The historical value of the Acts of the Apostles has very long been the
subject of vehement discussion, and the course of the controversy
has certainly not been favourable to the position of the work. For a
considerable time the traditional view continued to prevail, and little
or no doubt of the absolute credibility of the narrative was ever
expressed. When the spirit of independent and enlightened criticism
was finally aroused, it had to contend with opinions which habit had
rendered stereotype, and prejudices which took the form of hereditary
belief. A large body of eminent critics, after an exhaustive
investigation of the Acts, have now declared that the work is not
historically accurate, and cannot be accepted as a true account of the
Acts and teaching of the Apostles.(1)
{63}
The Author of the Acts has been charged with having written the work
with a distinct design to which he subordinated historical truth, and
in this view many critics have joined, who ultimately do not accuse
him absolutely of falsifying history, but merely of making a deliberate
selection of his materials with the view of placing events in the light
most suitable for his purpose. Most of those, however, who make this
charge maintain that, in carrying out the original purpose of the Acts,
the writer so freely manipulated whatever materials he had before
him, and so dealt with facts whether by omission, transformation or
invention, that the historical value of his narrative has been
destroyed or at least seriously affected by it.1 On the other hand, many
apologetic writers altogether deny the existence of any design on the
part of the
{64}
author such as is here indicated, which could have led him to suppress
or distort facts,(1) and whilst some of them advance very varied and
fanciful theories as to the historical plan upon which the writer
proceeds, and in accordance with which the peculiarities of his
narrative are explained, they generally accept the work as the genuine
history of the Acts of the Apostles so far as the author possessed
certain information. The design most generally ascribed to the writer of
the Acts may, with many minor variations, be said to be apologetic
and conciliatory: an attempt to reconcile the two parties in the early
church by representing the difference between the views of Peter and
Paul as slight and unimportant, Pauline sentiments being freely placed
in the mouth of Peter, and the Apostle of the Gentiles being represented
as an orthodox adherent of the church of Jerusalem, with scarcely such
advanced views of christian universality as Peter; or else, an effort
of Gentile Christianity to bring itself into closer union with the
primitive church, surrendering, in so doing, all its distinctive
features and its Pauline origin, and representing the universalism by
which it exists, as a principle adopted and promulgated from the very
first by Peter and the Twelve. It is not necessary, however, for us to
enter upon any minute discussion of this point, nor is it requisite, for
the purposes of our inquiry, to determine whether the peculiar character
{65}
of the writing which we are examining is the result of a perfectly
definite purpose controlling the whole narrative and modifying every
detail, or naturally arises from the fact that it is the work of a pious
member of the Church writing long after the events related, and imbuing
his materials, whether of legend or ecclesiastical tradition, with his
own thoroughly orthodox views: history freely composed for Christian
edification. We shall not endeavour to construct any theory to account
for the phenomena before us, nor to discover the secret motives or
intentions of the writer, but taking them as they are, we shall simply
examine some of the more important portions of the narrative, with a
view to determine whether the work can in any serious sense be regarded
as credible history.
No one can examine the contents of the Acts without perceiving that some
secret motive or influence did certainly govern the writer's mind,
and guide him in the selection of topics, and this is betrayed by many
peculiarities in his narrative. Quite apart from any attempt to discover
precisely what that motive was, it is desirable that we should briefly
point out some of these peculiarities. It is evident that every man who
writes a history must commence with a distinct plan, and that the choice
of subjects to be introduced or omitted must proceed upon a certain
principle. This is of course an invariable rule wherever there is order
and arrangement. No one has ever questioned that in the Acts of the
Apostles both order and arrangement have been deliberately adopted and
the question naturally arises: What was the plan ol the Author? and upon
what principle did he select, from the mass of facts which might have
been related regarding the Church in the Apostolic ages, precisely those
{66}
which he has inserted, to the exclusion of the rest?(1) What title will
adequately represent the contents of the book? for it is admitted by
almost all critics that the actual name which the book bears neither
was given to it by its author nor properly describes its intention and
subject.(2) The extreme difficulty which has been felt in answering
these questions, and in constructing any hypothesis which may fairly
correspond with the actual contents of the Acts, constitutes one of
the most striking commentaries on the work, and although we cannot here
detail the extremely varied views of critics upon the subject, they
are well worthy of study.(3) No one now advances the theory which was
anciently current that the Author simply narrated that of which he was
an eye-witness.(4) Its present title [------] would lead us to expect
an account of the doings of the Apostles in general, but we have nothing
like this in the book. Peter and Paul occupy the principal parts of the
narrative, and the other Apostles are scarcely mentioned.
{67}
James is introduced as an actor in the famous Council, and represented
as head of the Church in Jerusalem, but it is much disputed that he was
either an Apostle, or one of the Twelve. The death of James the brother
of John is just mentioned. John is represented on several occasions
during the earlier part of the narrative as the companion of Peter,
without, however, being prominently brought forward; and the rest of
the Twelve are left in complete obscurity. It is not a history of the
labours of Peter and Paul, for not only is considerable importance given
to the episodes of Stephen and Philip the Evangelist, but the account
of the two great Apostles is singularly fragmentary. After a brief
chronicle of the labours of Peter, he suddenly disappears from the
scene, and we hear of him no more. Paul then becomes the prominent
figure in the drama; but we have already pointed out how defective is
the information given regarding him, and he is also abandoned as soon as
he is brought to Rome: of his subsequent career and martyrdom, nothing
whatever is said. The work is not, as Luther suggested, a gloss on the
Epistles of Paul and the inculcation of his doctrine of righteousness
through faith, for the narrative of the Acts, so far as we can compare
it with the Epistles, which are nowhere named in it, is generally in
contradiction to them, and the doctrine of justification by faith is
conspicuous by its absence. It is not a history of the first Christian
missions, for it ignores entirely the labours of most of the Apostles,
omits all mention of some of the most interesting missionary journeys,
and does not even give a report of the introduction of Christianity into
Rome. It is not in any sense a Paulinian history of the Church, for if,
on the one side, it describes the Apostles of the Circumcision as
{68}
promulgating the universalism which Paul preached, it robs him of his
originality, dwarfs his influence upon the development of Christianity,
and is, on the other hand, too defective to represent Church history,
whether from a Paulinian or any other standpoint. The favourite
theory: that the writer designed to relate the story of the spread
of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome, can scarcely be maintained,
although it certainly has the advantage of a vagueness of proportions
equally suitable to the largest and most limited treatment of history.
