THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS.
Importance of the Acts, as it is by the writer of the Third Gospel.
(_A._) ITS ACCURACY.
Three examples of this:
(1.) The titles of different rulers.
(2.) The riot at Ephesus.
(3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles.
(_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP.
The writer was a companion of St. Paul, and a medical
man; so probably St. Luke.
(_C._) ITS DATE.
There are strong reasons for fixing this at the close of
St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, about A.D. 60; and
this points to an earlier date for the first three Gospels.
We have next to consider an argument of great importance derived
from the Acts of the Apostles. This book is universally admitted to
be by the same writer as the Third Gospel, as is indeed obvious from
the manner in which both are addressed to Theophilus, from the
_former treatise_ being mentioned in the opening verse of the Acts,
and from the perfect agreement in style and language. Hence
arguments for or against the antiquity of the Acts affect the Third
Gospel also, and therefore, to some extent, the First and Second as
well. So we will consider first its _accuracy_, then its
_authorship_, and lastly its _date_.
(_A._) ITS ACCURACY.
Now, this book, unlike the Gospels, deals with a large number of
public men and places, many of which are well known from secular
history, while inscriptions referring to others have been recently
discovered. It is thus liable to be detected at every step if
inaccurate; yet, with the doubtful exception of the date of the
rebellion of Theudas, and some details as to the death of Herod
Agrippa, no error can be discovered. As this is practically
undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence in detail, but will
give three examples.
(1.) _The titles of different rulers._
We will commence with the _titles_ given to different rulers. As is
well known, the Roman provinces were of two kinds, some belonging to
the Emperor, and some to the Senate. The former were governed by
_proprætors_, or when less important by _procurators_, and the
latter by _proconsuls_, though they frequently changed hands.
Moreover, individual places had often special names for their
rulers; yet in every case the writer of the Acts uses the proper
title.
For example, the ruler at Cyprus is rightly called _proconsul_.[238]
This used to be thought a mistake, but we now know that it is
correct; for though Cyprus had previously belonged to the Emperor,
it had been exchanged with the Senate for another province before
the time in question. And an inscription[239] found there at Soli
has the words in Greek, _Paulus proconsul_, probably the Sergius
Paulus of the Acts. Cyprus, it may be added, subsequently changed
hands again.
[Footnote 238: Acts. 13. 7.]
[Footnote 239: Cyprus, by Cesnola (London, 1877), p. 425.]
In the same way Gallio is correctly described as _proconsul_ of
Achaia.[240] For though this province belonged to the Emperor for
some years before A.D. 44, and was independent after A.D. 66, it
belonged to the Senate in the interval, when the writer referred to
it. And an inscription, recently found at Delphi, shows that Gallio
was proconsul in A.D. 52, which agrees well with the chronology of
the Acts.[241] Equally correct is the title of _governor_ or
_procurator_, applied to both Felix and Festus.[242] While it is
satisfactory to add that the title _lord_, addressed to the Emperor
Nero, which used to be thought rather a difficulty, as it was not
known to have been adopted till the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96),
has now been found in papyri of the age of Nero.[243]
[Footnote 240: Acts 18. 12.]
[Footnote 241: Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July, 1913.]
[Footnote 242: Acts 19. 38; 23. 26; 26. 30.]
[Footnote 243: Acts 25. 26; Deissman, New Light on the New
Testament, 1907, p. 80.]
Again, Herod (_i.e._, Agrippa I.) shortly before his death, is
styled _king_.[244] Now we learn from other sources that he had this
title for the last three years of his government (A.D. 41-44),
though there had been no king in Judæa for the previous thirty
years, nor for many centuries afterwards.
[Footnote 244: Acts 12. 1; Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 6, xix. 5.]
Moreover, his son is also called _King_ Agrippa, though it is
implied that he was not king of Judæa, which was governed by Festus,
but of some other province. Yet, strange to say, he seems to have
held some official position in regard to the Jews, since Festus
_laid Paul's case before him_, as if he were in some way entitled to
hear it.[245] And all this is quite correct; for Agrippa, though
King of Chalcis, and not Judæa, was yet (being a Jew) entrusted by
the Emperor with the management of the Jewish Temple and Treasury,
and the choice of the High Priests, so he was a good deal mixed up
in Jewish affairs.[246] And this, though only a trifle, is
interesting; because a late writer, who had taken the trouble to
study the subject, and find out the position Agrippa occupied, is
not likely to have shown his knowledge in such a casual way.
Scarcely anyone notices it. And equally correct is the remarkable
fact that his sister _Bernice_ used to act with him on public
occasions.[247]
[Footnote 245: Acts 25. 13, 14.]
