of goods of the early Church – 4:32-37

(6) The sin of Ananias and Sapphira. The second Miracle (of retribution of judgment) – 5:1-11

(7) The miraculous working of the Apostles. Their imprisonment, their appearance before the priests and rulers and their dismissal. – 5:12-41

(8) This period closes with a notice of their energetic and incessant preaching of Jesus as the Christ. – 5:42

B. The Transitional Period (6–12).

(1) Appointment of a diaconate (chiefly or wholly Hellenist) to meet complaints of Hellenists as to the distribution of alms. – 6:1-7

(2) The labors, apprehension, speech and martyrdom of Stephen – 6:8–7:60

(3) The consequences of martyrdom:

(4) Scattering of the disciples in Judaea and Samaria;

(5) Antagonism of Saul – 8:1-4

(6) Samaria evangelized through Philip, whose work is confirmed by the Apostles Peter and John. First conflict with a false form of religion (outside Judaism) in the person of Simon Magus – 8:5-25

(7) Conversion of the Ethopian eunuch, a proselyte – 8:26-40

(8) Conversion of Saul and vision of Ananias. Saul is healed and disputes with the Hellenists at Jerusalem. – 9:1-30

(9) Peace in the churches ‘throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria’ – 9:31

(10) Peter’s miracles at Lydda (Aeneas) and at Joppa (Dorcas) – 9:32-43

(11) Visions of Cornelius and of Peter. Peter visits, converts, and baptizes Cornelius and his companions. Their Baptism is anticipated by an out-pouring of the Holy Ghost. – 10:1-48

(12) Peter reports the case to Church at Jerusalem and obtains its approval – 11:1-18

(13) Disciples scattered at the persecution of Stephen preach in Phoencia, at Cyprus, and at Antioch, the Greeks (v.l. Hellenists). Their action confirmed by the Apostles through Barnabas. – 11:19-24

(14) Saul preaches at Antioch, where the disciples are first called Christians. – 11:25, 26

(15) The Christians of Jerusalem relieved by the Gentiles churches. – 11:27-30, 12:25

(16) Herod’s persecution of the Church. Martyrdom of James imprisonment of Peter. Release of Peter who goes elsewhere, and punishment of Herod. – 12:1-23

At the close is a notice of the triumphant progress of the Word of God. – 12:24

C. The Gentile Period (13–28).

I. Consecration of Barnabas and Saul to the apostolate – 13:1-3

II. First missionary journey of Paul (accompanied by Barnabas)

1) Preaching in Cyprus and conversion of Sergius Paulus – 13:4-12

2) Journey through Pamphylia (desertion of John Mark) – 13:13

3) Paul in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia Rejection by the Jews and acceptance by the Gentiles. – 13:14-52

4) Preaching at Iconium (stoning of Paul) – 14:1-7

5) Healing of the impotent man at Lystra – 14:8-18

6) Subsequent preaching and return to Antioch – 14:19-28

7) Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (liberation of the Gentile Christians from the obligation of the Law) – 15:1-35

III. Second missionary journey of Paul (accompanied by Silas)

1) Separation of Paul and Barnabas – 15:36-39

2) Paul confirms the church already founded on the previous journey, and, after visiting the district of Phrygia and Galatia, is summoned by a vision into Macedonia. – 16:1-11

3) Preaching at Philippi. Imprisonment and release. – 16:12-40

4) Preaching and persecution at Thessalonica and Beroea – 17:1-15

5) Paul at Athens preaches on the Areopagus – 17:16-34

6) His long residence at Corinth and appearance before Gallio – 18:1-17

7) He returns to Antioch calling at Ephesus and visiting Jerusalem on the way. – 18:18-23

8) Apollos at Ephesus and Corinth – 18:24-28

IV. Third Missionary Journey of Paul

1) Three years’ residence at Ephesus, ending with the tumult –19:1-41

2) Visit to Macedonia and to Greece, when he returns to Palestine by way of Macedonia –20:1-16

3) Address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus –20:17-38

4) Subsequent voyage. Sojourn at Caesarea, and arrival at Jerusalem. – 21:1-16

V. Two Years’ Sojourn in Palestine

1) Tumult in the Temple and Defense of Paul – 21:17–22:29

2) Address to the Sanhedrin – 22:30–23:10

3) Journey to Caesarea – 23:11-35

4) Accusation of Tertullus and Defense of Paul before Felix. Subsequent conduct of Felix. – 24:1-27

5) Treatment of the prisoner by Festus. Speech of Paul before Festus and Agrippa. – 25:1–26:32

VI. Journey to and Sojourn in Rome

1) Voyage and shipwreck – 27:1-44

2) Sojourn at Malta – 28:1-10

3) Subsequent Journey and arrival at Rome – 28:11-16

4) Conference with the chief Jews ends unsatisfactorily and he turns to the Gentiles – 28:17-29

5) Success of his preaching – 28:30, 31

The Book had begun with the discourses of Christ relating to the career of ‘the Kingdom of God’ (λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ). These discourses elicit the question from the disciples ‘Dost thou at this time restore the Kingdom (τὴν βασιλείαν) to Israel?’ We are told at the close that the chief Apostle of the Gentiles ‘proclaims the Kingdom of God’ (κηρύσσων τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) in the chief city of the Gentiles. Here is the indirect answer to the Apostles’ question, so far as any answer could be given. The subject of the Book then is the history of the Kingdom of God, with more special reference to the relaxation of the terms of admission, the ingathering of the Gentiles, and the transference of the centre of gravity of Christendom from Jerusalem elsewhere.

This history comprises three periods. Of these, the second, the epoch of transition is the most instructive; and indeed the narrative of Acts hinges on it. This period itself may be divided into two parts: First (1–7), that which deals with the Hellenists, Samaritans, and proselytes of the gate, persons of mixed nation or religion, neither wholly Hebraic nor wholly Gentile; and secondly (8–14), that which treats of the extension of the Church among the Gentile proper at the end of these two divisions, as if he had arrived at a fresh landing-place, the author after his manner inserts an encouraging notice of the progress of the Gospel. Obviously he has paid special attention to the transitional period, gathering together every notice that seemed to illustrate either the principles, the agents, or the recipients, in this gradual enlargement of the bounds of Christendom.

3. External Testimony. The external authority in favour of this Book is full and unanimous. Only at a comparatively late date do we find any exception to the testimonies that assign it to St. Luke, and even then its canonical authority is not questioned. If we place ourselves in the later decades of the second century, we are confronted with witnesses from all parts of the Church, and the evidence leaves nothing to be desired. 1) Irenaeus who represents three Churches—Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul—quotes or refers to it between fifty and sixty times. The quotations range over nearly the whole Book. He gives St. Peter’s speech at Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36), St. Peter’s speech at the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:12-26), St. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17:24-31), and the speeches of St. Peter and St. James at the apostolic council together with the apostolic letter (Acts 15:7-11, 13-21, 23-29) in full or nearly so (iii.12.3,9,14). As this third book was published during the Roman episcopate of Eleutherus (A.D. 175–189), we know the latest possible date of the testimony. He several times distinctly ascribes it to St. Luke, and argues from this fact (i.23.1; iii.13.3; iii.14.1sq.; iv.15.1). He attributes scriptural authority to it (e.g. iii.12.5,9). He not only argues from its Lucan authorship himself, but assumes this as common ground with his adversaries. In fact he quotes it just as any strictly orthodox divine would do in the present day. It is difficult therefore to understand the statement that ‘it is undeniable that no distinct and unequivocal reference to Acts of the Apostles, and to Luke as their author, occurs in the writings of the Fathers before one by Irenaeus about the end of the second century’ (Supernatural Religion, iii. p.2).

2) Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 190–200) represents more especially the Church whose name he bears; but he mentions obligations to six different teachers—in Greece, in Egypt, in Palestine, Assyria, and the East—who had received the ‘tradition handed down direct from father to son from the holy Apostles Peter and James, John and Paul’ (Strom. i.1, p. 322). He quotes the Acts repeatedly, and in one passage (Strom. v.12, p. 696) gives the name of the writer Luke.

3) The Muratorian Canon probably represents Rome, and is generally placed about A.D. 170–80 (since the author speaks of the episcopate of Pius, c. A.D. 140–55, as ‘nuperrime temporibus nostris’), but may be a few years later. This writer (ed. Tregelles, p. 18), in a passage which is somewhat corrupt, but of which the general tenor seems clear, after the four Gospels mentions ‘Acta omnium apostolorum’ as written by Luke and addressed to Theophilus, adding that he wrote down the events of which he had personal knowledge (‘corprindit quia [l. quae] sub praesentia ejus singular gerebantur’), and that evidently he was not an eye-witness of the martyrdom of Peter and the journey of Paul to Spain.

4) Tertullian is the chief representative of the African Church. His literary activity covers the last years of the second and the early years of the third centuries. He quotes the Acts many times. About 150 references or quotations are given by Ronsch (Das Neue Testament Tertullians, p. 291sq.), but a certain percentage of these may be doubtful. He quotes it generally as Acta or Acta Apostolorum and ascribes it to St. Luke (de Jejun. 10). He cites it too as Scripture (see e.g. Praescr. Haer. 22), and designates it Apostolicium Instrumentum (Pudic. 12) or Scriptura Apostolicorum (Marc. v.2).

5) Polycrates of Ephesus (A.D. 189–198) represents Asia Minor at the close of this century. He lays great stress on the primitive tradition, which he had inherited through several relatives who were Bishops (Eusebius, H.E. v. 24). He quotes Acts 5:29 verbatim, though not by name, in the words ‘They that are greater than I have said, It is right to serve God rather than men’ (πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις), a saying ascribed in the Acts to ‘Peter and the Apostles.’

We find then that in the last decades of the second century the Book is quoted profusely and without any sign of misgiving as authoritative Scripture and as the work of St. Luke. The testimony comes from all quarters of the Church; and the witnesses are persons who were mixed up in various religious controversies and bad alliances far and wide, striking (in some instances) deep into the past. There can be no doubt therefore about the universal verdict of the Church at this time. Thus at the earliest moment when we have sufficient materials for a judgment, the evidence in favor of the Book is overwhelming. The earliest testimony is of the same kind as for most of those Canonical Books of which the authenticity has never been questioned.