But, in such a case, we have a drama with the main incident omitted; for
the introduction of the Gospel into Rome is not described at all, and
whilst the author could not consider the personal arrival at Rome of the
Apostle Paul the climax of his history, he at once closes his account
where the final episode ought to have commenced.
From all points of view, and upon any hypothesis, the Acts of the
Apostles is so obviously incomplete as a history, so fragmentary and
defective as biography, that critics have to the present day failed in
framing any theory which could satisfactorily account for its anomalies,
and have almost been forced to explain them by supposing a partial,
apologetic or conciliatory, design, which removes the work from the
region of veritable history. The whole interest of the narrative, of
course, centres in the two representative Apostles, Peter and Paul, who
alternately fill the scene. It is difficult to say, however, whether
the account of the Apostle of the Circumcision or of Paul is the more
capriciously partial and incomplete. After his miraculous liberation
from the prison into which he had been cast by Herod, the doings of
Peter are left unchronicled, and although he is reintroduced for a
moment to plead the cause of the
{69}
Gentiles at the Council in Jerusalem, he then finally retires from the
scene, to give place to Paul. The omissions from the history of Paul are
very remarkable, and all the more so from the extreme and unnecessary
detail of the itinerary of some of his journeys, and neither the blanks,
on the one hand, nor the excessive minuteness, on the other, are to be
explained by any theory connected with personal knowledge on the part of
Theophilus. Of the general history of the primitive Church and the life
and labours of the Twelve, we are told little or nothing. According to
the Author the propagation of the Gospel was carried on more by angelic
agency than apostolic enthusiasm. There is a liberal infusion of
miraculous episodes in the history, but a surprising scarcity of facts.
Even where the Author is best informed, as in the second part of the
Acts, the narrative of Paul's labours and missionary journeys, while
presenting striking omissions, is really minute and detailed only in
regard to points of no practical interest, leaving both the distinctive
teaching of the Apostle, and the internal economy of the Church almost
entirely unrepresented. Does this defective narrative of the Acts of
the Apostles proceed from poverty of information, or from the arbitrary
selection of materials for a special purpose? As we proceed, it
will become increasingly evident that, limited although the writer's
materials are, the form into which they have been moulded has
undoubtedly been determined either by a dominant theory, or a deliberate
design, neither of which is consistent with the composition of sober
history.
This is particularly apparent in the representation which is given of
the two principal personages of the narrative. Critics have long clearly
recognised that the
{70}
Author of the Acts has carefully arranged his materials so as to present
as close a parallelism as possible between the Apostles Peter and
Paul.(1) We shall presently see how closely he assimilates their
teaching, ascribing the views of Paul to Peter, and putting Petrine
sentiments in the mouth of Paul, but here we shall merely refer to
points of general history. If Peter has a certain pre-eminence as a
distinguished member of the original Apostolic body, the equal claim of
Paul to the honours of the Apostolate, whilst never directly advanced,
is prominently suggested by the narration, no less than three times, of
the circumstances of his conversion and direct call to the office by the
glorified Jesus. The first miracle ascribed to Peter is the healing of
"a certain man lame from his mother's womb" [------] at the beautiful
gate of the Temple,(2) and the first wonder performed by Paul is also
the healing of "a certain man lame from his mother's womb" [------] at
Lystra;(3)
Ananias and Sapphira are punished through the instrumentality of
Peter,(4) and Elymas is smitten with blindness at the word of Paul;(5)
the sick are laid in the streets that the shadow of Peter may fall upon
them, and they are healed, as are also those
{71}
vexed with unclean spirits;(l) handkerchiefs or aprons are taken to the
sick from the body of Paul, and they are healed, and the evil spirits go
out of them;(2) Peter withstands Simon the sorcerer,(3) as Paul does
the sorcerer Elymas and the exorcists at Ephesus;(4) if Peter heals the
paralytic AEneas at Lydda,(5) Paul restores to health the fever-stricken
father of Publius at Melita;(6) Peter raises from the dead Tabitha, a
disciple at Joppa,(7) and Paul restores to life the disciple Eutychus at
Troas;(8) Cornelius falls at the feet of Peter, and worships him, Peter
preventing him, and saying: "Rise up! I myself also am a man,"(9) and in
like manner the people of Lystra would have done sacrifice to Paul, and
he prevents them, crying out: "We also are men of like passions with
you;"(10) Peter lays his hands on the people of Samaria, and they
receive, the Holy Ghost and the gift of tongues,(11) and Paul does
the same for believers at Ephesus;(12) Peter is brought before the
council,(13) and so is Paul;(14) the one is imprisoned and twice
released by an angel,(15) and the other is delivered from his bonds by a
great earthquake;(16) if Peter be scourged by order of the council,(17)
Paul is beaten with many stripes at the command of the magistrates
of Philippi.(18) It is maintained that the desire to equalise the
sufferings of the two Apostles in the cause of the Gospel, as he has
equalised their miraculous displays, probably led the Author to omit all
mention of those
{72}
perils and persecutions to which the Apostle Paul refers in support
of his protest, that he had laboured and suffered more than all
the rest.(1) If Paul was called by a vision to the ministry of the
Gentiles,(2) so Peter is represented as having been equally directed by
a vision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius;(3) the double vision of Peter
and Cornelius has its parallel in the double vision of Paul and Ananias.
It is impossible to deny the measured equality thus preserved between
the two Apostles, or to ignore the fact that parallelism like this is
the result of premeditation, and cannot claim the character of impartial
history.
