Difference between revisions of "Acts Of The Apostles"

<p> <strong> [[Acts Of The Apostles]] </strong> </p> <p> 1. Summary of contents . The fifth book of our NT gives the history of the Church from the [[Ascension]] till <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history (‘Acts of Peter’ and ‘Acts of the Hellenists’), and the other the life of St. Paul (‘Acts of Paul’) from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at &nbsp; Acts 13:1 , from which point forwards the [[Pauline]] journeys are described by one who for a considerable part of them was a fellow-traveller. The parallelism between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tübingen school to betray a fictitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equality of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the parallelism shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose. </p> <p> <strong> 2. Unity of authorship </strong> . From &nbsp; Acts 16:10 onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays his presence as a fellow-traveller by using the pronoun ‘we.’ It is generally conceded that these ‘we’ sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated in his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces of four strata, and assert that it is a compilation of the same nature as the Pentateuch, the <em> Book of [[Enoch]] </em> , and the <em> [[Apostolic]] Constitutions </em> . Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent. compiler, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences of style (as we do in <em> Apost. Const </em> .), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary ability, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun ‘we’ if he was a late writer copying a 1st cent. source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to him; his interests are those of the 1st, not of the 2nd century (§ <strong> 8 </strong> ). Further, the Third [[Gospel]] is clearly, from identity of style and the express claim in &nbsp; Acts 1:1 (cf. &nbsp; Luke 1:3 ), by our author, and yet the Gospel is now generally admitted to have been written by <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 80. Thus we may, with Harnack, dismiss the compilation theory. </p> <p> <strong> 3. The author </strong> . Internal evidence, if the unity of authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names of the Apostle’s companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that all but four must be excluded, whether as having joined him after his arrival at Rome (for the author made the voyage with him, &nbsp; Acts 27:1 ), or as being mentioned in Acts in a manner inconsistent with authorship (so, <em> e.g. </em> , Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, [[Trophimus]] must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman [[Christians]] and recent friends. Two of the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no specially intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for &nbsp; 2 Timothy 4:10 f. we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence (§ <strong> 4 </strong> ) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. <em> passim </em> ), but perhaps Luke’s silence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. <em> Exp. T. </em> XVIII. [1907] 285, 335, 380. </p> <p> The author was a Gentile, not a Jew (&nbsp;Colossians 4:10 f., &nbsp; Colossians 4:14 ), a conclusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us (§ <strong> 8 </strong> ; see also &nbsp; Acts 1:19 ‘in their language’). He was a physician (&nbsp; Colossians 4:14 ), and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens, where he seems quite at home though not present at the [[Athenian]] scenes he describes (&nbsp; Acts 17:16 ff.). His native country is disputed. A <em> [[Preface]] to Luke </em> , thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was ‘by nation a [[Syrian]] of Antioch’; and [[Eusebius]] ( <em> HE </em> iii. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, ‘according to birth, of those from Antioch’; while later writers like [[Jerome]] follow Eusebius. [[Certainly]] we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian [[Antioch]] is mentioned in Acts. Some (Rackham, Rendall) conjecture that Pisidian Antioch is really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the ‘we’ sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a [[Macedonian]] of Philippi, since he took so great an interest in the claims of that colony (&nbsp; Acts 16:12 ). Indeed, Ramsay ( <em> St. Paul </em> , p. 202 ff.) propounds the ingenious conjecture that Luke, having met Paul at [[Troas]] accidentally (&nbsp; Acts 16:10; it could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there), was the ‘certain man of Macedonia’ who appeared in the vision (&nbsp; Acts 16:9 ); it must have been some one whom the [[Apostle]] knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that against his having been a native of <em> [[Philippi]] </em> are the facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with [[Lydia]] (&nbsp; Acts 16:15 ), and that he only <em> supposed </em> that there was a [[Jewish]] place of prayer at Philippi (&nbsp; Acts 16:13 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by his having been left in charge of the Church there (&nbsp; Acts 17:1 , &nbsp; Acts 20:5; in the interval between St. Paul’s leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun ‘they’ is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [&nbsp; Acts 27:2 is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a [[Gentile]] not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese ‘barbarians’ (&nbsp; Acts 28:2 ), <em> i.e. </em> non-Greek speaking, and in many other ways. </p> <p> <strong> 4. Patristic testimony </strong> . There are probable references to Acts in [[Clement]] of Rome (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 95), who seems to refer to &nbsp; Acts 13:22 , &nbsp; Acts 20:35 etc.; and in [[Ignatius]] ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4:41; also in Poly carp ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> 111); almost certainly in the <em> [[Martyrdom]] of [[Polycarp]] </em> ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end of the 2nd cent. in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenæus, all of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorian [[Fragment]] ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> <em> . </em> a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them of the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Style </strong> . The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (&nbsp; Acts 11:28 , &nbsp; Acts 24:27; cf. &nbsp; Luke 3:1 ), yet the writer often uses vague phrases like ‘after some days,’ which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events of the years spent by St. Paul in [[Tarsus]] (&nbsp; Acts 9:30 ), probably as being years of education in which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through [[Cyprus]] (&nbsp; Acts 13:6 ), though much work must have been done among the [[Jews]] then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with [[Sergius]] Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; Acts 13:8 (no reason given for Elymas’ opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), &nbsp; Acts 13:13 (the reason for Mark’s departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and [[Barnabas]] going to Pisidian Antioch), &nbsp; Acts 16:35 (no reason given for the Philippi prætors’ change of attitude), &nbsp; Acts 17:15 (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from &nbsp; 1 Thessalonians 3:1 we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at [[Athens]] and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in &nbsp; Acts 18:5 to Corinth), &nbsp; Acts 20:16 (not stated that they arrived in time for Pentecost, but it must be understood), &nbsp; Acts 27:43 (it must be inferred that the injunction was obeyed). </p> <p> <strong> 6. Crises in the history </strong> . These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day of [[Pentecost]] (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a ‘proselyte of righteousness, <em> i.e. </em> a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode of [[Cornelius]] (who was only a ‘proselyte of the gate,’ or ‘God-fearing,’ one who was brought into relation with the Jews by obeying certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those of &nbsp; Acts 15:29 , but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas]; this means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the first meeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman official in the person of Sergius [[Paulus]] in Cyprus, the initial step in the great plan of St. Paul to make [[Christianity]] the religion of the Roman [[Empire]] (see § <strong> 7 </strong> ; henceforward the author calls Saul of Tarsus by his Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the [[Council]] of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especially the association for the first time with the author (§ <strong> 3 </strong> ); the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallio’s action paved the way for the appeal to Cæsar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis is probably hinted at, the acquittal of St. Paul; for even if the book were written before that took place (§ <strong> 9 </strong> ), the release must have become fairly obvious to all towards the end of the two years’ sojourn at Rome (cf. &nbsp; Philippians 2:24 ). </p> <p> <strong> 7. Missionary plan of St. Paul </strong> . ( <em> a </em> ) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews first; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, &nbsp; Acts 13:5; &nbsp; Acts 13:14 , &nbsp; Acts 14:1 , &nbsp; Acts 16:13 (no synagogue at Philippi, only a ‘place of prayer’) &nbsp; Acts 17:1 f. (the words ‘as his custom was’ are decisive) &nbsp; Acts 17:10; &nbsp; Acts 17:16 f., &nbsp; Acts 18:4; &nbsp; Acts 18:8; &nbsp; Acts 18:19 , &nbsp; Acts 19:8 f., &nbsp; Acts 28:17; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it is not expressly mentioned, &nbsp; Acts 14:7; &nbsp; Acts 14:21; &nbsp; Acts 14:25 , or the Jews may have been weak and without a synagogue in those places. ( <em> b </em> ) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. He was justifiably proud of his Roman citizenship (&nbsp; Acts 16:37 , &nbsp; Acts 22:25 ff. etc.; cf. &nbsp; Philippians 1:27 [RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ] &nbsp; Acts 3:20 , &nbsp; Ephesians 2:19 ). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the idea of Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary journeys he confines himself (if the South [[Galatian]] theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic in the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread [[Christian]] influence, just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civilization in the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek; they clearly did not know [[Lycaonian]] (cf. &nbsp; Acts 14:11 with &nbsp; Acts 14:14 ). The [[Scriptures]] were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age. </p> <p> Following the same idea, the author represents the Roman officials in the colonies as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek cities. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates at [[Iconium]] and [[Thessalonica]] who were active against him, or of the Court of the [[Areopagus]] at Athens who were contemptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Pisidian Antioch and Lystra, or the explicit statements about Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, [[Claudius]] [[Lysias]] and [[Julius]] the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prætors at Philippi ended by apologizing profusely when they discovered Paul’s status. </p> <p> <strong> 8. The writer’s interests </strong> . It is interesting to observe these, as they will lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an inquiry for the detection of a forgery or of a compilation. The principal interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St. Paul’s dealings with Roman officials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect from ‘the beloved physician’; and the rival science of sorcery; the position and influence of women (&nbsp; Acts 1:14 , &nbsp; Acts 8:3; &nbsp; Acts 8:12 , &nbsp; Acts 9:2 , &nbsp; Acts 13:50 , &nbsp; Acts 16:14 , &nbsp; Acts 17:4; &nbsp; Acts 17:12; &nbsp; Acts 17:34 , &nbsp; Acts 21:5; &nbsp; Acts 21:9 , &nbsp; Acts 22:4 etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in [[Greece]] proper); the organization of the Church (&nbsp; Acts 2:41 ff., &nbsp; Acts 4:31 ff., &nbsp; Acts 6:1 ff., &nbsp; Acts 8:5 ff., &nbsp; Acts 15:2 ff., &nbsp; Acts 19:1 ff. etc.); [[Divine]] intervention to overrule human projects (note especially the remarkable way in which St. Paul was led to Troas, &nbsp; Acts 16:6-8 ); and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional sailor. He describes the drifting in &nbsp; Acts 27:27 as a zigzag course when it must have been straight; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from that on which they had passed it going eastward (&nbsp; Acts 27:4 , &nbsp; Acts 21:3 ), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, <em> St. Paul </em> , p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay ( <em> ib. </em> p. 22) that the writer’s interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler; <em> e.g. </em> the view of the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of [[Domitian]] or even (we may add) after that of Nero. </p> <p> <strong> 9. Date </strong> . From the reasoning of §§ <strong> 2, 8 </strong> (see also § <strong> 12 </strong> ) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, &nbsp; Acts 28:30 f. (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70 80 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke). ( <em> a </em> ) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peter’s death in &nbsp; John 21:19 ), or to the Fall of [[Jerusalem]] in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from [[Ecclesiastical]] history, and from <em> a priori </em> reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Cæsar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle’s expectation that he would not again see the [[Ephesian]] elders was falsified, or he would not have left &nbsp; Acts 20:38 without remark [but see Paul, i. <strong> 4 </strong> ( <em> d </em> )]. The optimistic tone (§ <strong> 8 </strong> ), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were written; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence. ( <em> b </em> ) For the later date, a.d. 70 80, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. &nbsp; Acts 1:1 , properly ‘first treatise,’ not ‘former’; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 13:13 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). It is also thought that &nbsp; Luke 21:20 must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that <em> a fortiori </em> Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable. </p> <p> <strong> 10. Sources </strong> . The author had exceptional opportunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to Cyprus (&nbsp; Acts 12:1 to &nbsp; Acts 13:13 ). For the ‘Acts of the Hellenists’ (chs. 6 8) and for the Cornelius episode he would have [[Philip]] the [[Evangelist]] as an authority, for he spent two years at Cæsarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there ( <em> e.g. </em> Manaen) information about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in &nbsp; Luke 1:1 , though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an [[Aramaic]] document by Mark; this is pure conjecture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic. </p> <p> <strong> 11. The Bezan codex </strong> . This great Uncial MS (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , now at Cambridge), supported by some MSS of the Old Latin Version, presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great Greek MSS, and has also many additions, especially in Acts. Dr. Blass’ theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke’s having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D [Note: Deuteronomist.] are interpolations. He thinks that the ‘Bezan’ Acts represents the first draft, the ‘Bezan’ Luke the second draft. But the Bezan text of Acts is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent. by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful. In &nbsp; Acts 11:28 this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting ‘we,’ makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when [[Agabus]] prophesied. </p> <p> <strong> 12. Accuracy of Acts </strong> . This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: ( <em> a </em> ) the proconsul in Cyprus (&nbsp; Acts 13:7 ), which had only been under the rule of the [[Senate]] for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed otherwise the governor would have been a ‘proprætor.’ An inscription in Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus.’ ( <em> b </em> ) So the proconsul in [[Achaia]] (&nbsp; Acts 18:12 ); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a proprætor and then united, a few years before St. Paul’s visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul. ( <em> c </em> ) The ‘first men’ at Pisidian Antioch (&nbsp; Acts 13:50 ), <em> i.e. </em> the Duumviri and the ‘First Ten.’ This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in <em> Greek </em> cities of the East; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. ( <em> d </em> ) The ‘first man’ in [[Malta]] (&nbsp; Acts 28:7 ) and ( <em> e </em> ) the ‘politarchs’ (‘rulers of the city’) at Thessalonica (&nbsp; Acts 17:6; probably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions. ( <em> f </em> ) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (&nbsp; Acts 17:19 ), which really ruled the city, though it was a ‘free city,’ as the <em> demos </em> or popular assembly had lost its authority. ( <em> g </em> ) The ‘Asiarchs’ at [[Ephesus]] (&nbsp; Acts 19:31 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ), the presidents of the ‘Common Council’ of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in &nbsp; Revelation 2:13; &nbsp; Revelation 13:15 etc. No 2nd cent. author could have written thus. ( <em> h </em> ) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course. Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the ‘South Galatian’ theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contemporary record. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

<p> The second treatise, in continuation of the Gospel as recorded by Luke. The style confirms the identity of authorship; also the address to the same person, Theophilus, probably a man of rank, judging from the title "most excellent." The Gospel was the life of Jesus in the flesh, the Acts record His life in the Spirit; Chrysostom calls it "The Gospel of the [[Holy]] Spirit." Hence Luke says: "The former treatise I made of all that Jesus began to do and teach;" therefore the Acts give a summary of what Jesus continued to do and teach by His Spirit in His disciples after He was taken up. The book breaks off at the close of Paul's imprisonment, A.D. 63, without recording his release; hence it is likely Luke completed it at this date, just before tidings of the apostle's release reached him. </p> <p> There is a progressive development and unity of plan throughout. The key is &nbsp;Acts 1:8; "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in (1) Jerusalem, and (2) in all Judaea, and (3) in Samaria, and (4) unto the uttermost part of the earth." It begins with Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish dispensation, and ends with Rome, the metropolis of the whole Gentile world. It is divisible into three portions: </p> <p> '''I.''' From the ascension to the close of Acts 11, which describes the rise of the first purely Gentile church, at Antioch, where the disciples consequently were first called See [[Christians]] (see); </p> <p> '''II.''' [[Thence]] down to the special vision at Troas (Acts 16), which carried the gospel, through Paul, to Europe; </p> <p> '''III.''' Thence onward, until it reached Rome. In each of the three periods the church has a distinct aspect: in the first, Jewish; in the second, Gentile with a strong Jewish admixture; in the third, after the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), Gentile in a preponderating degree. At first the gospel was preached to the Jews only; then to the [[Samaritans]] (&nbsp;Acts 8:1-5); then to the [[Ethiopian]] eunuch, a proselyte of righteousness (&nbsp;Acts 8:27); then, after a special revelation as Peter's warrant, to Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate; then to Gentile [[Greeks]] (not Grecians, i.e. Greek speaking Jews, but pagan Greeks, on the whole the best supported reading, &nbsp;Acts 11:20); then Peter, who, as "the apostle of the circumcision," had been in the first period the foremost preacher, gives place from Acts 13 to Paul, "the apostle of the uncircumcision," who successively proclaimed the word in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome. Luke joined Paul at Troas (about A.D. 53), as appears from the "we" taking the place of "they" at that point in his history (&nbsp;Acts 16:8-10). The repetition of the account of the ascension in Acts 1 shows that an interval of some time had elapsed since writing the more summary account of it at the end of Luke 24; for repetition would have been superfluous unless some time had intervened. </p> <p> Matthew's Gospel, as adapted to Jewish readers, answers to the first period ending about A.D. 40, and was written probably in and for Jerusalem and Judaea; Mark answers to the second or Judaeo-Gentile period, A.D. 40-50, as his Gospel abounds in Latinisms, and is suited to Gentile converts, such as were the Roman soldiers concentrated at Caesarea, their head quarters in Palestine, the second great center of gospel preaching, the scene of Cornelius' conversion by Mark's father in the faith, Peter. Luke's Gospel has a Greek tinge, and answers to the third period, A.D. 50-63, being suited to Greeks unfamiliar with Palestinian geography; written perhaps at Antioch, the third great center of gospel diffusion. </p> <p> Antioch is assigned by tradition as his residence (A.D. 52) before joining Paul when entering Europe. Beginning it there, he probably completed it under Paul's guidance, and circulated it from Philippi, where he was left behind, among the Greek churches. Probably Paul (A.D. 57) alludes to his Gospel in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 8:18; "the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches." Certainly he quotes his Gospel as Scripture, and by