The Apostolic Fathers do not directly quote Romans or 2 Corinthians or Galatians, nor are these Epistles named by any Church writer before Irenaeus. Of Acts 20:35 ‘To remember (μνημονεύειν) the words of the Lord Jesus, how He said, It is blessed rather to give than to receive’ (μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν), we have reminiscences in Clement of Rome 13 ‘especially remembering . . . the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake’ (comp. 46) and 2 ‘more gladly giving than receiving’ . . . for in the context of this latter passage the Corinthians are praised for ‘giving heed to the words’ of Christ. Again in 18, ‘What shall we say of David, to whom witness is borne . . . unto whom God said, I have found a man after My heart, David the son of Jesse with oil.’ Clement is compounding the original passage in the Psalms 88 (89):20 with the quotation in Acts 13:22, ‘To whom also He said, bearing witness . . . I have found David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do,’ where the features borrowed from the Acts are: 1) the mention of the ‘witness’; 2) the addition of ‘a man after My heart’ (comp. 1 Sam 13:14); and 3) the further addition of ‘the son of Jesse’—none of these being found in the original passage of the Psalms. This threefold coincidence is not easily explained away.

The coincidences in Ignatius are somewhat less close, but not insignificant. Magn. 5, ‘to go to his own place’ recalls Acts 1:25 ‘to go . . . to his own place.’ In Philad. 11 we have the phrase ‘a man bearing witness’ which occurs also in Acts. 6:3 (ἄνδρας ἐξ ὑμῶν μαρτυρουμένους). In Smyrn. 3, ‘After His Resurrection He ate and drank with them,’ there is an allusion to Acts 10:41 συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὸ ἀναστῆναι κ.τ.λ.

In Polycarp the coincidences are of the same kind, but stronger. No. 1 ‘Whom God raised . . . loosing the pangs of Hades’ closely follows Acts 2:24 ‘whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death’ (ἀνέστησεν λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου) where there is a v.l. ἄδου (Hades) which is shown from the authorities (D, E, Vulg., Memph., Iren.) to have been current at least as early as the 2nd century. Though the individual expressions (e.g ‘pangs of Hades’) may be found elsewhere, there is nothing approaching to the parallelism throughout the sentence, so that it cannot be regarded as accidental. Again in no. 2 we have an expression ‘judge of the quick and the dead’ as in Acts 10:42. There are also other coincidences (no. 2 to Acts 20:35, no. 6 to Acts 7:52, no. 12 to Acts 8:21), on which however no stress can be laid.

Of Papias (Eusebius H.E. iii.39) we can only say that his anecdotes deal with personages mentioned in Acts—Judas Barsabbas and the daughters of Philip (if he be the same Philip), and that his story of Judas the traitor is used by Apollinaris of Laodicea in the fourth century to reconcile the accounts of his death in St. Matthew and in the Acts, and may have had some such reference as told by himself.

In Hermas who gives not a single quotation from the Old or from the New Testament, we stumble on coincidences with the Acts, which however would have no great value in themselves. Thus Hermas uses the word καρδιογνώστης, ‘heart-knower’ of God, which occurs twice in the Acts (Acts 1:24; 15:8) but is found nowhere else in the LXX or the New Testament. Again he speaks of being thought ‘worthy of bearing the Name’ and of ‘being healed’ or ‘saved by the Name’ (Vis. iv.2, Sim. ix.28), expressions which are close parallels to Acts 4:12; 5:41.

In the Apologists there are similar coincidences. Thus in Justin Martyr we have in two passages (Dial. 36,76) a reference to prophecy as announcing παθητὸς [ὁ] χριστός, ‘the Messiah would be passible,’ as in Acts 26:23. Here the coincidence consists not in the idea, but in the manner of expressing it, the word παθητός not occurring elsewhere in the LXX or the New Testament. So again the summary of events after the Crucifixion in Apol. i. 50 seems to be taken from Acts 1:8sq. (comp. Acts 2:33), the expression ‘to receive power’ (λαμβάνειν δύναμιν) being common to both, besides other coincidences. Again, Dial. 68 ‘How saith the Word unto David that God would take a son for Himself from his loins (ἀπο τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ) and would seat (καθίσει) him on the throne of His glory’ is best explained as a reminiscence of Acts 2:30 ‘God sware unto him by an oath that he would set (καθίσαι) of the fruit of his loins (τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ) upon his throne’; for in both passages ‘loins’ (ὀσφύος) is substituted for ‘body’ (κοιλία) and ‘set’ (καθίξειν) for ‘place’ (τίθεσθαι) of the LXX of Psalm 131:11 (132:11), though in neither case does the Hebrew suggest such a substitution. Again in Dial. 16 we read ‘Ye slew the Just One and before Him the prophets,’ which has a close parallel in Acts 7:52 (comp. Is 57:1). Again the connection of ‘common or unclean things’ with ‘refraining to eat’ is matched by Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; and there are other coincidences likewise. It seems difficult with these facts before us, to resist the inference that Justin was acquainted with the Acts.

The coincidences in the other Apologists are much slighter. Thus Tatian (Orat. Ad Graec. 6) writes, ‘Though you consider us . . . babblers’ (σπερμολόγους) the word used of St. Paul by the Athenians in Acts 17:18. In Theophilus again (ad. Autol. ii.1) there is the same play on γινώσκειν, ἀναγινώσκειν which appears in Acts 8:30.

Of other writers in the 2nd century Dionysius of Corinth is reported by Eusebius (H.E. iv.23) as recording . . . that ‘Dionysius the Areopagite, when turned (προτραπείς) to the faith by the Apostle Paul in accordance with the records . . . in the Acts was the first to be entrusted with the bishopric of the diocese . . . of Athens.’ From this passage indeed it does not necessarily follow that Dionysius actually mentioned the Acts; but if the language of Eusebius may be interpreted strictly, Dionysius of Corinth must have said that his early namesake was converted by St. Paul (not ὁ προτραπείς but προτραπείς) as therein stated.

In the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons (Eusebius H.E. v.1) the last prayer of ‘Stephen the perfect martyr’ is given from Acts 7:60, just as elsewhere in this same document the language used of Zacharias (the father of the Baptist) is taken from Luke 1:6. These obligations to the two treatises of St. Luke can only be evaded by postulating doubles of both writings (see Supernatural Religion, iii. p. 25), but this is an alternative that need not be seriously discussed.

It should be added also that in all the versions of the second century (the Syriac, Latin, and Egyptian), so far as our information goes, this Book formed a part.

Moreover the early Apocryphal Acts and other historical romances show an acquaintance with this work, to which they are frequently indebted for their personal and geographical notices, where they cross the historical path of the canonical Acts. Such are the Acts of Peter and Paul, and those of Paul and Thecla. So too Cornelius (Hom. xx.13) and others are mentioned in the Clementine Homilies, while Theophilus also appears in the Recognitions. The Homilies moreover contain several expressions found in the Acts such as ‘heart-knower,’ Hom. x.13 πρὸς καρδιογνώστην θεόν (comp. Acts 1:24; 15:8); ‘What purporteth this to be?’ Hom. xiii.6, xiv.9 τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι (comp. Acts 2:12; 17:20); ‘What hindereth me to be baptized?’ Hom. xiii. 5 (see also xiii.11; comp. Acts 8:36). Similar resemblances also appear in the Recognitions.

It was indeed rejected by several heretics of the second century, not however in a single instance (so far as we can discover) because they questioned its authorship, but in many cases obviously on this very account. Those who, like the Ebionites, denied the apostleship of St. Paul, were forced to repudiate the authority of his disciple. Those on the other hand who, like the Marcionites, maintained a direct antagonism between St. Paul and the Apostles of the circumcision, could not do otherwise than reject a work which represented them as meeting each other on friendly terms. For the Ebionites see Irenaeus iii.15.1. Again as regards the Marcionites, Irenaeus argued with them throughout on the hypothesis of its Lucan authorship, as if this were common ground (iii.12.12, iii.14.1sq.). When dealing with the Valentinians and other Gnostics, he distinctly states that they accept the Book as authoritative, but try to get round it by false interpretations, or by a distinction between an esoteric and exoteric doctrine (iii.12.12, iii.14.4, iii.15.1,2). Thus these Valentinians are valuable witnesses—all the more valuable because the acceptance of the Book that involved them in great difficulty.

It should be added also that, as the Third Gospel and Acts were evidently the work of one man—and the admission of this fact may now be regarded as practically universal—all the evidence which testifies to the authorship of the former is available also for the latter, and conversely. But the testimony in favor of St. Luke as the author of the Third Gospel is absolutely unbroken, and no shadow of suspicion overclouds it for nearly eighteen centuries.

The unanimity and directness of testimony which we have observed at the close of the second century continue in the succeeding ages. At the close of the fourth century however, we find Chrysostom saying that he is induced to explain the Book because many are ignorant of its existence and its authorship (Comm. in Acts. Apostl i.1; Op. ix. p. 1). As it is freely quoted without any suspicion cast on its authorship by all the great fathers of his own generation, as well as before and after this can only mean that it was more or less neglected by the general reader. This neglect may be accounted for by the fact that it would not be read regularly in churches like the Gospels or the Apostolic Epistles, and copies would not be multiplied to the same extent as in the case of these other Scriptures. As it did not bear its author’s name in the title (in this respect differing from the other Books of the New Testament), ignorance on this point becomes more inexplicable.

Still more perplexing, and still less reconcilable with the facts, is a notice in Photius (Amph. Qu. 123) at the close of the ninth century: ‘Some say that the author of Acts was Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist; but Luke himself settles the question (ἐπικρίνει).’ As there is not the faintest trace of any difference of opinion in all the preceding eight centuries, I am disposed to think that Photius is here guilty of a confusion with the Epistle to the Hebrews, these three persons being named by ancient Fathers as claimants for the authorship of this letter (Origen, in Eusebius H.E. vi.25; Tetullian de Pudic. 20; Eusebius H.E. iii.38; Hieronymus Vir. Ill. 5).

4. The Authorship. We have seen that the universal tradition of the first eight centuries ascribes the Book with no faltering voice to St. Luke; and that this evidence is further fortified by a still greater mass of testimony—equally unanimous—which independently ascribes the Third Gospel to this same person. How far is this assumption supported by internal evidence?

The first person plural ‘we’ is used in certain parts of the narrative, where the writer is describing the journeys of St. Paul. He therefore professes to be a companion of St. Paul. This first person appears in the ordinary text for the first time at Troas (Acts 16:10), during the second missionary journey (c. A.D. 51 or 52), and continues to Philippi, where it is dropped (Acts 16:17) as suddenly as it had appeared. It is taken up again after several years (A.D. 58) during the third missionary journey at this same place Philippi (Acts 20:5), and continues till St. Paul arrives at Jerusalem and confers with James and the elders (Acts 20:18). When again he set sail for Italy (Acts 27:1) it accompanies him and remains in his company during the voyage and shipwreck and until his arrival in Rome (Acts 28:15-16, for in ver. 16 the best supported reading is εἰσήλθαμεν). But besides these occurrences in the ordinary text, it is found likewise in D at a much earlier point (Acts 11:28), where the prophecy of Agabus is mentioned at Antioch. Though the variations in D seem in many passages to give contemporary traditions, yet the capriciousness of this MS. elsewhere forbids us to regard this as the original reading.