The speeches form an important element in the Acts of the Apostles,
and we shall now briefly examine them, reserving, however, for future
consideration their dogmatic aspect. Few, if any writers, however
apologetic, maintain that these discourses can possibly have been spoken
exactly as they are recorded in the Acts. The utmost that is asserted
is that they are substantially historical, and fairly represent the
original speeches.(4) They were derived, it is alleged, either from
written sources, or oral
{73}
tradition, and many, especially in the second part, are supposed to have
been delivered in the presence of the Author of the work. This view is
held, of course, with a greater or less degree of assurance as to
the closeness of the relation which our record bears to the original
addresses; but, without here very closely scrutinizing hesitation or
reticence, our statement fairly renders the apologetic position. A large
body of able critics, however, deny the historical character of these
speeches,(1) and consider them mere free compositions by the Author
of the Acts, at the best being on a par with the speeches which many
ancient writers place in the mouths of their historical personages, and
giving only what the writer supposed that the speaker would say under
the circumstances. That the writer may have made use of such materials
as were within his reach, or endeavoured to embody the ideas which
tradition may broadly have preserved, may possibly be admitted, but that
these discourses can seriously be accepted as conveying a correct report
of anything actually spoken by the persons in whose mouths they are put
is, of course, denied. It is,
{74}
obviously, extremely improbable that any of these speeches could have
been written down at the time.(1) Taking even the supposed case that the
Author of the Acts was Luke, and was present when some of the speeches
of Paul were delivered, it is difficult to imagine that he immediately
recorded his recollection of them, and more than this he could not
have done. He must continually have been in the habit of hearing the
preaching of Paul, and therefore could not have had the inducement of
novelty to make him write down what he heard. The idea of recording them
for posterity could not have occurred to such a person, with the belief
in the approaching end of all things then prevalent. The Author of the
Acts was not the companion of Paul, however, and the contents of the
speeches, as we shall presently see, are not of a character to make it
in the least degree likely that they could have been written down for
separate circulation. Many of the speeches in the Acts, moreover, were
delivered under circumstances which render it specially unlikely that
they could have
{75}
been reported with any accuracy. At no time an easy task correctly to
record a discourse of any length, it is doubly difficult when those
speeches, like many in Acts, were spoken under circumstances of great
danger or excitement. The experience of modern times, before the
application of systems of short-hand, may show how imperfectly speeches
were taken down, even where there was deliberate preparation and set
purpose to do so, and if it be suggested that some celebrated orations
of the last century have so been preserved, it is undeniable that what
has been handed down to us not only does not represent the original, but
is really almost a subsequent composition, preserving little more than
some faint echoes of the true utterance. The probability that a correct
record of speeches made, under such circumstances, in the middle of the
first century could have been kept, seems exceedingly small. Even, if
it could be shown that the Author of the Acts took these speeches
substantially from earlier documents, it would not materially tend
to establish their authenticity; for the question would still remain
perfectly open as to the closeness of those documents to the original
discourses; but in the absence of all evidence, whether as to the
existence or origin of any such sources, the conjecture of their
possible existence can have no weight. We have nothing but internal
testimony to examine, and that, we shall see, is totally opposed to the
claim to historical value made for those discourses.
Apologists scarcely maintain that we have in the Acts a record of the
original discourses in their completeness, but in claiming
substantial accuracy most of them include the supposition at least of
condensation.(1) The longest
{76}
discourse in the Acts would not have taken more than six or seven
minutes to deliver,(1) and it is impossible to suppose that what is
there given can have been the whole speech delivered on many of the
occasions described. For instance, is it probable that King Agrippa who
desires to hear Paul, and who comes "with great pomp" with Berenice to
do so, should only have heard a speech lasting some five minutes.
The Author himself tells us that Paul was not always so brief in his
addresses as any one might suppose from the specimens here presented.(2)
It is remarkable, however, that not the slightest intimation is given
that the speeches are either merely substantially reported or are
abridged, and their form and character are evidently designed to convey
the impression of complete discourses. If the reader examine any of
these discourses, it will be clear that they are concise compositions,
betraying no marks of abridgment, and having no fragmentary looseness,
but, on the contrary, that they are highly artificial and finished
productions, with a continuous argument. They certainly are singularly
inadequate, many of them, to produce the impressions described; but at
least it is not possible to discover that material omissions have been
made, or that their periods were originally expanded by large, or even
any, amplification. If these speeches be regarded as complete, and
with little or no condensation, another strong element is added to
the suspicion as to their authenticity, for such extreme baldness and
brevity in the declaration of a new religion,
{77}
requiring both explanation and argument, cannot be conceived, and in
the case of Paul, with whose system of teaching and doctrine we are well
acquainted through his Epistles, it is impossible to accept such meagre
and onesided addresses, as representations of his manner. The statement
that the discourses are abridged, and a mere _resume_ of those
originally delivered, however, rests upon no authority, is a
mere conjecture to account for an existing difficulty, and is in
contradiction to the actual form of the speeches in Acts. Regarded as
complete, their incongruity is intensified, but considered as abridged,
they have lost in the process all representative character and
historical fitness.
It has been argued, indeed, that the different speeches bear evidence
to their genuineness from their suitability to the speakers, and to the
circumstances under which they are said to have been spoken; but
the existence of anything but the most superficial semblance of
idiosyncratic character must be denied. The similarity of form, manner,
and matter in all the speeches is most remarkable, as will presently be
made more apparent, and the whole of the doctrine enunciated amounts to
little more than the repetition, in slightly varying words, of the
brief exhortation to repentance and belief in Jesus, the Christ. that
salvation may be obtained,(1) with references to the ancient history of
the Jews, singularly alike in all discourses. Very little artistic skill
is necessary to secure a certain suitability of the word to the action,
and the action to the word; and certainly evidence is reduced to a
very low ebb when such agreement as is presented in the Acts is made an
argument for authenticity. Not only is the consistency of the sentiments
uttered by
{78}
the principal speakers, as compared with what is known of their opinions
and character, utterly disputed, but it must be evident that the
literary skill of the Author of the Acts was quite equal to so simple
a task as preserving" at least such superficial fitness as he displays,
and a very much greater amount of verisimilitude might have been
attained, as in many works of fiction, without necessarily involving the
inference of genuineness.
