If we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is from
no doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we have now
arrived, but from the belief that closer examination of the contents of
the Acts may enable us to test this result, and more fully to understand
the nature of the work and the character of its evidence. Not only will
it be instructive to consider a little closely the contents of the Acts,
and to endeavour from the details of the narrative itself to form
a judgment regarding its historical value, but we have in addition
external testimony of very material importance which we may bring to
bear upon it. We happily possess some undoubted Epistles which afford us
no little information concerning the history, character, and teaching of
the Apostle Paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements
in the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value. It is
unnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the unknown author
of the Acts are at variance with these Epistles, we must prefer the
statements of the Apostle. The importance to our inquiry of such further
examination as we now propose to undertake consists chiefly in the light
which it may throw on the credibility of the work. If it be found that
such
{32}
portions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy,
it will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document
for miracles, which are antecedently incredible, cannot even be
entertained. It may be well also to discuss more fully the authorship of
the Acts, and to this we shall first address ourselves.
It must, however, be borne in mind that it is quite foreign to our
purpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary problem
presented by the Acts of the Apostles. We shall confine ourselves to
such points as seem sufficient or best fitted to test the character of
the composition, and we shall not hesitate to pass without attention
questions of mere literary interest, and strictly limit our examination
to such prominent features as present themselves for our purpose.
It is generally admitted, although not altogether without exception,(1)
that the author of our third synoptic Gospel likewise composed the
Acts of the Apostles. The linguistic and other peculiarities which
distinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in the Acts. This fact,
whilst apparently offering greatly increased facilities for identifying
the author, and actually affording valuable material for estimating
his work, does not, as we have already remarked, really do much towards
solving the problem of the authorship, inasmuch as the Gospel, like its
continuation, is anonymous, and we possess no more precise or direct
evidence in connection with the one than in the case of the other. We
have already so fully examined the testimony for the third Gospel that
it is unnecessary for us to recur to it. From about the end of the
second century we find the Gospel and Acts of the
{33}
Apostles ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to Luke, the companion of
the Apostle Paul. The fallibility of tradition, and the singular phase
of literary morality exhibited during the early ages of Christianity,
render such testimony of little or no value, and in the almost total
absence of the critical faculty a rank crop of pseudonymic writings
sprang up and flourished during that period.(1) Some of the earlier
chapters of this work have given abundant illustrations of this fact. It
is absolutely certain, with regard to the works we are considering, that
Irenaeus is the earliest writer known who ascribes them to Luke, and that
even tradition, therefore, cannot be traced beyond the last quarter of
the second century. The question is--does internal evidence confirm or
contradict this tradition?
Luke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the Acts of
the Apostles.(2) In the Epistle to Philemon his name occurs, with those
of others, who send greeting, verse 23, "There salute thee Epaphras, my
fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke,
my fellow-labourers." In the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, mention
is also made of him:--"Luke, the beloved physician,(3) salutes you, and
Demas." And again, in the 2 Epistle to Timothy, iv. 10:--"For
{34}
Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into
Thessalouica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia: 11. Only Luke is
with me."