[Footnote 246: Josephus, Antiq., xx., 1, 8, 9.]
[Footnote 247: Acts 25. 23; Josephus, Wars, ii. 16; Life, xi.]
Again at Malta we read of the _chief-man_ Publius; the accuracy of
which title (for it is a _title_, and does not mean merely the most
important man) is also proved by inscriptions, though as far as we
know it was peculiar to that island.[248] At Thessalonica, on the
other hand, the magistrates have the curious title of _politarchs_,
translated 'rulers of the city.'[249] This name does not occur in
any classical author in this form, so the writer of the Acts used to
be accused of a blunder here. His critics were unaware that an old
arch was standing all the time at this very place, the modern
Salonica, with an inscription containing this very word, saying it
was built when certain men were the politarchs. The arch was
destroyed in 1876, but the stone containing the inscription was
preserved, and is now in the British Museum.[250] And since then
other inscriptions have been found, showing that the term was in use
all through the first century.
[Footnote 248: Acts 28. 7; Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Lat. X., No. 7495;
Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 5754.]
[Footnote 249: Acts 17. 6.]
[Footnote 250: In the Central Hall, near the Library.]
Nor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on the coast; it
extends wherever the narrative extends, even to the interior of Asia
Minor. For though the rulers there are not mentioned, the writer was
evidently well acquainted with the places he refers to. Take
_Lystra_, for instance.[251] According to the writer, it was a city
of Lycaonia, though the adjacent town of Iconium was not, and this
has been recently proved to be correct. And it is interesting,
because many classical authors wrongly assign Iconium to Lycaonia;
while Lystra, though belonging to that province in the first
century, was separated from it early in the second; so a late
writer, or one ignorant of the locality, might easily have made a
mistake in either case. And an inscription found near Lystra, in
1909, shows that the two gods, Jupiter and Mercury (_i.e._, Zeus and
Hermes) were commonly associated together by the inhabitants, as
they are represented to be in the Acts.
[Footnote 251: Acts 14. 1-12; Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery on
New Testament, 1915, pp. 48-63.]
(2.) _The riot at Ephesus._
As a second example we will take the account of the _riot at
Ephesus_. All the allusions here to the worship of Diana, including
her image believed to have fallen from heaven (perhaps a meteorite
roughly cut into shape), her magnificent shrine, the small silver
models of this, her widespread worship, and the fanatical devotion
of her worshippers, are all in strict agreement with what we know
from other sources.
Moreover, inscriptions discovered there have confirmed the narrative
to a remarkable extent. They have shown that the _theatre_ was the
recognised place of public meeting; that there were certain officers
(who presided at the games, etc.) called _asiarchs_; that another
well-known Ephesian officer was called the _town-clerk_; that
Ephesus had the curious designation of _temple-keeper_ of Diana
(long thought to be a difficulty); that _temple-robbing_ and
_blasphemy_ were both crimes which were specially recognised by the
Ephesian laws; and that the term _regular assembly_ was a technical
one in use at Ephesus.[252] The reference to the _town-clerk_ is
particularly interesting, because what is recorded of him is said to
agree with the duties of the town-clerk at Ephesus, though not with
those of the same official elsewhere.[253] All this minute accuracy
is hard to explain unless the narrative came from one who was
present during the riot, and recorded what he actually saw and
heard.
[Footnote 252: _Comp._ Acts 19. 29-39; with inscriptions found in
the Great Theatre. Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, pp. 43, 47,
53, 51, 15, 39.]
[Footnote 253: Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, translated by
Wilkinson, 1909, p. 63.]
(3.) _The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles._
Our third example shall be of a different kind. It is that if we
compare the biography of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters
of that Apostle, many of them written to the very Churches and
persons described there, we shall find numerous _undesigned
agreements_ between them. And these, as before explained (Chapter
X.) form a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of both. Take,
for instance, the Epistle to the Romans. Though not dated, it was
evidently written at the close of St. Paul's second visit to Greece;
and therefore, if mentioned in the Acts, it would come in at Chapter
20. 3. And the following are two, out of the numerous points of
agreement.
The first is St. Paul's saying that he was going to Jerusalem, with
alms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in that city. Now in the
Acts it is stated that St. Paul had just passed through these
provinces, and was on his way to Jerusalem, though there is no
mention about the alms there. But it happens to be alluded to some
chapters later, without, however, mentioning then where the alms
came from.[254] The agreement is complete though it is certainly not
designed.
[Footnote 254: Rom. 15. 25, 26; Acts 19. 21; 24. 17.]