It has been freely admitted by critics of all schools that the author's
peculiarities of style and language are apparent in all the speeches of
the Acts,(1) and this has been so often elaborately demonstrated that
it is unnecessary minutely to enter upon it again. It may not be out of
place to quote a few lines from the work of one of the ablest and most
eminent advocates of the general authority of the Acts. Speaking of the
speeches of Paul, Lekebusch says:--"The speeches of our Book, in fact,
are calculated, perhaps more than anything, to excite doubt regarding
its purely historical character. But here everything depends upon an
unbiassed judgment. We are sufficiently free from prejudice to make the
admission to recent criticism that the speeches are not verbally given
as they were originally delivered, but are composed by the author of the
Acts of the
{79}
Apostles. Schleiermacher, certainly, has confidently asserted their
originality. He thinks: 'If the speeches were separately reported they
could not but appear just as we find them in the Acts of the Apostles.'
But his remarks, however ingenious and acute they may be, do not stand
the test of a thorough examination of the individual speeches. No one
who impartially compares these, one with another, and particularly their
style with the mode of expression of the Author in the other sections,
can help agreeing with Eichhorn, when, in consonance with his view
regarding the uniform character of the Acts, on the grounds quoted, page
14, he ascribes the composition of the speeches to the writer from
whom the whole book in all its parts proceeds."(1) To this impartial
expression of opinion, Lekebusch adds a note:--"In saying this, it is
naturally not suggested that our author simply _invented_ the speeches,
independently, without any historical intimation whatever as to the
substance of the original; the_ form_ only, which certainly is here very
closely connected with the substance, is hereby ascribed to him."(2)
Lekebusch then merely goes on to discuss the nature of the author's
design in composing these speeches. The reasons given by Eichhorn, which
Lekebusch quotes at "page 14," referred to above, had better be added
to complete this testimony. After referring to the result of Eichhorn's
"very careful examination" of the internal character of the Acts,
Lekebusch says:--"He finds, however, that, 'throughout the whole Acts
of the Apostles there prevails the same style, the same manner, the same
method and mode of expression' (ii. 35). Not
{80}
even the speeches, which one at first might take for inserted documents,
seem to him 'from a strange hand, but elaborated by the same from which
the whole book, with its three parts, proceeds.' 'Various peculiarities
existing in the speeches' prove this to him, independent of the
similarity of the style, and that, 'although they are put into the
mouths of different persons, they nevertheless follow one and the same
type, make use of one and the same mode of argument, and have so much
that is common to them that they thereby prove themselves to be
speeches of one and the same writer' (ii. 38). From these circumstances,
therefore, it seems to Eichhorn 'in the highest degree probable,
that Luke, throughout the whole Acts of the Apostles, writes as an
independent author, and apart from all extraneous works.' And in this
view he is 'strengthened by the resemblance of the style which runs
through the whole Acts of the Apostles, through speeches, letters, and
historical sections,' as well as by the fact that, 'through the whole
book, in the quotations from the Old Testament, a similar relation
prevails between the Greek text of the Septuagint and that of Luke' (ii.
43)."(1) We have thought it well to quote these independent opinions
from writers who range themselves amongst the defenders of the
historical character of the Acts, rather than to burden our pages with
a mass of dry detail in proof of the assertion that the peculiarities
of the author pervade all the speeches indifferently, to a degree which
renders it obvious that. they proceed from his pen.
Without entering into mere linguistic evidence of this, which will be
found in the works to which we have
{81}
referred,(1) we may point out a few general peculiarities of this nature
which are worthy of attention. The author introduces the speeches of
different persons with the same expression:--"he opened his mouth," or
something similar. Philip "opened his mouth" [------](1) and addressed
the Ethiopian (viii. 35). Peter "opened his mouth (and) said" [------],
when he delivered his discourse before the baptism of Cornelius (x. 34).
Again, he uses it of Paul:--"And when Paul was about to open his mouth
[------], Gallio said," &c. (xviii. 14). The words with which the speech
of Peter at Pentecost is introduced deserve more attention:--"Peter
lifted up his voice and said unto them" [------] (ii. 14). The verb
[------] occurs again (ii. 4) in the account of the descent of the Holy
Spirit and the gift of tongues, and it is put into the mouth of Paul
(xxvi. 25) in his reply to Festus, but it occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. The favourite formula(3) with which all speeches open is,
"Men (and) Brethren" [------], or [------] coupled with some other term,
as "Men (and) Israelites" [------], or simply[------] without addition.
[------], occurs no less than thirteen times. It is used thrice by
Peter,(4) six times by Paul,(5) as well as by
{82}
Stephen,(1) James,(2) the believers at Pentecost,(3) and the rulers of
the Synagogue.(4) The angels at the Ascension address the disciples as
"Men (and) Galileans" [------].(5)
Peter makes use of [------] twice,(6) and it is likewise employed by
Paul,(7) by Gamaliel,(8) and by the Jews of Asia.(9) Peter addresses
those assembled at Pentecost as [------].(10) Paul opens his Athenian
speech with [------],(11) and the town-clerk begins his short appeal to
the craftsmen of Ephesus: [------].(12) Stephen begins his speech to the
Council with Men, Brethren and Fathers, hear [------], and Paul uses
the very same words in addressing the multitude from the stairs of the
Temple.(13)
In the speech which Peter is represented as making at Pentecost, he
employs in an altogether peculiar way (ii. 25--27) Psalm xvi., quoting
it in order to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah was
a necessary occurrence, which had been foretold by David. This is
principally based upon the tenth verse of the Psalm: "Because thou wilt
not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One [------]
to see corruption [------]."(14) Peter argues that David both died and
was buried, and that his sepulchre is with them to that day, but that,
being a prophet, he foresaw and spake here of the Resurrection of
Christ, "that neither was he left in Hades nor did his flesh see
{83}
corruption {------}."(1) Is it not an extremely singular circumstance
that Peter, addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem, where he might
naturally be expected to make use of the vernacular language, actually
quotes the Sep-tuagint version of the Old Testament, and bases his
argument upon a mistranslation of the Psalm, which, we may add, was in
all probability not composed by David at all?(2) The word translated
"Holy One," should be in the plural: "holy ones,"{3} that is to say:
"thy saints," and the word rendered [------]corruption, really signifies
"grave" or "pit." 4 The poet, in fact, merely expresses his confidence
that he will be preserved alive. The best critics recognize that Ps.
xvi. is not properly a Messianic Psalm
{84}
at all,(1) and many of those who, from the use which is made of it in
Acts, are led to assert that it is so, recognize in the main that it can
only be applied to the Messiah indirectly, by arguing that the prophecy
was not fulfilled in the case of the poet who speaks of himself, but was
fulfilled in the Resurrection of Jesus. This reasoning, however, totally
ignores the sense of the original, and is opposed to all legitimate
historical interpretation of the Psalm. Not dwelling upon this point
at present, we must go on to point out that, a little further on (xiii.
