Part Two
Part Two
Introduction to Acts—Preliminary Matters
The question which arises respecting any book is the genuineness and authenticity of it. The genuineness has to do with the state of the text, the authenticity with the person of the author. The investigation of the one may coincide with the investigation of the other, but does not necessarily so. The question of the genuineness of a book is closely connected with the textual criticism of the various manuscripts containing the book, in part or whole. The sources for establishing the text of any New Testament book are fourfold: 1) manuscripts; 2) versions; 3) quotations from the Church Fathers; and 4) conjectural emendations.
Manuscripts and Lectionaries
The older or uncial manuscripts are marked by capital letters in the common critical editions, the later or cursive, by numbers. In the Acts of the Apostles, the manuscripts must be evaluated in respect of age. To give some account of the more ancient manuscripts these include:
A. Codex Alexandrinus (cf. Davids. Bibl. Crit. vol. ii. p. 271)
B. Codex Vaticanus (ibid., p. 275)
C. Codex C (ibid., p. 281)
D. Codex Bezae or Cantabrigensis (ibid., p. 285)
Various dates suggest that ultimately these manuscripts come from the second century. Of the revised account of Acts according to Codex D, we note the strange phenomenon exhibited by this manuscript and the remarkable character of its interpolations. These are more numerous in the Acts than elsewhere (e.g. Acts 4:32, 15; 11:2d; 12:3, 10). It may be remarked:
(a) That if these are interpolations, they are at any rate not easily accounted for.
(b) That the manuscript exhibits more nearly than any other Greek text, readings found in the earliest versions—e.g. all of Syriac, Coptic, Sahidic, Italian and in the early Fathers.
And therefore, granting that the passages found here are interpolations, the manuscript is still a most important authority when its readings are supported by other documents. On the whole we may agree with Tregelles (Greek Text p. 150) that B and D are the most important manuscripts. But how does one date an ancient manuscript? From what considerations is a date determined?
1) The material
2) Ink
3) Manner of writing (Davids. vol. ii p. 263sqq.)
4) Form of letters
Besides manuscripts, there are Lectionaries (εὐαγγελιστάρια . . . ibid., p. 269). Of the relative value of manuscripts and the estimate of their collective authority we must speak hereafter.
Versions
Those of real importance are the Syriac, Latin, Egyptian, Ethiopic and Gothic. [There are others, which I shall merely name—the Arabic, Perisan, Georgian, Armenian and Slavonic]. The most important of all are the Syriac and Latin.
Syriac
i. Peshito (Davids. vol. ii. p. 151) (syr)
ii. Philoxenian (ibid., p. 185) syrp and syrp mg.
iii. Jerusalem Syriac (ibid., p. 198)
The Latin
i. The older Latin version or versions. (ibid., p. 242)
ii. (The Itala a recension of this mss.? Very ancient)
iii. The version of St. Jerome. Vulgate (ibid., p. 249)
Egyptian or Coptic (p. 206)
i. Sahidic or Thebaic Upper Egypt (probably from the 3rd century)
ii. Memphitic. Lower Egypt (copt).
Ethiopic (p. 203)
Gothic (p. 231)
Quotations from the Fathers
Points to be considered: 1) the age; 2) country; 3) religious views; 4) accuracy, or the reverse, of the writer. Whether he argues from the text in question, or introduces it merely incidentally.
Conjectural Emendation
This is to be altogether excluded from the domain of sacred criticism, for:
i. It is improbable—almost impossible—that in any case the correct reading has disappeared from every existing authority (whether mss. vers. or the Fathers) and therefore conjectural emendation is unnecessary;
ii. It is such a dangerous element in sacred criticism, that it is the safer course to exclude it entirely, rather than to retain it for the sake of some possible advantage in an individual case.
The Rules of Textual Criticism
What then are the rules to be observed in textual criticism?
(A) In estimating the preponderance of authority (i.e. external evidence) for a reading,
a. Our first impulse is to form a numerical estimate. But this is obviously inadequate. An edition of Milton of the sixteenth century is a much better authority for the original text than twenty editions published within the present century. This [numerical estimate method] has been entirely abandoned in sacred criticism.
b. The next step is the estimate from antiquity. This again is not supportable, for a later manuscript from the hand of an accurate transcriber is in many cases far more valuable than an earlier written by a careless or dishonest scribe.
c. Therefore intrinsic credibility must be combined with antiquity. But even this is inadequate. We may have a reading supported by twenty manuscripts of equal antiquity and general accuracy, and another only by ten and yet the verdict will be rightly given in favor of the latter. Because in the former case there are twenty manuscripts which bear marks of being derived from the same source whereas of the latter five belong to one, and five to another class. Thus we have two independent testimonies in favor of the later reading.
d. Other manuscripts therefore must be sorted and arranged in classes, in order that we judge by independent witnesses.