inspiration stamps it as such in &nbsp;1 Timothy 5:18. His having been chosen by the Macedonian churches joint trustee with Paul of their contributions to Jerusalem implies a long residence, during which he completed and circulated his work. As Acts was the fruit of his second connection with Paul, whose labors down to his imprisonment in Rome form the chief part of the book, so he wrote the Gospel through the help he got in his first connection with him, from Troas down to Philippi. (See Birks' [[Horse]] Evarig., 192, etc., for the probability that [[Theophilus]] lived at Antioch.) Jerome says Luke published his Gospel "in the parts of Achaia and Baeotia." </p> <p> The Book of Acts links itself with the Gospels, by describing the foundation and extension of the church, which Christ in the [[Gospels]] promised; and with the Pauline epistles by undesigned, because not obvious, coincidences. It forms with the Gospels a historical Pentateuch, on which the [[Epistles]] are the inspired commentary, as the Psalms and [[Prophets]] are on the Old [[Testament]] historical books. Tertullian De Bapt., 17, and Jerome, Vir. Illustr., Luc., 7, mention that John pronounced spurious the Acts of Paul and Thecla, published at Ephesus. As Luke's Acts of the [[Apostles]] was then current, John's condemnation of the spurious Acts is a virtual sanction of ours as genuine; especially as &nbsp;Revelation 3:2 assigns this office of testing the true and the false to John's own church' of Ephesus. The epistle of the churches of [[Lyons]] and [[Vienna]] to those of Asia and [[Phrygia]] (A.D. 177) quotes it. Irenseus, Adv. </p> <p> Hser., 1:31, [[Clemens]] Alexandrinus, Strom., 5, and Origen, in Euseb. H. E., 6:23, attest the book. Eusebius, H.E., 3:25, ranks it among "the universally recognized Scriptures." Its rejection by the [[Manicheans]] on purely doctrinal grounds implies its acceptance by the early church catholic. Luke never names himself. But the identity of the writer with the writer of the Gospel (&nbsp;Luke 1:3) is plain, and that the first person plural (&nbsp;Acts 16:10; &nbsp;Acts 16:17; &nbsp;Acts 21:1; &nbsp;Acts 21:18; &nbsp;Acts 27:1; &nbsp;Acts 28:16) includes the writer in the first person singular (&nbsp;Acts 1:1). Paul's other companions are distinguished from the writer (&nbsp;Acts 20:4-5-6; &nbsp;Acts 20:15). The sacred writers keep themselves in the background, so as to put forward their grand subject. The first person gives place to the third at &nbsp;Acts 17:1, as Paul and Silas left Luke behind at Philippi. The nonmention of Luke in Paul's epistles is due to his not having been with him at [[Corinth]] (Acts 18), whence the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written; nor at Ephesus (Acts 19), whence he wrote to the Romans; nor at Corinth again, whence he wrote to the Galatians. </p> <p> The first person is not resumed until &nbsp;Acts 20:5-6, at Philippi, the very place where the first person implies he was with Paul two years before (Acts 16); in this interval Luke probably made Philippi his head quarters. Thenceforward to the close, which leaves Paul at Rome, the first person shows Luke was his companion. &nbsp;Colossians 4:14; &nbsp;Philemon 1:24, written there and then, declare his presence with Paul in Rome. The undesigned coincidence remarkably confirms the truth of his authorship and of the history. Just in those epistles written from places where in Acts the first person is dropped, Luke is not mentioned, but Silas and Timothy are; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 1:1; &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 1:1; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:19 compared with &nbsp;Acts 18:5. </p> <p> But in the epistles written where we know, from Acts 28, the writer was with Paul we find Luke mentioned. Alford conjectures that as, just before Luke's joining Paul at Troas (&nbsp;Acts 16:10), Paul had passed through Galatia, where he was detained by sickness (&nbsp;Galatians 4:13, Greek "Ye know that because of an infirmity of my flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first"), and Phrygia, and as the epistle to [[Colossae]] in Phrygia terms Luke "the beloved physician," Luke became Paul's companion owing to the weak state of the apostle's health, and left him at Philippi when he was recovered, which would account for the warm epithet "beloved." </p> <p> In &nbsp;Acts 21:10 Agabus is introduced as if he had never been mentioned before, which he was in &nbsp;Acts 11:28. Probably Luke used different written sources of information, guided in the selection by the Holy spirit. This view accounts for the Hebraistic style of the earlier parts (drawn from [[Hebrew]] sources), and the [[Grecian]] style of the latter (from Luke himself). The speeches remarkably and undesignedly accord with all that is known of the speakers from other sources. Compare Peter's speeches, &nbsp;Acts 2:23; &nbsp;Acts 4:11; &nbsp;Acts 10:34, with &nbsp;1 Peter 1:17; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:19; &nbsp;1 Peter 2:7; Paul's, &nbsp;Acts 14:15-17; &nbsp;Acts 17:24-31, with &nbsp;Romans 1:19-25; &nbsp;Romans 2:5; &nbsp;Romans 3:25 (Greek "the pretermission," or passing over of sins, "winking" at them), &nbsp;Colossians 1:17; &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 2:4 (margin of &nbsp;Acts 17:23 "gods worshipped," the same Greek); &nbsp;Acts 20:19; &nbsp;Acts 20:31 with &nbsp;Philippians 3:18; &nbsp;Acts 20:32 with &nbsp;Ephesians 2:20; &nbsp;Acts 20:24 with &nbsp;2 Timothy 4:7; "seed according to the promise," &nbsp;Acts 13:23, with &nbsp;Romans 4:13; &nbsp;Galatians 3:16. </p> <p> The Hebraisms mostly found in the speeches, and not in the narrative, prove that the speakers' very words are essentially though summarily given. [[Providence]] so ordered it that during Paul's two years' imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea, Luke his companion had the best opportunities for ascertaining the facts of the early part of his work from the brethren on the spot. At [[Caesarea]] dwelt Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven (&nbsp;Acts 21:8), the best authority for Acts 6; 7; 8; also Cornelius the centurion, or at least some witnesses of the events (Acts 10) which initiated the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. Probably the portion &nbsp;Acts 17:15-18;&nbsp;Acts 17:5 was inserted by Paul himself, for he was then alone, and none but he could have supplied the facts. Moreover, in &nbsp;Acts 17:16-21 eleven expressions foreign to Luke's style occur, and in the speech 20 besides, some of which are found nowhere else but in Paul's epistles. </p> <p> Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given (&nbsp;Matthew 16:19), opens it as the central figure of the first part, both to the Jews (Acts 3) and to the [[Gentiles]] (Acts 10). Another instrument was needed for evangelizing the world, combining the learning of both Hebrew and Greek, which the twelve had not, with the citizenship of Rome, the political mistress of the Gentile world; Paul possessed all these qualifications. A Jew by birth; educated in Hebrew divine truth at the feet of [[Gamaliel]] in Jerusalem; in Greek literature at Tarsus, one of its most eminent schools (whence he derived his acquaintance with the writings of Aratus, a Cilician poet, his own countryman, &nbsp;Acts 17:28, and Epimenides, &nbsp;Titus 1:12, and Menander, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:33); and a Roman citizen, a privilege which would gain him influence and protect him from lawless and fanatical violence everywhere. </p> <p> Hence Paul by his catholicity of qualifications and spirit (when his old pharisaism was completely eradicated by the revulsion of feeling attendant on his miraculous conversion) occupies the central place in which records the extension of the gospel to the metropolis of the world. Baumgarten remarks: "the twelve did not enter so fully into the catholic spirit of the new dispensation; a new intervention of the Lord was needed to create a new apostolate, not resting on the [[Israelite]] organization." Three civilizations meet in the introduction of the gospel to the world: the polity of Rome, binding all nations together, securing peace, and facilitating the circulation of the gospel of peace; the intellectual and aesthetic culture of Greece, revealing man's impotence by his own reasoning to find out God's law, and yet preparing him for it when divinely revealed in the gospel; and the Judaic law, divinely perfect, but impotent to justify through man's inability to keep it. </p> <p> Alford rightly reasons that the date of composition must have been before the fulfillment of the prophecy, &nbsp;Acts 27:24, "thou must be brought before Ceasar"; else Luke would have recorded it, as he does Paul's trials before [[Felix]] and Festus. The most certain date from the New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus, is that of [[Porcius]] [[Festus]] arriving in [[Palestine]] in Felix' room, A.D. </p> <p> '''60.''' Paul therefore went to Rome A.D. 61, when Burrbus, a humane man, was captain of the guard. His successor, the cruel Tigellinus, would not have been likely to have left him "in free custody." </p> <p> Herod Agrippa's death was A.D. </p> <p> '''44.''' Therefore Paul's second visit to Jerusalem with the contributions was about A.D. 42 (&nbsp;Acts 11:30). &nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:2 (written about A.D. 55-57) refers to this visit. "Fourteen years before" will bring us to about A.D. 41-42. The visit to Antioch, and Agabus' prophecy fulfilled in Claudius' reign (A.D. 41) preceded &nbsp;Acts 11:28, namely, A.D. </p> <p> '''40.''' The silence as to Paul, &nbsp;Acts 12:1-19, shows he was not at Jerusalem then, A.D. 43-44, but just before it, A.D. 41-42. The stoning of [[Stephen]] was probably A.D. 33, Saul's conversion A.D. 37, his first visit to Jerusalem A.D. 40, his third visit (Acts 15) fourteen years subsequently to his conversion, A.D. 51 (&nbsp;Galatians 2:1). </p> <p> After his conversion he went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, whence he escaped under [[Aretas]] (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 11:32); then to Jerusalem, after three years. His first visit was then A.D. 40 or 41, being succeeded by a cessation of persecution, owing to Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the temple. Next he was brought to Tarsus, to escape from Grecian conspirators in Jerusalem (&nbsp;Acts 9:30; &nbsp;Galatians 1:21). Thus only the period from A.D. 30 to A.D. 32-33 elapses between Christ's ascension and the stoning of Stephen. All the hints in the first six chapters imply a miraculously rapid growth of Christianity, and an immediate antagonism on the part of the Jews. The only other cardinal point of time specified is in &nbsp;Acts 18:2, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius Ceasar, A.D. 52. </p> <p> No book of the New Testament has suffered more from variations of text. Probably these are due to attempts at clearing supposed difficulties, harmonizing Paul's different accounts of his conversion, and bringing the text into exact likeness to the Gospels and Epistles. The book of Acts was so little read in the churches publicly that there was less opportunity to expunge interpolations by comparing different copies. The principal interpolations alleged are &nbsp;Acts 8:37; &nbsp;Acts 9:5-6; &nbsp;Acts 24:6-8; &nbsp;Acts 28:29. </p>