Who then is this writer who uses the first person? The obvious answer is that which identifies him with the traditional author of the work, St. Luke. This person was certainly a trusty companion of the Apostle (Col 4:14; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11); and though the notices in St. Paul’s Epistles refer to a somewhat later date, he might very well have been with the Apostle at this time. Not a single Epistle of St. Paul was written during the precise periods covered by ‘we’ in the Acts, and therefore the absence of Luke’s name in the Epistles prior to the Roman captivity is not even a prima facie objection. Moreover, Luke is described as ‘the beloved physician’ (Col 4:14), and a tendency to the use of medical terms has been observed both in the Third Gospel and the Acts. If many of the examples adduced must be set aside as proving nothing, the residuum is quite sufficient to establish the main point (see esp. Hobart’s Medical Language of St. Luke, Dublin, 1882).

But though the natural inference from the use of the first person plural seems plain enough, it has given rise to various opinions. These may be divided into four classes: 1) That which regards it as a mere literary fiction to give an air of credibility to the narrative. This view has been held by two or three critics, of whom Schrader (Der Apostel Paulus, 1836) may be taken as the type. As no one now upholds this view, I need not take the trouble to refute it; 2) That which identifies it with St. Luke, who is regarded as also the ultimate author of the work. This is the vastly preponderating opinion even in the present day, and until quite recent times it was the sole possessor of the field. Its consistency and verisimilitude have been already shown; 3) That which identifies it with St. Luke as the original authority for this portion of the narrative, but maintains that the Book, as a whole, was compiled by some later person. This is the view of Baur and Zeller, with several subsequent critics, of whom the latest is Holtzmann (Zeitsch. F. Wiss. Theol. 1881, p. 408sq.; Einl. p. 385, 1885); 4) That which identifies it with some one else besides St. Luke. The persons selected for this distinction are: a) Timothy. This is the view of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and others, notably Bleek (see esp. Introd. To New Test, i. p. 355sq. Engl. Transl.). It appears to have been first suggested by Konigssmann, De Fontibus Comm. Sacr. Qui Lucae nomen praefereunt, &c., 1798; b) Silas. This hypothesis is vigorously maintained by Schwanbeck (Ueber die Quellen der Schriften des Lukas, i. p. 168 sq. 265 sq.), though he was not the first to suggest it. It is sometimes connected with the identification of Silvanus (Silas) with Lucanus (Lucas), as e.g by Hennell (Untersuchung uber den Urspring des Christenthum, 1840). This identification is put forward by Van Vloten (Zeitschr. F. Wiss. Theil. 1867, p. 223 sq.; comp. ibid., 1871, p. 431 sq.) as if he were the originator of the theory. He is answered by Cropp (ibid., 1868, p. 353 sq.). c) Titus. This view seems to have been suggested first by Horst (Sur les Sources de la deuxieme partie des Actes, &c., 1849; see Holtzmann, Einl. p. 385), and has been adopted by Krenkel, Jacobsen, and others, notably by Hooykaas (Bible for Young People, v. 33; see Salmon, Introd. p. 312 sq.). In connection with this theory should be mentioned the identification of Titus with Silvanus (or Silas) maintained by Zimmer (Zeitschr. F. kirchl. Wiss. U. kirchl. Leben, 1881, 4 p. 169 sq.; Jahrb. F. Protest. Theol. 1881, p. 721 sq.), who supposes Silas the prophet of Antioch to be a different person from the Titus Silas the companion of St. Paul. His theory is discussed by Jülicher (Jahrb. F. Protest. Theol. 1882, p. 538 sq.).

The two solutions b) and c) may be quickly dismissed. The identification of Silvanus with Lucanus on the ground that silva and lucus are synonyms is about as reasonable as would be the identification of persons bearing the names Wood and Forest and Grove, or Lea and Field and Meadows, or Mountain and Hill, or Rock and Cliff and Stone. The objection to the other identification is of a different kind. Everything points to the separation of Titus and Silvanus. Thus the two are mentioned by their respective names in one and the same Epistle by St. Paul (2 Cor 1:19; 2:13; 7:6 &c.). Moreover, Titus was a Gentile (Gal 2:3), while Silas (Silvanus) was plainly a Jew (Acts 15:22); for it is altogether arbitrary to distinguish the Silas of Acts 15:22, 27, 32, [34], from the Silas of Acts 15:40, &c. Having thus cleared the way, we may deal generally with the hypotheses which belong to the third and fourth classes.

Of the third we may remark: 1) that the ‘we’ sections are absolutely identical in style with the rest of the Acts, and indeed with the Third Gospel also, so that they can only have been written by the ultimate compiler of both narratives; 2) that accordingly these ‘we’ sections contain numerous cross references to other parts of the narrative; 3) that the ultimate compiler (whoever he was) shows not only literary ability, but literary care. This point is strongly insisted upon (among others) by Renan, who speaks of the Third Gospel and Acts as forming one work excellently put together (tres bien redige) composed with reflection and even with art &c. (Les Apotres, p. xi.). But it is incredible that an author evincing this literary capacity and aim should commit the school-boy blunder of inserting paragraphs written by another without even taking the trouble to alter the personal pronouns. It is not sufficient to point to such carelessness in medieval chroniclers as Schwanbeck does. The examples are not parallel. We have in the Acts ‘not one of those low organizations which do not resent being pulled asunder’ but ‘a highly organized structure, showing evident marks that the whole proceeds from a single author’ (Salmon, Introd. p. 316); 4) Lastly, the hypotheses belonging to this class have not a shadow of evidence in their favor. On what grounds then should they claim to displace the traditional view? Is the strongest historical attestation to count for nothing?

It will be seen at once that some of these objections apply equally to the fourth class. But the individual hypotheses again, which belong to this class, present additional difficulties of their own—a) The assignment to Timothy is irreconcilable with Acts 20:5-6 where the writer, having mentioned him among the others who accompanied St. Paul, adds, ‘But these (οὗτοι δὲ) had gone before and were waiting for us (προσελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς) in Troas’; where οὗτοι naturally refers to all those previously mentioned, and the restriction to the last two, Tychicus and Trophimus, is not justified by the form of the sentence; b) The attribution to Silas has nothing to recommend it. Silas or Silvanus is a prominent figure during the Apostle’s second missionary journey in the Acts; and this prominence is borne out by the notices in St. Paul’s Epistles relating to this period (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; 2 Cor 1:19). On the contrary, he nowhere appears during the third missionary journey either in the history or in the letters, whereas the ‘we’ occurs frequently during this period; c) The only ground for suggesting Titus is the negative fact that he is not mentioned by name in the narrative, though he is known to have been with St. Paul during part of this period, (2 Cor 2:13; 7:6sq.; 12:18), and is a prominent person among the Apostle’s companions. But what is the value of this negative fact? What advantage has the Titus guess over the Luke tradition? Unless indeed it be ‘thought a disadvantage to an hypothesis that it should have some amount of historical testimony’ (Salmon, p. 313). Moreover, of these attributions generally we may remark that the propriety in the change from the first to the third person, and conversely, as pointed out previously, ceases, and the use of the pronouns from being orderly and consistent, becomes a chaos.

Nor is it easy to understand how St. Luke’s name should have thus been persistently assigned to the work, if had had nothing to do with it. As Salmon has pointed out (p. 372), it is not attached to this second treatise in any uncial MS. But the Third Gospel had the name of St. Luke prefixed, and the Acts bore evidence on the face of it that it was written by the same author. Hence the attribution. Indeed the sequence of facts is a most power­­­ful argument in favor of the genuineness of the work. These are as follows: 1) The Gospel bears the name of Luke; but Luke was a companion of St. Paul; 2) When we examine the Gospel, we find not only that it brings into special prominence certain points in Christ’s teaching which illustrate the cardinal doctrines of St. Paul, the universality and the freedom of the Gospel, justification not by works of law but by faith, and the like; but also that, where St. Paul refers to incidents in our Lord’s life, as for instance to the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23sq.; comp. Luke 22:19sq.) or to the appearances after the Resurrection (e.g. 1 Cor 15:5, ὤφθη Κηφᾷ: comp. Luke 24:34, ὤφθη Σίμωνι), his references present striking resemblances to this Gospel rather than to the others. Yet there is not a word nor a hint of any connection with any knowledge of the Apostle; 3) The Acts professes to be written by the same person as the Third Gospel, of which it is a later continuation; and this profession is fully borne out by its style and character; 4) We read over more than half this second treatise without any indication that the writer was a companion of St. Paul; 5) Then at length the token of companionship occurs. Yet even now it is not distinctly stated, but the fact is inferred from the incidental occurrence of the first person plural, which makes its first appearance quite unsuspiciously. And not only so, but in its subsequent disappearance and re-appearance it shows a congruity that cannot fail to strike the mind. Who will be bold enough to explain these harmonies as a fortuitous concourse of pseudo-historical atoms? Yet it would require greater hardihood still to ascribe them to a sustained and elaborate artifice.

Apart from the hypotheses that we have hitherto considered, stands the view propounded in H. H. Evans, St. Paul the Author of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Third Gospel (London, 1884). The Pauline authorship is maintained by this writer on the ground of certain resemblances of diction. He does not attempt to deal with the first person plural or to grapple with the difficulties that beset his theory on all sides.

5. Authenticity and Genuineness. In discussing the authenticity of any work, two main divisions of the subject present themselves: 1) The internal characteristics, as indication of verisimilitude or the contrary; 2) The external tests as evidences of veracity or the contrary.

1) In treating of the internal characteristics, I must satisfy myself with pointing out a few heads, giving here and there an example, but without any attempt to do more than indicate the lines of investigation which the reader may carry out for himself.

(i.) There is first of all the change of moral and spiritual atmosphere. As we pass from the beginning to the end of the Book, we find that the religious climate, so to speak, is quite changed, and we are breathing a different air. In short we have passed from the Hebraic to the Hellenic. This change manifests itself throughout, in the speeches, in the actions, in the modes of feeling and in the local customs and institutions. Yet the transition is not sudden. It is a gradual growth, as the Church emancipates itself, both locally and morally, from the tutelage of its Hebrew infancy. Between the two extremes the intermediate Hellenistic territory is duly traversed. In short, the work, regarded from this point of view, betokens a writer who either had witnessed the progressive career himself, or made use of successive contemporary documents; but such a narrative would be quite impossible from one who some generations later attempted to furnish a story of the apostolic doings, trusting mainly or solely to his own faculty of invention.