The other refers to St. Paul's travels, which he says extended from
Jerusalem as far as _Illyricum_. Now Illyricum is not once mentioned
in the Acts; so there can be no intentional agreement here. And yet
there is agreement. For we learn from various places that St. Paul
had gone from Jerusalem all through what we now call Asia Minor, and
just before the date of this Epistle had passed through Macedonia,
which was his limit in this direction. And as this was the next
province to Illyricum, it exactly agrees with the Epistle.[255]
[Footnote 255: Rom. 15. 19; Acts 20. 2.]
We may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy of the Acts. The
above instances are only specimens of many which might be given. The
writer knew about Jerusalem and Athens just as well as about
Ephesus. While his account of St. Paul's voyage from Cæsarea to
Italy, including as it does, references to a number of places; to
the climate, and prevailing winds of the Mediterranean; and to the
phrases and customs of seamen, is so accurate, that critics of all
schools have admitted that he is describing a voyage he had actually
made. In short, the Book of the Acts is full of correct details
throughout, and it is hard to believe that anyone but a contemporary
could have written it.
(_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP.
Now if we admit the general accuracy of the book, there is little
difficulty in deciding on its _authorship_. As is well known,
certain portions of it (describing some of St. Paul's travels,
including his voyage to Italy) are written in the first person
plural, and are commonly called the "_We_" sections.[256] This shows
that the writer was a _companion_ of St. Paul at that time; and
then the great similarity in _language_, between these sections and
the rest of the book, shows that they had the same author. For they
are both written in the same style, and they both contain over forty
important words and expressions, which do not occur elsewhere in the
New Testament, except in the Third Gospel. This is indeed so
striking that it practically settles the point.[257]
[Footnote 256: Acts 16. 9-40; 20. 5-21. 18; 27. 1-28. 16.]
[Footnote 257: Harnack, Luke the Physician, translated by Wilkinson,
1907, p. 53.]
But there are also slight _historical_ connections between the two
portions. For example, in the earlier chapters some incidents are
recorded, in which a certain Philip (one of the _Seven_) was
concerned; and why should these have been selected? The writer was
not present himself, and many far more important events must have
occurred, of which he gives no account. But a casual verse in the
_We_ sections explains everything: the writer, we are told, stayed
_many days_ with Philip, and of course learnt these particulars
then. And as it seems to have been his rule only to record what he
knew for certain, he might well have left out other and more
important events, of which he had not such accurate knowledge.[258]
And the earlier reference, which ends with the apparently pointless
remark that _Philip came to Cæsarea_, without saying why or
wherefore, is also explained, since this was the place where the
writer afterwards met him. It is then practically certain that the
whole book was written by one man, and that he was a companion of
St. Paul in many of his travels.
[Footnote 258: Acts 6. 5; 8. 5, 26, 40; 21. 10.; Luke 1. 3.]
It is also practically certain that he was a _medical man_. The
evidence for this is overwhelming, but as the fact is generally
admitted, we need not discuss it at length. All we need say is that
201 places have been counted in the Acts, and 252 in the Third
Gospel, where words and expressions occur which are specially, and
many of them exclusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which,
with few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere, in the New
Testament.[259] For instance, we read of the many proofs of the
Resurrection; the word translated _proofs_ being frequently used by
medical writers to express the infallible symptoms of a disease, as
distinct from its mere signs, which may be doubtful, and they
expressly give it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of
all things; the word translated _restoration_ being the regular
medical term for a complete recovery of a man's body or limb.[260]
[Footnote 259: Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); some of
his examples are rather doubtful.]
[Footnote 260: Acts 1. 3; 3. 21.]
We conclude then, from the book itself, that the writer was an
intimate friend of St. Paul and a medical man; and from one
of St. Paul's Epistles we learn his name, _Luke the beloved
physician_.[261] And this is confirmed by the fact that both this
Epistle and that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as his
companion, appear to have been written from Rome, when, as we know,
the writer of the Acts was with him. And he seems to have remained
with him to the last, _only Luke is with me_.[262] Yet this beloved
and ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in the Acts,
which would be most unlikely unless he were the author.
[Footnote 261: Col. 4. 14; Philemon 24.]
[Footnote 262: 2 Tim. 4. 11.]
(_C._) ITS DATE.
The _date_ of the book can also be fixed with tolerable certainty.
It is implied in its abrupt ending. The last thing it narrates is
St. Paul's living at Rome, two years before his expected trial (A.D.
58-60).[263] It says nothing about this trial, nor of St. Paul's
release, nor of his subsequent travels, nor of his second trial and
martyrdom (probably under Nero, A.D. 64); though had it been written
after these events, it could hardly have failed to record them. This
is especially the case as the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul,
which, according to early authorities, occurred together at Rome,
would have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work chiefly
concerned with their labours.