<p> ''''' a ''''' - ''''' pos´ls ''''' : </p> <p> I. Title </p> <p> II. Text </p> <p> III. Unity of the Book </p> <p> IV. The Author </p> <p> V. Canonicity </p> <p> VI. Date </p> <p> VII. Sources Used by Luke </p> <p> VIII. The Speeches in the Acts </p> <p> IX. Relation of Acts to the Epistles </p> <p> X. [[Chronology]] of Acts </p> <p> XI. [[Historical]] [[Worth]] of Acts </p> <p> XII. Purpose of the Book </p> <p> XIII. Analysis </p> <p> Literature </p> I. Title <p> It is possible, indeed probable, that the book originally had no title. The manuscripts give the title in several forms. [[Aleph]] (in the inscription) has merely "Acts" ( <i> ''''' Praxeis ''''' </i> ). So Tischendorf, while Origen, Didymus, Eusebius quote from "The Acts." But Bd A leph (in subscription) have "Acts of Apostles" or " <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> " ( <i> ''''' Praxeis Apostolon ''''' </i> ). So Westcott and Hort, Nestle (compare [[Athanasius]] and Euthalius). Only slightly different is the title in 31, 61, and many other cursives ( <i> ''''' Praxeis tōn Apostolōn ''''' </i> , "Acts of the Apostles"). So Griesbach, Scholz. Several fathers (Clement of Alex, Origen, [[Dionysius]] of Alex, [[Cyril]] of Jerusalem, Chrysostom) quote it as " <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> " ( <i> ''''' [[Hai]] Praxeis tōn Apostolōn ''''' </i> ). [[Finally]] A2 Egh give it in the form "Acts of the Holy Apostles" ( <i> ''''' Praxeı̄s tōn Hagiōn Apostolōn ''''' </i> ). The Memphitic version has "The Acts of the Holy Apostles." Clearly, then, there was no single title that commanded general acceptance. </p> II. Text <p> (1) The chief documents. These are the Primary Uncials (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae), Codex Laudianus (E) which is a bilingual Uncial confined to Acts, later Uncials like Codex Modena, Codex Regius, Codex the Priestly Code (P), the Cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Harclean Syriac and quotations from the Fathers. We miss the Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus, and have only fragmentary testimony from the Old Latin. </p> <p> (2) The modern editions of Acts present the types of text (Textus Receptus; the Revised Version (British and American); the critical text like that of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek or Nestle or Weiss or von Soden). These three types do not correspond with the four classes of text (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, Neutral) outlined by Hort in his <i> Introduction to the New Testament in Greek </i> (1882). These four classes are broadly represented in the documents which give us Acts. But no modern editor of the Greek New Testament has given us the Western or the [[Alexandrian]] type of text, though Bornemann, as will presently be shown, argues for the originality of the Western type in Acts. But the Textus Receptus of the New Testament (Stephanus' 3rd edition in 1550) was the basis of the King James Version of 1611. This edition of the Greek New Testament made use of a very few manuscripts, and all of them late, except Codex Bezae, which was considered too eccentric to follow. Practically, then, the King James Version represents the Syriac type of text which may have been edited in Antioch in the 4th century. Various minor errors may have crept in since that date, but substantially the Syriac recension is the text of the King James Version today. Where this text stands alone, it is held by nearly all modern scholars to be in error, though Dean Burgon fought hard for the originality of the Syriac text ( <i> The Revision Revised </i> , 1882). The text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is practically that of Codex Vaticanus, which is held to be the Neutral type of text. Nestle, von Soden, Weiss do not differ greatly from the text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, though von Soden and Weiss attack the problem on independent lines. The text of the Revised Version (British and American) is in a sense a compromise between that of the King James Version and the critical text, though coming pretty close to the critical text. Compare Whitney, <i> The Reviser's Greek Text </i> , 1892. For a present-day appreciation of this battle of the texts see J. Rendel Harris, <i> Side [[Lights]] on the New Testament </i> , 1908. For a detailed comparison between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Acts see Rackham, <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , xxii. </p> <p> (3) In Acts the Western type of text has its chief significance. It is the meet of the late Friedrich Blass, the famous classicist of Germany, to have shown that in Luke's writings (Gospel and Acts) the Western class (especially D) has its most marked characteristics. This fact is entirely independent of theory advanced by Blass which will be cussed directly. The chief modern revolt against theories of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is the new interest felt in the value of the Western type of text. In particular Codex Bezae has come to the front in the Book of Acts. The feeble support that Codex Bezae has in its peculiar readings in Acts (due to absence of Curetonian Syriac and of the Old Latin) makes it difficult always to estimate the value of this document. But certainly these readings deserve careful consideration, and some of them may be correct, whatever view one holds of the Codex Bezae text. The chief variations are, as is usual with the Western text, additions and paraphrases. Some of the prejudice against Codex Bezae has disappeared as a result of modern discussion. </p> <p> (4) Bornemann in 1848 argued that Codex Bezae in Acts represented the original text. But he has had very few followers. </p> <p> (5) J. Rendel Harris (1891) sought to show that Codex Bezae (itself a bilingual MS) had been Latinized. He argued that already in 150 ad a bilingual manuscript existed. But this theory has not won a strong following. </p> <p> (6) Chase (1893) sought to show that the peculiarities were due to translation from the Syriac </p> <p> (7) Blass in 1895 created a sensation by arguing in his [[Commentary]] on Acts ( <i> Acta Apostolorum </i> , 24ff) that Luke had issued two editions of the Acts, as he later urged about the Gospel of Luke ( <i> Philology of the Gospels </i> , 1898). In 1896 Blass published this Roman form of the text of Acts ( <i> Acta Apostolorum </i> , <i> secundum Formam quae videtur Romanam </i> ). Blass calls this first, rough, unabridged copy of Acts ρ Ο2 bπ and considers that it was issued at Rome. The later edition, abridged and revised, he calls alpha. [[Curiously]] enough, in &nbsp; Acts 11:28 , Codex Bezae has "when we had gathered together," making Luke present at Antioch. The idea of two editions is not wholly original with Blass. Leclerc, a Dutch philologist, had suggested the notion as early as the beginning of the 18th century. [[Bishop]] Lightfoot had also mentioned it ( <i> On a [[Fresh]] Revision of the New Testament </i> , 29). But Blass worked the matter out and challenged the world of scholarship with his array of arguments. He has not carried his point with all, though he has won a respectable following. [[Zahn]] ( <i> Einl </i> , <i> II </i> , 338ff, 1899) had already been working toward the same view (348). He accepts in the main Blass' theory, as do Belser, Nestle, Salmon, Zöckler. Blass acknowledges his debt to Corssen ( <i> Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum </i> , 1892), but Corssen considers the ρ Ο2 aπ text as the earlier and the ρ Ο2 bπ text as a later revision. </p> <p> (8) Hilgenfeld ( <i> Acta Apostolorum </i> , etc., 1899) accepts the notion of two edd, but denies identity of authorship. </p> <p> (9) Schmiedel ( <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> ) vigorously and at much length attacks Blass' position, else "the conclusions reached in the foregoing sections would have to be withdrawn." He draws his conclusions and then demolishes Blass! He does find weak spots in Blass' armor as others have done (B. Weiss, <i> Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte </i> , 1897; Page, <i> Class. Rev </i> ., 1897; Harnack, <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 1909, 45). See also Knowling, <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 1900, 47, for a sharp indictment of Blass' theory as being too simple and lacking verification. </p> <p> (10) Harnack ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 48) doubts if Luke himself formally published the book. He thinks that he probably did not give the book a final revision, and that friends issued two or more editions He considers that the so-called ρ Ο2 bπ recension has a "series of interpolations" and so is later than the ρ Ο2 aπ text. </p> <p> (11) Ramsay ( <i> The Church in the Roman Empire </i> , 150; <i> St. Paul the Traveler </i> , 27; <i> The Expositor </i> , 1895) considers the ρ Ο2 bπ text to be a 2nd-century revision by a copyist who has preserved some very valuable 2nd-century testimony to the text. </p> <p> (12) Headlam ( <i> HDB </i> ) does not believe that the problem has as yet been scientifically attacked, but that the solution lies in the textual license of scribes of the Western type (compare Hort, <i> Introduction </i> , 122ff). But Headlam is still shy of "Western" readings. The fact is that the Western readings are sometimes correct as against the Neutral (compare &nbsp;Matthew 27:49 ). It is not necessary in &nbsp;Acts 11:20 to say that <i> Hellenas </i> is in Western authorities (AD, etc.) but is not a Western reading. It is at any rate too soon to say the final word about the text of Acts, though on the whole the ρ Ο2 aπ text still holds the field as against the ρ Ο2 bπ text. The Syriac text is, of course, later, and out of court. </p> III. Unity of the Book <p> It is not easy to discuss this question, apart from that of authorship. But they are not exactly the same. One may be convinced of the unity of the book and yet not credit it to Luke, or, indeed, to anyone in the 1st century. Of course, if Luke is admitted to be the author of the book, the whole matter is simplified. His hand is in it all whatever sources he used. If Luke is not the author, there may still have been a competent historian at work, or the book may be a mere compilation. The first step, therefore, is to attack the problem of unity. Holtzmann ( <i> Einl </i> , 383) holds Luke to be the author of the "we" sections only. Schmiedel denies that the Acts is written by a companion of Paul, though it is by the same author as the Gospel bearing Luke's name. In 1845 Schleiermacher credited the "we" sections to Timothy, not to Luke. For a good sketch of theories of "sources," see Knowling on Acts, 25ff. [[Van]] Manen (1890) resolved the book into two parts, <i> Acta Petri </i> and <i> Acta Pauli </i> , combined by a redactor. Sorof (1890) ascribes one source to Luke, one to Timothy. Spitta also has two sources (a Pauline-Lukan and a Jewish-Christian) worked over by a redactor. Clemen (1905) has four sources (History of the Hellenists, History of Peter, History of Paul, and a [[Journey]] of Paul), all worked over by a series of editors. Hilgenfeld (1895) has three sources (Acts of Peter, Acts of the Seven, Acts of Paul). Jungst (1895) has a Pauline source and a Petrine source J. Weiss (1893) admits sources, but claims that the book has unity and a definite aim. B. Weiss (1902) conceives an early source for the first part of the book. Harnack ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 1909, 41 f) has small patience with all this blind criticism: "With them the book passes as a comparatively late patchwork compilation, in which the part taken by the editor is insignificant yet in all cases detrimental; the 'we' sections are not the property of the author, but an extract from a source, or even a literary fiction." He charges the critics with "airy conceit and lofty contempt." Harnack has done a very great service in carefully sifting the matter in his <i> Luke the [[Physician]] </i> (1907). He gives detailed proof that the "we" sections are in the same style and by the same author as the rest of the book (26-120). Harnack does not claim originality in this line of argument: "It has been often stated and often proved that the 'we' sections in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style are most intimately bound up with the whole work, and that this work itself including the Gospel), in spite of all diversity in its parts, is distinguished by a grand unity of literary form" ( <i> Luke the Physician </i> , 26). He refers to the "splendid demonstration of this unity" by Klostermann ( <i> Vindiciae Lucanae </i> , 1866), to B. Weiss, who, in his commentary (1893, 2 Aufl, 1902) "has done the best work in demonstrating the literary unity of the whole work," to "the admirable contributions" of Vogel ( <i> [[Zur]] Charakteristik des Lukas </i> , etc., 2 Aufl, 1899) to the "yet more careful and minute investigations" of Hawkins ( <i> Horae Synopticae </i> , 1899, 2nd edition, 1909), to the work of [[Hobart]] ( <i> The Medical [[Language]] of Luke </i> , 1882), who "has proved only too much" ( <i> Luke the Physician </i> , 175), but "the evidence is of overwhelming force" (198). Harnack only claims for himself that he has done the work in more detail and with more minute accuracy without claiming too much (27). But the conversion of Harnack to this view of Acts is extremely significant. It ought not to be necessary any more to refute the partition theories of the book, or to set forth in detail the proofs for the unity of the book. Perhaps the compilation theory of Acts is nowhere set forth more cogently than in McGiffert's <i> The Apostolic Age </i> (1897). See a powerful refutation of his argument by Ramsay in <i> Pauline and Other Studies </i> (1906, 302-21). "I think his clever argumentation is sophistical" (305). Harnack is fully aware that he has gone over to the rode of "Ramsay, Weiss and Zahn": "The results at which I have arrived not only approach very nearly to, but are often coincident with, the results of their research" ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 302). He is afraid that if these scholars failed to get the ear of critics "there is little prospect of claiming the attention of critics and compelling them to reconsider their position." But he has the advantage of coming to this conclusion from the other side. Moreover, if Harnack was won by the force of the facts, others may be. This brief sketch of Harnack's experience may take the place of detailed presentation of the arguments for the unity of the book. Harnack sets forth in great wealth of detail the characteristic idioms of the "we" sections side by side with parallels in other parts of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. The same man wrote the rest of Acts who wrote the "we" sections. This fact should now be acknowledged as proven. This does not mean that the writer, a personal witness in the "we" sections, had no sources for the other parts of Acts. This aspect of the matter will be considered a little later. </p> IV. The Author <p> Assuming the unity of the book, the argument runs as follows: The author was a companion of Paul. The "we" sections prove that (&nbsp;Acts 16:10-17; &nbsp;Acts 20:6-16; 21; 27; 28). These sections have the fullness of detail and vivid description natural to an eye-witness. This companion was with Paul in the second missionary journey at Troas and at Philippi, joined Paul's party again at Philippi on the return to Jerusalem during the third tour, and probably remained with Paul till he went to Rome. Some of Paul's companions came to him at Rome: others are so described in the book as to preclude authorship. Aristarchus, [[Aquila]] and Priscilla, Erastus, Gaius, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Trophimus, [[Tychicus]] and others more or less insignificant from the point of view of connection with Paul (like Crescens, Demas, Justus, Linus, Pudens, Sopater, etc.) are easily eliminated. Curiously enough Luke and Titus are not mentioned in Acts by name at all. They are distinct persons as is stated in &nbsp;2 Timothy 4:10 . Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem at the conference (&nbsp;Galatians 2:1 ) and was his special envoy to Corinth during the time of trouble there. (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:12; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:18 .) He was later with Paul in [[Crete]] (&nbsp;Titus 1:5 ). But the absence of mention of Titus in Acts may be due to the fact that he was a brother of Luke (compare &nbsp;2 Corinthians 8:18; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:18 ). So A. Souter in <i> DCG </i> , article "Luke." If Luke is the author, it is easy to understand why his name does not appear. If Titus is his brother, the same explanation occurs. As between Luke and Titus the medical language of Acts argues for Luke. The writer was a physician. This fact Hobart ( <i> The Medical Language of St. Luke </i> , 1882) has demonstrated. Compare Zahn, <i> Einl </i> , 2, 435ff; Harnack's <i> Luke the Physician </i> , 177ff. The arguments from the use of medical terms are not all of equal weight. But the style is colored at points by the language of a physician. The writer uses medical terms in a technical sense. This argument involves a minute comparison with the writings of physicians of the time. Thus in &nbsp;Acts 28:3 <i> ''''' katháptō ''''' </i> , according to Hobart (288), is used in the sense of poisonous matter invading the body, as in Dioscorides, <i> Animal. Ven. Proem </i> . So Galen, <i> De Typis </i> 4 (VII, 467), uses it "of fever fixing on parts of the body." Compare Harnack, <i> Luke the Physician </i> , 177 f. Harnack agrees also that the terms of the diagnosis in &nbsp;Acts 28:8 "are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature" (ibid., 176 f). Hobart has overdone his argument and adduced many examples that are not pertinent, but a real residuum remains, according to Harnack. Then <i> ''''' pı́mprasthai ''''' </i> is a technical term for swelling. Let these serve as examples. The interest of the writer in matters of disease is also another indication, compare &nbsp;Luke 8:43 . Now Luke was a companion of Paul during his later ministry and was a physician. (&nbsp;Colossians 4:14 ). Hence, he fulfils all the requirements of the case. The argument thus far is only probable, it is true; but there is to be added the undoubted fact that the same writer wrote both Gospel and Acts (&nbsp;Acts 1:1 ). The direct allusion to the Gospel is reinforced by identity of style and method in the two books. The external evidence is clear on the matter. Both Gospel and Acts are credited to Luke the physician. The Muratorian canon ascribes Acts to Luke. By the end of the 2nd century the authority of the Acts is as well established as that of the Gospel (Salmon, <i> Introduction to the New Testament </i> , 1885, 366). Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, all call Luke the author of the book. The argument is complete. It is still further strengthened by the fact that the point of view of the book is Pauline and by the absence of references to Paul's epistles. If one not Paul's companion had written Acts, he would certainly have made some use of them. Incidentally, also, this is an argument for the early date of the Acts. The proof that has won Harnack, the leader of the left in Germany, to the acknowledgment of the Lukan authorship of Acts ought to win all to this position. </p> V. Canonicity <p> The use of the Acts does not appear so early or so frequently as is true of the gospels and the Pauline epistles. The reason obvious. The epistles had a special field and the gospels appealed to all. Only gradually would Acts circulate. At first we find literary allusions without the name of book or author. But Holtzmann ( <i> Einl </i> , 1892, 406) admits the use of Acts by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp. The use of the Gospel according to Luke by [[Tatian]] and [[Marcion]] really revolves knowledge of the Acts. But in [[Irenaeus]] frequently ( <i> Adv. Haer </i> ., i. 23, 1, etc.) the Acts is credited to Luke and regarded as Scripture. The [[Canon]] of Muratori list it as Scripture. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria attribute the book to Luke and treat it as Scripture. By the times of Eusebius the book is generally acknowledged as part of the canon. Certain of the heretical parties reject it (like the Ebionites, Marcionites, Manicheans). But by this time the Christians had come to lay stress on history (Gregory, <i> Canon and Text of the New Testament </i> , 1907, 184), and the place of Acts is now secure in the canon. </p> VI. Date <p> 1. Luke's Relations to [[Josephus]] </p> <p> The acceptance of the Lukan authorship settles the question of some of the dates presented by critics. Schmiedel places the date of Acts between 105 and 130 ad ( <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> ). He assumes as proven that Luke made use of the writings of Josephus. It has never been possible to take with much seriousness the claim that the Acts shows acquaintance with Josephus. See Keim, <i> Geschichte [[Jesu]] </i> , III, 1872, 134, and Krenkel, <i> Josephus und [[Lucas]] </i> , 1894, for the arguments in favor of that position. The words quoted to prove it are in the main untechnical words of common use. The only serious matter is the mention of [[Theudas]] and [[Judas]] the [[Galilean]] in &nbsp;Acts 5:36 and Josephus ( <i> Ant. </i> , XX, v, 1 f). In Josephus the names occur some twenty lines apart and the resemblance is only slight indeed. The use of <i> ''''' peı́thō ''''' </i> in connection with Theudas and <i> ''''' apōstḗsai ''''' </i> concerning Judas is all that requires notice. Surely, then, two common words for "persuade" and "revolt" are not enough to carry conviction of the writer's use of Josephus. The matter is more than offset by the differences in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa (&nbsp;Acts 12:19-23; Josephus, <i> Ant </i> , Xviii , vi, 7, Xix , viii, 2). The argument about Josephus may be definitely dismissed from the field. With that goes all the ground for a 2nd-century date. Other arguments have been adduced (see Holtzmann, <i> Einl </i> , 1892, 405) such as the use of Paul's epistles, acquaintance with Plutarch, Arrian and Pausanias, because of imitation in method of work (i.e. parallel lives of Peter and Paul, periods of history, etc.), correction of Gal in Acts (for instance, &nbsp;Galatians 1:17-24 and &nbsp; Acts 9:26-30; &nbsp;Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-33). The parallel with [[Plutarch]] is fanciful, while the use of Panl's epistles is by no means clear, the absence of such use, indeed, being one of the characteristics of the book. The variation from Galatians is far better explained on the assumption that Luke had not seen the epistles. </p> <p> 2. 