(B) In subordination of the testimony of authority we must weigh the intrinsic probabilities in favor of or against a particular reading based on the Internal Evidence.
a. The great rule is that enunciated by Bengel in the words ‘Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.’ This rule may be applied in many ways—but it is only applicable when attributions are nearly balanced, obscure exceptions are preferred to the more plain: unusual forms of words to the more usual, harsher constructions to more simple.
b. Readings containing apparent historical or doctrinal difficulties are to be preferred. Shorter readings are to be preferred to longer when the words added are of the nature of a gloss.
c. Readings which favor any theological or religious bias are suspicious. (I.e. especially that of the predominant party, as those which are marked by strong orthodoxy or asceticism. Davids.)
d. That reading is to be preferred which is more in character with the general style of the writer.
e. That reading is to be rejected which is unsuitable to the context.
History of Textual Criticism in Modern Times
In regards to the earliest printed Greek texts, we may list the first published to be that of Erasmus in 1516 (that of the Complutensian Polyglot had been printed in 1514 but not published). We must also mention Stephanus and Beza, with Elzevir based on Stephanus’ third edition, and the Textus Receptus derived from Elzevir. As for theories of recensions, there is Griesbach (though in some degree anticipated by Bengel) 1774–7, and the following stages can be mentioned:
1) The Alexandrine Fathers and Philox. Versions B.C.F.
2) Occidental—Cyprian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, leading to later versions—Sahidic, It.
3) Constantine
As for the emancipation of the Textus Receptus, Lachmann 1831.
To Tischendorf (1841) we owe the enunciation of principles of reconstruction of the text. Reconstruction of text: (1) Alexandrian; (2) Latin or (1) Asiatic; (2) Byzantine.
The Authenticity and Authorship of Acts
The first question to be raised is—is the narrative credible? This matter must be concluded from its intrinsic character, and also from its agreement with external testimony. As for the latter, external testimony may be gotten from the heretical sects on doctrinal grounds: (1) Ebionites; (2) Marcionites; and (3) Manichaeans.
(A) Intrinsic Character
(i.) The modesty of his claims. Preface to the Gospel in Lk 1:1-4
(ii.) Apparent discrepancies. These only evince credibility, where they are the exception. No argument could be drawn from them if they were habitual. But the reverse is the case. If the writer of this narrative is an imposter, he is one of no ordinary kind. He gives proof of the most consummate skill and deepest design—as we shall see. There is therefore no possible account which can be given for his apparent contradictions—or the hypothesis is of a forgery (e.g. the account of St. Paul’s conversion, as given in several places Acts 9:7; 22:9; 26:13 [cf. the reason of Paul’s leaving Jerusalem Acts 9:30 with Acts 22:17]).
(iii.) His admission of errors and imperfections on the part of his principal characters (e.g. the inaccuracies of St. Stephen’s speech, quarrel of St. Paul and Barnabas, the presentation of St. Paul in Acts 23, also in Acts 20:25, a story of Paul which was not fulfilled).
(iv.) The incomplete nature of his records—undramatic and yet natural (e.g. St. Stephen’s speech. It is the beginning of a speech. It is broken off towards the end, but though of considerable length, is a mere preface and does not arrive at any result. In short it is as unlikely a forgery as it well can be and is inexplicable, except on the supposition of it really having been spoken).
(v.) The internal consistency of his narrative (e.g. the shipwreck, Acts 27. Cf. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul).
(vi.) The naturalness in his delineation of characters—the probability that they could have acted under the circumstances as he has represented them acting (e.g. the letter of Claudius Lysias, Acts 23, the accusation of Tertullian and defense of St. Paul before Felix, Acts 24).
(vii.) The modification of style—Hebraic coloring in the earlier part, gradually shading off.
(B) Credibility Confirmation by an exhaustive view is of course impossible: we must therefore select some points:
(i.) Knowledge evinced of facts
1. (Space). Geographical. The wide extent of country traversed over—Judah, Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece. The Mediterranean and the islands of Italy.
2. (Time). Historical.
(a). Profane History. e.g. Gallio is called proconsul of Achaia (18:12) ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος τῆς Ἀχαΐας (cf. C+H Life of St. Paul. i.155)Tiberius had made Achaia (formerly a senatorial province) an imperial one. It was restored to the senate by Claudius (Suet. Claud. xxv). Claudius was emperor from A.D. 41–54. If the writer had placed the incident only a few years later, the term could have been procurator (cf. Paley Evv. pt. ii. c. vi).