He is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament;(1) and his name is
not again met with till Irenaeus ascribes to him the authorship of the
Gospel and Acts. There is nothing in these Pauline Epistles confirming
the statement of the Fathers, but it is highly probable that these
references to him largely contributed to suggest his name as the
author of the Acts, the very omission of his name from the work itself
protecting him from objections connected with the passages in the
first person to which other followers of Paul were exposed, upon the
traditional view of the composition. Irenaeus evidently knew nothing
about him, except what he learnt from these Epistles, and derives from
his theory that Luke wrote the Acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the
passages where the first person is used. From these he argues that Luke
was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in the Gospel, and
he refers, in proof of this, to Acts xvi. 8 ff.,(2) 13 ff., xx. 5 ff.,
and the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes Luke to
have carefully written down. He then continues: "But that he was not
only a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the Apostles, but
particularly of Paul, Paul himself has also clearly shown in the
Epistles, saying:..." and he quotes 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11, ending: "Only
Luke is with me," and then adds, "whence he shows that he was
{35}
always with him and inseparable from him, &c, Ac."(1) The reasoning of
the zealous Father deduces a great deal from very little, it will be
observed, and in this elastic way tradition "enlarged its borders" and
assumed unsubstantial dimensions. Later writers have no more intimate
knowledge of Luke, although Eusebius states that he was born at
Antioch,(2) a tradition likewise reproduced by Jerome.(3) Jerome
further identifies Luke with "the brother, whose praise in the Gospel
is throughout all the churches" mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as
accompanying Titus to Corinth.(4) At a later period, when the Church
required an early artist for its service, Luke the physician was
honoured with the additional title of painter.(5) Epiphanius,(6)
followed later by some other
{36}
writers, represented him to have been one of the seventy-two disciples,
whose mission he alone of all New Testament writers mentions. The view
of the Fathers, arising out of the application of their tradition to the
features presented by the Gospel and Acts, was that Luke composed
his Gospel, of the events of which he was not an eye-witness, from
information derived from others, and his Acts of the Apostles from what
he himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed,
had witnessed.1 It is generally supposed that Luke was not born a Jew,
but was a Gentile Christian.
Some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that
the Gospel and Acts were written by Luke "the beloved physician," by the
supposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms,(2) but very
little weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is
repudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us.
As there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of the
author's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer
any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of
the ascription of
{37}
these writings to "Luke"? To this question Ewald shall reply: "In
fact," he says, "we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully
sufficient. It lies in the designation of the third Gospel as that
'according to Luke' which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels.
For the quotations of this particular Gospel under the distinct name
of Luke, in the extant writings of the Fathers, begin so late that they
cannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those
known to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription.
We thus depend almost alone on this superscription."(1) Ewald generally
does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully sufficient," but it
is doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence
will agree with him. He himself goes on to admit, with all other
critics, that the superscriptions to our Gospels do not proceed from the
authors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or
by later readers to distinguish them.(2) There was no author's name
attached to Marcion's Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian.(3) Chrysostom
very distinctly asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their
names at the head of their works,(4) and he recognizes that, but for
the authority of the primitive Church which added those names, the
superscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He
conjectures that the sole superscription which may
{38}
have been placed by the author of the first Synoptic was simply
[------].(1) It might be argued, and indeed has been, that the
inscription [------], "according to Luke," instead of [------] "Gospel
of Luke," does not actually indicate that "Luke" wrote the work any
more than the superscription to the Gospels "according to the Hebrews"
[------] "according to the Egyptians" [------] has reference to
authorship. The Epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected
with their writers, in the genitive, [------], and so on. This
point, however, we merely mention _en passant_. By his own admission,
therefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form, but
instead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the most
ancient extant MSS., as for instance the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices of
the Gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of their age, date
earlier than the fourth century.(2) As for the Acts of the Apostles, the
book is not ascribed to Luke in a single uncial MS., and it only begins
to appear in various forms in later codices. The variation in the titles
of the Gospels and Acts in different MSS. alone shows the uncertainty of
the superscription. It is clear that the "one ground," upon which Ewald
admits that the evidence for Luke's authorship is based, is nothing but
sand, and cannot support his tower. He is on the slightest consideration
thrown back upon the quotations of the Fathers, which begin too late for
the
{39}
purpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the
third Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late and unsupported
tradition.