35--37), the Apostle Paul is represented as making use of the very same
argument which Peter here employs, and quoting the same passage from Ps.
xvi. to support it This repetition of very peculiar reasoning, coupled
with other similarities which we shall presently point out, leads to the
inference that it is merely the author himself who puts this argument
into their mouths,(2) and this conclusion is strengthened by the
circumstance that, throughout both Gospel and Acts, he always quotes
from the Septuagint,(3) and even when that version departs from
{85}
the sense of the original It may be well to give both passages in
juxta-position, in order that the closeness of the analogy may be more
easily realized. For this purpose we somewhat alter the order of the
verses:--
[------]
Not only is this argument the same in both discourses, but the whole of
Paul's speech, xiii. 16 ff., is a mere reproduction of the two speeches
of Peter, ii. 14 ff. and iii. 12 ff., with such alterations as the
writer could introduce to vary the fundamental sameness of ideas and
expressions. It is worth while to show this in a similar way:--
[------]
{86}
[------]
{87}
[------]
{88}
Paul's address likewise hears close analogy with the speech of
Stephen, vii. 2 ff., commencing with a historical survey of the
earlier traditions of the people of Israel, and leading up to the same
accusation that, as their fathers disregarded the prophets, so they
had persecuted and slain the Christ. The whole treatment of the subject
betrays the work of the same mind in both discourses. Bleek, who admits
the similarity between these and other speeches in Acts, argues that:
"it does not absolutely follow from this that these speeches are
composed by one and the same person, and are altogether unhistorical;"
for it is natural, he thinks, that in the apostolical circle, and in the
first Christian Church, there should have existed a certain uniform type
in the application of messianic passages of the Old Testament, and in
quotations generally, to which different teachers might conform without
being dependent on each other.1 He thinks also that, along with the
close analogy, there is also much which is characteristic in the
different speeches. Not only is this typical system of quotation,
however, a mere conjecture to explain an actual difficulty, but it is
totally inadequate to account for the phenomena. If we suppose, for
instance, that Paul had adopted the totally unhistorical application of
the sixteenth Psalm to the Messiah, is it not a very extraordinary thing
that in all the arguments in his
{89}
Epistles, he does not once refer to it? Even if this be waived, and it
be assumed that he had adopted this interpretation of the Psalm, it will
scarcely be asserted that Paul, whose independence and originality
of mind are so undeniable, and whose intercourse with the apostolical
circle at any time, and most certainly up to the period when this speech
was delivered, was very limited,(1) could so completely have caught the
style and copied the manner of Peter that, on an important occasion like
this, his address should be a mere reproduction of Peter's two speeches
delivered so long before, and when Paul certainly was not present. The
similarity of these discourses does not consist in the mere application
of the same Psalm, but the whole argument, on each occasion, is repeated
with merely sufficient transposition of its various parts to give
a superficial appearance of variety. Words and expressions, rare or
unknown elsewhere, are found in both, and the characteristic differences
which Bleek finds exist only in his own apologetic imagination. Let
it be remembered that the form of the speeches and the language are
generally ascribed to the Author of the Acts. Can any unprejudiced
critic deny that the ideas in the speeches we are considering are
also substantially the same? Is there any appreciable trace of the
originality of Paul in his discourses? There is no ground whatever,
apart from the antecedent belief that the various speeches were actually
delivered by the men to whom they are ascribed, for asserting that we
have here the independent utterances of Peter and Paul. It is internal
evidence alone, and no avowal on the part of the author, which leads to
the conclusion that the form of the speeches is the author's, and there
is no internal evidence
{90}
which requires us to stop at the mere form, and not equally ascribe the
substance to the same source. The speeches in the Acts, generally,
have altogether the character of being the composition of one mind
endeavouring to impart variety of thought and expression to various
speakers, but failing signally either from poverty of invention or
from the purpose of instituting a close parallel in views, as well as
actions, between the two representative Apostles.
Further to illustrate this, let us take another speech of Peter which he
delivers on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius, and it will be
apparent that it also contains all the elements, so far as it goes, of
Paul's discourse. [------]
{91}
[------]
Again, to take an example from another speaker, we find James
represented as using an expression which had just before been put into
the mouth of Paul, and it is not one in the least degree likely to occur
independently to each. The two passages are as follows:-- [------]
The fundamental similarity between these different speeches cannot
possibly be denied;(2) and it cannot be
{92}
reasonably explained in any other way than by the fact that they were
composed by the author himself, who had the earlier speeches ascribed
to Peter still in his memory when he wrote those of Paul,(1) and who, in
short, had not sufficient dramatic power to create altogether distinct
characters, but simply made his different personages use his own
vocabulary to express his own somewhat limited range of ideas. Setting
his special design aside, his inventive faculty only permitted him to
represent Peter speaking like Paul, and Paul like Peter.