(b). Christian History Obvious facts may be neglected. Incidental coincidences alone to be appraised (Paley’s H. Paul. e.g. the contribution of alms).
(ii.) Knowledge evinced of individuals.
Their Character.
e.g. Gallio—cf. Acts 18:17 (καὶ οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ Γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν)
What of the character of him given in heathen records? (cf. C+H Life of St. Paul i. p. 449)
His own brother says that though he is loved as much as he can be, he is not loved as he deserves.
He is called ‘dulcis Gallio’; both to Seneca and to Statius.
Again Seneca, ‘His conduct on those occasions is what might have been expected for such a man. The amicable good-natured friend becomes the easy indifferent governor. He is without moral indignation, however excellently disposed.’
As for St. Paul, his rule of becoming ‘all things to all men’ is observable in this record. Compare for instance his speeches at Lystra, at Athens and the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia. At Lystra (Acts 14), he is addressing unlettered barbarians. He appeals to the charges of pagan magic as operations of the true God. At Athens he is speaking to lettered and philosophic guests (Acts 17). He cites the language of their own poets (speaking of dependence of a deity), appeals to the existence of an altar as the evidence of this striving after higher truth. Difference in his language is notable when compared to what he says to the Jews (Acts 13). It is here to their national privileges and feelings and to their past history that he directs his speech.
It may appear as though this rule of accommodation sometimes led him too far as in the case of the disputes between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
The Style and Content of Acts
The author’s grasp of Greek grammar, syntax and vocabulary is noteworthy, and is shown by his extensive use of synonyms. Here is a small sampling of the common ones we find just in the first couple of chapters of Acts.
1:7
χρόνοι, καιροί
7, 8
ἐξουσία, δύναμις
14
προσευχή, δέησις
2:2, 4
πνοή, πνεῦμα
45
κτῆμα, ὕπαρξις
3:10
θάμβος, ἔκστασις
4:7
τίς, ποῖος
5:15
κλινάριον, κράβαττος
7:42
σφάγιον, θυσία
In regard to the style and content of Acts, the speeches of St. Peter are Petrine in thought and in diction (Acts 15). That of James and the apostolic circular letter, those of James. Those of St. Paul, especially the farewell address to the Ephesian elders which most resembles the epistles of that period (Cor; Gal; Rom), are Pauline. What then is the result of all this?
If we conclude the writing is a forgery and the author had no certain knowledge of the facts which he narrates, we must suppose not only that he was a most consummate novelist, but that he is perfect in the delineation of the characters—though most artistic in the construction of his narrative, so skillful as to make it appear perfectly natural. Also, that he was most exactly and clearly informed in an exceedingly wide range of subjects—the complete history of his time, the geography of great parts of the known world, the character and even the style of the persons he introduces and uses this information with such art as to give the appearance of incidental and undesigned coincidence. If this is mere fabrication, he applied himself to the forgery. And for what? Why this imposture? To propagate a faith which he can scarcely have believed and to establish facts which he knew to be false?
And who was this consummate artist? How is it that we know nothing of him? One possessed of such information? One who as a writer has never been equaled? Why did he write anonymously, or even try to pass off his work in the name of another? How unselfish, and yet how dishonest. Alternately, we must suppose that the writer was well informed and the narrative is true—which is the more likely supposition? But the evidence does not end here. When we come to examining the authorship of the book, we shall find such a coherence to the phenomena which it exhibits, as to strengthen and confirm the evidence which is already mounting.
Who Is the Author of This Book?
He was a companion of St. Paul’s. There are unmistakable indications of this. On considering this point, it is necessary to call attention to the connection between the Gospel and the Acts. They profess to be connected and to come from the same hand. This of course is no proof. We can’t enter into an examination of this claim. It is sufficient to say that the language is the same; the essence of thought identical; and that there is a unity of purpose, with the summary in Lk 1:1-4 introducing the two works. We shall therefore assume the identity of authorship in the two works: at the same time, it will be seen in the course of our examination how truthful and coherent such a view is. [See Davidson II p. 226]
We will therefore consider the two, as one work, and examine its claim to having been written by a companion of St. Paul.
(a) The design and tenor of the work are Pauline. If we were asked to mention the characteristic of St. Paul’s teaching and practice we should say that it was his view of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. This is exactly what the narrative enforces—both in the Gospel and in the Acts. The Gospel—The Evangelist traces the genealogy of the Savior to the father of mankind. After the presentation in the temple, prophecies of the child that he shall be not only a glory to God’s people Israel but also a light to the Gentiles. The miracles and parables peculiar to the third Gospel bear this mark also. The miraculous catch of fish, the ten lepers cleansed, the person with the spirit of infirmity, the parable of the two debtors, the good Samaritan, the lost drachma, the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, etc. etc. The Acts—Cornelius—the Apostolic Council. The whole manner of St. Paul’s teaching. ‘The Jew first and then the Greek.’
