Full text of "The beginnings of Christianity"

HKrasHW

\ &lt; vV* v* J I / *

rail

V. .VteiV Wii-

MM-

111

mMmw

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED

LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO
DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.

TORONTO

THE BEGINNINGS
OF CHRISTIANITY

PART I ( . :,,
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

EDITED BY

F. J. FOAKES JACKSON, D.D.

AND

KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D.

VOL. II

PROLEGOMENA II
CRITICISM

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN S STREET, LONDON

1922

v.a.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

PREFACE

IN the preface to the former volume of this book we declared
the general purpose of our undertaking to be the study and, so
far as possible, the explanation of the Beginnings of Christianity.
Before, however, attempting to reconstruct this history we
believed it necessary to study Acts in the light of the results
of modern criticism. Unfortunately some of our reviewers
considered that we were already endeavouring fully to recon
struct the narrative. This was not our purpose, which was in
fact to indicate the points necessary to a more detailed study of
Acts and suitable as prolegomena. Later on we hope to return
to the subject and reconsider the narrative of the life of Jesus,
and the influence on the Church of his own teaching and of the
teaching of others about him, two subjects which are not
identical though necessarily related.

In the present volume we have endeavoured to deal with the
difficult questions of the composition and authorship of Acts
and the history of their treatment by other critics. We greatly
regret that the important works of Professor Zahn and Professor
Loisy on the Acts did not reach us in time to be mentioned.

We have begun by dealing in the first part with the Greek
and Jewish traditions of writing history, which must necessarily,
by their points of affinity with Acts, modify our estimate of the
book as a record of events ; Professor de Zwaan has dealt with
the language of Acts, and Mr. Clarke with its relation to the
Septuagint ; Professor Burkitt has discussed Luke s use of
Mark, whilst we ourselves have treated the sources employed
by the author of Acts and the light thrown by analysis on the

vi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

history, purpose, and theology of the book. In the second
part the topic is the question of authorship. Professor Cadbury
has collected the chief Testimonia Veterum, and discussed their
value ; Mr. Emmet has stated the case for the identity of the
author of Acts with the Luke who was the companion of Paul,
and Professor Windisch has given the arguments in favour of
the opposite view. The last part is devoted to two short state
ments by President McGiffert and Mr. Hunkin of the history
of the criticism of Acts. We were very glad to be enabled,
through the kind introduction of Professor Burkitt, to allow
British scholars to be represented by one of themselves.

It remains for us to justify one of the appendices which to
some of our readers may appear to have little connection with
Acts. In modern historical work the psychological factor has
attained a prominence which it did not formerly possess. It
may, indeed, be prophesied that the writers of the future will
be less occupied with the collection of material, its analysis
and synthesis, than with the application of psychology to the
established facts and to the problems raised. It is not within
our purpose to offer an elaborate contribution to this important
subject ; but we have thought it well to illustrate the way in
which the figures of history were soon invested with new
characteristics, so that in the subsequent development of thought
concerning them these new and relatively unhistorical features
became more important than the original facts. How this could
happen can only be explained by the psychology of authorship.
In order to concentrate attention on two aspects of this fact,
apart from the details of the history with which we are more
T immediately concerned, we have chosen two examples from ages
remote from the first appearance of Christianity. Mr. Coulton
has given the facts concerning the true Saint Francis of Assisi
and the literary image which was subsequently created by
Franciscan piety. There would never have been a Franciscan
Order without the true Saint Francis, but what would have been
its history had not the unhistorical image been created 1 Our

PREFACE vii

second example is even more remote from Acts, the story of
Margaret Catch pole, which happened to be familiar to one of the
editors. The extreme dissimilarity of this material from any
thing in the New Testament rendered it admirably adapted to
focus attention on the points where comparison was important,
the complicated redaction of a simple narrative and its manipu
lation of non- literary sources which are happily still extant.
It affords an example of how an intelligent and honest man
endeavouring to make history out of imperfect material often
makes it impossible to decide what actually happened, because
the psychology of authorship impels him quite unconsciously
to change problems into propositions. Similarly for the
historian of the Church not of the life of Jesus the Fourth
Gospel and the Jesus imagined by its author are more important
than the Jesus of history portrayed in the Gospel of Mark ; and
probably the Paul of Acts is more important for the same purpose
than the Paul of the Epistles.

In this way we have tried to prepare for a better understand- Reasons
ing of the great history known as Acts. That it is history and
that it is great we do not doubt, for great histories are evoked
by great events. Herodotus had seen the liberation of Greece
from the ever-present danger of Persian despotism, Thucydides
had witnessed the rise of the Athenian democracy and its collapse
before the disciplined, military aristocracy of Sparta, Josephus
the terrible ruin of the theocratic state of Judah, while Eusebius
had passed through the last and greatest persecution to witness
the triumph of the Christian Church under Constantine. When
a man with the historic instinct survives a great revolution
in human affairs, he is irresistibly impelled not only to
record his experiences, but to go backward into the past and
investigate the causes of the catastrophe he has witnessed.
Thus Herodotus surveys the ancient world and makes the nations
pass in review before him till he is prepared to relate the main
theme of his history ; Thucydides begins with a description of
ancient Athens and its manners and customs ; Josephus recapitu-

viii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

lates the history of Israel to lead up to the outbreak of the final
struggle with Rome ; Eusebius sketches the course of Christian
history from the first before he brings us to his own personal
experiences of the martyrs of Palestine and to the conversion
of the Emperor Constantine. As historians these writers take
a comprehensive view, and so co-ordinate events as to make
them lead up to their result.

Historians Accuracy, firmness of judgment, impartiality, and many
TrSs. other qualities are virtues in a historian, but not always
found. Lord Macaulay, for example, is rightly ranked by
those most competent to judge among the greatest writers of
history ; yet who can read his magnificent story of the Revolu
tion of 1688 and deny that it is the account of a partisan ?
His description of England in the seventeenth century will
remain a monument of historical writing, but some statements
have proved misleading and inaccurate. No one reading his
description of the non- jurors can fail to recognise the bias of the
writer against them, and further acquaintance with the subject
reveals that he was completely out of sympathy with their aims
and constitutionally incapable of appreciating their virtues. But
these defects are compensated for by great learning and power
of vivid description. It is true that some inaccuracies are
unpardonable, as when the historian repeats on trust that which
a little trouble would have enabled him to correct. There is a
partiality which is even more worthy of condemnation, when
persons, parties, or nations are wilfully misrepresented and mis
judged, and a writer s bias makes him neglect or suppress evidence
which would tell against his case ; for the duty of the advocate
is almost the crime of the writer of history. But it may be even
a matter for commendation if a writer knows where to leave out
cumbrous details which only obscure the effect of his picture,
and where to heighten the impression he desires to create by a
few vivid touches of his own. There is a Muse of History as of
other arts, and he who serves her has the rights of an artist. He
must throw his own personality into his work and endeavour to

PREFACE ix

make his reader take a general view of events. He has to produce
a picture rather than a ground plan or even a photograph, and
he may, no more than the painter, be estimated by the mere size
of his work. He may be a very poor artist although his canvas
is immense, and great genius may be contained in the smallest
of frames. Gibbon s greatness consists not in the vastness of
his design, but in the ability with which he dealt with his subject.
Indeed more skill and mastery of detail may be shown in the
record of a day than in a description of a century. The true
historic instinct manifests itself in the power to recognise what
is important and interesting and to reject the trivial. Every
one is familiar with writers who can search archives with amazing
care, and produce a narrative as inconsequent as it is dull and
tedious. But the genius of an historian is shown when in a few
pages a man or a period stands out in unmistakable vividness.

But history means many things, and it is necessary to Scientific
define what is implied in the term, or, at least, to recapitulate
the different senses in which the word can be employed. Modern
historians delight to attach to their work the epithet "scientific."
They are sometimes ridiculed for so doing, but without reason.
For all good work must be thus described. The word "science"
is often connected with a certain dryness and meticulous accuracy,
and to us the word is usually applied to those processes of
thought which are popularly supposed to result in precise and
well-defined conclusions. The scientific man, whether he be a
mathematician or engaged in the pursuit of natural economic
or even moral sciences, is supposed to argue from the seen to its
causes or results to the exclusion of the imaginative faculties.
Yet no one would repudiate such a definition more earnestly than
the true scientist. He would point out that the imagination had
its part in his severest studies, and that the only restraint he
would place upon it is that he would not permit it to lead him
to abandon the demonstrable path of truth based on accurate
observation. And here the historian, and for that matter the
theologian, is only anxious to claim to follow his example. Deal-

x THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY

ing as they often have to do with very uncertain factors, requiring
undoubtedly a considerable exercise of the imagination, both
desire to treat their materials with accuracy and impartiality.
They are as liable to error as are their so-called " scientific "
brethren, and when they see that they have erred they are as
ready to abandon their position and to take up a fresh one.
Those who do this, who work honestly and without unfair pre
suppositions, can truly claim that their work is scientific.

Modem In forming an ideal of what the " science " of history should

clsm be, as in every branch of human learning there is a constant
advance and the science of one age becomes the obscurantism
of the next. The older method differs from the new, in history
as elsewhere in the treatment of sources. There was a common
but by no means universal tendency in antiquity to receive
the statements of earlier writers with little or no investigation.
Historians accepted the authorities of the past much as
for generations naturalists did the statements of Aristotle and
Pliny the Elder. In our day the investigator tries to go
behind his authority and to sift the evidence of his state
ments with all the information and ingenuity at his command.
This may be described as a method in historical investigation
which has only been fully adopted in comparatively recent days.