(ii.) Not unconnected with this feature is the sequence and connection of events. We may take as an example the incidents that prepared the way for the extension of the Church to the Gentiles. What could be more natural, and yet what more unlike the work of a forger than these fragmented disconnected notices, that, as we see after the fact, must inevitably have led to the result, but which no one could have foreseen or devised, and which required careful piecing together before we can trace their bearing and direction. These are: 1) The murmuring of the Hellenistic widows, Acts 6:1; 2) the creation of the diaconate, Acts 6:2sq.; 3) the composition of this diaconate, comprising especially Stephen and Philip, Acts 6:5sq.; 4) Stephen’s disputations, speech, and martyrdom, Acts 6:8–7:60; 5) Saul’s appearance on the scene, Acts 7:58; 8:1, 6) the scattering abroad of the disciples and the consequence of this persecution, Acts 8:1, 7) the preaching of Philip in Samaria and elsewhere, as the result of this scattering, Acts 8:5-40; 8) the wider dissemination of the word and the first preaching to the Gentiles through the outlying members of this scattered band, Acts 11:19-20. A little reflection will show that all this is inconceivable, except as an account of facts that actually occurred.

(iii.) Another point is the disproportion and inequality of the narrative. This argument is strongly insisted upon by Renan (p. xv.) among others: ‘Ce qui distingue l’histoire composee d’apres des documents de l’histoire ecrite en tour ou en partie d’original, c’est justement la disproportion.’ A narrator who allows himself carte blanche to invent will take care that the different parts of his narrative bear some proportion to each other. On the other hand, a recorder of facts is limited by the historical knowledge at his disposal. At some points he has very ample information; at others it entirely fails him. Now nothing is more striking than the want of proportion in the Acts. In some parts the history of a few months occupies several chapters; in others the history of many years is disposed of in two or three verses. Sometimes we have a diary of a journey or voyage; elsewhere a bald statement of the main fact is given. But nowhere is this disproportion more striking than in some of the speeches, notably in that of Stephen. This is by far the longest record of a speech in the Book, extending over 52 verses. Having all this space at his disposal, a forger would have made it both pertinent and complete. He would have provided a well-reasoned defense against the twofold crime with which Stephen is charged. But here we have nothing of the kind. There is a long and at first sight irrelevant account of the early history of the Jewish people, which occupies 49 verses, and the last three are taken up in a denunciation of his accusers. Direct answer to the charges there is none. Only when we examine it more carefully, we discover two things: first that the incidents in the long historical narrative illustrate the transitory character of the present dispensation and of the local sanctuary; and secondly that the latter part of the speech (Acts 7:48-53) is interrupted and hurried. Thus the whole speech, as we have it, is a preamble, and the argumentative application which should have formed the main part of his defense does not appear at all, or at least is confined to two or three short sentences, doubtless because the clamors of the bystanders bring the speaker prematurely to a close. But until we discover the key to its meaning, this rambling discourse is quite unintelligible under the circumstances, and such as no forger would or could have invented. It is only conceivable as the substantially true record of what was actually said. Another instance of similar disproportion is the speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31), where there is no distinctive Christian teaching till the last verse, and here only one point is touched upon. In this case however the probable explanation is that it was not so much the speech itself, as the report of the speech accessible to the historian, which was fuller at the commencement and hurried at the end. But the bearing on the point at issue—the truthfulness of the narrator—is the same.

(iv.) We have also another indication of genuineness in the minor discrepancies and errors, or what appear to be such in the account. Thus we have three separate accounts of St. Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:3sq.; 22:6sq.; 26:12sq.). The divergences may not be irreconcilable, but they do not reconcile themselves. The reasonable explanation is not that the writer himself invented the three accounts, but that he obtained them as he found them. Again the in­accur­­acies in the reference to the Old Testament history in St. Stephen’s speech are probably due to the strict reproduction of a report taken under necessarily unfavorable circumstances. In some cases at all events (e.g. Acts 7:43, the substitution of ‘Babylon’ for ‘Damascus’) we seem to see that they are due to hurried condensation.

(v.) The naturalness of the language, as indicating direct knowledge of facts, should also be noticed. The incidental appearance and disappearance of the ‘we,’ to which attention has been directed already, is a good illustration. Another example appears in the order of the names Barnabas and Paul (or Saul). Barnabas is the earlier disciple (Acts 4:36), and the mediator between Saul and the elder Apostles (Acts 9:27; 11:22-26). Accordingly, in the earlier part of the history the order is always ‘Barnabas and Saul’ (Acts 11:30; 13:2). But when their missionary journeys commence, and they stand on Gentile ground, St. Paul’s supremacy of character asserts itself, and the order is tacitly changed to ‘Paul and Barnabas’ (Acts 13:43, 46, 50; 15:2, 22, 35). There are indeed exceptions in this latter part, but they only ‘prove the rule.’ At the apostolic council and in the apostolic letter the old sequence ‘Barnabas and Paul’ is again resumed (Acts 15:12, 25); and so too at Lystra, where Barnabas is identified with Zeus and Paul with Hermes, the former naturally takes the precedence for the moment (Acts 14:14). As instances of naturalness in the language represented to have been used by the speakers, we may allege the distortions of facts by Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:27) to save his own credit, or the exaggerated compliments paid to Felix by Tertullus (Acts 24:2sq.), which are explained but not justified by his career as governor.

Altogether, it may be affirmed that if there had been no miraculous element in the narrative, and if it had had no bearing on religious controversy, the form and contents of this work would have placed it beyond all suspicion, as regards genuineness and authenticity.

2) From the consideration of the internal characteristics we turn to the external tests, as evidence of truthfulness.

(i.) In the earlier part of the narrative we have rarely an opportunity of testing the incidents by reference to other Christian documents; but in the latter portion, giving the history of St. Paul, may be compared with and checked by the Apostle’s own letters. This work has been done admirably by Paley in his Horae Paulinae; and the main result is conclusive. He has elicited a mass of ‘undesigned coincidences’ that renders the hypothesis of a fictitious history impossible. The comparison of the four greater Epistles, more especially (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians), belonging to the years 57–58 elicits striking examples. Any reader, for instance, who will take the pains to go carefully over Paley’s discussion of the passages relating to the contributions for the Christian poor at Jerusalem, observing how they dovetail into one another, may satisfy himself of the validity of the argument. Yet it is plain that the writer of the Acts was unacquainted with these Epistles, or at all events that, if he had ever seen them, he made no use of them in compiling his history. Otherwise, we are wholly unable to explain the omission of any reference to the incidents and persons mentioned: for example, in Rom 15:19, 28; 16:1sq., 23; 1 Cor 1:11sq.; 16:15sq.; 2 Cor 2:12; 7:5; 11:24; 12:3sq.; Gal 1:17; 2:11sq.; to say nothing of the absence of any allusion to Titus in connection with Corinth or of the different aspects which the third visit to Jerusalem bears in the Acts (Acts 15:1sq.) and in St. Paul’s Epistle (Gal 2:1sq.).

(ii) Another point of comparison with external documents related to the language ascribed to the different Apostles in the Acts. St. James, St. Peter, and St. Paul, all have speeches assigned to them. Is their language such as might be expected from the writers of the Epistles bearing their several names? The very few sentences ascribed to James do not afford much scope for comparison. Yet the sentiments attributed to him are what might have been expected from one who was the recognized head of the Church of Jerusalem as well as from the writer of the Epistle that bears his name. It has been observed also that of the canonical writers James alone uses the common formula χαίρειν as the heading of his Epistle (James 1:1), which appears likewise at the beginning of the apostolic letter, evidently represented in the Acts as dictated by him.

The speeches and sayings of St. Peter afford considerably more material for comparison. In the diction and still more in the ideas, they exhibit such parallels with the Epistles bearing the name of this Apostle as to suggest identity of authorship, notwithstanding the alterations in form that they have necessarily undergone by transmission. On this subject see Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, p. 6sq. and passim; Kahler, Der Reden des Petrus in der Apostelgeschichte, Stud. U. Krit., 1873, p. 492sq.; Salmon, Introd. p. 335sq. ed. 2, as well as the commentaries on this Book, especially Nosgren, p. 47sq.

For St. Paul the material is much more ample, and the resulting correspondingly more conclusive. The speech at Miletus (Acts 20:18, sq.) more especially has been carefully analyzed, and exhibits throughout both Pauline matter and Pauline diction. Moreover, it is not fanciful to trace more special correspondences with the letters belonging to the several periods at which the speeches are represented as being delivered. Thus the one Christian doctrine which is mentioned in the speech on the Areopagus (17:31)—the Second Advent and the Judgment—is the one prominent topic of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, written at this time. Again, the speech at Miletus, already mentioned, exhibits resemblances to the Epistles of the third missionary journey which preceded this epoch, and with the Epistles to the Philippians and Ephesians which succeeded it.

(iii) The geographical and historical tests which the subject-matter of the Acts invites us to apply, are exceptionally wide and various. If, for instance, we confine ourselves to geography, we accompany the Apostle by land and sea; we follow him about in Jerusalem, in Palestine and Syria, in Asia Minor, in Greece, in Italy. The topographical details are scattered over this wide expanse of continent, island, and ocean; and they are both minute and incidental. Yet the writer is never betrayed into an error. The account of the Apostle’s journey to Rome (for example) is so accurate and consistent, that a modern writer has been enabled almost to reproduce a log-book of the voyage (James Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul). The amount of geographical and topographical illustrations which the narrative of the Acts admits may be seen from such books as Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul and Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul; and these works will afford a measure of strength to the argument to be derived from such considerations.