Let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages
in the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing
about Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the
designation "the beloved physician" in the Epistle to the Colossians,
iv. 14, does not distinguish a different Luke from the person of that
name in the Epistles to Philemon and Timothy. If this were the case, our
information would be further reduced; but supposing that the same Luke
is referred to, what does our information amount to? Absolutely nothing
but the fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer of
these letters,(1) whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome,
and that he was known to the church of Colossae. There is no evidence
whatever that this Luke had been a travelling companion of Paul, or that
he ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a Gospel. He is
not mentioned in Epistles written during this journey and, indeed,
the rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much
rather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the
proclamation of the Gospel. If Luke be [------] and be numbered amongst
the Apostle's [------], Tychicus is equally "the beloved brother and
faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord."(2) Onesimus the
"faithful and beloved brother,"(3)
1 We cannot discuss the authenticity of these Epistles in
this place, nor is it very important that we should do so.
Nor can we pause to consider whether they were written in
Rome, as a majority of critics think, or elsewhere.
{40}
and Aristarchus, Mark the cousin of Barnabas, Justus and others are
likewise his [------].(1) There is no evidence, in fact, that Paul was
acquainted with Luke earlier than during his imprisonment in Rome, and
he seems markedly excluded from the Apostle's work and company by such
passages as 2 Cor. i. 19.(2) The simple theory that Luke wrote the Acts
supplies all the rest of the tradition of the Fathers, as we have seen
in the case of Irenaeus, and to this mere tradition we are confined in
the total absence of more ancient testimony.
The traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed, and
has been widely held up to our own day,(3) represents Luke as the author
of the Acts, and, in
{41}
the passages where the first person is employed, considers that he
indicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. These passages, where
[------] is introduced, present a curious problem which has largely
occupied the attention of critics, and it has been the point most firmly
disputed in the long controversy regarding, the authorship of the Acts.
Into this literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a
very short way; for, however interesting the question may be in itself,
we are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible
which can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to it
sufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the
authorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references for those who
care more minutely to pursue the subject.
After the narrative of the Acts has, through fifteen chapters, proceeded
uninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change to the first
person plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter.(1) Paul, and at least
Timothy, are represented as going through Phrygia and Galatia, and
at length "they came down to Troas," where a vision appears to Paul
beseeching him to come over into Macedonia. Then, xvi. 10, proceeds:
"And after he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured [------] to
go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us [------]
to preach the Gospel unto them." After verse 17, the direct form of
narrative is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not
reappear until xx. 5, when, without explanation, it is resumed and
continued for ten verses. It is then again abandoned, and recommenced in
xxi. 1-18, and xxvii. 1, xxviii. 16.
1 It is unnecessary to discuss whether xiv. 22 belongs to
the [------] sections or not.
{42}
It is argued by those who adopt the traditional view,(1) that it would
be an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a writer as the
author of the third Synoptic and Acts, to have composed these sections
from documents lying before him, written by others, leaving them in the
form of a narrative in the first person, whilst the rest of his work was
written in the third, and that, without doubt, he would have assimilated
such portions to the form of the rest. On the other hand, that he
himself makes distinct use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts
i. 1, and consequently prepares the reader to expect that, where it
is desirable, he will resume the direct mode of communication; and
in support of this supposition, it is asserted that the very same
peculiarities of style and language exist in the [------] passages as
in the rest of the work. The adoption of the direct form of narrative
in short merely indicates that the author himself was present and an
eye-witness of what he relates,(3) and that writing as he did for
the information of Theophilus, who was well aware of his personal
participation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for him
to give any explanation of his occasional use of the first person.
Is the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in these
particular sections of his work, without a word of explanation, more
intelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory of their
being by the author himself as an eye-witness? On the contrary, it is
maintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes much more
2 Some writers also consider as one of the reasons why
Luke, the supposed author, uses the first person, that where
he begins to do so he himself becomes associated with Paul
in his work, and first begins to preach the Gospel.
Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 137; Baumgarfen, Die
Apostelgeschichte, i. p. 496.