Political Science, strictly speaking, has no motive but a desire to record

facts with exactitude. But those who write history almost
invariably set about their task to prove something which they
have at heart. Tacitus, for example, was a great historian, but
he wrote as a politician. He had a theory to maintain, and
desired to show that the best government for the Roman empire
was that of the old aristocracy, guided, if necessary, by a virtuous
prince. He saw in the century before his life-time a departure
from the principle in the rule of a succession of tyrants who
conciliated the proletariat. He deliberately ignored the un
doubted benefits conferred on the empire by Tiberius, and
throws over his latter days a darker cloak of infamy than the
facts seem to justify. In this writer we have political history

PREFACE xi

inferior to truly scientific history, but superior to the kind which
must next be described.

A great deal which passes for history has been written with Pragmatic
the object of pointing a moral or adorning a tale, the writer s
aim being to edify rather than to inform. A familiar example
of this is the book of Judges in the Old Testament. Chapters
iii.-xvi. are arranged on a definite plan, each incident being
recorded in order to emphasise the same lesson, that national sin
brings punishment, and repentance deliverance. This method
is common in the Old Testament. The interest of the reader
is aroused by the story, and thus the moral is driven home. But
this artifice is by no means confined to a portion of humanity,
it pervades all literature, and was especially prevalent through
out the Roman world in the days of primitive Christianity.
Whether the subject chosen was a nation or a society or an
individual, the moral was the chief thing. Whatever may have
been the methods of the writer of Acts, or the sources which he
used, he was assuredly no exception. Acts is history, but history
compiled with a purpose and with a moral. It is our hope to
have contributed something in this volume to the better under
standing of the method of its compilation, of the purpose with
which it was written, and the moral it was intended to enforce.

CONTENTS

T. THE COMPOSITION AND PUKPOSE OF ACTS

PAOB

INTRODUCTION ...... 3

I. THE GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS OF WRITING HISTORY.

HENRY J. CADBURY AND THE EDITORS . . .7

II. THE USE OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE IN ACTS. J. DE ZWAAN 30

III. THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS. W. K. L. CLARKE 66

IV. THE USE OF MARK IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE.

F. C. BURKITT . . . . .106

V. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS. THE EDITORS . 121

II. THE IDENTITY OF THE EDITOR OF LUKE
AND ACTS

INTRODUCTION. THE EDITORS .... 207

I. THE TRADITION. HENRY J. CADBURY . . . 209

II. THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION. C. W. EMMET . 265

III. THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION. H. WINDISCH . 298

IV. SUBSIDIARY POINTS. HENRY J. CADBURY AND THE EDITORS 349

III. THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM
I. THE HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY. A. C.

McGlFFERT .... . 363

II. BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS. J. W. HUNKIN . . 396

xiii

xiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY

PAGE

APPENDIX A Two LITERARY ANALOGIES.

1. THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSIST.

G. G. COULTON . . .437

2. THE STORY OF MARGARET CATCHPOLE.

THIS EDITORS .... 464

APPENDIX B VESTIGIA CHRISTI. F. C. BURKITT . . 485

APPENDIX C COMMENTARY ON THE PREFACE OF LUKE. HENRY

J. CADBURY . . . . 489

INDEX 511

THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

VOL. II

INTRODUCTION

IN the middle of the eighteenth century it was suggested that Higher
Moses had used two separate documents when he wrote the and the
Book of Genesis. The important consequences of this view T *
were only slowly recognised, and it was not till after more than
a century that scholars realised that the Five Books of Moses
and the Book of Joshua were composite and represented very
different strands of thought and development. Those who tried
to follow up this line were often the victims of outraged orthodoxy.
Anglicanism repudiated Colenso, Presbyterianism Robertson
Smith in Scotland, and Briggs and Henry Preserved Smith in
America. Nevertheless the correctness of the Higher Criticism
in its main conclusions was perforce recognised by all competent
scholars throughout the world, and those who advocated its
adoption are trusted and honoured as the safest exponents of
modern orthodox Christianity.

The controversy on the Old Testament was due to the fact Historical
that in their dealing with the Old Testament the Higher Critics
turned from analysis to history. Not content with ingenious
attempts to resolve the Hexateuch into its component parts,
they applied the results they had arrived at to the elucidation
of the history of Israel. It then appeared that the whole story
had completely to be retold from a standpoint entirely different
from that of the older writers. There was loss and gain in the
process. Many cherished beliefs had to be given up, many
interpretations useful for moralisation abandoned ; but the
historians and prophets of the ancient covenant appeared in a
new light, and what had once been regarded as infallible, in
ceasing to be so, became intelligible.

4 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

N.T. New Testament criticism has hitherto, in English-speaking

hesitate* communities, been kept too much outside the sphere of historical
historical researcn - There is general agreement, for example, that the
Synoptic Gospels consist of allied documents, dependent partly
on one another and partly on common sources now lost. The
dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark has been demon
strated and widely accepted ; so that though the synoptic
question still presents many problems to be solved, the main
outlines of the work have been traced and agreed upon. Similarly
much has been done to elucidate the travels of Paul, and the
circumstances under which he wrote, but little or nothing to
show how his development of theological and Christological
thought is related to the analysis of the Gospels. We have the
analogies to Driver s Introduction to the Old Testament, but not
to Robertson Smith s Old Testament in the Jewish Church.
Need for the Because so little has been done to push the matter of synoptic
O.T. criti- criticism to a logical conclusion, it is widely held that whereas
cismtobe fa e cr iticism of the Old Testament has overturned many tradi-

apphed to

the N.T. tional beliefs concerning it, that of the New only confirms its
position. Even in Germany little has been done to place before
the public the effect which the study of the synoptic problem
has had on the history of the beginnings of the Christian religion.
The three chief contributions, Bousset s Kyrios Christos, J.Weiss s
Urchristentum, and W. Wrede s Das Messias-Geheimniss are
technical works, comprehensible only to those who have mastered
the details of the subject. What therefore is necessary in the
future is to do for the New Testament what Robertson Smith
did for the Old. Perceiving that the entire history of Israel had
to be remodelled if the Graf-Wellhausen theory were accepted,
in his Old Testament in the Jewish Church and his Prophets
of Israel he placed before the English-speaking world the
conclusion to which modern criticism had led. 1 In clear and

1 To guard against misapprehension the Editors would disclaim any attempt
to do this in the present work. Their aim is to provide material for it. Before
we can try to " explain Christianity" it is well to ask what Christianity actually
was in its earliest years.

INTRODUCTION 5

intelligible language he pointed out that a new era in Biblical
history had dawned, and that every event in the progress of the
Chosen People had to be viewed in its light. The translations
into English of Wellhausen s and Kuenen s accounts of the religion
and history of Israel made clear what Robertson Smith s lectures
had suggested. Every one realised that the older histories,
however brilliantly written, had been superseded ; that the
Hexateuch was the outcome of the early story of the nation, and
not the basis on which every event after the death of Moses
depended.

As soon as this had been done, and the general outlines of
the history of Israel re-established, it was possible to go back
and reconsider many of the details of criticism. The tentative
analysis of documents could now be revised and corrected. So
criticism and history went hand in hand. But the reconstruction
of the earlier periods had to wait for the analysis of the later
documents. The correct appreciation of the eighth century was
not possible until the proper understanding of the reforms of
Josiah and the Deuteronomic code had been reached.

Guided by this experience of the study of the Old Testament, Acts
similar progress in the New must begin by the critical study of
Acts. Lightfoot s commentaries dealt adequately with the main ^ T
problems of the Epistles, and the Synoptic question is as nearly
solved as the problem of the Pentateuch was when Robertson
Smith wrote. Acts is almost untouched. The essential step is
its critical analysis, in the light of our knowledge of its back
ground and of synoptic criticism.

The endeavour to discover the sources used by an author The method
and the method which he follows in his composition can be
made only in the light of knowledge of the plan usually followed
by his contemporaries and, if possible, by himself in other
writings. In the case of Acts this means a consideration of the
methods followed by Jewish as well as by Greek writers of
history. For though the writer was certainly a Greek he was

6 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

also deeply imbued with the tradition of the Old Testament.
It also calls for a consideration of his methods as revealed by
his use of the Septuagint and of the Greek language, and by his
treatment of the Markan material in the Gospel according to
Luke. Only when this preliminary matter has been disposed of
is it possible to analyse the internal evidence of Acts as to its
sources, and plan with any proper criterion as to the relative
probability of the suggestions made by this analysis.

The discussion of these topics has therefore been divided into
the following chapters : (1) The Greek and Jewish Traditions of
Writing History ; (2) the Use of the Greek Language in Acts ; (3)
The Use of the Septuagint in Acts ; (4) The Use of Mark in the
Gospel according to Luke ; (5) The Internal Evidence of Acts.

THE GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS OF WRITING

HISTORY

By HENRY J. CADBURY AND THE EDITORS

IN Josephus and Luke two streams of the writing of history
converge. It may be said in general that the Greek and Roman
method of composition is more varied and more artistic than
the Jewish ; but each needs a fairly full description, at least on
the points which come prominently forward in the criticism of
Luke and Acts. It is easiest to begin with the Greek tradition.