When we turn from geography to history, the tests are still more numerous, and lead to still more decisive results. The laws, institutions, the manners, the religious rites, the magisterial records of Syria and Palestine, of Asia Minor, of Macedonia and Greece, all live in the pages of this narrative. It will suffice to mention one or two of the more striking facts. When St. Paul first visits Europe, he sojourns at two important Macedonian cities in succession, Philippi and Thessalonike. In neither case does the political constitution follow the normal type of a Greek city; yet in both the local government is correctly and significantly indicated. Philippi was a Roman colony (Acts 16:12). Accordingly, here we find all the apparatus and coloring of a colony, which was a miniature reproduction of Rome herself (see Lightfoot, Philippians p. 51sq.). There are the local magistrates, the duumvirs, who, after the way of such colonial magnates, arrogate to themselves the title of praetors (στρατηγοῖ, Acts 16:20, 22, 35-36). There are the attendant lictors (ῥαβδούχοι, Acts 16:35). The majesty of Rome is appealed to again and again (Acts 16:21, 37-38). But when we turn from Philippi to Thessalonike, all is changed. Thessalonike was a free city, with a magistracy of its own. A collision occurs here, as at Philippi, and the alleged offenders are again brought before the magistrates. These magistrates mentioned, though quite incidentally as politarchs (πολιτάρχας, Acts 17:6, 8). It so happens that this word (πολιτάρχης) has not hitherto been found anywhere in Greek literature, though πολιτάρχoς appears in a general sense, in an obscure passage of Aeneas Tacitus, c. 26 (p. 81, Schweigh). From inscriptions however, found at Thessalonike itself (Boeckh, C.I.G. no. 1967; see Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, II clxxi. p. 32, with the notes) we learn that this was the local name of the chief magistrates of Thessalonike, who were seven in number. It should be added also that at Thessalonike mention is made (Acts 17:5) of a popular assembly (δῆμος) which is likewise in keeping. Again, at Corinth, the notice of the chief magistrate is in strict accordance with history though the chances of error were very great. The province of Achaia at this epoch was bandied about between the senate and the emperor, being transferred and retransferred from one to the other, and was governed by a proconsul (ἀνθύπατoς) or proprietor (ἀντιστρατηγός) accordingly. At this moment (A.D. 52 or 53) it was in the hands of the senate, and the designation of the chief magistrate as ἀνθυπατεύων in the Acts (Acts 18:12) is therefore correct. But it had only been retransferred to the senate a few years earlier (A.D. 44) by Claudius (Suetonius Claud. 25; Dion Cassius lx.24), after being in the emperor’s hands for some thirty years (since A.D. 15); and somewhat later under Nero (A.D. 67) it ceased to be a Roman province (Pliny N.H. iv. 6; Suetonius Nero, 24, &c.: see Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p. 50), and remained autonomous till Vespasian again restored the provincial government. Moreover, the person represented as holding the proconsulate at this, Gallio, is mentioned by his brother Seneca (Epist. 104.1) as residing in Achaia, though his office is not named. In this passage however Seneca mentions an illness and consequent sea-voyage of Gallio during his residence in Achaia, and Pliny (N.H. xxxi.33) refers to this same incident in Gallio’s life as taking place post consulatum, but without any mention of Achaia. Thus the notice in the Acts links together the statements of the two profane writers, for the proconsulship of Achaia would be a natural sequel to the consulship. Moreover, the time harmonizes; for as Seneca was not restored to favor till A.D. 49, after eight years’ banishment, his brother’s promotion to office would naturally take place after that year, and probably not long after. Gallio’s character also, as here given, accords with the description of him by his brother Seneca (Quaest. Nat. iv. Praef.), and his friend Statius (Silv. ii.7.30sq.), who both use the same epithet ‘dulcis.’ The easy-going magistrate was the amiable sweet-tempered companion. Similarly, the description of Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Crete, is confirmed by notices and inscriptions, though here again any one but a contemporary would be very liable to error, owing to the transference and retransference of the province (see Contemporary Review, May 1878, p. 290). Not only do the inscriptions show that at this time it was governed by proconsuls, but one discovered a few years ago by Cesnola (Cyprus, p. 425) mentions ‘the proconsulship of Paulus’ (ΕΠΙ ΠΑΥΛΟΥ [ΑΝΘ]ΠΑΤΟΥ). On the probability that this is Sergius Paulus mentioned by Pliny, see Contemp. Rev. l.c.

Among other Greek cities which St. Paul is represented as visiting, comparatively full accounts are given of his sojourns at two especially, Athens and Ephesus. It is instructive to study the narratives of his residence at these two places, in themselves and in comparison one with another. Athens is the most Hellenic of all cities, the heart and citadel of Greece; whereas at Ephesus there is a very strong intermingling of the Oriental spirit and institutions with the main stream of Hellenism. The diverse tone of these two typical cities of heathendom comes to life in the Apostle’s conflicts with his audiences on either occasion. The one is inquisitive, philosophical, courteous, and refined; the other fanatical, superstitious, and impulsive. Nor does the truthfulness of the narrative manifest itself only in the moral and religious atmosphere of the two places. It descends even to the details. At Athens (Acts 17:16sq.) we are confronted with some of the main topographical features of the city—the Areopagus and the agora. There are the representatives of the two dominant philosophical schools, the Stoics and the Epicureans. There is the predominant attitude of inquiry in this metropolis of newsmongers and here even the characteristic Athenian term of abuse (σπερμολόγος) finds its proper place. There is the large number of foreign residents, which was always a distinguishing feature of Athens. There is the reference to the numerous images and temples which ‘thronged the city’ to the boastful pride of the citizens in their religious devotion to the gods consistent as it was with no small amount of theological skepticism; to their jealousy of the introduction of strange deities, as manifested in the case of Socrates and at various points in their history; to their practice of propitiating the offended powers after any plague or other infection, by erecting an altar to ‘an unknown god’ or ‘unknown gods’; to their custom of deifying attributes of character, frames of mind, and conditions of body, so that ‘Resurrection’ (Anastasis) would seem to them to be only another addition to their pantheon, which already included ‘Pity,’ ‘Modesty,’ ‘Rumor,’ ‘Persuasion,’ ‘Impulse,’ &c. (Pausanias i.17). Lastly, there is an appropriate allusion to τὸν θεόν, an expression which would commend itself to his philosophical audience, but which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; and an equally appropriate appeal to the sentiments of the Stoic poets Aratus and Cleanthes (τῶν καθ’ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν), who had proclaimed the universal ­fatherhood of Zeus. The amount of illustration which has been gathered together from classical sources by such writers as Wettstein, Conybeare and Howson, and Renan (not to mention the numerous commentators on the Acts), is sufficient evidence how true to the local coloring is this description of St. Paul’s visit to Athens, even in the finest touches. When we turn from Athens to Ephesus (Acts 19:1 sq.), the indication of the truthfulness of the narrative is equally complete. Here however the verification is found more in ancient inscriptions than in extant literature. The recent excavations at Ephesus more especially have added largely to our stores of illustrations. On this subject see a paper by the writer of this article in the Contemporary Review May 1878, p. 292 sq. We have mentioned, in St. Luke’s account of the magical books, of which we read elsewhere under the name Ἐφέσια γράμματα, of the chief buildings of the city, not only the Temple of Artemis but the Greek Theatre, with which the recent excavations have made us familiar; of the great officials of the city and province—the proconsul as the chief imperial magistrate, the town-clerk as the chief municipal authority, and the Asiarchs as the principal religious functionaries; of the court days, by implication divided into two, the regular and the special, as we know to have been the case; above all, of the prevailing cultus of the place ‘Artemis of the Ephesians’ dominates everywhere. The characteristic religious phraseology of her worshippers is reproduced—the city is the ‘temple-sweeper,’ the ‘verger,’ of the ‘great goddess’; the silver models of her shrine which were carried away as keepsakes by pilgrims to Ephesus appear in the narrative; the image which ‘fell down from Zeus’ has its place there; everything is strictly in keeping.

These instances of geographical and historical propriety are taken from Greece and Asia Minor, and the illustrations are drawn from the classical writers and inscriptions. But the pictures relating to Jerusalem and Palestine are found to be drawn with equal fidelity, where we can test them. Of topographical accuracy an example will be given presently in the vivid description of a scene that takes place in the Temple area. The historical fidelity of the narrative may be illustrated by the part assigned to the Sadducees. It is not among the high-priests and leaders of the hierarchy that we should have expected to find a Sadducean predominance. Yet the author of the Acts boldly represents the high-priestly circle as members of this sect (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and this representation is confirmed by the direct testimony of Josephus (Ant. xx.9.1). Moreover it has been more than once observed that, whereas the Pharisees are the chief opponents of Christ and His disciples in the Gospels, the Sadducees take the lead in Acts, and that this change is explained from the fact of the Apostles making the Resurrection the foundation of their preaching, and thus striking at the root of Sadducean doctrine. From this point of view, it is noticeable that in the Fourth Gospel, though the sect of the Sadducees is not mentioned by name by St. John, the most virulent opposition of the high-priestly party led by Caiaphas begins first at the point where we should expect it to begin, after the miracle of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:47sq.), and that it was a main object with them to put Lazarus to death (John 12:9-11) and thus get rid of the evidence for a resurrection. Accordingly, the course of events as related on a subsequent occasion, when St. Paul pleads before the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem (Acts 23:1sq.), is perfectly consistent and evidently historical. The Apostle had offended the Sadducean high-priest Ananias, who presided; and he recovered his position with his audience by declaring that he and his forefathers were Pharisees, and that the main subject of his contention was the doctrine of the Resurrection, which the Pharisees held in common with him, thus dividing the assembly and securing (as it would appear) the support of the majority. Whether this declaration was strictly defensible (as it was certainly true), I need not stop to inquire; but it is what a sagacious man would naturally do under the circumstances, and the fact that it is frankly recorded is a token of the narrator’s veracity.

The evidence then in favor of the authenticity of the narrative is far fuller and more varied than we had any right to expect. But certain objections have been taken, which it is necessary to remove.

(i) Thus it is asserted that the diction is the same throughout, and therefore the speeches ascribed to the principal characters are unhistorical. It is not Stephen or Peter or Paul who speaks, but Luke or pseudo-Luke himself. Long lists of words and modes of expression have been drawn up, which regarded as characteristic of the writer’s style. These extend over the whole of the Gospel as well as Acts. There is frequently very great exaggeration in these lists (e.g. Supernatural Religion, iii. pp. 72 sq.; 146sq. &c.). Irrelevant expressions are included; Septuagint quotations are treated as if they were the narrator’s own language; words used in wholly different senses (e.g. βῆμα, ‘footstep’ and βῆμα, ‘tribunal’) are treated as parallels; terms which are necessitated by the subject-matter are regarded as characteristic of the author; the commonest words in the language are invested with a special value. Thus an entirely false impression is conveyed. But after all these spurious examples are set aside, there is a certain residuum of resemblance in the diction (see e.g. Lekebusch, p. 35 sq.). Characteristic words and phrases of the author appear in the speeches, as well as in the narrative portion. But this was inevitable. It was impossible that the speeches could be reported word for word. Sometimes they must have been spoken in Aramaic; in other cases only shorthand and fragmentary reports were in the author’s hands; in others again he may have heard them by word of mouth; in all probably they were much abridged. A certain infusion of his own phraseology was a natural consequence, and it does not affect their substantial accuracy. It appears even in the example which I have already given of an evidently Pauline utterance—the speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus. The measure of the extent to which it would affect the language is seen by the example of the Third Gospel. Here we are able to compare St. Luke’s account with the parallel narratives of the two other Synoptists; and the historical character remains, notwithstanding the literary editing of the third Evangelist. There is no reason to suppose that he dealt more freely with his materials in the Acts, where we have no such means of testing them. Indeed, as he was nearer to the events and more familiar with the persons, we should expect, if anything, a closer adherence to the form in which he received the reports.