80 ad Is the [[Limit]] if the Book Is to Be Credited to Luke </p> <p> The majority of modern critics who accept the Lukan authorship place it between 70 and 80 ad. So Harnack, Lechler, Meyer, Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn. This opinion rests mainly on the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. It is claimed that &nbsp;Luke 21:20 shows that this tragedy had already occurred, as compared with &nbsp; Mark 13:14 and &nbsp; Matthew 24:15 . But the mention of armies is very general, to be sure. Attention is called also to the absence of the warning in Luke. Harnack ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 291 f) admits that the arguments in favor of the date 70 to 80 are by no means conclusive. He writes "to warn critics against a too hasty closing of the chronological question." In his new book ( <i> Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte </i> , etc., 1911, S. 81) Harnack definitely accepts the date before the destruction of Jerusalem. Lightfoot would give no date to Acts because of the uncertainty about the date of the Gospel. </p> <p> 3. Before 70 [[Ad]] </p> <p> This date is supported by Blass, Headlam, Maclean, Rackham, Salmon. Harhack, indeed, considers that "very weighty considerations" argue for the early date. He, as already stated, now takes his stand for the early date. It obviously the simplest way to understand Luke's close of the Acts to be due to the fact that Paul was still in prison. Harnack contends that the efforts to explain away this situation are not "quite satisfactory or very illuminating." He does not mention Paul's death because he was still alive. The dramatic purpose to bring Paul to Rome is artificial. The supposition of a third book from the use of <i> ''''' protō̇n ''''' </i> in &nbsp;Acts 1:1 is quite gratuitous, since in the <i> ''''' Koinē ''''' </i> , not to say the earlier Greek, "first" was often used when only two were mentioned (compare "our first story" and "second story," "first wife" and "second wife"). The whole tone of the book is that which one would naturally have before 64 ad. After the burning of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem the attitude maintained in the book toward Romans and Jews would have been very difficult unless the date was a long times afterward Harnack wishes "to help a doubt to its lust dues." That "doubt" of Harnack is destined to become the certainty of the future. (Since this sentence was written Harnack has settled his own doubt.) The book will, I think, be finally credited to the time 63 ad in Rome. The Gospel of Luke will then naturally belong to the period of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea. The judgment of Moffatt ( <i> Historical New Testament </i> , 1901, 416) that "it cannot be earlier" than 80 ad is completely upset by the powerful attack of Harnack on his own previous position. See also Moffatt's <i> Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament </i> (1911) and Koch's <i> Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes </i> (1911). </p> VII. Sources Used by Luke <p> If we now assume that Luke is the author of the Acts, the question remains as to the character of the sources used by him. One is at liberty to appeal to &nbsp;Luke 1:1-4 for the general method of the author. He used both oral and written sources. In the Acts the matter is somewhat simplified by the fact that Luke was the companion of Paul for a considerable part of the narrative (the "we" sections, &nbsp; Acts 16:11-17; &nbsp;Acts 20:5; &nbsp;Acts 21:18; 27 and 28). It is more than probable that Luke was with Paul also during his last stay in Jerusalem and during the imprisonment at Caesarea. There is no reason to think that Luke suddenly left Paul in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea only when he started to Rome (&nbsp;Acts 27:1 ). The absence of "we" is natural here, since it is not a narrative of travel, but a sketch of Paul's arrest and series of defenses. The very abundance of material here, as in Acts 20 and 21, argues for the presence of Luke. But at any rate Luke has access to Paul himself for information concerning this period, as was true of the second, from Acts 13 to the end of the book. Luke was either present or he could have learned from Paul the facts used. He may have kept a travel diary, which was drawn upon when necessary. Luke could have taken notes of Paul's addresses in Jerusalem (Acts 22) and Caesarea (Acts 24 through 26). From these, with Paul's help, he probably composed the account of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-30). If, as I think is true, the book was written during Paul's first Roman imprisonment, Luke had the benefit of appeal to Paul at all points. But, if so, he was thoroughly independent in style and assimilated his materials like a true historian. Paul (and also Philip for part of it) was a witness to the events about Stephen in Acts 6:8 through 8:1 and a participant of the work in Antioch (&nbsp;Acts 11:19-30 ). Philip, the host of Paul's company (&nbsp;Acts 21:8 ) on the last journey to Jerusalem, was probably in Caesarea still during Paul's confinement there. He could have told Luke the events in &nbsp;Acts 6:1-7 and 8:4-40. In Caesarea also the story of Peter's work may have been derived, possibly even from Cornelius himself (9:32 through 11:18). Whether Luke ever went to Antioch or not we do not know (Codex Bezae has "we" in &nbsp; Acts 11:28 ), though he may have had access to the [[Antiochian]] traditions. But he did go to Jerusalem. However, the narrative in Acts 12 probably rests on the authority of John Mark (&nbsp;Acts 12:12 , &nbsp;Acts 12:25 ), in whose mother's house the disciples were assembled. Luke was apparently thrown with Mark in Rome (&nbsp;Colossians 4:10 ), if not before. For Acts 1 through 5 the matter does not at first seem so clear, but these chapters are not necessarily discredited on that account. It is remarkable, as ancient historians made so little mention of their sources, that we can connect Luke in the Acts with so many probable fountains of evidence. Barnabas (&nbsp;Acts 4:36 ) was able to tell much about the origin of the work in Jerusalem. So could Mnason. Philip also was one of the seven (&nbsp;Acts 6:5; &nbsp;Acts 21:8 ). We do not know that Luke met Peter in Rome, though that is possible. But during the stay in Jerusalem and Caesarea (two years) Luke had abundant opportunity to learn the narrative of the great events told in Acts 1 through 5. He perhaps used both oral and written sources for this section. One cannot, of course, prove by linguistic or historical arguments the precise nature of Luke's sources in Acts. Only in broad outlines the probable materials may be sketched. </p> VIII. The Speeches in Acts <p> This matter is important enough to receive separate treatment. Are the numerous speeches reported in Acts free compositions of Luke made to order <i> à la </i> Thucydides? Are they verbatim reports from notes taken at the times and literally copied into the narrative? Are they substantial reports incorporated with more or less freedom with marks of Luke's own style? In the abstract either of these methods was possible. The example of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and Josephus shows that ancient historians did not scruple to invent speeches of which no report was available. There are not wanting those who accuse Luke of this very thing in Acts. The matter can only be settled by an appeal to the facts so far as they can be determined. It cannot be denied that to a certain extent the hand of Luke is apparent in the addresses reported by him in Acts. But this fact must not be pressed too far. It is not true that the addresses are all alike in style. It is possible to distinguish very clearly the speeches of Peter from those of Paul. Not merely is this true, but we are able to compare the addresses of both Paul and Peter with their epistles. It is not probable that Luke had seen these epistles, as will presently be shown. It is crediting remarkable literary skill to Luke to suppose that he made up "Petrine" speeches and "Pauline" speeches with such success that they harmonize beautifully with the teachings and general style of each of these apostles. The address of Stephen differs also sharply from those of Peter and Paul, though we are not able to compare this report with any original work by Stephen himself. Another thing is true also, particularly of Paul's sermons. They are wonderfully stated to time, place and audience. They all have a distract Pauline flavor, and yet a difference in local color that corresponds, to some extent, with the variations in the style of Paul's epistles. Professor [[Percy]] Gardner ( <i> The Speeches of Paul in Acts </i> , in [[Cambridge]] Biblical Essays, 1909) recognizes these differences, but seeks to explain them on the ground of varying accuracy in the sources used by Luke, counting the speech at [[Miletus]] as the most historic of all. But he admits the use of sources by Luke for these addresses. The theory of pure invention by Luke is quite discredited by appeal to the facts. On the other hand, in view of the apparent presence of Luke's style to some extent in the speeches, it can hardly be claimed that he has made verbatim reports. Besides, the report of the addresses of Jesus in Luke's Gospel (as in the other gospels) shows the same freedom in giving the substance exact reproduction of the words that is found in Acts. Again, it seems clear that some, if not all, the reports in Acts are condensed, mere outlines in the case of some of Peter's addresses. The ancients knew how to make shorthand reports of such addresses. The oral tradition was probably active in preserving the early speeches of Peter and even of Stephen, though Paul himself heard Stephen. The speeches of Paul all show the marks of an eyewitness (Bethge, <i> Die paulinischen Reden </i> , etc., 174). For the speeches of Peter, Luke may have had documents, or he may have taken down the current oral tradition while he was in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Peter probably spoke in Greek on the day of Pentecost. His other addresses may have been in Aramaic or in Greek. But the oral tradition would certainly carry them in Greek, if also in Aramaic. Luke heard Paul speak at Miletus (Acts 20) and may have taken notes at the time. So also he almost certainly heard Paul's address on the steps of the Tower of [[Antonia]] (Acts 22) and that before Agrippa (Acts 26). There is no reason to think that he was absent when Paul made his defenses before Felix and Festus (Acts 24 through 25) He was present on the ship when Paul spoke (Acts 27), and in Rome when he addressed the Jews (Acts 28) Luke was not on hand when Paul delivered his sermon at Antioch in [[Pisidia]] (Acts 13), or at [[Lystra]] (Acts 14), or at Athens (Acts 17) But these discourses differ so greatly in theme and treatment, and are so essentially Pauline that it is natural to think that Paul himself gave Luke the notes which he used. The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is probably given as a sample of Paul's missionary discourses. It contains the heart of Paul's gospel as it appears in his epistles. He accentuates the death and resurrection of Jesus, remission of sins through Christ, justification by faith. It is sometimes objected that at Athens the address shows a breadth of view and sympathy unknown to Paul, and that there is a