THE GREEK TRADITION

The tradition of Greek historiography begins with Herodotus Greek
and continues through the Hellenistic age to the contemporaries
of Luke, both Greek and Roman. The methods of these Gentile
writers have something in common with those of the Jewish
chroniclers, but the Hellenistic writing of history is perhaps more
self-conscious, more expressive of its principles, and offers a
more considerable body of material from which to reconstruct
the theory and practice of its composition. 1

1 For modern summaries see among others : E. Nordcn, Antike Kunstprosa
(3rd edition), 1919 ; H. Peter, Die geschichtliche Literatur uber d. romische
Kaiserzeit, 1897 ; Wahrheit und Kunst : Geschichtsschreibung und Plagiat im
klassischen Altertum, 1911 ; E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen
Literatur, 1912 ; P. Scheller, De Hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte, 1911 ;
H. Liers, Die Theorie der Geschichtsschreibung des Dionys von Halikarnass,
1886 (with much reference to Polybius and Cicero) ; F. Halbfas, Theorie und
Praxis in der Geschichtsschreibung bei Dionys von Halikarnass, 1910.

8 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Discussion These materials are not only derived from an intensive study
historians. an( ! comparison of the writings of the historians, especially
Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, Tacitus, and Livy, but are sup
plemented by essays, prefaces, or long digressions discussing
the general principles of historical composition. Thus Dionysius
of Halicarnassus not only produced Roman Antiquities in
twenty volumes ; he also wrote several essays on literary
criticism ; while Polybius is constantly filling his pages with
trenchant discussion of earlier and contemporary historiography.
His principal complaint is against the rhetorical historians. 1
The rhetorical studies even those of later date, and those
composed in Latin bear testimony to the traditional problems
and principles of the historians, while satire contributes its share
to the illumination of the subject in the De historiae conscribendae
arte of Lucian. 2

Use of The raw materials of history were very miscellaneous and

scattered. Official archives are mentioned as sources of in
formation, but less frequently quoted, and, though this does not
necessarily follow from the absence of mention, were perhaps
rarely used. Polybius lays stress on first-hand knowledge of
places to be gained by travel, on participation so far as possible
in affairs, and on personal contact with eyewitnesses where the
author himself was not present. Thus he criticises Timaeus
because he had no acquaintance with the localities which he
was describing, or with military or naval matters, or with politics. 3
"It is difficult perhaps for a man to have been actually and
literally engaged in everything, but in the most important

1 Norden (op. cit. p. 82) selects as the most important criticisms made by
Polybius the following passages ; Book xii. (against Timaeus) ; xvi. 17, 9 f.
(against Zeno of Rhodes) ; ii. 56 (against Phylarchus) ; i. 14 (against Philinus
and Fabius).

2 "II&lt;3s 5et icrToplav o-vyypdtpeiv" is the Greek title of this essay, which
professes to be divided between a statement of errors to be avoided and
of methods to be followed; but in general it is a miscellaneous collection of
excesses and abuses in both matter and style of historiography drawn from
the contemporary " fever " for history -writing that resulted from the Parthian
war. 3 i olybius xii. 25 g, h.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 9

actions and most frequently occurring he must have been so."
" For as historical events take place in many different localities
and as it is impossible for the same man to be in several places
at the same time, and also impossible for him to see with his
own eyes all places in the world and observe their peculiarities,
the only resource left is to ask questions of as many people as
possible ; to believe those who are worthy of credit ; and to
show critical sagacity in judging of their reports." 1

The written materials of first value are the memoranda of Memoranda
eyewitnesses, whenever these are obtainable. In the case of ^P lo y ed
campaigns or journeys, day-books or vTro/jLvrjfjLaTia-poi were kept historians.
by order of the king or official in charge and marked with his
imprimatur. 2 Unofficial notes and diaries, reports of travellers,
impressions of participants .were all useful. All such raw
materials, unedited and unarranged, bore in Greek the title
vTTo/juvTjfjLara, and in Latin commentarii. Many such writings were
written, in spite of the author s personal participation, in the
third person, as in the well-known commentarii of Julius Caesar.
But that others, including satirical and fictitious vTrofjivrj/juara,
used the first person is only natural. 3

The first task of the ancient historian was the discovery and Ancient
collection of this raw material. This, if undertaken conscien-
tiously, was an arduous task requiring years of time and a great
deal of effort. But there were historians, as Polybius scornfully
reminds us, 4 who wrote their histories by the easy method of
the armchair. They knew nothing of the labours of true research,

1 Polybius xii. 4 c.

2 On the vTro/j(vr]/j.aTi(r/j.oL see Wilcken, Philologus, liii. (1894), pp. 80-126.

3 G. Misch, Geschichte der Autobiographic, i. 1907, mentions as written in
the first person the memoirs of Ptolemy Euergetes II. in 24 books, and the
vita of Augustus in 13 books, and from Jewish sources the vita of Josephus and
the memoirs of Nehemiah. Purely fictitious " we "-tales may be illustrated
from Lucian s True History and Icaromenippus. For other fictitious travel
stories in the first person see E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, p. 313.

4 xii. 25 e Zvtoi 8 T&V SOKOVVTUV ev\6yus Trpocrdyeiv irpbs ri]v iffroplav, KaBdirep
ol \oyiKoi T&V iarpCiV vdi.aTpi\l/ai&gt;Tes TCUS (3ij3\iodi)i&lt;a.is Kal KadoXov rty K T&V
iTro/j.vrjijia.Twi TrepnroirjO d/u.evoi -rroXvireipiav ireldovaLV avrovs a?s tivres iKavol TT/JOS TTJV
t jri/3oX?}i . Cf. also Lucian, op. cit. 37 /ecu rolvvv /ecu qfuv rocoOros rts 6

10 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

but relied principally upon the writings of others. Indeed for
ancient history no other method was possible, and since the
material was all collected by others, the historian need only
compare authorities and arrange the material to suit his own
purpose. This easier method seems to have been practised
most, while the other was most praised. No moral stigma
attached to the wholesale use of what earlier writers had
supplied, and when this method was followed it was usual not
to mention by name the authorities borrowed. Sometimes a
general evioi or nv^ betrays the use of a previous historian, 1
but authors are mentioned by name most often to point out
their errors or emphasise the writer s disagreement with their
statements.

Purposes of The purposes of ancient historians were varied. They are
historians. ften discussed and compared in prefaces, as for instance is
done by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Josephus in both their
Antiquities. Polybius declares his purpose is practical ; the
guidance of men, especially statesmen, by the lessons of history.
" The study of history is in the truest sense an education, and
a training for political life." 2 Sometimes the purpose is apolo
getic, or the history is intended to glorify the deeds of men and
nations. But a predominant object was often to entertain or
to interest 3 the reader. And this purpose had a considerable
effect on the methods of the historian.

j. . . . olos KO! irpdy/nacn xP^l ffaff ^ aL -v . . . /ecu 6Xws ov ru&gt;v
iuv TIS ovd olos iriffTeteiv povov ro?s dirayyt\\ov(ri. In this passage
/caroi/aotW is especially delightful ; should it be translated " parlour
patriots " ?

1 See Stemplinger, op. cit. pp. 177 ff., 219. One example may suffice :
Plutarch s Coriolanus does not anywhere mention Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
the principal source, but in the (ruyKpiffis (2) Plutarch criticises Dionysius
by name for holding a different view on a certain matter. In the Life itself
(26) this same objectionable view is mentioned as being held by eVtot.

2 Polybius i. 1. Cf. iii. 4, v. 75, ix. 2, et al

3 Philo is not far from correctly hitting the conventional term when in
contrast with the religious purpose of Moses dpxaio\oyia, he speaks of the
usual purpose of historians as being if/vxaywyrjaai (De vita Mosis, ii. 8, p. 141 M).
-J/vxaywyia is constantly used of Hellenistic histories : cf. 2 Mace. ii. 25 for
another Jewish example.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 11

In the first place it did not require conscientious and dis- Historical
criminating emphasis of historical fact. The abstract search for
truth of the modern historian was possibly understood in theory, talc8 -
but it was by no means the main object of ancient writers. Of
course some historians were very credulous, and others exercised
their judgment in avoiding extremely incredible stories. But
the question of historicity was vigorously debated chiefly when
some personal or national controversies were involved. The
Greek law of restraint had a wholesome influence, and scorn is
expressed for the very crude faith in local myths of other his
torians. Thus Polybius rejects 1 the fabulous tales of statues of
Asia that are never touched by snow or rain, and the legend
which even Theopompus records of sacred precincts in which no
shadow is cast by the sun. Dionysius, however, while speaking
very sceptically of certain myths, 2 does not hesitate to record the
most extravagant legends of early Rome, fully aware that they
are rejected by those who strictly exclude everything /^wSe?
from history. 3 But it must be constantly remembered that the
modern criticism of sources, tests of historical probability, and
insistence on first-hand evidence were not customary in antiquity
even among those writers who in their criticism of others and
in their conventional claims for their own work seem most
nearly to have understood modern criteria.

Instead of accuracy the purpose of ancient historians tended importance
to make the form the chief point of emphasis. As Herodian

says, 4 TT)? fjbev a\rjdeia^ ev rat?
ij/ciara &e eTre/jLeXijOTjcrav cpacre&&amp;gt;9 re KOI evfywvias. History is
described as an art rather than as a science. Sometimes it is
compared with poetry, 5 sometimes with the plastic arts. " One s
whole thought must be," says Lucian, 6 " that the writer of
history must be like Phidias or Praxiteles or Alcamenes or one

1 xvi. 12. 2 De Time. 5. 6.

