THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION
But for the Acts we should know nothing of the early
apostolic period save what is told in the Epistles. There are
various apocryphal "Acts," but they are without historical worth.
Hence the importance of this book.
LUKE THE AUTHOR
It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since
the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems
concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the
ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two
volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev.
J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911).
Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the
Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and
Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of
_The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes,
in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and
in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling,
Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass,
Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_,
Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by
Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented:
_The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against
the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is
discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an
adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The
Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative
conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who
ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar
position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The
Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional
view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with
those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that
Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach
between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came
together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and
Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was
followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views
by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of
both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of
Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the
Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.
THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL ALSO
The author of the Acts expressly states that he wrote
"the first treatise ( on pr(9374)on logon) concerning all things, O
Theophilus, that Jesus began both to do and to teach until which
day he gave command through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom
he had chosen and was received up" ( Ac 1:1f. ). There is no room
for dispute that the reference is directly to the Gospel
according to Luke as we have it now. Like the Gospel the book is
dedicated to Theophilus. And, what is even more important, the
same style appears in both Gospel and Acts. This fact Harnack has
shown with great pains and conclusiveness. There is the same
interest in medical matters and even Cadbury, who denies by
implication the Lukan authorship, admits identity of authorship
for both books.
THE UNITY OF THE ACTS
There are some scholars who are willing to admit the
Lukan authorship of the "we" sections when the author uses "we"
and "us" as in chapter 16:10-40 20:6-28:31 . It has been argued
that Luke wrote a travel-document or diary for these sections,
but that this material was used by the editor or redactor of the
whole book. But, unfortunately for that view, the very same style
appears in the Acts as a whole and in the Gospel also as Harnack
has proven. The man who said "we" and "us" in the "we" sections
wrote "I" in 1:1 and refers to the Gospel as his work. The
effort to disprove the unity of the Acts has failed. It stands as
the work of the same author as a whole and the same author who
wrote the Gospel.
SOURCES OF THE ACTS
Beyond a doubt Luke employed a variety of sources for
this great history as he did for the Gospel ( Lu 1:1-4 ). In
fact, Cadbury argues that this Prologue was meant to apply to the
Acts also as Volume II whether he intended to write a third
volume or not. Certainly we are entitled to say that Luke used
the same historical method for Acts. Some of these sources are
easy to see. Luke had his own personal experience for the "we"
sections. Then he had the benefit of Paul's own notes or
suggestions for all that portion where Paul figures from chapters
8 to 28, since Luke was apparently with Paul in Rome when he
finished the Book. This would include Paul's sermons and
addresses which Luke gives unless one wishes to say, as some do,
that Luke followed the style of Thucydides and composed the kind
of addresses that he thought Paul would make. I see no evidence
of that for each address differs from the others and suits
precisely the occasion when it was delivered. The ancients
frequently employed shorthand and Paul may have preserved notes
of his addresses. Prof. C. C. Torrey, of Yale University, argues
in his _Composition and Date of Acts_ (1916) that Luke used an
Aramaic document for the first fifteen chapters of the Acts.
There is an Aramaic element in certain portions of these
chapters, but nothing like so pronounced as in Luke 1 and 2 after
Lu 1:1-4 . It cannot be said that Torrey has made out his case
for such a single document. Luke may have had several such
documents besides access to others familiar with the early days
of the work in Jerusalem. There was Simon Peter whom Paul visited
for two weeks in Jerusalem ( Ga 1:18 ) besides other points of
contact with him in Jerusalem and Antioch ( Ac 15 and Ga 2 ).
There was also Barnabas who was early Paul's friend ( Ac 9:27 )
and who knew the beginnings as few did ( Ac 4:36f. ). Besides
many others it is to be observed that Paul with Luke made a
special visit to Caesarea where he spent a week with the gifted
Philip and his daughters with the gift of prophecy ( Ac 21:8f. ).
But with all the inevitable variety of sources for the
information needed to cover the wide field of the Book of Acts
the same mind has manifestly worked through it and it is the same
style all through that appears in the "we" sections where the
writer is confessedly a companion of Paul. No other companion of
Paul carries this claim for the authorship and no other was a
physician and no author has the external evidence from early
writers.
THE DATE
There are three views about the date of the Acts. Baur
and his Tubingen School held the second century to be the date of
this late pamphlet as they termed it after the fashion of the
Clementine Homilies. But that view is now practically abandoned
save by the few who still strangely oppose the Lukan authorship.