It is argued by some, however, that in the speeches of Peter, for
instance, there are peculiarities of language and expression which show
analogy with the first Epistle bearing his name in the New Testament
Canon,(2) and, on the other hand, traces of translation in some of them
which indicate that these speeches were delivered originally in Aramaic,
and that we have only a version of them by the Author of the Acts, or
by some one from whom he derived them.(3) As regards the first of these
suppositions, a few phrases only have been pointed out, but they are
of no force under any circumstances, and the whole theory is quite
groundless.(4) We do not con-
{93}
consider it worth while to enter upon the discussion, and those who
desire to do so are referred to the works just indicated. There are two
potent reasons which render such an argument of no force, even if the
supposed analogies were in themselves both numerous and striking, which
actually they are not The authenticity of the Epistles bearing the
name of Peter is not only not established, but is by very many eminent
critics absolutely denied; and there is no certainty whatever that any
of the speeches of Peter were delivered in Greek, and the probability
is that most, if not all, of that Apostle's genuine discourses must have
been spoken in Aramaic. It is in fact asserted by apologists that
part or all of the speeches ascribed to him in the Acts must have been
originally Aramaic, although opinion may differ as to the language in
which some of them were spoken. Whether they were delivered in Aramaic,
or whether there be uncertainty on the point, any conclusion from
linguistic analogies with the Epistles is obviously excluded. One
thing is quite undeniable: the supposed analogies are few, and the
peculiarities distinguishing the Author of Acts in these speeches are
extremely numerous and general. Even so thorough an apologist as Tholuck
candidly acknowledges that the attempt to prove the authenticity of the
speeches from linguistic analogies is hopeless. He says: "Nevertheless,
a comparison of the language of the Apostles in their Epistles and in
these speeches must in many respects be less admissible than that of the
character and historical circumstances, for indeed if the language and
their peculiarities be compared, it must first be established that all
the reported speeches were delivered in the Greek language, which is
improbable, and of one of which (xxii. 1, 2) the contrary is expressly
{94}
stated willingly admitting that upon this point difference of opinion is
allowable, we express as the view which we have hitherto held that, from
ch. xx. onwards, the speeches delivered by Paul are reported more in
the language of Luke than in that of Paul."(1) This applies with double
force to Peter,(2) whose speeches there is still greater reason to
believe were delivered in Aramaic, and there is difference of opinion
amongst the critics we have referred to even as to whether these
speeches were translated by the Author of the Acts, or were already
before him in a translated form, and were subsequently re-edited by him.
We have already shown cause for believing that the whole discussion is
groundless, from the fact that the speeches in Acts were simply composed
by the author himself, and are not in any sense historical, and this we
shall hereafter further illustrate.
It may be worth while to consider briefly the arguments advanced for
the theory that some of the speeches show marks of translation. It
is asserted that the speech of Peter at Pentecost, ii. 14 ff., was
delivered in Aramaic.(3) Of course it will be understood that we might
{95}
be quite prepared to agree to this statement as applied to a speech
actually delivered by Peter; but the assertion, so far as the speeches
in Acts are concerned, is based upon what we believe to be the erroneous
supposition that they are genuine reports of discourses. On the
contrary, we maintain that these speeches are mere compositions by
the author of the work. The contention is, however, that the speech
attributed to Peter is the translation of a speech originally delivered
in Aramaic. In ii. 24, Peter is represented as saying: "Whom God raised
up having loosed the pains of death [------], because it is not possible
that he should be held [------] by it." It is argued by Bleek and
others(1) that, as the context proves, the image intended here was
evidently the "snares" or "cords" of death, a meaning which is not
rendered by the Greek word [------]. The confusion is explained, they
contend, when it is supposed that, in his Aramaic speech, Peter made use
of a Hebrew expression, equally found in Aramaic, which means as well
"snares" or "cords" as "pains" of death. The Greek translator, probably
misled by the Septuagint,(2) adopted the latter signification of the
Hebrew word in question, and rendered it [------] "pains," which is
absolutely inappropriate, for, they argue, it is very unnatural to say
of one who had already suffered death, like Christ, that he had been
held prisoner by the "pains" of death, and loosed from them by the
resurrection. There is, however, very little unanimity
{96}
amongst apologists about this passage. Ebrard(1) asserts that [------]
"pains" is the correct translation of the Hebrew expression, as in Ps.
xviii. 5, and that the Hebrew word used always expresses pains of birth,
the plural of the similar word for "cord" or "snare" being different.
Ebrard, therefore, contends that the Psalm (xviii. 5) does not mean bonds
or snares of death but literally "birth-pains of death," by which the
soul is freed from the natural earthly existence as by a second birth
to a glorified spiritual life. We need not enter further into the
discussion of the passage, but it is obvious that it is mere assumption
to assert, on the one hand, that Peter made use of any specific
expression, and, on the other, that there was any error of translation
on the part of the author of Acts. But agreeing that the Hebrew is
erroneously rendered,(2) the only pertinent question is: by whom was the
error in question committed? and the reply beyond any doubt is: by
the lxx. who translate the Hebrew expression in this very way. It is
therefore inadmissible to assert from this phrase the existence of an
Aramaic original of the speech, for the phrase itself is nothing but a
quotation from the Sep-tuagint.(3)
The expression [------] occurs no less than three times in that version:
Ps. xvii. 5 (A. V. xviii.), cxiv. 3 (A. V. cxvi.) and 2 Sam. xxii. 6;
and in Job
{97}
xxxix. 2, we have [------]. When it is remembered that the author of
Acts always quotes the Septuagint version, even when it departs from the
sense of the Hebrew original, and in all probability was only acquainted
with the Old Testament through it, nothing is more natural than the use
of this expression taken from that version; but with the error already
existing there, to ascribe it afresh and independently to the Author
of Acts, upon no other grounds than the assumption that Peter may have
spoken in Aramaic, and used an expression which the author misunderstood
or wrongly rendered, is not permissible. Indeed, we have already pointed
out that, in this very speech, there are quotations of the Old Testament
according to the lxx. put into the mouth of Peter, in which that version
does not accurately render the original.(1)
The next trace of translation advanced by Bleek(2) is found in ii.
33,(3) where Peter speaks of Christ as exalted: "[------]." There can be
no doubt, Bleek argues, that there is here a reference to Psalm ex. 1,
and that the apostle intends to speak of Christ's elevation "_to_ the
right (hand) of God;" whereas the Greek expression rather conveys
the interpretation: "_by_ the right (hand) of God." This expression
certainly comes, he asserts, from a not altogether suitable translation
of the Hebrew. To this on the other hand, much may be objected.
Winer,(4) followed by others, defends the construction, and affirms that
the passage may without
{98}
hesitation, be translated "_to_ the right (hand) of God."(1) In which
case there is no error at all, and the argument falls to the ground.