{43}
inexplicable. On examining the [------] sections it will be observed
that they consist almost entirely of an itinerary of journeys, and that
while the chronology of the rest of the Acts is notably uncertain and
indefinite, these passages enter into the minutest details of daily
movements (xvi. 11, 12; xx. 6, 7,11,15; xxi. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,18;
xxvii. 2; xxviii. 7, 12, 14); of the route pursued, and places through
which often they merely pass (xvi. 11,12; xx. 5, 6,13,15; xxi. 1-3, 7;
xxvii. 2 ff.; xxviii. 11-15), and record the most trifling circumstances
(xvi. 12; xx. 13; xxi. 2, 3, 15; xxviii. 2, 11). The distinguishing
feature of these sections in fact is generally asserted to be the stamp
which they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal
knowledge of the circumstances related.
Is it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of the Acts
should intrude his own personality merely to record these minute details
of voyages and journeys? That his appearance as an eye-witness should
be almost wholly limited to the itinerary of Paul's journeys and to
portions of his history which are of very subordinate interest? The
voyage and shipwreck are thus narrated with singular minuteness of
detail, but if any one who reads it only consider the matter for a
moment, it will become apparent that this elaboration of the narrative
is altogether disproportionate to the importance of the voyage in the
history of the early Church. The traditional view indeed is fatal to
the claims of the Acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it
contains, for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively
unimportant and commonplace. The writer's intimate acquaintance with the
history of Paul, and his claim to participation in his work, begin and
end with his actual
{44}
journeys. With very few exceptions, as soon as the Apostle stops
anywhere, he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and relapses into
vagueness and the third person. At the very time when minuteness of
detail would have been most interesting, he ceases to be minute. A very
long and important period of Paul's life is covered by the narrative
between xvi. 10, where the[------] sections begin, and xxviii. 16, where
they end; but, although the author goes with such extraordinary
detail into the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and
unsatisfactory is the account of the rest of Paul's career during that
time!(l) How eventful that career must have been we learn from 2 Cor.
xi. 23-26. In any case, the author who could be so minute in his record
of an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be minute in his
account of more important matters in his history. In the few verses, ix.
1-30, chiefly occupied by an account of Paul's conversion, is comprised
all that the author has to tell of three years of the Apostle's life,
and into xi. 19--xiv. are compressed the events of fourteen years of his
history (cf. Gal. ii. l).(2) If the author of those portions be the same
writer who is so minute in his daily itinerary in the [------] sections,
his sins of omission and commission are of a very startling character.
To say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an
elaborate trifler.
Does the use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1 in any way
justify or prepare(3) the way for the
{45}
sudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth
chapter? Certainly not. The [------] in these passages is used solely in
the personal address to Theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation
contained in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at
once dropped when the history begins. If the prologue of the Gospel be
applied to the Acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is at once
implied, which would rather justify the supposition that these passages
are part of some diary, from which the general editor made extracts.(1)
Besides, there is no explanation in the Acts which in the slightest
degree connects the [------] with the [------].(2) To argue that
explanation was unnecessary, as Theophilus and early readers were well
acquainted with the fact that the author was a fellow-traveller with the
Apostle, and therefore at once understood the meaning of "We,"(3) would
destroy the utility of the direct form of communication altogether; for
if Theophilus knew this, there was obviously no need to introduce the
first person at all, in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to
chronicle minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little
interest. Moreover, writing for Theophilus, we might reasonably expect
that he should have stated where and when he became associated with
Paul, and explained the reasons why he again left and rejoined him.(4)
Ewald suggests that possibly the author intended to have indicated his
name more distinctly at the end of his work;(5) but this merely shows
that, argue as he will,
{46}
he feels the necessity for such an explanation. The conjecture is
negatived, however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. As
in the case of the fourth Gospel, of course the "incomparable modesty"
theory is suggested as the reason why the author does not mention his
own name, and explain the adoption of the first person in the [------]
passages;(1) but to base theories such as this upon the modesty or
elevated views of a perfectly unknown writer is obviously too arbitrary
a proceeding to be permissible.(2) There is, besides, exceedingly little
modesty in a writer forcing himself so unnecessarily into notice, for
he does not represent himself as taking any active part in the events
narrated; and, as the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving,
he might well have remained impersonal to the end.