curious Attic tone to the Greek style. The sermon does go as far as Paul can (compare &nbsp;1 Corinthians 9:22 ) toward the standpoint of the Greeks (but compare Col and Eph). However, Paul does not sacrifice his principle of grace in Christ. He called the [[Athenians]] to repentance, preached the judgment for sin and announced the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man here taught did not mean that God yanked at sin and could save all men without repentance and forgiveness of sin. Chase ( <i> The Credibility of Acts </i> ) gives a collection of Paul's missionary addresses. The historical reality and value of the speeches in Acts may be said to be vindicated by modern scholarship. For a sympathetic and scholarly discussion of all of Paul's addresses see Jones, <i> St. Paul the [[Orator]] </i> (1910). The short speech of [[Tertullus]] (Acts 24) was made in public, as was the public statement of Festus in Acts 26. The letter of Claudias Lysias to Felix in Acts 23 was a public document. How Luke got hold of the conversation about Paul between Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26 is more difficult to conjecture. </p> IX. Relation of Acts to the Epistles <p> There is no real evidence that Luke made use of any of Paul's epistles. He was with Paul in Rome when Col was written (&nbsp;Luke 4:14 ), and may, indeed, have been Paul's amanuensis for this epistle (and for Eph and Philem). Some similarities to Luke's style have been pointed out. But Acts closes without any narrative of the events in Rome during the years there, so that these epistles exerted no influence on the composition of the book. As to the two preceding groups of Paul's epistles (1 and 2 Thess, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Romans) there is no proof that Luke saw any of them. The [[Epistle]] to the Romans was probably accessible to into while in Rome, but he does not seem to have used it. Luke evidently preferred to appeal to Paul directly for information rather than to his epistles. This is all simple enough if he wrote the book or made his data while Paul was alive. But if Acts was written very late, it would be strange for the author not to have made use of some of Paul's epistles. The book has, therefore, the great advantage of covering some of the same ground as that discussed in the earlier epistles, but from a thoroughly independent stand-point. The gaps in our knowledge from the one source are often supplied incidentally, but most satisfactorily, from the other. The coincidences between Acts and Paul's epistles have been well traced by Paley in his <i> Horae Paulinae </i> , still a book of much value. Knowling, in his <i> [[Witness]] of the Epistles </i> (1892), has made a more recent study of the same problem. But for the apparent conflict between &nbsp; Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15 the matter might be dropped at this point. It is argued by some that Acts, written long after Gal, brushes to one side the account of the Jerusalem conference given by Paul. It is held that Paul is correct in his personal record, and that Acts is therefore unhistorical Others save the credit of Acts by arguing that Paul is referring to an earlier private conference some years before the public discussion recorded in Acts 15. This is, of course, possible in itself, but it is by no means required by the variations between the two reports. The contention of Lightfoot has never been really overturned, that in &nbsp; Galatians 2:1-10 Paul gives the personal side of the conference, not a full report of the general meeting. What Paul is doing is to show the Galatians how he is on a par with the Jerusalem apostles, and how his authority and independence were acknowledged by them. This aspect of the matter came out in the private conference. Paul is not in &nbsp; Galatians 2:1-10 setting forth his victory over the [[Judaizers]] in behalf of Gentile freedom. But in Acts 15 it is precisely this struggle for Gentile freedom that is under discussion. Paul's relations with the Jerusalem apostles is not the point at all, though it in plain in Acts that they agree. In Galatians also Paul's victory for Gentile freedom comes out. Indeed, in Acts 15 it is twice mentioned that the apostles and elders were gathered together (&nbsp; Acts 15:4 , &nbsp;Acts 15:6 ), and twice we are told that Paul and Barnabas addressed them (&nbsp;Acts 15:4 , &nbsp;Acts 15:12 ). It is therefore natural to suppose that this private conference narrated by Paul in Galatians came in between &nbsp;Galatians 2:5 and &nbsp; Galatians 2:6 . Luke may not, indeed, have seen the Epistle to the Galatians, and may not have heard from Paul the story of the private conference, though he knew of the two public meetings. If he did know of the private meeting, he thought it not pertinent to his narration. There is, of course, no contradiction between Paul's going up by revelation and by the appointment of the church in Antioch. In &nbsp;Galatians 2:1 we have the second (&nbsp; Galatians 1:18 ) visit to Jerusalem after his conversion mentioned by Paul, while that in Acts 15 is the third in Acts (&nbsp;Acts 9:28; &nbsp;Acts 11:29; &nbsp;Acts 15:2 ). But there was no particular reason for Paul to mention the visit in &nbsp;Acts 11:30 , which did not concern his relation to the apostles in Jerusalem. Indeed, only the "elders" are mentioned on this occasion. The same independence between Acts and Gal occurs in &nbsp;Galatians 1:17-24 , and &nbsp;Acts 9:26-30 . In Acts there is no allusion to the visit to Arabia, just as there is no mention of the private conference in Acts 15. So also in &nbsp;Acts 15:35-39 there is no mention of the sharp disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch recorded in &nbsp; Galatians 2:11 . Paul mentions it merely to prove his own authority and independence as an apostle. Luke had no occasion to record the incident, if he was acquainted with the matter. These instances illustrate well how, when the Acts and the epistles vary, they really supplement each other. </p> X. Chronology of Acts <p> Here we confront one of the most perplexing questions in New Testament criticism. In general, ancient writers were not so careful as modern writers are to give precise dates for historical events. Indeed, it was not easy to do so in view of the absence of a uniform method of reckoning times. Luke does, however, relate his narrative to outward events at various points. In his Gospel he had linked the birth of Jesus with the names of [[Augustus]] as emperor and of [[Quirinius]] as governor of Syria (&nbsp;Luke 2:1 ), and the entrance of John the [[Baptist]] upon his ministry with the names of the chief Roman and Jewish rulers of the time (&nbsp;Luke 3:1 ) So also in the Acts he does not leave us without various notes of times. He does not, indeed, give the date of the Ascension or of the Crucifixion, though he places the Ascension forty days after the [[Resurrection]] (&nbsp;Acts 1:3 ), and the great Day of Pentecost would then come ten days later, "not many days hence" (&nbsp;Acts 1:5 ) But the other events in the opening chapters of Acts have no clear chronological arrangement. The career of Stephen is merely located "in these days" (&nbsp;Acts 6:1 ). The beginning of the general persecution under Saul is located on the very day of Stephen's death (&nbsp;Acts 8:1 ), but the year is not even hinted at. The conversion of Saul comes probably in its chronological order in Acts 9, but the year again is not given. We have no hint as to the age of Saul at his conversion. So again the relation of Peter's work in Caesarea (10) to the preaching to the Greeks in Antioch (11) is not made clear, though probably in this order. It is only when we come to Acts 12 that we reach an event whose date is reasonably certain. This is the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 ad. But even so, Luke does not correlate the life of Paul with that incident. Ramsay ( <i> St. Paul the Traveler </i> , 49) places the persecution and death of James in 44, and the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem in 46. About 44, then, we may consider that Saul came to Antioch from Tarsus. The "fourteen years" in &nbsp;Galatians 2:1 as already shown probably point to the visit in Acts 15 some years later. But Saul had been in Tarsus some years and had spent some three years in [[Arabia]] and [[Damascus]] after his conversion (&nbsp; Galatians 1:18 ). Beyond this it is not possible to go. We do not know the age of Saul in 44 ad or the year of his conversion. He was probably born not far from 1 ad. But if we locate Paul at Antioch with Barnabas in 44 ad, we can make some headway. Here Paul spent a year (&nbsp;Acts 11:26 ). The visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11, the first missionary tour in 13 and 14, the conference at Jerusalem in 15, the second missionary tour in 16 through 18, the third missionary tour and return to Jerusalem in 18 through 21, the arrest in Jerusalem and two years in Caesarea in 21 through 26, all come between 44 ad and the recall of Felix and the coming of Festus. It used to be taken for granted that Festus came in 60 ad. Wieseler figured it out so from Josephus and was followed by Lightfoot. But Eusebius, in his "Chronicle," placed that event in the second year of Nero. That would be 56, unless Eusebius has a special way of counting those years Mr. C. H T urner (art. "Chronology" in <i> HDB </i> ) finds that Eusebius counts an emperor's regnal year from the September following. If so, the date could be moved forward to 57 (compare Rackham on Acts, lxvi). But Ramsay (chapter xiv, "Pauline Chronology," in <i> Pauline and Other Studies </i> ) cuts the Gordian knot by showing an error in Eusebius due to his disregarding an interregnum with the reign of Mugs Ramsay here follows Erbes ( <i> Todestage Pauli und Petri </i> in this discovery and is able to fix upon 59 as the date of the coming of Festus. Probably 59 will have to answer as a compromise date. Between 44 ad and 59 ad, therefore, we place the bulk of Paul's active missionary work. Luke has divided this period into minor divisions with relative dates. Thus a year and six months are mentioned at Corinth (&nbsp; Acts 18:11 ), besides "yet many days" (&nbsp;Acts 18:18 ). In Ephesus we find mention of "Three months" (&nbsp;Acts 19:8 ) and "two years" (&nbsp;Acts 19:10 ), the whole story summed up as "Three years" (&nbsp;Acts 20:31 ) Then we have the "two years" of delay in Caesarea (&nbsp;Acts 24:27 ). We thus have about seven of these fifteen years itemized. Much of the remaining eight was spent in the journeys described by Luke. We are told also the times of year when the voyage to Rome was under way (&nbsp;Acts 27:9 ), the length of the voyage (&nbsp;Acts 27:27 ), the duration of the stay in [[Melita]] (&nbsp;Acts 28:11 ), and the times spent in Rome at the close of the book, "two whole years" (&nbsp;Acts 28:30 ). Thus it is possible to fix upon a relative schedule of dates, though not an absolute one. Harnack ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , chapter i, "Chronological Data") has worked out a very careful scheme for the whole of Acts. Knowling has a good critical resume of the present state of our knowledge of the chronology of Acts in his <i> Commentary </i> , 38ff, compare also Clemen, <i> Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe </i> (1893). It is clear, then, that a rational scheme for events of Paul's career so far as recorded in the Acts can