(ii) A second objection, or rather a second class of objections, is based on the representation here given of the principal agents in the planting of the Church, more especially of the relations between St. Peter and St. Paul and their respective followers. These objections start from the assumption that there was an irreconcilable opposition between the Apostle of the Circumcision and the Apostle of the Gentiles; that their views of Christianity were diametrically opposed; and that the former never emancipated himself from a strictly Judaic and national conception of the Christ’s Kingdom, whereas the idea of the latter was cosmopolitan and universal. The author of the Acts, it is assumed living at a later date, was desirous of finding a meeting point for the conflicting parties, and thus invented positions, words, and actions for the chief Apostles, so as to bring them into accord. His aim was conciliation, and he twisted or forged history accordingly. This is too wide a question for discussion here. The objection indicated involves a petition principii. Our chief authority for the relations existing between the leading Apostles is this very Book itself. We can only say that to ourselves such passages as 1 Cor 1:12sq., 23; Gal 1:18; 2:6sq., 14sq. seem to indicate a substantial harmony in principle between the two supposed antagonists; that they are placed on the same level by the two earliest of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome 5; Ignatius Rom. 4), and are quoted as of equal authority by the third (Polycarp, Phil. 2, 5, 6, &c.); that the mainstream of Christian history betrays no evidence of this fundamental antagonism as the substratum of the Catholic Church; and that the first distinct mention of it occurs in an obviously fictitious narrative, which cannot date before the second half of the second century, though doubtless even from the apostolic times there were some extreme men who used the names of the two Apostles as party watchwords.

According to this conception of early Christianity, it would be impossible that St. Peter should have seen the vision obliterating the distinction of meats clean and unclean, which led to the conversion of Cornelius, or that St. Paul should have taken part in the Nazarite vows, and so have been guilty of complicity with Jewish customs, on his last visit to Jerusalem. Above all the representation of the attitudes of the respective leaders at the so-called apostolic council is called in question, both as impossible in itself and as irreconcilable with the notices of what is apparently the same occasion in Gal 2:1-10.

As regards the apostolic council, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to a full consideration of the question in my Galatians p. 123sq. The subject is too long for discussion here. It has been treated from various ponts of view, not only in Introductions, Apostolic Histories, and Commentaries but also in separate articles and monographs. Among the latter are Grimm, Stud. U. Krit. 1880, Hft. 3; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1858, p. 74 sq., p. 317 sq.; Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus f. Wiss. Theol. 1882, p. 436 sq., p. 129 sq.; Keim, Aud dem Urchistenthum, p. 64 sq.; Pfleiderer, Jahrb. F. Protest Theol. 1883, p. 78 sq. p. 241 sq.; Reuss, Revue de Theologie, 1858, 1859; K. Schmidt in Herzog-Plitt. Real Encykl. i. p. 575, 1877; Schneckenberger, Stud. U. Krit. 1855, p. 554 sq.; Volkmar, Theol. Zeitschr. aus d. Schweiz. 1885, p. 33 sq.; Weizacker, Jahrb. F. Deutsch Theol. 1873, p. 191 sq.; Wittichen, Jahrb. F. Protest. Theol. 1877, p. 653 sq. See also other reference in Holtzmann l.c. p. 436 sq. The opinions of Baur, Lechler, Neander, Ritschl, Schwegler, Zeller, and others, will be found in their several works mentioned at the end of this article; and the question is discussed at length in some of the Commentaries (e.g. Overbeck and Nosgen).

But it so happens that at the very two points in the narrative where St. Paul is represented as making the largest concessions to the Judaic Christians, and where therefore the author is supposed to diverge most widely from historical truth in order to gratify this assumed motive, we find in the character of the context indications which, in any case, would be regarded as striking evidences of veracity in an ancient narrator. These are the account of the third visit to Jerusalem, including this apostolic council in the 15th chapter and the conduct of the Apostle on his last visit to this same place in the 21st chapter.

(1) The account of the apostolic council is preceded by one avowal of weakness in the factions and quarrels in the Church (Acts 15:1-2sq.), and succeeded by another in the contention and separation of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36 sq.). These frank confessions at all events afford a strong presumption of truthfulness. The whole narrative is essentially simple, straightforward, and natural as a record of events. The principal speakers, Peter and James, express opinions and use language as we have seen, which at all events presents resemblances to the Epistles extant in their names. The ‘apostolic decree’ bears such manifest traces of genuineness, and would have been so impossible at a late date, that few even of those who impugn the representation of St. Paul’s actions have ventured to question it. The relative positions of Peter and James harmonize with the circumstances, the official superiority of James at Jerusalem being recognized. The relative positions of Paul and Barnabas show still more subtle traces of authenticity, as I have already pointed out. Where the author is narrating in his own person, the order ‘Paul and Barnabas’ which would be natural to him, is adopted (Acts 15:2, 22, 35); but where the Church of Jerusalem is interested, as in the order of hearing accorded to the two (Acts 15:12) and again in the apostolic letter itself (Acts 15:25), the order is reversed—Barnabas being the older disciple, and better known to the Christians in Jerusalem. As a minor indication of truthfulness again, we may mention that Peter here, and here only in the Acts (in the speech of James) is called by his Hebraic name in its Hebraic form ‘Symeon’ (comp. 2 Pet 1:1). Indeed, the whole narrative is such that no one would have hesitated to accept it as a genuine record, if this pre­possession as to the mutual relations of the Apostles at this crisis had not stood in the way.

(2) The same is true of the later incident, the concession of the Apostle to the Jewish Christians in the matter of the Nazarite vows, on the occasions of his last visit to Jerusalem. The account is preceded by a diary of a voyage to Caesarea (Acts 21:1-8) and the sojourn in Caesarea (Acts 21:9-14) which is singularly plain, straightforward, and lifelike, which satisfies every test of truthfulness, and which in the purposeless-ness of the incidental touches is only explicable as a narrative of an eye-witness. This is especially true likewise of the verse immediately preceding the visit (Acts 21:16), which records the journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem, ‘taking with us one Mnason of Cyprus, a primitive disciple, with whom we were to lodge.’ There is no reason for this mention of Mnason, of whom we never hear again, except that the fact struck the narrator. The whole account again belongs to the ‘we’ sections, and manifests the life-like character which pervades these sections, moreover, it is allusive. It omits to explain certain points to the reader, because they were obvious to the writer. Such for instance is the reference to ‘the seven days’ (Acts 21:27), which has puzzled the commentators. Again, the narrative of the tumult in the Temple, which follows, is not only full of life but (what is more important) saturated with local coloring. The alarm that the Apostle had introduced the Gentile Trophimus, the Ephesian, into the Temple is illustrated by M. Ganneau’s discovery (Palestine Exploration Fund, 1871, pp. 132sq., 172sq.) of the inscription on the stone barrier (δρύφακτος) which divided off the Court of the Israelites, forbidding any foreigner to pass it on pain of death, as correctly recorded by Josephus (Ant. xv.11.5; comp. Bell. Jud. v.5.2, vi.2.4); and hence doubtless St. Paul drew his illustration of the middle wall of partition (τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ) separating the Jew and Gentile in Eph 2:14, not without a remembrance (we may well suppose) of this incident of Trophimus the Ephesian, which was the beginning of his captivity. Again, in the tumult that follows, the same characteristics are still more prominent. The ‘tribune,’ the ‘cohort’, the ‘descent’ (v. 12) the ‘steps’, the ‘fortress’—what is the meaning of all this? A minute topographical knowledge underlies the narrative. The tower of Antonia, dominating the Temple area and ascended thence by a long flight of stairs, with the armed cohort stationed there to keep order during the Festivals (Josephus, Bell. Jud. i.12.1) are the facts familiar to the writer which explain and vivify the incidents. But they are assumed, not stated. Upon this follows immediately the reference to the Egyptian pretender, who as we learn from Josephus (Ant. xx.8.6; Bell. Jud. ii.13.5), some three years before this time had threatened Jerusalem. He had disappeared and nothing more was heard from him. What more likely than that the Roman captain should suppose that he had started up again to disturb the peace? The manner in which he is mentioned is altogether natural and unstudied. On the other hand, is it at all probable that a writer in the second century would be capable of the very subtle and ingenious artifice that would be involved in this reference, if the narrative were not genuine? In fact the whole of this passage before and after the account of the Nazarite vows hangs together; and it is marked throughout with many and various tokens of authenticity.

Not unconnected with the objection based on the conciliatory tendency of the Book, is the supposed parallelism between the careers of the two Apostles in the former and latter parts of the narrative respectively. Paul is miraculously released from prison at Philippi (Acts 16:26 sq.), as Peter at Jerusalem (Acts 12:6 sq.). Paul strikes the sorcerer Elymas blind (Acts 13:6 sq.), as Peter struck the liars Ananias and Sapphira dead (Acts 5:1sq.). Sick persons are healed by handkerchiefs and aprons brought from the body of Paul (Acts 19:11sq.), as they are healed by the shadow of Peter falling upon them (Acts 5:15). And so forth. When the incidents are extracted from their context and marshaled in pairs, they produce a great impression and it is not surprising that many able critics of different schools have laid stress on this parallelism. On nearer examination, however, it is difficult to find any indication that this design was present to the mind of the writer, though he could hardly have concealed the fact, if he had entertained it. Nor, except in the miraculous release from prison, is there any close correspondence; and in this case the effect of the parallelism, as an indication of any such purpose, is destroyed by the fact that a third miraculous release from prison, earlier than either, is recorded (Acts 5:19), in which ‘the Apostles’ generally are involved. But in fact parallelisms far more close are common in history.

(iii) But a whole different objection had been urged to the genuineness of the Book. Several persons and incidents mentioned in the Acts have a place likewise in Josephus. As the two writers were treating of the history of the same country during the same period, we should hardly have expected it to be otherwise. But it is urged that the writer of Acts borrowed from Josephus, and therefore cannot have been St. Luke. This objection was started by Holtzmann (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xvi. [1873], p. 85 sq.), and followed up by Krenkel (ibid., p. 441 sq.), by the author of Supernatural Religion (Fortnightly Review [1877], p. 502 sq.), and by Keim (Urchristenthum [1878] p. 1 sq.). Holtzmann was answered by Schürer (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. xix. [1876], p. 574 sq.), to whom he made a counter-reply (ibid., xx. [1877], p. 535 sq.).