On the other hand, supposing the general editor of the Acts to have made
use of written sources of information, and amongst others of the diary
of a companion of the Apostle Paul, it is not so strange that, for one
reason or another, he should have allowed the original direct form of
communication to stand whilst incorporating parts of it with his work.
Instances have been pointed out in which a similar retention of the
first or third person, in a narrative generally written otherwise,
is accepted as the indication of a different written source, as for
instance in Ezra vii. 27--ix; Nehemiah viii.--x.; in the Book of Tobit
i. 1-3, iii. 7 ff., and other places;s and Schwanbeck has
{47}
pointed out many instances of a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of
the middle ages.(1) There are various ways in which the retention of the
first person in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from
some other written source, might be explained. The simple supposition
that the author, either through carelessness or oversight, allowed the
[------] to stand(2) is not excluded, and indeed some critics, although
we think without reason, maintain both the third Gospel and the Acts to
be composed of materials derived from various sources and put together
with little care or adjustment.(3) The author might also have inserted
these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained
the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility
of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed
the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to
assume the character of eyewitness, and of companion of the Apostle.(4)
As we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the
general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to
discredit such an explanation.
We shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from which critics
maintain that the author compiled his
{48}
work. It is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite
traces of many documents, few if any writers deny that the writer
made more or less use of earlier materials. It is quite true that the
characteristics of the general author's style are found throughout the
whole work.1 The Acts are no mere aggregate of scraps collected and
rudely joined together, but the work of one author in the sense that
whatever materials he may have used for its composition were carefully
assimilated, and subjected to thorough and systematic revision to adapt
them to his purpose.(2) But however completely this process was carried
out, and his materials interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style
and language, he did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of
independent written sources. Some writers maintain that there is a very
apparent difference between the first twelve
{49}
chapters and the remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much
more Hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion,(1)
although this is not received without demur.(2) As regards the [------]
sections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have in any case
been much manipulated by the general editor, and largely contain his
general characteristics of language, it is at the same time affirmed
that they present distinct foreign peculiarities, which betray a
borrowed document.(3) Even critics who maintain the [------] sections
to be by the same writer who composed the rest of the book point out
the peculiarly natural character and minute knowledge displayed in these
passages, as distinguishing them from the rest of the Acts.(4) This
of course they attribute to the fact that the author there relates his
personal experiences; but even with this explanation it is apparent
that all who maintain the traditional view do recognize peculiarities
in these sections, by which they justify the ascription of them to an
eye-witness. For the reasons which have been very briefly indicated,
therefore, and upon other
{50}
strong grounds, some of which will be presently stated, a very large
mass of the ablest critics have concluded that the [------] sections
were not composed by the author of the rest of the Acts, but that they
are part of the diary of some companion of the Apostle Paul, of which
the Author of Acts made use for his work,(1) and that the general writer
of the work, and consequently of the third Synoptic, was not Luke at
all.(2)
{51}
A careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, we think, leave
any doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or
intimate friend of the Apostle Paul.(1) In here briefly indicating some
of the reasons for this statement, we shall be under the necessity of
anticipating, without much explanation or argument, points which will
be more fully discussed farther on, and which now, stated without
preparation, may not be sufficiently clear to some readers. They may
hereafter seem more conclusive. It is unreasonable to suppose that a
friend or companion could have written so unhistorical and defective
a history of the Apostle's life and teaching. The Pauline Epistles are
nowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative
and representations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle, they are
strikingly contradictory.(2)
{52}
His teaching in the one scarcely presents a trace of the strong and
clearly defined doctrines of the other, and the character and conduct
of the Paul of Acts are altogether different from those of Paul of
the Epistles. According to Paul himself (Gal. i. 16--18), after his
conversion, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither went up
to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but immediately went
away into Arabia, and returned to Damascus, and only after three years
he went up to Jerusalem to visit Kephas, and abode with him fifteen
days, during which visit none other of the Apostles did he see "save
James, the brother of the Lord." If assurance of the correctness of
these details were required, Paul gives it by adding (v. 20): "Now
the things which I am writing to you, behold before God I lie not."