Probably the majority of those who accept the Lukan authorship
place it in the latter part of the first century for two reasons.
One is that the Gospel according to Luke is dated by them after
the destruction of Jerusalem because of the prophecy by Jesus of
the encompassing of the city by armies. Predictive prophecy that
would be and so it is considered a prophecy _post eventum_. The
other reason is the alleged use of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus
by Luke. Josephus finished this work A.D. 93 so that, if Luke did
use it, he must have written the Acts after that date. Usually
this argument is made to show that Luke could not have written it
at all, but some hold that he may have lived to an age that would
allow it. But it cannot be assumed that Luke used Josephus
because of his mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean. They
differ so widely ( Ac 5:36f . and Josephus, _Ant_. XX. v, 1, 2)
that Von Dobschutz (_Dictionary of the Apostolic Church_, art.
Josephus) argues that the two accounts are entirely independent
of each other. So Luke ( Lu 13:1f. ) alludes to a Galilean revolt
not mentioned by Josephus and Josephus records three revolts
under Pilate not referred to by Luke. A comparison of the
accounts of the death of Agrippa I in Ac 12:20-23 and _Ant_.
XIX. viii, 2 redounds to the credit of Luke. The Josephus phase
of the argument may be brushed to one side. The third view, held
by Harnack and adopted here, is that Luke wrote the Acts while
with Paul in Rome and finished the book before Paul's release,
that is by A.D. 63. This is the obvious and natural way to take
the language of Luke at the close of Acts. Events had gone no
farther and so he ends the narrative right there. It is argued
against this that Luke contemplated a third volume and for this
reason closed with the arrival of Paul in Rome. But the use of
pr(9374)on (first) in Ac 1:1 is a common _Koin(825f) idiom and does
not imply three volumes any more than first and second stories
with us means that the house has three. Of course this date for
the Acts puts the date of the Gospel further back either in
Caesarea (57 to 59) or in Rome (60 to 62). And that means that
Mark's Gospel is still earlier since Luke used it for his Gospel
and the Logia (Q) earlier still. But all these dates are probable
in the light of all the known facts.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE
It was once a fad with a certain school of critics to
decry Luke in the Acts as wholly untrustworthy, not above the
legendary stage. But the spade has done well by Luke for
inscriptions and papyri have brought remarkable confirmation for
scores of points where Luke once stood all alone and was
discounted because he stood alone. These will be duly noted in
the proper places as they occur. Ramsay has done most in this
restoration of the rank of Luke as a credible historian, as shown
in particular in his _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman
Citizen_ and in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the
Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. In every instance where
discoveries have been made they have confirmed the testimony of
Luke as concerning _politarchs_ in Thessalonica, _proconsul_ in
Cyprus, etc. The result is that the balance of evidence is now in
favour of Luke even when he still stands alone or seems to be
opposed by Josephus. Luke, as it stands today, is a more credible
historian than Josephus. Ramsay dares to call Luke, all things
considered, the greatest of all historians, even above
Thucydides. An interesting book on this phase of the subject is
Chase's _The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles_ (1902).
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS
It is not easy to say in a word precisely the object of
Luke in writing this book. It is not the Acts of all the
apostles. Outside of Peter and John little is told of any of them
after chapter 3. And all the acts of Peter and John are not given
for Peter disappears from the narrative after chapter 15, though
he has been the central figure through chapter 11. Paul is not
one of the twelve apostles, but Luke follows Paul's career mainly
after chapter 8. Stephen and Barnabas come in also. Still (_St.
Paul on Trial_, 1923) argues that Luke meant the book as an
apology to be used in Paul's trial at Rome or at any rate to put
Paul in the right light with the Jews in Rome. Hence the full
account of Paul's series of defences in Jerusalem, Caesarea,
Rome. There may be an element of truth in this idea, but it
clearly does not cover the whole purpose of Luke. Others hold
that Luke had a dramatic plan to get Paul to Rome as the climax
of his campaign to win the Roman Empire to Christ. The book is
not a history of all early Christianity. Peter and Paul dominate
the atmosphere of the book with Paul as the great hero of Luke.
But one can easily see that the work is done with consummate
skill. The author is a man of culture, of Christian grace, of
literary power. The book pulses with life today.
THE TEXT OF THE ACTS
A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts
inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support
presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text
of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke
himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis
that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The
Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is
elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of
Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides
thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes
gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that
of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's
ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.
|