(b) Special facts given which are narrated aptly on the authority of St. Paul.
(1) Cf. 1 Cor 11:23 with Luke 22:19.
(2) 1 Cor 15:5 with Luke 24:34. Again part of Paul’s Gospel. The allusion in St. Luke incidental.
(3) 1 Tim 5:18 compared with Luke 10:7, where the same words are found. Whatever be the explanation of the apparent quotation in 1 Tim the result is the same as far as our purpose is concerned.
Summary
What then is our evidence that the work was written by a companion of St. Paul? We will for the present lay aside external testimony. We have seen that the whole scope and tenor of the work bears the stamp of St. Paul’s teaching in that respect which may be considered in his special characteristic—that the style and diction bear a resemblance to that of the great Apostle, only such a resemblance as might be looked for between the writings of a master and a favorite disciple, his religious vocabulary being more or less derived from St. Paul. And lastly that certain facts are narrated in the third Gospel which are found nowhere else in the New Testament except in the epistles of the Apostle, or are narrated in a way which is peculiar to him—and yet with such differences in arrangement and detail (some particulars being omitted and others superceded) and in such an incidental manner as to show that they did not come from the pen of a forger who had the epistles of St. Paul before him. Such is the indirect testimony, but have we any direct evidence to this connection between the writer and St. Paul?
As for mode of expression it is sufficient to establish this connection and yet so incidental and so slight as at once to preclude the notion of a fraud. A man might read the whole Gospel through and not discover that the writer was a disciple of St. Paul. Nay he probably could not discern it, though he read it again and again. There is not the slightest direct hint of it. He might continue his readings. He would have to get half through the Acts, and still have found no indication. And when he does stumble upon it, of what kind is it? Not the patent statement of the fact such as alone could have satisfied the forger—witness the acknowledged forgeries of the sub-apostolic age, and especially a forger in these simple, inartistic times. There are not many uses of the first person plural in describing certain incidents in the life of St. Paul. ‘We endeavored to go to Macedonia’; ‘we set sail.’ Mark also how truthful this very use of the language is when closely examined. It begins at a certain point in St. Paul’s travels and suddenly ceases at Philippi. Then again it is there after an interval of several chapters in the narrative. After a lapse of several years in point of time—(Acts 17:1–20:3) it recurs at the same place, Philippi. The writer has been left at that place during the interval and is taken up when St. Paul returns to the same place. But he does not tell us this directly. We might read the narrative twenty times over and not find it out.
It is worth remarking too that this direct testimony, slight in itself, is contained in an entirely different treatise—published at a different time certainly separated from it is the copies multiplied for dispersion—from the more decisive passages which point indirectly to the fact, these passages which narrate circumstances which is in the manner or language of St. Paul. Is this like a forgery? A forger leaves us doubt when he tends to be taken for the author of the work. And if the work favors anything it is the way of authority by establishing a connection between the author and some important person, he would take care to make this patent. In the Gospel this connection is not directly discernable at all. In the Acts it would easily escape notice. It appears then that this book was written by a companion of St. Paul.
Now there are three names that will suggest themselves as fitting the evidence, or at least not opposed to it Sylvanus (Silas), Timothy and Luke. How are we to determine the probable author? Is there any reason (exclusive of external testimony) for this book to be by one more than another of these—the three most distinguished of St. Paul’s companions? The indications are slight indeed.
(1) The writer is regularly speaking of diseases, the approach of a professional man (it is technical usage without being pedantic—Luke 4:38; 8:43-44; Acts 3:7; 12:23; 13:11; 28:8; cf. Col 4:14. He is also called a physician in the Muratorian Canon, in Eusebius and Jerome).
(2) There are some slight turns that would lead one to suppose that the writer was a native of Antioch.
(3) There are reasons it is unlikely to be Timothy or Silas. The writer speaks of Timothy and Silas in the third person. Were one of these men the author it would destroy the appropriating and consistency of the use of the first person plural. Further, the writer distinguishes himself from Timothy in Acts 20:5. It is not likely to be Silas because there is no evidence even from the Epistles of St. Paul that Silas accompanied Paul on his third missionary tour or went with him to Italy.
In short, the most natural conclusion is that this work was written by a sometime companion of Paul, a particular one, namely St. Luke.