As regards the narrative of facts, the divergences between the two are a sufficient answer to the charge of plagiarism. Indeed, the genuineness of the narrative in the Acts has been assailed on two wholly different and irreconcilable grounds. On the one hand its coincidences with Josephus are taken to prove that it is a work of a later pretender; on the other hand, its divergences from this same historian are regarded as evidence that the narrative is inauthentic. The attempt to reconcile these two contradictory grounds of attack by the supposition that when the author followed Josephus, he trusted his memory and was betrayed by it, will hardly carry conviction to anyone. We may remark in passing that it is an unproved assumption that, wherever there are divergences between the two, Josephus is right and St. Luke is wrong. Probabilities are often the other way. When, for instance, Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii.13, 15) gives the number of the sicarii who followed the Egyptian as 30,000 and the author of Acts as 4,000 we can have no hesitation in preferring the smaller number to the larger. Moreover, Josephus is not always consistent with himself in his different works, and is full of inaccuracies when dealing with Old Testament history (Dictionary of Christ. Biogr. s.v. Josephus, iii. pp. 445, 455). As regards resemblances of diction, no coincidences have been alleged which make out even a prima facie case of plagiarism. Thus when Holtzmann compares Ant. xx.5.1 with Luke 3:1 (ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας) or when Krenkel sets side by side Josephus’ account of his own boyhood (Vit. 2) with St. Luke’s account of Christ’s childhood (Luke 2:42sq.), laying stress on the occurrence of such words as ‘intelligence’ and ‘progress’ and on the fact that the one was fourteen years old and the other twelve, or when the author of Supernatural Religion calls attention to the dedication of Josephus’ treatise to Epaphroditus, whom he designates ‘κράτιστε’ as Theophilus is designated κράτιστε by St. Luke, and then ransacks the preface of Josephus, which extends over several pages to find words such as . . . αὐτόπτης . . . ἀκριβῶς . . . we are able to measure the value of this objection. To take the last case, the epithet κράτιστε is very common as applied to persons in high position; it occurs many times, for instance, in the inscriptions in Wood’s Ephesus. In one single inscription (Great Theatre, no. 17) it is found twice within six lines, applied to two different persons . . . ; and in another (City and Suburbs, no. 5), twice within four lines, applied to four different persons, three of them being women. . . . Again, in every case the words used by both these writers in common are obvious words to express the things signified, as any lexicon will show; and where two authors are dwelling on similar topics (e.g. the authorities for contemporary or nearly contemporary history), they cannot fail to employ similar language; nor is it easy to explain how any one who could write the Third Gospel and the Acts should be driven to Josephus to replenish his vocabulary with such ordinary words as ‘attempt,’ ‘accurately,’ ‘eye-witness,’ ‘observe,’ and the like.

(iv) Another objection to the genuineness and authenticity of the narrative is the alleged fact that it contains certain unhistorical statements. For the most part however, the errors adduced do not affect the veracity of the historian himself. Thus, for instance, it is affirmed that St. Stephen’s speech, as tested by the Old Testament, contains several inaccuracies. These would doubtless require consideration, if we were discussing the nature and limits of inspiration; but for the question of the veracity of the author they have no value at all. We have no ground for supposing that he was in any degree responsible for them. Nearly all the alleged historical errors are of this kind. The speakers are to blame, not the author who records their speeches. One or two examples, however, do not belong to this class. The chief and most formidable of such historical difficulties is connected with Theudas, the religious insurgent or pretender, whose name is mentioned in the speech of Gamaliel (Acts 5:36) as having been put to death ‘aforetime’ (πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμέρων), and his followers, about four hundred in number, dispersed. A person of this name appears likewise in Josephus (Ant. xx. 5.1), where he is described as a ‘wizard’ (γόης), who pretended that he was a prophet; under­­took to divide the waters of the Jordan, so that it might be traversed dryshod; and was followed by a great mass of common people. . . . The procurator Fadus promptly sent a detachment of cavalry after him. The leader himself was beheaded, and of his followers some were slain and others captured alive. It is assumed that the Theudas of Josephus is the same with the Theudas of St. Luke; and if so, there is an insuperable chronological discrepancy. The procurator Fadus entered upon his office A.D. 44, but the Theudas of St. Luke must be placed long before this time: for 1) the speech of Gamaliel itself is supposed to be spoken some years earlier, and 2) Gamaliel describes the insurrection of Judas the Galilean, as subsequent to that of Theudas (vs. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον), and the insurrection of Judas certainly took place ‘in the days of the taxing’ i.e. soon after the birth of Christ (see Josephus, Ant. xviii.1.1, xx.5.2; Bell. Jud. ii.17,18). Though the narrative of Josephus is disfigured by demonstrable errors and inaccuracies, yet it is hardly possible that he can have been mistaken here. We must therefore suppose the Theudas of Gamaliel to be a different person as Origen does (c. Celsus i. 57 . . .). Beyond the name there is no close resemblance; and Theudas contracted from Theodorus, Theodotus, Theodosius (frequently written Theudorus, Theudotus, Theudosius, as the Greek equivalent to several Hebrew names—Jonathan, Mattaniah, Matthias, Nathanael, &c.—would be commonly affected by the Jews). On these names, Theodorus &c. among the Jews, see Zunz, Gesamm. Schriften, ii. pp. 6, 7, 10, 22. Josephus himself mentions four pretenders named Simon, and three named Judas—these last all within ten years (see Gloag, i. p. 197). The Theudas of Gamaliel, therefore, will probably have been one of the many pretenders of whom Josephus speaks as troubling the peace of the nation about this time (Josephus, Ant. xvii.10.8; Bell. Jud. ii.4.1), without however giving their names. There is something to be said for the solution of Wieseler (Synopsis, p. 90 sq. Eng. Trans.), who, on the ground of the name, would identify him with Matthias the son of Margalothus, an insurgent in the time of Herod; for this person has a prominent place in Josephus (Ant. xvii.6.2 sq.). In connection with this charge of the falsification the language respecting Judas of Galilee attributed to Gamaliel in the context deserves notice. He speaks of Judas’ rebellion as coming to nothing. This was natural enough on the lips of Gamaliel before the sequel had revealed itself, but would be out of place at a later date; for two sons of this rebel leader, James and Simon, broke out in rebellion under Claudius, and were crucified by the procurator Tiberius Alexander (Ant. xx.5.2); while a third son Menahem headed a formidable rebellion shortly before the commencement of the Jewish war, and he too was put to death (Bell. Jud. ii.17.8sq. See Nosgen, p. 146sq.).

6. The Time and Place of Writing. What was the date of the Acts? To this we can give no certain answer. It has been shown that the conclusion of the history is intentional, that there is no abruptness in it and that therefore we cannot draw any inference from it, as though the book were written at the point of time when the narrative closes. This indication of date having failed us, no clue remains. The fancy of Hig and others that αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος (‘this is desert’) in Acts 8:26 refers to the destruction of Gaza immediately before the fall of Jerusalem (Josephus Bell. Jud. ii.18.1), and therefore points to a date not earlier than about A.D. 80, is based on a misconception. The words are perhaps not the author’s own, but the Angel’s, and they certainly refer not to the city, but to the road. They would thus be an instruction to Philip to take this route, because it passed through an uninhabited and unfrequented country, where he would be unmolested in his interview with the Ethiopian. The Book itself contains no reference to any event later than the close of the narrative itself. It must however have been written later than the Gospel, and we are thus led to investigate the date of this ‘former treatise.’ Here it is confidently assumed that the turn given to our Lord’s predictions of the coming troubles (Luke 21:20-24), as compared with the parallel passages in the other Evangelists, show that this Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. I am unable to see the force of this argument. The destruction of Jerusalem seems clearly to be indicated in Christ’s prophecies in the other Evangelists likewise, and the difference of language does not seriously affect the case. Yet, though the reason given may not be valid, the date assigned is perhaps not far wrong. It would at all events be a probable date for a writer who was a younger disciple and a personal follower of St. Paul. Not a few of those who recognize St. Luke as the author of the work have accepted this date as approximately correct.

The place of writing is altogether indeterminable. Something may be said in favor of Philippi. At all events the writer seems to have spent some time there (see above), and the use of the first person at this point, without any explanation, may suggest some corresponding local knowledge on the part of the recipient. Again Antioch is far from improbable, since St. Luke according to an old tradition was born at Antioch, and some details connected with this city are given with exceptional particularity (Acts 6:5; 11:26; 13:1sq.; 15:22sq.). Again Rome has a certain claim to be considered, since the writer accompanied St. Paul on the visit with which the narrative closes. Other places which have been suggested, such as Alexandria or Ephesus, have nothing to recommend them.

7. Sources of Information. The authorities of which the writer made use must remain a matter of speculation. It has been inferred from the preface to the Gospel, that St. Luke discarded all written sources of information, such as any memoirs of Christ’s life and teaching which others before him may have published, and depended entirely on oral tradition, as received directly from eye-witnesses. It does not seem to me that his language suggests this strict limitation. The ‘tradition’ of which he there speaks might be written as well as oral. Nor again, even supposing that he had confined himself to oral communications of eye-witnesses in the first treatise, are we justified in assuming him to have acted precisely the same way in composing the second? As a question of probability, the life and words of Christ, being the subject-matter of Christian teaching, would form a more or less definite body of oral tradition; but the doings of the Apostles had no such importance that they should assume this form. The question as regards the Acts resolves itself into one of internal evidence and probability. So regarding it we are forced to the conclusions that, for some parts at least (the speech of Stephen will serve as an example), he must have used written notes taken down at the time; for this speech is inconceivable as a fiction and almost equally so as an oral tradition. When we take into account the common use of shorthand among the ancients, there is no improbability in this supposition; since the gravity and interest of the defense on such a critical occasion must have impressed itself on all, more especially on the disciples.

The materials then would be partly oral, partly written. The written materials would be here and there a document, such as the letter of the apostolic council (Acts 15:23sq.); here and there notes of speeches taken down at the time or immediately afterwards; and occasionally also diaries or memoranda of facts. Besides these, he would receive a large amount of oral information; and for some portions of his narrative he was himself an eye-witness. His chief authority would naturally be St. Paul, with whom at different epochs he spent large portions of time. But he likewise lodged a considerable time (ἡμέρας πλείους) with Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:10), and from him he may have received written or oral information respecting the earliest history of the Church, more especially the doings of the deacons, in which Philip himself ‘pars magna fuit’ (Acts 8:5-40). From this source he might have derived his information respecting the conversion of Cornelius, for Caesarea seems to have been Philip’s permanent home before as well as after this event (Acts 8:40; 21:8). For portions of this earlier history also he may have been indebted to John Mark, in whose company we find him at a later date (Col 4:10, 14; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11). For all that related to Barnabas (Col 4:10) and to St. Peter (1 Pet 5:13), Mark would be a competent authority. His intercourse with men like Timothy and Tychicus also must have been considerable; and they may have supplied information for the latter part of his narrative, where Paul failed him. How close may have been St. Luke’s intimacy with any of the Twelve, we cannot say. To any such intimacy we find no reference within the compass of his own narrative; but an acquaintance with St. Peter afterwards, at Rome, is consistent with the notices.