According to Acts (ix. 19--30), however, the facts are quite different.
Paul immediately begins to preach in Damascus, does not visit Arabia
at all, but, on the contrary, goes to Jerusalem, where, under the
protection of Barnabas (v. 26, 27), he is introduced to the Apostles,
and "was with them going in and out." According to Paul (Gal. i. 22),
his face was after that unknown unto the churches of Judaea, whereas,
according to Acts, not only was he "going in and out" at Jerusalem with
the Apostles, but (ix. 29) preached boldly in the name of the Lord, and
(Acts xxvi. 20) "in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judaea,"
he urged to repentance. According to Paul (Gal. ii. 1 ff.), after
fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus,
{53}
"according to a revelation," and "privately" communicated his Gospel
"to those who seemed to be something," as, with some irony, he calls
the Apostles. In words still breathing irritation and determined
independence, Paul relates to the Galatians the particulars of that
visit--how great pressure had been exerted to compel Titus, though a
Greek, to be circumcised, "that they might bring us into bondage," to
whom, "not even for an hour did we yield the required subjection." He
protests, with proud independence, that the Gospel which he preaches
was not received from man (Gal. i. 11, 12), but revealed to him by God
(verses 15, 16); and during this visit (ii. 6, 7) "from those seeming
to be something [------], whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to
me--God accepteth not man's person--for to me those who seemed
[------] communicated nothing additional." According to Acts, after his
conversion, Paul is taught by a man named Ananias what he must do (ix.
6, xxii. 10); he makes visits to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25, &c), which
are excluded by Paul's own explicit statements; and a widely different
report is given (xv. 1 ff.) of the second visit. Paul does not go,
"according to a revelation," but is deputed by the Church of Antioch,
with Barnabas, in consequence of disputes regarding the circumcision of
Gentiles, to lay the case before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
It is almost impossible in the account here given of proceedings
characterised throughout by perfect harmony, forbearance, and unanimity
of views, to recognize the visit described by Paul. Instead of being
private, the scene is a general council of the Church. The fiery
independence of Paul is transformed into meekness and submission. There
is not a word of the
{54}
endeavour to compel him to have Titus circumcised--all is peace and
undisturbed good-will. Peter pleads the cause of Paul, and is more
Pauline in his sentiments than Paul himself, and, in the very presence
of Paul, claims to have been selected by God to be Apostle of the
Gentiles (xv. 7--11). Not a syllable is said of the scene at Antioch
shortly after (Gal. ii. 11 ff.), so singularly at variance with the
proceedings of the council, when Paul withstood Cephas to the face.
Then, who would recognize the Paul of the Epistles in the Paul of Acts,
who makes such repeated journeys to Jerusalem to attend Jewish feasts
(xviii. 21,1 xix. 21, xx. 16, xxiv. 11, 17, 18); who, in his journeys,
halts on the days when a Jew may not travel (xx. 5, 6); who shaves
his head at Cenchrea because of a vow (xviii. 18); who, at the
recommendation of the Apostles, performs that astonishing act of
Nazariteship in the Temple (xxi. 23), and afterwards follows it up by
a defence of such "excellent dissembling" [------]; who circumcises
Timothy, the son of a Greek and of a Jewess, with his own hands
(xvi. 1--3, cf. Gal. v. 2); and who is so little the apostle of the
uncircumcision that he only tardily goes to the Gentiles when rejected
by the Jews (cf. xviii. (J). Paul is not only robbed of the honour of
being the first Apostle of the Gentiles, which is conferred upon Peter,
but the writer seems to avoid even calling him an apostle at all,(2) the
only occasions upon which he does so being indirect (xiv. 4, 14); and
the title equally applied to Barnabas, whose claim to it is more than
doubted. The
{55}
passages in which this occurs, moreover, are not above suspicion, "the
Apostles" being omitted in Cod. D. (Bezae) from xiv. 14. The former
verse in that codex has important variations from other MSS.