3 Ant. i. 84. 1 ; ii. 61. 1. Cf. Lucian, op. cit. 60. 4 i. 1. 1.

5 Quintal, x. 1. 31. Cf. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, pp. 91 ff.

Op. cit. 51.

12 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

of the others. For they used not to make the gold or the silver
or the ivory or other material, but it was at hand and was set
before them in advance, supplied by the Elians, Athenians, or
Argives, but they only moulded and sawed the ivory, and polished
and glued and brought it into proportion and decked it with
the gold, and this was their art to arrange the material properly.
Something of this sort, then, is the task of the historian, to set
forth the deeds that have been done and to show them as clearly
as possible."

Rhetorical The last and most important stage in the historian s task is
composi- the composition in rhetorical form of the material that he is
using. Of course the vTrofjLvri^ara are bald, unadorned prose.
They are therefore unfit for publication until they have been
fitted out in rhetorical style. This contrast in style is con
stantly mentioned, and the rhetorical principles which history
must follow are set forth in full. Plutarch 1 describes the
memoirs of Aratus as written Trapepycos /cal viro x ^P a ^^ r ^ )V
eTTLTv^ovrwv ovofjidrav. The same lack of rhetorical adornment
was felt by Cicero for his own vTrofjuv^fjuaf and for the commentarii
of Caesar. 3 Lucian 4 criticises one who published vTro^vrjfjLa
v/jivov crvvayaya)v V ypa(f)f) Ko/JuSfj Tre^ov /cal
olov teal ar par HATTYS av rt? ra Kaff rj/Jiepav
a7roypa&lt;f)6/jLvos avved^Kev i) retcrtov rj /caTTT/Xo? rt? crv/jLTrepi,-
VOO-TWV rfj arpana. For the real historian such material is
the corpus vile, vjrbpvru^a TL or o-w/j-a a/caXXe9 eri fcal abiap-
Opcorov, to which he must bring the adornment of ra ^9 and
Xet9, o-^i^ara and pv0/ji6s. 5 History is close to oratory, and
therefore its principles are the same. 6 Indeed an important
part of history is the oratory it contains. In the speeches of

1 Aratus, 3. 2 Ad Alt. ii. 1. 1 f.

3 Brut. 262. 4 DC hist, conscrib. 16.

5 Lucian, op. cit. 48 etra eTridds rr)v rd^iv f-n-ay^ru rb /cdXXos /cai x/wjWrw TTJ
\^L Kal &lt;rxr/yU.ari^raj /cat pvO/u-L^TW.

6 See Cicero, De or. ii. 15. 62. So he speaks (De legibus, i. 2. 5) of history
as opus unum oratorium maxime, as Dionys. Hal. calls it (De Thucyd. 9) a

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 13

the actors the artist can more fully show his skill. 1 To suppose
that the writers were trying to present the speeches as actually
spoken, or that their readers thought so, is unfair to the
morality of one and to the intelligence of the other. From
Thucydides 2 downwards, speeches reported by the historians
are confessedly pure imagination. They belong to the final
literary stage. If they have any nucleus of fact behind them it
would be the merest outline in the vTro^v^ara.

Sometimes we can see the various stages of composition in
the works of a single writer, when for some reason or other
certain books of his history have come down to us only rough
hewn without any flowing rhetorical style and without the
illustrative adornment of speeches usual in the finished volumes.
Thus it is believed that certain books of Thucydides 3 which
quote original records verbatim, have come from him without
final editorial revision, while his last book is notably lacking
in speeches. In the last eight books of Strabo the excerpts
from his sources are given in their original form, but not
elsewhere.

For this ultimate stage of composition it made little difference Habit of
whether the historian was using the real documents and memo-
randa of research or merely the finished work of some predecessor.
In either case he must make a new work, recasting all in his
own style by the method of paraphrase. Verbatim copying of
sources was not tolerated, for no matter how slavishly one
followed the substance of his predecessor s narrative one must
recast his style. And the speeches must be the writer s own.
When Livy follows Polybius for the facts of his narrative he
almost regularly makes a change in the occasion and form of
his speeches. So Plutarch and Tacitus agree very closely in

1 Dionysius, De Thncyd. 34 tV als [ STjyL^opicus] oiovrai rtj/es rr\v &Kpav TOV
&lt;rvyypa(j)eus clvai 5vva^LV. Lucian, De hist, conscrib. 58 irXriv e0e?rat &lt;roi r6rf
(i.e. when supplying appropriate speeches) Kal p-rjTopevffai /ecu ^TrtSe^at TT)V r^v

2 Cf. Thucyd. i. 22,

3 E.g. iv,, v,, viii,

14 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

their account of Otho but give entirely different reports of his
last address. 1 Josephus, who has occasion in his parallel works
to deal twice with the same situation, puts two different speeches
in the mouth of Herod. 2 The speech of Caesar to his soldiers
in Dio Cassius 3 is very different from the brief address reported
by Caesar himself 4 on the same occasion. When the actual
speech had been published the historian usually mentions the
fact as a reason for omitting any speech of his own. 5
Rhetorical It is not necessary to recount here the conventional rhetorical
lllty figures and devices which became the standards of the more
elegant historians. There is something grotesque to modern
eyes in the excesses of Dionysius. Even in antiquity the extreme
artificiality of the historians aroused some protest. Polybius
held himself free from many of the excesses which he scorned
in others, 6 and some of his criticisms and claims were conven-

1 Pint. 15 ; Tac. Hist. ii. 47. 2 B.J. i. 19. 4 ; Ant. xv. 5. 3.

3 38. 36-46. 4 E.G. i. 40.

5 Sallust, Catiline, omits all Cicero s speeches against Catiline and explains
(31) : "tune M. Tullius Cicero consul orationem habuit quam postea scriptam
edidit." Tacitus significantly says of Seneca s published last words that he
would omit transferring them to his pages in paraphrase (Ann. xv. 63 "quae
in vulgus edita eius verbis invertere supersedeo ").

6 Polybius uses among other phrases V7reppo\r] reparet as. One of the
abuses to which Polybius and others object is the excessive use of speeches.
Timaeus as usual receives severest censure, because in his speeches " he has not
written down the words actually used, nor the real drift of these speeches ;
but, imagining how they ought to have been expressed, he enumerates all the
arguments used, like a schoolboy declaiming on a set theme " (xii. 25 a).
" Surely," he says again, " a historian should not aim at producing speeches
which might have been delivered, nor study dramatic propriety in details like a
writer of tragedy : but his function is above all to record with fidelity what was
actually said or done, however commonplace it may be. For the purposes of
history and of drama are not the same" (ii. 56). In a later passage (xxxvi. 1)
he expresses very clearly his restraint he does not reject giving the appropriate
arguments on either side on some occasions, but this convenient practice should
not be indulged in at every point. Although Dionysius joins in this protest
(Ad Pomp. 3. 12) he is one of the worst offenders, the speeches amounting,
according to Liers (op. cit. p. 14), to about one-third of his history. This is
one of the faults removed by Plutarch when he uses Dionysius, as in the Corio-
lanus (see above). According to H. Peter ( Wahrheit und Kunst, p. 356) there
are more than four hundred speeches in the extant thirty-five books of Livy,
while the speeches of Thucydides occupy one-fifth of his text (ibid. p. 120).
The ratio just mentioned is also that of the book of Acts. Lack of proportion

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 15

tionally accepted by writers who did not follow his example.
The habit of adopting the style of memoirs, and the emphasis
laid on having been an eyewitness were valued as literary
ajjbifices. It is noteworthy that some unrevised memoirs and
excerpts from earlier histories have survived, and these serve
to illustrate the material on which much rhetorical history was
based. It is thus possible to compare the more conventional
finished product with the original.

It is interesting now to ask how far these Hellenistic prin- Lucan
ciples affect the composition of the writings of Luke. The tlsted^ bv
Christian author s Semitic and religious background do not theabovc -
guarantee him any exemption from the literary standards of his
day. Josephus the Jew, his contemporary, is largely under the
spell of these principles. He edits the unrhetorical records of
the Bible, inserting long rhetorical speeches invented to suit his
own tastes, and compiles an Antiquities of the Jews in twenty
volumes to match the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The
author to Theophilus is perhaps not so Hellenised as Josephus,
and yet he may have been a Gentile and no Jew. His prefaces
and dedications at once suggest classification with the contem
porary Hellenistic historians. With Mark in our hands we can
frequently confront his work with the unpolished vTro/jbvijfjia
which he paraphrases, corrects, and recasts in his own style. In
Acts the elaborate, homogeneous and schematic speeches suggest,
if not the rhetoric, at least the free composition of the speeches in
Greek and Roman histories, while the " we-passages " raise the
insoluble problem of the use, imitation, or incorporation of
autoptic records or the participation of the author in the events
which he records.

between the preface and the body of a work, the excesses of imitation and
many other things satirised by Lucian in his essay are only exaggerations
of the current stylistic frigidity, artificiality, and credulity of Hellenistic
historians.

16 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

THE JEWISH TRADITION
Use of The tradition of historical writing among the Jews is ade-

documents . . .

in biblical quately represented, in a series of documents some of which over
lap the others, in the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha, and in
Josephus. In these each writer makes use of the material pro
vided by his predecessor, and the beginning of the process is
hidden ; for even the earliest of the books which have come down
to us depend on sources no longer extant. The critical study of
the earlier historical books has revealed that there were several
documents employed in the composition of their history. To
take 2 Samuel as a single example there is an allusion, as in
Joshua, to a " book of Jasher," and lists of David s wives,
ministers, and warriors obviously copied from possibly official
sources. Poems and sayings are introduced to illuminate the
narrative. Prayers, both in 2 Samuel and also in 1 Kings,
are made by David and Solomon, obviously the free composition
of the writer.