be found. If 57 ad, for instance, should be taken as the year of Festus coming rather than 59 or 60 ad, the other dates back to 44 ad would, of course, be affected on a sliding scale. Back of 44 ad the dates are largely conjectural. </p> XI. Historical Worth of Acts <p> It was once fashionable to discredit Acts as a book of no real value as history. The [[Tübingen]] school regarded Acts as "a late controversial romance, the only historical value of which was to throw light on the thought of the period which produced it" (Chase, <i> The Credibility of Acts </i> , 9). There are not wanting a few writers who still regard Acts as a late <i> ''''' eirēnicon ''''' </i> between the Peter and Paul parties, or as a party pamphlet in the interest of Paul. [[Somewhat]] fanciful parallels are found between Luke's treatment of both Peter and Paul "According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument for the critical position is the correspondence between the acts of Peter and the other apostles on the one rode and those of Paul on the other" (Headlam in <i> HDB </i> ). But this matter seems rather far fetched. Peter is the leading figure in the early chapters, as Paul is in the latter half of the book, but the correspondences are not remarkably striking. There exists in some minds a prejudice against the book on the ground of the miracles recorded as genuine events by Luke. But Paul himself claimed to have wrought miracles (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:12 ). It is not scientific to rule a book out beforehand because it narrates miracles (Blass, <i> Acta Apostolorum </i> , 8). Ramsay ( <i> St. Paul the Traveler </i> , 8) tells his experience in regard to the trustworthiness of Acts: "I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me." It was by actual verification of Acts in points where it could be tested by inscriptions, Paul's epistles, or current non-Christian writers, that "it was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." He concludes by "placing this great writer on the high pedestal that belongs to him" (10). McGiffert ( <i> The Apostolic Age </i> ) had been compelled by the geographical and historical evidence to abandon in part the older criticism. He also admitted that the Acts "is more trustworthy than previous critics allowed" (Ramsay, <i> Luke the Physician </i> , 5). Schmiedel ( <i> Encyclopedia Biblica </i> ) still argues that the writer of Acts is inaccurate because he was not in possession of full information. But on the whole Acts has had a triumphant vindication in modern criticism. Jülicher ( <i> Einl </i> , 355) admits "a genuine core overgrown with legendary accretions" (Chase, <i> Credibility </i> , 9). The moral honesty of Luke, his fidelity to truth (Rackham on <i> Acts </i> , 46), is clearly shown in both his Gospel and the Acts. This, after all, is the chief trait in the true historian (Ramsay, <i> St. Paul the Traveler </i> , 4). Luke writes as a man of serious purpose and is the one New Testament writer who mentions his careful use of his materials (&nbsp;Luke 1:1-4 ). His attitude and spent are those of the historian. He reveals artistic skill, it is true, but not to the discredit of his record. He does not give a bare chronicle, but he writes a real history, an interpretation of the events recorded. He had adequate resources in the way of materials and endowment and has made conscientious and skillful use of his opportunity. It is not necessary here to give in detail all the points in which Luke has been vindicated (see Knowling on <i> Acts </i> , Ramsay's books and Harnack's <i> Luke </i> and <i> Acts </i> ). The most obvious are the following: The use of "proconsul" instead of "propraetor" in &nbsp;Acts 13:7 is a striking instance. Curiously enough Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long. An inscription has been found in Cyprus "in the proconsulship of Paulus." The 'first men' of Antioch in Pisidia is like the (&nbsp; Acts 13:50 ) "First Ten," a title which "was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East" (MacLean in one-vol <i> HDB </i> ). The "priest of Jupiter" at Lystra (&nbsp;Acts 14:13 ) is in accord with the known facts of the worship there. So we have [[Perga]] in [[Pamphylia]] (&nbsp;Acts 13:13 ), Antioch in Pisidia &nbsp;Acts 13:14 ), Lystra and [[Derbe]] in [[Lycaonia]] (&nbsp;Acts 14:6 ), but not Iconium (&nbsp;Acts 14:1 ). In Philippi Luke notes that the magistrates are called <i> ''''' strategoı́ ''''' </i> or <i> ''''' praetors ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Acts 16:20 ), and are accompanied by lictors or <i> ''''' rhabdoú̄choi ''''' </i> (&nbsp;Acts 16:35 ). In Thessalonica the rulers are "politarchs" (&nbsp;Acts 17:6 ), a title found nowhere else, but now discovered on an inscription of Thessalonica. He rightly speaks of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens (&nbsp;Acts 17:19 ) and the proconsul in Achaia (&nbsp;Acts 18:12 ). Though Athens was a free city, the Court of the Areopagus at the times were the real rulers. Achaia was sometimes associated with Macedonia, though at this time it was a separate senatorial province. In Ephesus Luke knows of the "Asiarchs" (&nbsp;Acts 19:31 ), "the presidents of the 'Common Council' of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor" (Maclean). Note also the fact that Ephesus is "temple-keeper of the great Diana" (&nbsp;Acts 19:35 ). Then observe the town clerk (&nbsp;Acts 19:35 ), and the assembly (&nbsp;Acts 19:39 ). Note also the title of Felix, "governor" or procurator (&nbsp;Acts 24:1 ), Agrippa the king (&nbsp;Acts 25:13 ), Julius the centurion and the Augustan band (&nbsp;Acts 27:1 ). Acts 27 is a marvel of interest and accuracy for all who wish to know details of ancient seafaring. The matter has been worked over in a masterful way by James Smith, <i> [[Voyage]] and [[Shipwreck]] of Paul </i> . The title "First Man of the Island" (&nbsp;Acts 28:7 ) is now found on a coin of Melita. These are by no means all the matters of interest, but they will suffice. In most of the items given above Luke's veracity was once challenged, but now he has been triumphantly vindicated. The force of this vindication is best appreciated when one recalls the incidental nature of the items mentioned. They come from widely scattered districts and are just the points where in strange regions it is so easy to make slips. If space allowed, the matter could be set forth in more detail and with more justice to Luke's worth as a historian. It is true that in the earlier portions of the Acts we are not able to find so many geographical and historical corroborations. But the nature of the material did not call for the mention of so many places and persons. In the latter part Luke does not hesitate to record miraculous events also. His character as a historian is firmly established by the passages where outside contact has been found. We cannot refuse him a good name in the rest of the book, though the value of the sources used certainly cuts a figure. It has been urged that Luke breaks down as a historian in the double mention of Quirinius in &nbsp;Luke 2:2 and &nbsp; Acts 5:37 . But Ramsay ( <i> Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? </i> ) has shown how the new knowledge of the census system of Augustus derived from the Egypt papyri is about to clear up this difficulty. Luke's general accuracy at least calls for suspense of judgment, and in the matter of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5) Luke as compared with Josephus outclasses his rival. Harnack ( <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> , 203-29) gives in his usual painstaking way a number of examples of "inaccuracy and discrepancy" But the great bulk of them are merely examples of independence in narration (compare Acts 9 with 22 and 26, where we have three reports of Paul's conversion). Harnack did not, indeed, once place as high a value on Luke as a historian as he now does. It is all the more significant, therefore, to read the following in Harnack's <i> The Acts of the Apostles </i> (298 f): "The book has now been restored to the position of credit which is its rightful due. It is not only, taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the majority of its details it is trustworthy.... [[Judged]] from almost every possible standpoint of historical criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects an extraordinary work." That is, in my opinion, an understatement of the facts (see Ramsay), but it is a remarkable conclusion concerning the trustworthiness of Luke when one considers the distance that Harnack has come. At any rate the prejudice against Luke is rapidly disappearing. The judgment of the future is forecast by Ramsay, who ranks Luke as a historian of the first order. </p> XII. Purpose of the Book <p> A great deal of discussion has been given to Luke's aim in the Acts. Baur's theory was that this book was written to give a conciliatory view of the conflict between Peter and Paul, and that a minute parallelism exists in the Acts between these two heroes. This tendency theory once held the critical field, but it does not take into view all the facts, and fails to explain the book as a whole. Peter and Paul are the heroes of the book as they undoubtedly were the two chief personalities in apostolic history (compare Wendt, <i> Apostelgeschichte </i> , 17). There is some parallelism between the careers of the two men (compare the worship offered Peter at Caesarea in &nbsp;Acts 10:25 , and that to Paul in &nbsp;Acts 14:11; see also the punishment of Ananias and [[Sapphira]] and that of Elymas). But Knowling (Acts, 16) well replies that curiously no use is made of the death of both Peter and Paul in Rome, possibly at the same time. If the Acts was written late, this matter would be open to the knowledge of the writer. There is in truth no real effort on Luke's part to paint Paul like Peter or Peter like Paul. The few similarities in incident are merely natural historical parallels. Others have seen in the Acts a strong purpose to conciliate Gentile (pagan) opinion in the fact that the Roman governors and military officers are so uniformly presented as favorable to Paul, while the Jews are represented as the real aggressors against Christianity (compare Josephus' attitude toward Rome). Here again the fact is beyond dispute. But the other explanation is the more natural, namely, that Luke brings out this aspect of the matter because it was the truth. Compare B. Weiss, <i> Einl </i> , 569. Luke does have an eye on the world relations of Christianity and rightly reflects Paul's ambition to win the Roman Empire to Christ (see Rom 15), but that is not to say that he has given the book a political bias or colored it so as to deprive it of its historical worth. It is probably true (compare Knowling, Acts, 15; J. Weiss, <i> Ueber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte </i> ) that Luke felt, as did Paul, that Judaism realized its world destiny in Christianity, that Christianity was the true Judaism, the spiritual and real Israel. If Luke wrote Acts in Rome, while Paul's case was still before Nero, it is easy to understand the somewhat long and minute account of the arrest and trials of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome. The point would be that the legal aspect of Christianity before Roman laws was involved. [[Hitherto]] Christianity had found shelter as a sect of Judaism, and so was passed by [[Gallio]] i </p>