[Footnote 263: Rackham's Commentary on the Acts, 1901, p. lxvii;
many place it a year or two later, some a little earlier.]
On the other hand, the abrupt ending of the book is at once
accounted for if it was written at that time, about A.D. 60, by St.
Luke, who did not relate anything further, because nothing further
had then occurred. And it is obvious that these two years would not
only have formed a most suitable period for its compilation, but
that he is very likely to have sent it to his friend Theophilus just
before the trial, perhaps somewhat hurriedly, not knowing whether it
might not involve his own death, as well as that of St. Paul.
This would also account for the great prominence given to the
events of the immediately preceding years in Chapters 20. to 28.,
which is quite unintelligible, unless the book was written soon
afterwards. They were nothing like as important as the events of the
next few years, about which the writer says nothing. And why should
he go through the earlier stages of St. Paul's arrest and trial, so
carefully, step by step, from Lysias to Felix, from Felix to Festus,
and then to Agrippa, and on to Rome; and then when he comes to the
crisis, and the Apostle is about to appear before Cæsar, suddenly
break off, without giving a hint as to which way it was decided?
Everyone must feel how tantalising it is; and how unlikely he is to
have stopped here, if he could have gone on.
This abrupt ending, then, is the great argument for dating the book
about A.D. 60; but it is supported by several others. In the first
place, the journey to Rome itself, especially the shipwreck, is
described with such minute and graphic details, that it seems likely
to have been written down very soon afterwards, probably in that
city.
Secondly, the Roman judges and officials are always represented as
treating the Christians with fairness, and even kindness; and the
writer leaves St. Paul appealing to Cæsar, with every hope of a
favourable verdict. There is no sign of bitterness or ill-feeling
anywhere. And all this would have been most unlikely after the great
persecution in A.D. 64; when Christians regarded Rome with the
utmost horror.[264] Compare the somewhat similar case of the Indian
Mutiny. Can we imagine an Englishman in India writing soon after the
Mutiny a history, say of Cawnpore, up to 1854, and then closing it,
without ever letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible
tragedy which happened in 1857, or showing the slightest ill-feeling
towards its perpetrators? The only reasonable conclusion would be
that such a history must have been written _before_ the Mutiny. In
the same way the Acts must have been written _before_ Nero's great
persecution.
[Footnote 264: _E.g._, Rev. 17. 6.]
Thirdly, the same sort of argument is afforded by the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Had the book been written after this, it is
strange that the writer should seem to be entirely unaware of it;
more especially as it had so close a bearing on the events described
in the Acts, such as the Jewish law not being binding on Gentile
Christians. And it is the more significant, because he records the
prophecy of the event in his Gospel,[265] but nowhere hints that the
prophecy had been fulfilled.
[Footnote 265: Luke 19. 43.]
Lastly, an early date is implied by the passage, where St. Paul
tells his friends near Ephesus, that they would not see him again.
It was quite natural for him to have said so at the time, as his
feelings were very despondent; but no one, writing many years later,
would have recorded it _without comment_; since it is almost certain
that St. Paul, after his release from Rome, did revisit
Ephesus.[266]
[Footnote 266: Acts 20. 25, 38; 2 Tim. 4. 20.]
On the whole, then, there is very strong evidence in favour of the
Acts of the Apostles having been written by St. Luke about A.D. 60;
and this of course proves an earlier date for _St. Luke's Gospel_.
And this again proves a still earlier one for _St. Mark's Gospel_,
which is now generally admitted to have been written before St.
Luke's; and probably for _St. Matthew's_ as well. The evidence of
the Acts, then, while confirming our previous conclusion that the
first three Gospels were certainly written before A.D. 70, enables
us to add with some confidence that they were also written before
A.D. 60. And, it may be added, Prof. Harnack, who long maintained
the opposite view, has at last accepted this early date for all
these Gospels.[267] The book has of course no direct bearing on the
date of St. John's Gospel.
[Footnote 267: Date of Acts, and Synoptic Gospels, translated by
Wilkinson, 1911, pp. 99, 133, 134. Some writers would place them
still earlier. Thus Canon Birks, dates them all between A.D. 42-51,
and he gives strong reasons for thinking that St. Luke, and his
Gospel, are referred to in 2 Cor. 8. 18. (Horæ Evangelicæ, 1892,
edit., pp. 259, 281, 293); and Archdeacon Allen places the second
Gospel, about A.D. 44, and the first about A.D. 50. (Introduction to
the Books of the New Testament, 1913, p. 13.)]