If we cannot believe that the representation actually given of Paul in
the Acts could proceed from a friend or companion of the Apostle, it
is equally impossible that such a person could have written his history
with so many extraordinary imperfections and omissions. We have already
pointed out that between chs. ix.--xiv. are compressed the events of
seventeen of the most active years of the Apostle's life, and also that
a long period is comprised within the [------] sections, during which
such minute details of the daily itinerary are given. The incidents
reported, however, are quite disproportionate to those which are
omitted. We have no record, for instance, of his visit to Arabia at
so interesting a portion of his career (Gal. i. 17), although the
particulars of his conversion are repeated with singular variations no
less than three times (ix. xxii. xxvi.); nor of his preaching in Illyria
(Rom. xv. 19); nor of the incident referred to in Rom. xvi. 3, 4. The
momentous adventures in the cause of the Gospel spoken of in 2 Cor.
xi. 23 ff. receive scarcely any illustration in Acts, nor is any notice
taken of his fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Cor. xv. 32), which
would have formed an episode full of serious interest. What, again, was
"the affliction which happened in Asia," which so overburdened even so
energetic a nature as that of the Apostle that "he despaired even of
life?" (2 Cor. ii. 8 f.) Some light upon these points might reasonably
have been expected from a companion of Paul. Then, xvii. 14--16, xviii.
5 contradict 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, in a way scarcely possible in such a
{56}
companion, present with the Apostle at Athens; and in like manner the
representation in xxviii. 17-22 is inconsistent with such a person,
ignoring as it does the fact that there already was a Christian Church
in Rome (Ep. to Romans). We do not refer to the miraculous elements so
thickly spread over the narrative of the Acts, and especially in the
episode xvi. 25 ff., which is inserted in the first [------] section,
as irreconcilable with the character of an eye-witness, because it is
precisely the miraculous portion of the book which is on its trial;
but we may ask whether it would have been possible for such a friend,
acquainted with the Apostle's representations in 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ff., cf.
xii.--xiv., and the phenomena there described, to speak of the gift of
"tongues" at Pentecost as the power of speaking different languages (ii.
4--11, cf. x. 46, xix. 6)
It will readily be understood that we have here merely rapidly and
by way of illustration referred to a few of the points which seem to
preclude the admission that the general author of the Acts could be an
eyewitness,(1) or companion of the Apostle Paul, and this will become
more apparent as we proceed, and more closely examine the contents of
the book. Who that author was, there are now no means of ascertaining.
The majority of critics who have most profoundly examined the problem
presented by the Acts, however, and who do not admit Luke to be the
general author, are agreed that the author compiled the [------]
sections from a diary kept by some companion of the Apostle Paul during
the journeys and voyages to which they relate, but opinion is very
divided as to the person
{57}
to whom that diary must be ascribed. It is of course recognized that
the various theories regarding his identity are merely based upon
conjecture, but they have long severely exercised critical ingenuity.
A considerable party adopt the conclusion that the diary was probably
written by Luke.(1) This theory has certainly the advantage of whatever
support may be derived from tradition; and it has been conjectured,
not without probability, that this diary, being either written by, or
originally attributed to, Luke, may possibly have been the source from
which, in course of time, the whole of the Acts, and consequently the
Gospel, came to be ascribed to Luke.(2) The selection of a comparatively
less known name than that of Timothy, Titus or Silas,(3) for instance,
may thus be explained; but, besides, it has the great advantage that,
the name of Luke never being mentioned in the Acts, he is not exposed
to criticism, which has found serious objections to the claims of other
better known followers of Paul.