If it be taken, however, either that the rendering should be or was
intended to be "by the right (hand) of God"(2) i.e., by the power
of God, that would not involve the necessity of admitting an Aramaic
original,(3) because there is no error at all, and the argument simply
is, that being exalted by the right hand of God, Jesus had poured forth
the Holy Spirit; and in the next verse the passage in Ps. ex. 1 (Sept.
cix.) is accurately quoted from the Septuagint version: "Sit thou on
my right (hand)" [------]. In fact, after giving an account of the
crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the speaker ascribes his
subsequent exaltation to the power of God.(4)
We have seen that at least the form of the speeches in Acts is
undoubtedly due to the author of the book, and that he has not been able
to make the speeches of the different personages in his drama differ
materially from each other. We shall hereafter have occasion to examine
further the contents of some of these speeches, and the circumstances
under which it is alleged that they were spoken, and to inquire whether
these do not confirm
{99}
the conclusion hitherto arrived at, that they are not historical, but
merely the free composition of the Author of Acts, and never delivered
at all. Before passing on, however, it may be well to glance for a
moment at one of these speeches, to which we may not have another
opportunity of referring, in order that we may see whether it presents
any traces of inauthenticity and of merely ideal composition.
In the first chapter an account is given of a meeting of the brethren
in order to elect a successor to the traitor Judas. Peter addresses the
assembly, i. 16 if., and it may be well to quote the opening portion of
his speech: 16. "Men (and) brethren, this scripture must needs have
been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by the mouth of David spake before
concerning Judas, who became guide to them that took Jesus, 17. because
he was numbered with us and obtained the lot of this ministry. 18.
Now [------] this man purchased a field with the wages of the iniquity
[------], and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out; 19. and [------] it became known(1) unto all the
dwellers at Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own tongue
[------] Acheldamach, that is: field of blood. 20. For [------] it is
written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his habitation be desolate, and let
no man dwell therein,' and 'his office let another take,'" &c, &c. Now
let it be remembered that Peter is supposed to be addressing an audience
of Jews in Jerusalem, in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, a few
{100}
weeks after the crucifixion. Is it possible, therefore, that he should
give such an account as that in vs. 18, 19, of the end of Judas, which
he himself, indeed, says was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem?
Is it possible that, speaking in Aramaic to Jews, probably in most part
living at and near Jerusalem, he could have spoken of the field being so
called by the people of Jerusalem "in their own tongue?" Is it
possible that he should, to such an audience, have translated the word
Acheldamach?
The answer of most unprejudiced critics is that Peter could not have
done so.(1) As de Wette remarks: "In the composition of this speech the
author has not considered historical decorum."(2) This is felt by most
apologists, and many ingenious theories are advanced to explain away
the difficulty. Some affirm that verses 18 and 19 are inserted as a
parenthesis by the Author of the Acts,(3) whilst a larger number contend
that only v. 19 is parenthetic.(4) A very cursory examination of the
passage, however, is sufficient to show that the verses cannot be
separated. Verse 18 is connected with the preceding by the [------], 19
with 18 by [------], and verse 20 refers to 10, as indeed it also does
to 17 and 18, without which the passage from the Psalm, as applied to
Judas, would be unintelligible. Most critics, therefore,
{101}
are agreed that none of the verses can be considered parenthetic.(1)
Some apologists, however, who feel that neither of the obnoxious verses
can be thus explained, endeavour to overcome the difficulty by asserting
that the words: "in their own tongue" [------] and: "that is: the field
of blood" [------] in verse 19, are merely explanatory and inserted by
the Author of Acts.(2) It is unnecessary to say that this explanation
is purely arbitrary, and that there is no ground, except the difficulty
itself, upon which their exclusion from the speech can be based.
In the cases to which we have hitherto referred, the impossibility of
supposing that Peter could have spoken in this way has led writers to
lay the responsibility of unacknowledged interpolations in the speech
upon the Author of Acts, thus at once relieving the Apostle. There are
some apologists, however, who do not adopt this expedient, but attempt
to meet the difficulty in other ways, while accepting the whole as a
speech of Peter. According to one theory, those who object that Peter
could not have thus related the death of Judas to people who must
already have been well acquainted with the circumstances have totally
overlooked the fact, that a peculiar view of what has occurred is taken
in the narrative, and that this peculiar view is the principal point of
it According to the statement made, Judas met his miserable end in the
very field which he had bought with
{102}
the price of blood. It is this circumstance, it appears, which Peter
brings prominently forward and represents as a manifest and tangible
dispensation of Divine justice.(1) Unfortunately, however, this is
clearly an imaginary moral attached to the narrative by the apologist,
and is not the object of the supposed speaker, who rather desires to
justify the forced application to Judas of the quotations in verse 20,
which are directly connected with the preceding by [------]. Moreover,
no explanation is here offered of the extraordinary expressions in verse
19 addressed to citizens of Jerusalem by a Jew in their own tongue.
Another explanation, which includes these points, is still more
striking. With regard to the improbability of Peter's relating, in
such a way, the death of Judas, it is argued that, according to the
Evangelists, the disciples went from Jerusalem back to Galilee some
eight days after the resurrection, and only returned, earlier than
usual, before Pentecost to await the fulfilment of the promise of Jesus.
Peter and his companions, it is supposed, only after their return became
acquainted with the fate of Judas, which had taken place during their
absence, and the matter was, therefore, quite new to them; besides, it
is added, a speaker is often obliged on account of some connection with
his subject to relate facts already known.(2) It is true that some of
the Evangelists represent this return to Galilee(3) as having taken
place, but the author of the third Gospel and the Acts not only
3 Mt. xxviii. 10, 10; Mk. xvi. 7; John xxi. 1. I)r. Farrar,
somewhat pertinently, asks: "Why did they (the disciples)
not go to Galilee immediately on receiving our Lord's
message? The circumstance is unexplained... Perhaps the
entire message of Jesus to them is not recorded; perhaps
they awaited the end of the feast." Life of Christ, ii. p.
441, note 1.