A little later there is an elaborate example of the employ
ment of sources and the introduction of literary devices in the
work of the Chronicler, including the books of Ezra and Nehe-
miah. Still later, in 1 Maccabees, there is opportunity for
studying a later Jewish composition designedly written in biblical
style. Of this the first chapters are specially important as
resembling the historical style and religious tone of the prophetic
writers. These deal with the story of the Syrian persecution,
begun by Antiochus Epiphanes, and the career of Judas
Maccabaeus. It is possible to check the correctness of what is
here stated by using 2 Maccabees, an independent work.
Finally, these historical books became the basis of the Antiquities
of Josephus, who has treated them with a freedom which may
supply a clue to other contemporary literary compositions. This
freedom also appears in the translators of the Old Testament,
who either had a text of the Old Testament different from ours
or else felt themselves at liberty to adapt, rearrange, and expand

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 17

or contract, to a greater degree than a modern would feel justified
in doing. All this deserves attention in order to illustrate the
standards to which translators and editors in early days con
formed.

The interest in these books to a student of the New Testa- Literary
ment lies in the fact that they not only throw much light on the
literary methods of the Jews in the Exile and in the Persian
and Greek periods, but that the problems they present are
analogous, if not parallel, to those of the historical books of the
New Testament, the Gospels, and Acts.

The Chronicler, like the author of the Lucan books, used
sources, some of which we have within the cover of the Bible,
and adapted them to the object they had in view. No one can
fail to notice how the narrative of Samuel and Kings is altered
to suit the decidedly legalistic bias of the age. All that could
detract from the high estimation in which David and Solomon
were held is omitted, and much is added to the narrative with
the object of edification. Throughout are inserted speeches and
prayers, many of which appear to be the work of the author.

All the books of this series Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah
are avowedly compilations. They refer to authorities and
reproduce documents. In Chronicles no less than fifteen sources
are enumerated; 1 in Ezra-Nehemiah registers, letters of Persian
kings, decrees, etc. are introduced, and there are in addition
personal memoirs, as has been shown, professedly written by
Ezra and Nehemiah. But the Chronicler is no mere collector ;
he has a marked style of his own and gives to all the material
he uses the impress of his personality. 2 A dry legalist he assuredly
was not ; for he possessed the power of telling a story vividly
and dramatically. And here the " personal " sections in Ezra-

1 Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 228-229.

2 Dr. Torrey s chapter vii. in his Ezra Studies is peculiarly valuable. He is
the first English-speaking scholar who has shown that Chronicles is an interesting
study, as Dr. Cheyne was to indicate that it was important. Most commenta
tors seem to have made the student believe that it is a very dull book.

VOL. II C

18 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Nehemiah are of special interest to the student of Acts. The
same question arises, Are these sections written in the style
of the author or not ? In Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah the
answer, according to Dr. Torrey, appears to be decidedly in the
affirmative. In the opinion of many the style is uniform through
out, and there is no variety when Ezra or Nehemiah is speaking
in his own name.

Moreover, there are two Greek recensions of Ezra and there
is a dispute as to which is the earlier ; and the problem of
translation from the Aramaic occurs in certain portions of the
Greek Ezra (1 Esdras).

The book of Ezra opens with a repetition of the last two
recension verses of 2 Chronicles, only it gives the decree of Cyrus in some-
of Ezra. what fuller form. 1 The people make ready to go up to Jerusalem.
Cyrus hands the treasures of the Temple to Mithredath, who
delivers them to Sheshbazzar the leader of those of the captivity "
from Babylon to Jerusalem. 2 Then follows a list of people and
priests who returned. 3 On their arrival Jeshua, the son of
Jozadak, the high priest and Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
set up the altar and lay the foundations of the Temple. 4

Seeing the Jews commencing to build the Temple the "adver
saries of Judah and Benjamin " ask leave to co-operate and are
repelled by Zerubbabel. 5 Whereupon, in the days of Artaxerxes
a letter is written " in the Syrian tongue " complaining of the
Jews. 6 The letter states that if the city of Jerusalem is built
and the gates set up the Jews will refuse to pay taxes or tribute.
Nothing is said of the building of the Temple. The answer of
the king prohibits the building of the city ; and the work ceases
till the second year of Darius. 7 Then the prophets Haggai and
Zechariah urge that the Temple should be built 8 ; and Tattenai,
the governor, Shethar-boznai, and " his companions the Aphar-

1 Ezra i. 1-4; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 22-23. 2 Ezra i. 5-11.

3 Ezra ii. 1-70. 4 Ezra iii. 1-13.

5 Ezra iv. 1-6. 6 Ezra iv. 7-16.

7 Ezra iv. 17-24, esp. 21 and 24. 8 Ezra v. 1, vi. 14.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 19

sachites " write to Darius informing him that the Jews are re
building the Temple and asking that search be made whether
there was a decree of Cyrus allowing them to do so. 1 A roll
is found at Achmetha in the palace, proving that Cyrus had
ordered the Temple to be built and prescribing its dimensions. 2
Darius, accordingly, commands the rebuilding of the Temple,
which was finished on the third day of Adar, in the sixth year
of Darius, and was solemnly dedicated. 3

In the next chapter Ezra, " a ready scribe in the law of Moses,"
goes up from Babylon to Jerusalem " in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes." He takes with him a letter from Artaxerxes, giving
him extensive powers to restore the worship at Jerusalem, and
exempting the priests, Levites, and all Temple ministers from
taxes. 4 Then, as abruptly as in Acts, a section in the first person
is introduced, which continues for fifty-three verses. 5 The
narrative in the third person is resumed as suddenly as it was
abandoned, " Now when Ezra had prayed," etc. fi The present
book of Ezra closes as abruptly as the Gospel of Mark, with an
unfinished sentence. 7

Nehemiah is introduced like the prophets by a preface : Summary of
" The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah." His narrative
is given in the first person and extends over seven chapters, 8
at the end of which is transcribed a genealogy " which I found
registered " of those who had come up with Zerubbabel. This
is virtually a repetition of the second chapter of Ezra. 9 Again,
without warning, the third person appears in the story of Ezra
the scribe 10 reading the Law and Nehemiah the governor ex
horting the people not to be dismayed, but to keep the feast of
Tabernacles. After the feast the people made a solemn covenant,

1 Ezra v. 6-17. 2 Ezra vi. 1-5, esp. 3-5.

3 Ezra vL 6-22. * Ezra vii. 1-26, esp. 1, 6, 11, 24.

5 Ezra vii. 27 to ix. 15. 6 Ezra x. 1.

7 Ezra x. 44; Mark xvi. 8. 8 Neh. i.-vii. 5.
9 Neh. vii. 6-73. Of. Ezra ii. 1-70.

10 Neh. viii. 1. Ezra is also called " the priest " in Ezra x. 10 where, as here
(v. 2), the narrative is in the third person.

20 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

prefaced by a long confession of national sin by the Levites. 1
A list is given of those who subscribed, in which Ezra s name is
conspicuously absent. In the substance of the covenant which
follows the first person plural is employed. 2 A chapter and a
half is devoted to a list of names ; 3 and then, quite abruptly,
the account of the dedication of the Wall of Jerusalem is resumed.
From this point to the end of the book Nehemiah is made to
write partly in the first person. 4

Summaryof Ezra appears in two forms in Greek. The version which
represents the Hebrew, as we now have it, is that of Theodotion. 5
But an earlier one was known to Josephus which is otherwise
arranged, and differs from that of the Hebrew Ezra in many
important particulars, and has significant additions. It begins
with an account of Josiah s Passover, taken from the narrative
of 2 Chronicles, and follows the Chronicler in describing the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Captivity. It agrees with the
Hebrew Ezra in giving the decree of Cyrus and the preparation
for the Return. 6 The vessels of the Temple were entrusted to
Sheshbazzar, or, as the Greek has, Sanabassar, the governor of
Judah, apparently a Persian official who cannot possibly be
identified with Zerubbabel. 7 Thus far the Hebrew and Greek
Ezras agree ; but now a large section of the Hebrew Ezra is
omitted and placed elsewhere, nothing being as yet said of the
erection of the altar or the offer of the " adversaries " to join
in building the Temple. 8 The letter to Artaxerxes and his reply
stopping the work are virtually the same in both versions,

1 Neh. ix. The prayer is in vv. 6-38.

2 Neh x. 28-39. 3 Neh. xi. 1-xii. 26.

4 Neh. xii. 27-xiii. 31. The verses in the first person are xii. 31, 38, 40 and
xiii. 6-31.

5 It is not, however, quite certain what is the date. Theodotion himself
is post-Christian, but there is some evidence which suggests that the text
which he issued (or re-issued) is earlier.

6 1 Esdrasi. 1-ii. 14; Ezra i. 1-11. Cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 22-23.

7 1 Esdras ii. 15. In Ezra i. 8 " Sheshbazzar the prince of J udah " is perhaps
identified with Zerubabbel, Ezra ii. 2, iii. 2. In 1 Esdras vi. 18, the holy vessels
were delivered to Zerubbabel and Sanabassarus by Cyrus (evidently a gloss by
an ignorant scribe). 8 Ezra iv. 1-3.

GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS

only 1 Esdras does not note that the letters were originally in
Aramean. 1

A long section follows in the Greek, which is not in the Hebrew,
namely, the story of how Zerubbabel obtained leave from Darius
to finish the Temple. 2 This is no mere interpolation, but reflects
the writer s opinion that Zerubbabel was not the prince of the
Return under Cyrus, but only made his appearance in the reign
of Darius. The whole order of events is different from that in
the Hebrew Ezra, as the following table will show :

(1)

from

Ezra i. Jews return
Babylon (Cyrus).

(2) Ezra ii. Those who came back

with Zerubbabel.

(3) Ezra iii. Setting up of the altar

by Jeshua and Zerubbabel.
Those who had seen the glory
of the first house weep, etc.

(4) Ezra iv. 1-3. The offer of the

adversaries of Judah and

Benjamin is repulsed.
Ezra iv. 4-24. Correspondence

with Artaxerxes ; the work is

ordered to cease.
Ezra v. 1-2. Haggai and

Zechariah incite Zerubbabel

and Jeshua to rebuild the

Temple.

(7) Ezra v. 3-vi. 12. Correspondence

between the " adversaries "
and Darius.

(8) Ezra vi. 13-22. Temple dedi

cated.

(1) 1 Esdras ii. 1-15. Cyrus and the Hebrew-

Return, and Greek

(2) 1 Esdras ii. 16-30. Correspond -

(5)

(6)

ence with Artaxerxes ; the
work ordered to cease.

(3) 1 Esdras iii. 1-v. 6. The feast of

Darius. Zerubbabel obtains
permission to rebuild Temple.

(4) 1 Esdras v. 7-55. Those who

came back with Zerubbabel.

(5) 1 Esdras v. 56-65. Laying the

foundations. Those who had
seen the old house weep, etc.
(G) 1 Esdras v. 66-73. The offer of
the " adversaries " of Judah
and Benjamin is repulsed.

(7) 1 Esdras vi. 1-2. Haggai and

Zechariah incite Zerubbabel
and Jeshua to rebuild the
Temple.

(8) 1 Esdras vi. 3-34. Correspond

ence between the " adver
saries " and Darius.

(9) 1 Esdras vii. 1-15. Temple

dedicated.

Ezra com
pared.

The rest of Ezra and 1 Esdras are similar ; but at the end
1 Esdras reproduces Nehemiah viii. 1-12 the reading of the
Law by Esdras " the chief priest." 3 Nehemiah does not appear
at all on this occasion, and in the verse in which the name occurs
in the Hebrew as " Nehemiah the Tirshatha " the Greek has

1 Ezra iv. 7 ; 1 Esdraa ii. 16.

3 1 Esdras ix. 38-55.

2 1 Esdras iii. 1-v. 6.

22 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

" Tlien spake Attharates to Esdras, the chief priest and
reader." l

The relation of Ezra to 1 Esdras raises the problem whether
1 Esdras is not a translation of an early edition of the book of
Ezra, which at a later date was replaced by the recension found
in the Hebrew canon. If the additions and rearrangement are
expansions of the Hebrew as we now have it, they throw an
important light upon the methods of translators and the liberties
they permitted themselves in producing their versions. This
appears not only in 1 Esdras but elsewhere in the LXX., notably
in Judges, in 1 Samuel (where the whole account of David and
Goliath is re-edited and the inconsistences in the Hebrew narrative
removed by condensing the story), and in the book of Jeremiah.
Either, therefore, translators allowed themselves great freedom in
dealing with their material, or later editors of the Hebrew did so.
The difficulty of deciding as to whether a book or passage
in the Greek Bible is translated from a Semitic language or not
is revealed by the contrary decisions of the experts. The inter
polated passage in 1 Esdras about the Three Youths 2 has been
declared to be unmistakably Greek by some scholars, and equally
clearly to be a translation from the Aramaic by others. As the
same problem occurs in regard to the first half of Acts, similar
methods have to be applied to the solution of both, and similar
hesitation may be expected.

i Macca- The first book of Maccabees is an example of a narrative

originally in Hebrew which has come down only in a Greek
translation. The first part which concerns our purpose is the
story of Judas Maccabaeus told with a markedly religious purpose.
The thought is clearly that of the Old Testament. Yet its
diction lacks that archaic restraint of the early canonical Scrip
tures, and is reminiscent of the last days of biblical composition ;
in its original form it may have been, perhaps, a forecast of the

1 1 Esdras ix. 49. Attharates is probably the same as Tirshatha (governor),
but it appears that Nehemiah s name is deliberately omitted in this text.

2 1 Esdras iii. 1-v. 6.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 23

Hebrew of the Synagogue. Passing over the first chapter as
introductory, the story may be said to begin with Mattathias
and his sons in ch. ii. The narrative commences with a poetic
lament over the fall of Israel. At the end of the same chapter,
Mattathias makes a deathbed speech, in which he gives a
summary of Israel s past like Stephen s in Acts vii. or Paul s in
Acts xiii. 16-4 1. 1 A prayer is recorded as made by Judas and
his company before attacking Gorgias which may be paralleled
by that of the Apostles in Acts iv. 2 There is a tendency to omit
important details, as, for example, what led to the estrangement
between Judas and Nicanor, 3 and to introduce persons without
explanation, like the Assidaeans, mentioned twice in 1 Maccabees.

It is interesting, further, to compare 1 Maccabees with the 2 Macca-
second book bearing that name as showing how the history can para n e i
be checked by an independent document. It was customary
to declare 2 Maccabees to be valueless in comparison with
the earlier history ; but a reaction against this judgment has
set in, and a high value is now, in many quarters, set on the
second book, which possesses an additional interest in being
professedly based on a lost history by Jason of Gyrene. 4 The
parallel chapters are 1 Mace. iif.-vii. and 2 Mace, viii.-xv. In
both, Judas is supported by his four brothers ; but in 1 Maccabees
their names are Joannan, Simon, Eleazar, and Jonathan, and
in 2 Maccabees Simon, Joseph, Jonathan, and Eleazar. Thus,
as with the Twelve Apostles, the names and order differ in the
enumeration. The first victory of Judas is related thus in the two
books :

1 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees.

Judas wins renown by his irregu- viii. 1-7 virtually the same as

lar warfare against Syrians and 1 Mace. iii. 1-9. Philip (Governor

apostates (iii. 1-9). Apollonius of Jerusalem, 2 Mace. v. 22) sends

gathers a host and is defeated, for aid, and Nicanor is sent and with

Judas takes his sword and here- him Gorgias (9) ; with them mer-

1 1 Mace. ii. 49-70. 2 1 Mace. iii. 50-53.

3 1 Mace. vii. 29 f. 4 2 Mace. ii. 23.

24 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

after uses it (10-12). Seron attacks chants come to buy the Jews as

and is defeated at Bethhoron (13- slaves. Nicanor proposes to pay

24). Judas inspires awe (25-26). tribute to Rome with the money

Antioclms Epiphanes leaves for collected (10, 11). Judas divides his

Persia in quest of money, entrusting troops between himself, Simon,

his kingdom to Lysias, who sends Joseph, and Jonathan, appoints

Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias Eleazar to read the holy book, and

against Judah (27-39). They en- attacks and routs Nicanor, who

camp at Emmaus and the merchants escapes to Antioch (12-29). Judas

come to buy the captive Israelite is also said to have attacked Bac-

slaves. The Jews pray solemnly at chides and Timotheus, and to have

Maspha (Mizpah) (40-60). Gorgias killed Philarces, a great enemy of

attempts a surprise ; his army is the Jews, and also Callisthenes.

utterly destroyed by Judas (iv. 1- The next chapter (ix.) relates the

25). Lysias comes in person and is death of Antiochus Epiphanes,

defeated at Bethsura (26-35). Judas which was followed in chapter x.

is now able to rededicate the temple by the rededication of the Temple

(36-61) and to institute the feast. and the institution of the feast.

The above comparison discovers difficulties not wholly dis
similar to those presented by the often-discussed discrepancies
between Acts and Paul s statements in Galatians. From 2 Macca
bees it might be inferred that Judas achieved one single success
over Nicanor and was able to follow it up by the dedication of
the Temple owing to the Syrian power being weakened by the
death of Antiochus. But in the first book the dedication pre
cedes the news that Antiochus was dead : and here the dates
are carefully given, the dedication being in the hundred and
forty-eighth, and the death of Antiochus in the hundred and
forty-ninth year (165-164 B.C.). The same species of difficulty
as to the Apostolic Council meets the student of Acts. There
is no parallel for the differences in the names of the Syrian
leaders in the two Maccabean books. The fact, however, that
2 Maccabees is avowedly an epitome from a larger history
may explain the omission of the fuller details of the first book,
and may also illustrate the brevity with which Acts treats the
adventures of Paul in such a chapter as Acts xviii.

JosepLua With the books of Maccabees ends the list of the canonical

theTo.T, and deutero-canonical histories of the Jews, but the whole
history. ^ ag ^ wag t a k en U p once more by Josephus and rewritten for

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 25

Greek readers. For the student of the New Testament, and
especially of Acts, his methods are of primary importance, for
though trained as a Jew he subsequently acquired a Greek
education, as did probably the writer of Acts. Though the
sources which he used for the later parts of his history are
unknown or lost, for the earlier portion they are preserved in
the Old Testament and Apocrypha. The historian may have
little to learn from his retelling of the story, but the student
of literary methods has no more valuable source of information.

