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 canonical book of the New Testament, written by Luke as a sequel to his gospel, and a history in part of the early church. It is not, however, a record of the acts of all the apostles, but chiefly of those of Peter and Paul. In his gospel, Luke described the founding of Christianity in what Christ did, taught, and suffered; in the Acts he illustrates its diffusion, selecting what was best fitted to show how the first followers of Christ in building up his church. Beginning were his gospel indeed, he narrates the ascension of the [[Savior]] and the conduct of the disciples thereupon; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise; the miraculous preaching of the apostles, their amazing success, and the persecutions raised against them; with other events of moment to the church at Jerusalem, till they were scattered abroad. He then shows how [[Judaism]] was superseded, and how Peter was led to receive to Christian fellowship converts from the Gentiles. The remainder of the narrative is devoted to the conversion and calling of the apostle Paul, his missionary zeal, labors, and sufferings, and the ends with his two years' imprisonment at Rome. </p> <p> Luke himself witnessed, to a great extent, the events he narrates. His Greek is the most classical in the New Testament; and the view he gives of the spirit of the early church so many of whose members had "been with the Lord," is invaluable. The book was probably written about A. D. 64, that is, soon after the time at which the narration terminates. The place where it was written is not known. </p> <p> In order to read the Acts of the Apostles with intelligence and profit, it is necessary to have a sufficient acquaintance with geography, with the manners of the times and people referred to, and with the leading historical events. The power of the Romans, with the nature and names of the public offices they established, and the distinctions among them, must be understood, as well as the disposition and political opinions of the unconverted Jewish nation, which were to prevalent among the Christianized Hebrews. </p>