{103}
does not do so but excludes it.(1) In the third Gospel (xxiv. 49), Jesus
commands the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endued with
power from on high, and then, after blessing them, he is parted from
them, and they return from Bethany to Jerusalem.(2) In Acts, the author
again takes up the theme, and whilst evidently giving later traditions
regarding the appearances after the resurrection, he adheres to his
version of the story regarding the command to stay in Jerusalem. In i.
4, he says: "And being assembled together with them he commanded
them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the
Father," etc.; and here again, verse 12, the disciples are represented,
just before Peter's speech is supposed to have been delivered, as
returning from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. The Author of Acts and
of the third Synoptic, therefore, gives no countenance to this theory.
Besides, setting all this aside, the apologetic hypothesis we are
discussing is quite excluded upon other grounds. If we suppose that
the disciples did go into Galilee for a time, we find them again in
Jerusalem at the election of the successor to Judas, and there is no
reason to believe that they had only just returned. The Acts not only
allow of no interval at all for the journey to Galilee between i. 12-14
and 15 ff., but by the simple statement
2 We shall hereafter have to go more fully into this, and
shall not discuss it here. The third Gospel really
represents the Ascension as taking place on the day of the
Resurrection; and Acts, whilst giving later tradition, and
making the Ascension occur forty days after, does not amend,
but confirms the previously enunciated view that the
disciples had been ordered to stay in Jerusalem.
{104}
with which our episode commences, v. 15: "And in these days" [------],
Peter conveys anything but the impression of any very recent return
to Jerusalem. If the Apostles had been even a few days there, the
incongruity of the speech would remain undiminished; for the 120
brethren who are said to have been present must chiefly have been
residents in Jerusalem, and cannot be. supposed also to have been
absent, and, in any case, events which are represented as so well known
to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, must certainly have been familiar
to the small Christian community, whose interest in the matter was so
specially great. Moreover, according to the first Synoptic, as soon
as Judas sees that Jesus is condemned, he brings the money back to the
chief priests, casts it down and goes and hangs himself, xxvii. 3 ff.
This is related even before the final condemnation of Jesus and before
his crucifixion, and the reader is led to believe that Judas at once put
an end to himself, so that the disciples, who are represented as being
still in Jerusalem for at least eight days after the resurrection, must
have been there at the time. With regard to the singular expressions in
verse 19, this theory goes on to suppose that, out of consideration for
Greek fellow-believers, Peter had probably already begun to speak in
the Greek tongue; and when he designates the language of the dwellers
in Jerusalem as "their own dialect," he does not thereby mean Hebrew
in itself, but their own expression, the peculiar confession of the
opposite party, which admitted the cruel treachery towards Jesus, in
that they named the piece of ground Hakel Damah.(1) Here, again, what
assumptions! It is generally recognized that Peter must have spoken in
{105}
Aramaic, and even if he did not, [------](1) cannot mean anything but
the language of "all the-dwellers at Jerusalem." In a speech delivered
at Jerusalem, in any language, to an audience consisting at least in
considerable part of inhabitants of the place, and certainly almost
entirely of persons whose native tongue was Aramaic, to tell them
that the inhabitants called a certain field "in their own tongue"
Acheldamach, giving them at the same time a translation of the word, is
inconceivable to most critics, even including apologists.
There is another point which indicates not only that this theory is
inadequate to solve the difficulty, but that the speech could not have
been delivered by Peter a few weeks after the occurrences related. It
is stated that the circumstances narrated were so well known to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the field was called in their own tongue
Acheldamach. The origin of this name is not ascribed to the priests or
rulers, but to the people, and it is not to be supposed that a popular
name could have become attached to this field, and so generally adopted
as the text represents, within the very short time which could have
elapsed between the death of Judas and the delivery of this speech. Be
it remembered that from the time of the crucifixion to Pentecost the
interval was in all only about seven weeks, and that this speech was
made some time before Pentecost, how long we cannot tell, but in any
case, the interval was much too brief to permit of the popular adoption
of the name.(2) The whole passage has much more the character of a
narrative of
{106}
events which had occurred at a time long past, than of circumstances
which had taken place a few days before.
The obvious conclusion is that this speech was never spoken by Peter,
but is a much later composition put into his mouth,1 and written for
Greek readers, who required to be told about Judas, and for whose
benefit the Hebrew name of the field, inserted for local colouring, had
to be translated. This is confirmed by several circumstances, to which
we may refer. We shall not dwell much upon the fact that Peter is
represented as applying to Judas two passages quoted from the Septuagint
version of Ps. lxix. 25 (Sept lxviii.) and Ps. cix. (Sept cviii.) which,
historically, cannot for a moment be sustained as referring to
him.(2) The first of these Psalms is quoted freely, and moreover the
denunciations in the original being against a plurality of enemies,
it can only be made applicable to Judas by altering the plural "their"
[------] to "his habitation" [------], a considerable liberty to take
with prophecy. The Holy Spirit is said to have
{107}
spoken this prophecy "concerning Judas" "by the mouth of David," but
modern research has led critics to hold it as most probable that neither
Ps. lxix.(1) nor Ps. cix.(2) was composed by David at all. As we know
nothing of Peter's usual system of exegesis, however, very little weight
as evidence can be attached to this. On the other hand, it is clear that
a considerable time must have elapsed before these two passages from the
Psalms could have become applied to the death of Judas.(3)
The account which is given of the fate of Judas is contradictory to
that given in the first Synoptic and cannot be reconciled with it,
but follows a different tradition.(4) According to the first Synoptic
(xxvii. 3 ff.), Judas brings back the thirty pieces of silver, casts
them down in the Temple, and then goes and hangs himself. The chief
priests take the money and buy with it the Potter's field, which is not
said to have had any other connection with Judas, as a place for the
burial of strangers. In the Acts, Judas himself buys a field as a
private possession, and instead
{108}
of committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from a fall
in this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judgment upon
him for his crime. The apologetic attempts to reconcile these two
narratives,(1) are truly lamentable. Beyond calling attention to this
amongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we have not
further to do with the point at present We have already devoted too much
space to Peter's first address, and we now pass on to more important
topics.