There are, however, many critics who find difficulties in the way of
accepting Luke as the author of the "we" sections, and who adopt the
theory that they were pro-
{58}
probably composed by Timothy.(1) It is argued that, if Luke had been the
writer of this diary, he must have been in very close relations to Paul,
having been his companion during the Apostle's second mission journey,
as well as during the later European journey, and finally during the
eventful journey of Paul as a prisoner from Caesarea to Rome. Under
these circumstances, it is natural to expect that Paul should mention
him in his earlier epistles, written before the Roman imprisonment, but
this he nowhere does. For instance, no mention whatever is made of
Luke in either of the letters to the Corinthians nor in those to the
Thessalonians; but on the other hand, Timothy's name, together with that
of Silvanus (or Silas), is joined to Paul's in the two letters to the
Thessalonians, besides being mentioned in the body of the first Epistle
(iii. 2, 6); and he is repeatedly and affectionately spoken of in the
earlier letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10), and his name
is likewise combined with the Apostle's in the second Epistle (2 Cor. i.
1), as well as mentioned in the body of the letter, along with that
of Silvanus, as a fellow-preacher with Paul. In the Epistle to the
Philippians, later, the name of Luke does not appear, although, had he
been the companion of the Apostle from Troas, he must have been known to
the Philippians, but on the other hand, Timothy is again associated in
the opening greeting of that Epistle. Timothy is known to have
{59}
been a fellow-worker with the Apostle, and to have accompanied him in
his missionary journeys, and he is repeatedly mentioned in the Acts as
the companion of Paul, and the first occasion is precisely where the
[------] sections commence.(1) In connection with Acts xv. 40, xvi.
3,10, it is considered that Luke is quite excluded from the possibility
of being the companion who wrote the diary we are discussing, by the
Apostle's own words in 2 Cor. i. 19:(2) "For the Son of God, Christ
Jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and
Timothy," &c, &c. The eye-witness who wrote the journal from which the
[------] sections are taken must have been with the Apostle in Corinth,
and, it is of course always asserted, must have been one of his
[------], and preached the Gospel.(3) Is it possible, on the supposition
that this fellow-labourer was Luke, that the Apostle could in so marked
a manner have excluded his name by clearly defining that "us" only meant
himself and Silvanus and Timothy? Mayerhoff(4) has gone even further
than the critics we have referred to, and maintains Timothy to be the
author of the third Synoptic and of Acts.
We may briefly add that some writers have conjectured Silas to be the
author of the [------] sections,(5) and others
{60}
have referred them to Titus.(1) It is evident that whether the [------]
sections be by the unknown author of the rest of the Acts, or be part of
a diary by some unknown companion of Paul, introduced into the work by
the general editor, they do not solve the problem as to the identity
of the author, who remains absolutely unknown. We have said enough to
enable the reader to understand the nature of the problem regarding the
author of the third Synoptic and of the Acts of the Apostles, and whilst
for our purpose much less would have sufficed, it is evident that the
materials do not exist for identifying him. The stupendous miracles
related in these two works, therefore, rest upon the evidence of an
unknown writer, who from internal evidence must have composed them very
long after the events recorded. Externally, there is no proof even of
the existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second century,
when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name
and identity of the supposed author, a theory which declares Luke not
to have himself been an eye-witness of the occurrences related in the
Gospel, and which reduces his participation even in the events narrated
in the Acts to a very small and modest compass, leaving the great
mass of the miracles described in the work without even his personal
attestation. The theory, however, we have seen to be not only
unsupported by evidence, but to be contradicted by many potent
circumstances. We propose now, without exhaustively examining the
contents of the Acts, which would itself require a separate treatise, at
least to
{61}
consider some of its main points sufficiently to form a fair judgment
of the historical value of the work, although the facts which we have
already ascertained are clearly fatal to the document as adequate
testimony for miracles, and the reality of Divine Revelation.