Josephus was apparently acquainted with a text resembling
1 Esdras with the interpolations, and with our book of Nehemiah,
and he evidently was better informed in general history, for he
changes the names of the Persian kings which appear in the
two Ezra documents, viz. : Cyrus [Ahasuerus], Artaxerxes,
Darius, 1 and introduces the name of Cambyses. The Return
from the Captivity is the subject of the eleventh book of the
Antiquities, and Josephus s account is briefly :

Chapter I. 1. Decree of Cyrus obviously taken from
the Bible. 2. Cyrus acted upon a vision of Isaiah, whose Antiq. * i
prophecy he had studied ; perhaps this is a piece of Midrash
added by the historian. 3. Restoration of the vessels from the
Bible ; also a letter to Sisinnes and Sathrabuzanes from Cyrus,
which in Ezra vi. 3-12 is given in connection with Darius s
permission to build the Temple, but helps the story better in this
place.

Chapter II. The Temple work is hindered after the death
of Cyrus by the adversaries of Judah. Cambyses forbids the
work, his name being substituted for that of Artaxerxes in
the Ezra narrative.

Chapter III. 1. Darius, whilst in a private station, had
made a vow to God to restore the Temple ; this is taken from the
words of Zerubbabel to him in 1 Esdras iv. 45. 2 2-10. The
story of the Three Youths and of Zerubbabel s obtaining leave

1 Ezra iv. ff. 24. Ahasuerus is not in 1 Esdras; Josephus, Antiq. xi. 21 f.

2 1 Esdras iv. 45.

26 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple, virtually the same
as in the long section peculiar to .1 Esdras. 1

Chapter IV. 1-7 follow the arrangement of 1 Esdras and
not that of Ezra in relating the opposition of the Cuthaeans or
Samaritans, and the completion of the Temple under Darius. 2
8 relates the celebration of the Passover as in 1 Esdras, and
9 is a section peculiar to Josephus about an embassy of Zerub-
babel and three others to Darius.

Chapter V. The story of Ezra s mission and his reforms in
Jerusalem is continued, as it is in the two Ezra books ; but
the Persian King is here not Artaxerxes, but Xerxes the successor
of Darius. In 6, however, Nehemiah appears, and the narrative
of the book of Nehemiah is related in the historian s own words
down to the rebuilding of the Walls and the repeopling of Jeru
salem. 3 " He left," says Josephus of Nehemiah, " the walls of
Jerusalem an eternal memorial of himself. Now this was done
in the days of Xerxes."

Chapter VI. gives the substance of the book of Esther, and
places it in the days of Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes. From
this it might be inferred that Josephus had other information
which appeared sufficient for him to alter the narrative as he
found it in the Greek of 1 Esdras. He knew, for instance, his
Persian history more correctly. For some reason, or possibly
because he had another text, Josephus says nothing of the
reading of the Law by Ezra 4 or of Nehemiah s absence from
Jerusalem or his return. 5 Nor does he mention Sanballat at
the same time as Nehemiah, but places him a century later in
the time of Alexander the Great, and in a different context.
Josephus As the story of the Maccabees is retold by Josephus, it is

Maccabees P oss ikle to see how one narrative can be checked by another,
as Acts is by the Pauline letters. It is also interesting to observe
how Josephus who wrote in Greek uses 1 Maccabees, originally

1 1 Esdras iii. 1-v. 6. It is thus evident that Josephus used 1 Esdras
rather than the Hebrew Ezra.

2 1 Esdras v. 47-vii. 9, vii. 10-15. 3 Josephus, Antiq. xi. 6-8.
4 Neh. viii. : 1 Esdras ix. 42. 6 Neh. xiii. 6.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 27

written in Hebrew, as his method throws a light on the
possible employment by the author of Acts of Aramaic sources
or their translations.

Josephus follows 1 Maccabees of 2 Maccabees he is ignorant
fairly closely, but here and there he adds to the narrative and
occasionally makes a material alteration : a few examples will
suffice to make this clear.

The speech of Mattathias on his deathbed, In 1 Macca- Speech of
bees the patriotism is biblical. The dying priest exhorts his sons w
to be zealous for the law, and to give their lives for the covenant.
He reminds them of Abraham, Joseph, Phineas, Joshua, Caleb,
David, Elijah, the Three Children, and Daniel. Finally, he
recommends them to take Simon as their counsellor and Judas
as their leader in war. Josephus gives the speech a totally
different aspect. He concludes with the advice about Simon
and Judas ; but he makes Mattathias exhort his sons to preserve
the customs of their country, and to recover the ancient form
of government. Mattathias is represented as philosophising on
the subject of immortality. " Your bodies," he remarks, " are
mortal and subject to fate ; but they receive a sort of im
mortality by the remembrance of what actions they have done."
Josephus obviously had the speech as given in Maccabees, but
thought it unsuitable for his public. 1

The mention of the " Assidaeans " in 1 Maccabees evi- The
dently perplexed Josephus, and he decided to say nothing about
them, either because h^ did not know who they were or because
his readers would not understand. But he clearly had before
him at least one passage mentioning them ; for, after relating
the appointment of Alcimus as high priest, he says that " some
of the people " relying on him, deserted Judas, and obeyed the
orders of Bacchides, the Syrian governor, and were treacherously
murdered. 2 With this may be compared " Luke s " treatment
of the Herodians whom he found in his Marcan material, e.g.
when the warning to beware of the " leaven of the Pharisees

1 1 Mace. ii. 50-68 ; Antiq. xii. G. 3. 2 1 Mace. vii. 13 ; Aniiq. xii. 10. 2.

28 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

and the leaven of Herod " is changed into " the leaven of the
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." l

Dedication The rededication of the Temple after its profanation by

Temple. Antiochus Eplphanes in 1 Maccabees is obviously copied by
Josephus with a few significant variations. 2 The date, 25 Chislev
in the 148th year, is given in both, only Josephus adds the name
of the Macedonian month Apelleus and the Olympiad. He
condenses the narrative by omitting some of the ritual details,
but he adds that the annual feast then instituted was called the
feast of lights. " I suppose because this liberty beyond our
hopes appeared unto us ; and that thence was the name given
to the festival." 3

Treaty with Josephus gives an abbreviated account of the negotiations
between Judas and the Romans. 4 He omits the description
of the Republic as it is given with a childlike simplicity and
inaccuracy in Maccabees. The copy of the treaty with Rome
is condensed and made far less difficult to understand ; and
Josephus adds a subscription saying that it was written by
Eupolemus, son of John, and by Jason, the son of Eleazar, when
Judas was high priest of the nation, and Simon his brother,
general of the armies. Just before Josephus had remarked
that the people had elected Judas high priest, whereas 1 Maccabees
implies that the first of the family to hold the office was
Jonathan. 5

Additions Josephus sometimes either supplements or corrects 1 Macca

bees. He relates an Embassy of the Samaritans to Antiochus
Epiphanes, expressing their readiness to apostatise and to
dedicate their temple on Gerizzim to Zeus Hellenius, quoting
documents ; 6 he gives the name of the officer slain by
Mattathias as Apelles ; 7 he acknowledges that Judas was
defeated by Nicanor at Caphar Salama, whereas 1 Maccabees

1 Luke xii. 1 ; cf. Mk. viii. 15. 2 1 Mace. iv. 42 ff. ; Antiq. xii. 7. 6.

3 Antiq. xii. 7. 7. 4 1 Mace. viii. 1-32 passim; Antiq. xii. 10. 6.

5 Antiq. xii. 10. 6. ; 1 Mace. x. 20. 21. c Antiq. xii. 5. 5.

7 Antiq. xii. 6. 2 ; 1 Mace. ii. 25.

i GREEK AND JEWISH TRADITIONS 29

certainly implies that there was a Jewish victory, though the
concluding words /cal etyvyov ew rrjv 7ro\iv Aauei S are ambiguous,
and the context implies that it may have been the men of
Judas. 1

A comparison of Josephus with Greek and Jewish methods
thus shows how in him the two streams of tradition flowed
together. It remains for others to decide how far or when
he was influenced by the one or the other. 2 The same is
probably true of his great contemporary, the writer of Luke
and Acts ; here, too, the question is still unsettled, and the
editors of this book are anxious to state as emphatically as
possible their conviction that much more can be done by con
sidering how far Luke was Greek and how far Jewish in his
methods of writing. The foundation of all wisdom on this
subject must be a consideration of the use made by Luke of the
Septuagint, of the Gospel of Mark, and of the Greek language
in general.

1 1 Mace. vii. 31, 32; Antiq. xii. 10. 4.

2 The Editors regret that Laqueur s work on this subject reached them too
late to be used. See R. Laqucur, Der judische Historiker Flavins Josephus,
Giessen, 1920.

THE USE OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE IN ACTS

By J. DE ZWAAN

The Greek THE language of the New Testament is the Greek vernacular
of the first century A.D. This fact is established by the study
of Papyri and Inscriptions.

The nature of this vernacular is not easily definable. It is
uniform enough : Egypt does not yield the Copticisms which
one would expect, and real Semitisms are extremely scarce. The
difficulty lies in a peculiarity of the Greek language which cannot
be completely paralleled from any living European tongue except
perhaps from modern Greek itself. Then, as now, the language
which was popularly spoken and even written differed widely
from that used in literature. Compare, for instance, the transla
tion of the preface of Luke into modern literary Greek, published
by the Bible Society, with Pallis s version in the spoken language.