8. The Motive and Design of the Work. The motive and design of the work have been considered already, when its contents were under discussion. Addressing one Theophilus, either an actual person or an imaginary representative of the Christian student, St. Luke merely purposes to give for the edification of his readers a history of the Christian Church from its foundation to its establishment in the metropolis of the world. If there were sufficient grounds for postulating a theological principle as the basis of the narrative, it would be the continued working and presence of Jesus, no longer in the flesh, but in the Church.

But a large number of recent critics have seen in this work a motive of a wholly different kind. They have regarded it as written with an apologetic or conciliatory purpose. In the present case these two epithets come to the same thing. For if apologetic, it was intended either to defend St. Paul from the charge of hostility to the Jews, or St. Peter from the charge of opposition to the free admission of the Gentiles; if conciliatory, its motive was to bring together and amalgamate two parties in the Christian Church—the Judaic, which clung to the name of St. Peter, and the Gentile, whose watchword was the liberalism of St. Paul.

It will be seen at once, that such a view of the purpose is consistent with a frank recognition of the genuineness of the work and of the truthfulness of the narrative. Its aim would then be the correction of prevailing mis­understandings. Such was the position of Schneckenburger (1841), who was the first to emphasize the real or supposed parallelism between St. Peter and St. Paul as showing the apologetic design of the author; but he himself herewith maintains the substantial credibility of the account. This same idea however was adopted by the critics of the Tübingen school, who occupied another platform, and to whom it was a convenient weapon for their destructive warfare. Baur (Paulus, p. 1sq. 1845), Schwegler (Das Nachapostoliche Zeitalter, ii. p. 73sq. 1846), and Zeller (Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 316sq. 1854), all took this parallelism as the basis of their theories and regarded the Book as the work of a Pauline Christian in the second century, whose object was to reconcile parties, and who freely invented his story accordingly. Not very different is the position of Hilgenfeld (Einleitung, p. 576sq.), who takes it to represent ‘Unionist Paulinism’ not earlier than the close of the first century. Several other critics, also without going to these extremes, have regarded the narrative as colored by this ‘conciliatory’ motive. Thus Renan (Les Apotres, pp. 13sq., 28sq.), though confidently ascribing the work to a companion of St. Paul, and therefore presumably to St. Luke, and employing its statements as generally credible yet holds that the representations of the chief Apostles are highly colored, so as to produce an impression of harmony which was not justified by the facts.

In answer to such allegations it is sufficient to say that St. Paul’s own practical maxim of ‘becoming all things to all men’ and therefore of ‘becoming a Jew to the Jews’ covers all the actions ascribed to him in St. Luke’s narrative; that the very context, in which these particular actions are related, manifests, as I have already shown (above), unmistakeable tokens of authenticity; that St. Paul’s language and conduct in dealing with Gentile converts like the Galatians is no standard at all for measuring his intercourse with the Church of Jerusalem; and that generally the tone and character of the narrative ought to place it above the suspicion of any conscious distortion of facts. For the rest, if any false impressions were abroad about the relations of the two chief Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, it is not unnatural that the writer should wish to correct them.

9. The Chronology. There are two fixed points in the chonology of the Acts, as determined by contact with secular history. The first of these is St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25), which is obviously synchronous, or nearly so, with the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23); but this latter event is known to have happened in A.D. 44 (Josephus, Ant. xix.8.2). The second is St. Paul’s appearance before Festus and consequent voyage to Rome (Acts 26:32; 27:1). This occurred immediately after Festus had arrived in the province. But from various considerations it appears that the deposition of Felix and the accession of Festus most probably happened in A.D. 60, and must certainly have happened close upon that year; see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 66 sq.

Besides these two fixed dates, there are other references to events in secular history of which the date indeed is not definitely determined, but that serve as rough verifications. Such are the great famine (Acts 11:28), the banishment of the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2), the reign of Aretas at Damascus (Acts 9:25; 2 Cor 11:32), and the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia (Acts 18:12).

Of the two fixed dates—the death of Herod Agrippa—is isolated and renders no assistance in the general scheme of chronology. But the second is of the highest value. The notice of the intervals of time in the Acts are fairly continuous from the apostolic council (Acts 15) to the end of the Book. Thus by working backwards from the accession of Festus and the journey to Rome (A.D. 60), we are able to frame a skeleton of the chronology for the latter half of the Book, and we arrive at about A.D. 51 for the apostolic council. From this point, still working backwards, the chronological notices in Gal 1:18; 2:1, enable us to fix some of the early dates. The whole system is worked out most thoroughly by Wieseler. The results will be found in any of the common books related to the apostolic history or the life of St. Paul. The special books on the chronology of St. Paul and of the Acts are Anger, De temporum in Act. Apostl. Ratione (Lipsiae, 1833), and Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters (Göttingen, 1848). Lewin’s Fasti Sacri (London, 1865) is a useful work, and is not as well-known as it deserves to be.

10. The Text. Accounts will be found of the authorities for the text of Acts in their proper place in the well-known Introductions and Prolegomena of Tregelles (1856), Scrivener (ed. 3, 1883), Tischendorf (ed. Greogry, 1884), and Westcott and Hort. Special works relating to this particular book are J. D. Michaelis, Curae in Versionem Syriacam Actuum Apostolicorum (Göttingen, 1755); Belsheim, Die Apostelgeschichte u. die Offenbarung Johannis in einer alten lateinischen Uebersetzung (Christiania, 1879); and F. A. Bornemann, Act Apostolorum ad Cod. Cantabrigiensis fidem recensuit (Grossenhainae, 1848). In the last, as the title suggests, the Ms. D is taken as the standard of the text—a conclusion which is not adopted by any sound textual critic. But the text of D and of a few other authorities that coincide with it in greater or lesser degrees, presents a difficult problem. The variations from the normal text are greater than are found in any other portion of the New Testament. They are of two kinds—partly paraphrases and amplification, and partly insertions of additional incidents or particulars. As examples of this latter class may be mentioned such passages as Acts 12:10, where the number of steps is given in the account of St. Peter’s release from prison, or Acts 28:16, where the delivering of Paul and his fellow-prisoners to the prefect of the praetorium is mentioned. In this latter passage, however, D is wanting. Such additions belong to the same class of which the pericope related to the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3sq.) is the most prominent example. The editor or transcriber seems to have had access to some very early and genuine tradition; and the fact that the incident in the pericope in St. John was related likewise by Papias (Eusebius H.E. iii.39) suggests that the source of these traditions is to be sought ultimately in the disciples who gathered about St. John and his successors in Asia Minor.

11. The Literature. The literature which has accumulated about the Acts is so vast that an exhaustive catalogue is quite impracticable. In the following list all works which are directly homiletic or are intended for school purposes are omitted; nor have I for the most part included monographs and articles which treat special points. Many of these have been noticed in their respective places. After these deductions the following books may be mentioned:

A. General Commentaries, including the whole or a great part of the New Testament. Of the older commentaries those of Calvin, Grotius, and Bengel deserve to be specially named. Among recent works Alford, Wordsworth, the Speaker’s Commentary (Cook and Jacobsen), Ellicott’s New Testament Commentary for English Readers (Plumptre), in England; and Olshausen (ed. 4, 1862, re-edited by Ebrard), De Wette (ed. 4, 1870, re-edited by Overbeck), Meyer (ed. 5, 1880, re-edited by Wendt), Lechler (in Lange’s Bibelwerk ed. 4, 1881), in Germany, may be mentioned.

B. General Introductions to the New Testament. Bleek (Eng. Trans.), 1869; Davidson vol. ii, 1842; Guericke, 1868 (ed. 3); Hilgenfeld, 1875; Holtzmann, 1885; Hug (Eng. Trans.), 1827; Marsh’s Michaelis, 1802 (ed. 2); Reuss, 1860; Salmon, 1886 (ed. 2); Weiss, 1886.

C. Special Commentaries on the Acts. The Homilies of St. Chrysostom are the only patristic commentary of real importance on this Book. Passing to recent times, we have Baumgarten, Braunschweig, 1852, 1854 (Eng. Trans.); Gloag, Edinburgh 1870; Hackett, Boston 1863 (new ed.); Humphrey, London 1854 (ed. 2); Nosgen, Leipzig 1882. A complete list of commentaries, special and general up to the date (1859), will be found in Darling’s Cycl. Bibl. 1167 sq.

D. Special Works on the Acts. Biscoe, Hist. of the Acts, &c. confirmed from other Authors. &c. 1742, reprinted 1840; Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucanae sive de Itinerarii in libro Actorum asservati auctore, 1866; Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, 1883; Konig, Die Echtheit der Apostelgeschichte, 1867; Lekebusch, Composition u. Enstehung der. A.-G., 1854; Lightfoot, Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations on the Acts of the Apostles; Oertel, Paulus in der A.G., 1868; Paley, Orae Paulinae (edited by J. Tate, 1840; by Birks 1850); Schmidt, K. Die Apostelgeschichte, Band i. 1882; Schneckenberger, Ueber den Zweck der A.-G., 1841; Schwanbeck, Ueber die Quellen der A.-G., 1847; Supernatural Religion, vol. iii, 1877; Stier, Die Reden der Apostel (ed. 2) 1861; S.P.C.K. The Heathen World and St. Paul (no date), Rawhnson, Plumptre, Davies, Merivale; Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854.

F. Apostolic Histories, Lives of St. Paul, &c. Baur, Paulus, 1845; Coneybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1856 (2nd ed.); Ewald, Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalter, 1858 (2nd ed.) being vol. vi. of Geschichte des Volkes Israel; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, 1882 (1st ed.); Farrar, Life and Work of St. Paul, 1879 (1st ed.); Lechler, Das Apostolische u. das Nachapostolische Zeitalter (1st ed. 1857; 2nd ed. 1885); Lewin, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 1872; Neander, Pflanzung und Leitung, 1862 (5th ed.); Pfleiderer, Urchistenthum, 1887; Renan, Les Apotres, 1866 (1st ed.); Saint Paul, 1869 (1st ed.); Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 1857 (1st ed.); Schaff, Hist. of the Christian Church—Apostolic Christianity, 1882; Schwelger, Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1846; Thiersch, Die Kirche in apostolischen Zeitalter, 1886. This list might be considerably increased, if there is any object in increasing it. [J.B.L.]

↑ Back to top