(Bible Society) (Pallis s version)

ETretSr) TroAAoi eTre^etprycrav ETreiS^s ?roAAo6 Trpo(nrdOt](ro.v

va (TWTa^axTL SirjyrjcrLV Trepl TO&gt;V TO va Karaa-TpaxTOW tcrTopia TWV

/zero, 7rA?7/)0(opias /3e/3aico//,eva&gt;v eis Tre/atorrariKwi/ TTOV ^u,a#a/ze, /cantos

/AttVtov, Ka#a&gt;s TrapeSocrav /&gt;tas ra TrapaSeoKav 6o~ot etSav &lt;XTTO

ot air apxfc yevo/xevoi rrjv apx*l Ka ^ SovXti^av TO Aoyo,

KOL VTTrjpfTai TOV Aoyov, a7ro^)ao~to~a KL eyco TTOV

(f)dvrj Kat ets efte evXoyov, O O-TIS OLTTO rrjv Trrjyr] rows oAa

8ir)pevvr](ra rrdvra ^ o,p\rj&lt;^ a/c/Di- va cr ra ypd^&lt;D //e rrj

^8ws, va o~ot ypd\l/(a Kara crapav Aa/x7rpoTaT Geo^tAf, yia va

TOI;TO&gt;V, Kpa.Ti(TT 0eo&lt;/)tAe KaTaAa^is TWV Aoywv TTOV

rrjv dAry^ia.

THE GREEK OF ACTS 31

To such a degree of difference the relative independence of
the literary from the popular idiom has arrived in our days. In
the first century the distance was smaller, but the problems
remain the same for us. Both forms of speech have indeed
always been living their own lives. Even Plato s Dialogues
were not in purely colloquial Greek, though they were much
nearer to it than what we see here. The first problem, therefore,
is to estimate the distance between the two idioms as they
existed in New Testament times. This would require an approxi
mate knowledge of the normal literary and the normal popular
language. With the literary idiom the difficulty is to decide at
what point its archaising tendencies become illegitimate. With
the popular idiom the difficulty is to find out the real laws of
the living speech. Only extensive knowledge of the spoken
language could warrant an opinion on these laws. One can
easily see how difficult this is even in our days. Dealing with
the literary language of to-day, an educated Greek with modern
philological training would be the fit person to decide whether a
given piece of literary prose was unduly archaising or not. A
foreigner might perhaps obtain a sure knowledge of the real
facts about the modern popular KOIVI] by living among the
people and applying methodical research over all the field from
Alexandria to the harbours of the Black Sea. His freedom
from reminiscences from school-days would be an advantage, and
make him perhaps a better observer of the actual state of
the language. Only these methods would be really adequate,
but it is impossible to apply them to New Testament
times.

The situation is, moreover, embarrassed by some tenets of Ruloa of
first century school-craft. Men were as a rule not taught to tion&gt;
mould their literary style on the language as it was spoken by
educated people, but the syntax, grammar, and even the copia
verborum of a long-gone age were set up as a general standard.
The development of the literary language was hampered by this,
and whenever it followed the course of popular speech, it did so

32 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

with a bad conscience. 1 From these preliminaries it becomes
clear why as Radermacher has put it 2 " the Syntax of the
common Greek leaves much room for personal caprice and
preference. ... Its character, contrary to that of Attic Syntax,
may be described as individualistic." This element of individual
preference becomes evident in the different degrees in which real
knowledge and even pedantry on the subject of the syntax of
bygone days was assimilated and applied in practice, and,
secondly, in the various ways in which the exigencies of clear
periodical structure were discarded. Of course this does not
apply to all authors. Those that stand nearest to the popular
idiom are more consistent in following such usages as it had
developed in its own course.

The origin Moreover, the composite origin of the KOIVT) should be taken
KOIV ^ into account. Its main constituents seem to be Attic and Ionic
speech. The influence, either small or great, of other dialects,
especially of those of the North, is still disputed, but Schlageter s 3
studies of the Attic inscriptions abroad seem to have justified
Thumb s 4 opinion that the /coivr) in its nascent stage was formed
by a dominant influence of Attic crossed by an Ionic counter-
current.

1 Polybius is the notable exception, but the Anti-Atticists were powerless
in the schools. Galen, A.D. 130-200, has devoted to this disease of Atticism
a treatise against roi)s eVm^oWas rols &lt;ro\oiKiov&lt;n rfj (/&gt;wt&gt;fj, but no Dante,
Petrarch, or Boccaccio arose to break the old routine by high achievement in
the literary use of the living speech. What remained hidden from their
eyes Dante saw and expressed in the beginning of his De vulgari eloquentia :
" The common speech is the more noble, because it was the first mankind
made use of, because it is of service to the whole world . . . because, finally?
it is natural to us, while the literary idiom enjoys rather an artificial existence."
The labours of the Anti-Atticists were unfruitful, and the irony even of so
great a man as Galen was lost : vi. 633. 4 (Kuhn) TOVTO TO \axwov [sc. TT\V

oi rrjv eTrirpnrTov \//ev5oTraideia.v daKovvres dvofj.6.^eiv ai;iov&lt;n " palaver,"
TOIS Trpb QttKOfflbtv IT&V A^T/fatots diaXeyo^vwv i^/xcD* , dXX ov xi TO?S vvv
iv, or vi. 584. 12 OVTOL [sc. oi larpol] yap old art, r^v y.tv Adrjvaiwv (puvty ovotv
^WTepav rrjs TU&gt;V $XAa&gt;i avdpuwwi , vyteiav d trw/xaros d^LoXoyurepov
TL elvai vo/j.iov(n Trpay/jLa, cf. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalier des
Hettenismus, Strassburg, 1901, p. 253, to whom these facts are due.

2 " Besonderheiten der Koine Syntax," Wiener Studien, 1909, pp. 1 sqq.

3 Schlageter, Der Wortschatz der ausserhalb Attikas gefundenen attischen
Inschriftcv, Strassburg, 1912. * Thumb, op. cit. pp. 202-253.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 33

This Ionic element accounts for the so-called " poetical "
words (e.g. pecrovvicTLov, Acts xvi. 25, xx. 7 ; Luke xi. 5 ;
Mark xiii. 35), 1 and for many of the a?raf elpr)/j,eva t the number
of which is gradually being restricted by the continuous stream
of new documents. Even the Christian meanings of some words
have a less isolated appearance in this light, and appear to be
natural to that freedom in using a living language which a fresh
spiritual message must have.

With the writers of the New Testament, however, other
influences also counted. The translation-Greek of the LXX.
was already in the field as a sort of technical style. In these
terms the Greek of Acts should be defined.

The first question in the case of Acts is how deep the influence Literary
of the literary idiom went, as education, literature, and fashion
together were supporting it. This may be answered by a rapid Actfl -
survey.

The Papyri betray the obsolescence of the Optative in
New Testament times. The more striking therefore would be
the appearance of a use that was extinct there and not too
frequent even in Attic : 2 irplv rj 6 /caTTyyopov/jievos Kara Trpocrw-
TTQV %o(, . . . TOTTOV re a7ro\o&lt;yia^ \dj3oi, (Acts xxv. 16), but the
optative here is rather due to indirect discourse and not really
to an erratic reminiscence of literary style. The Optatives after
el (xvii. 27, xxvii. 12, 39), 3 those which appear in indirect ques
tions (v. 24, x. 17), and the Potential optatives (viii. 31, xvii. 18,
xxvi. 29) are more scarce in the Papyri than in Acts. Peculiar
to Acts and also literary is the use of av after a final 6Vo&gt;9 and of
eW&u after pe\\eiv (iii. 20, xv. 17, xi. 28 [xxiii. 30 HLP],
xxiv. 15, xxvii. 10). So is the Future participle as a circumstantial
equivalent to a final clause of purpose 4 in viii. 27, xxiv. 11, 17,

1 Rutherford, The New Phrynichus, London, 1881, xxxvi. p. 126; cf.
Acts xxvii. 27.

2 Goodwin, Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, London, 1897, 644, and
Robertson, Grammar of the Greek N.T., London, 1914, p. 970.

3 Acts xxiv. 19 is plus royaliste que le roi : Attic either ?x ovcri or ^" Tl tx wfft -

4 Goodwin, op. cit. 840, Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses, 9 Edinburgh,
1898, 442.

VOL. II D

34 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

which might have been more often applied, e.g., in x. 33, xv. 27,
etc. If MS. authority were not so adverse, and the usage of
Acts better fit to inspire confidence on such a point, one would
like to follow the later MSS. in reading also aa-Kaao^voi in Acts
xxv. 13 to get rid of the vexed question of an aorist participle
used of action subsequent to that of the principal verb. 1 This
well marked lack of consistency in syntax and style must have
been a fault in the eyes of contemporary judgment. Some
well-balanced phrases do not sufficiently atone for it, e.g. Acts
xxvi. 29 ev^aijjiriv av T&&amp;gt; eco Kal ev 6\iyw Kal ev f^eydXa) ov
IJLOVOV a a\Xa Kal 2 Trdvras . . . yevecrOai, TOIOVTOVS OTroto? Kal
eya&gt; ... or Acts xv. 24-26, since the more literary expressions
clash again and again with so-called vulgarisms. Even the
modern reader cannot but feel the incongruity between such
Attic forms as r]^j]^ai (v. 2), 3 Icracn (v. 4), constructions like
eyKa\elcrOai with irepL? isolated forms as aKp^eo-rdrrj 5 (v. 5, true
superlative), words like ovpavoOev, and the rest of chapter xxvi.
It is vigorous 6 Greek, but it is not homogeneous. A bold
beginning as : f O0ev, ftacri\ev AsfpiTrTra? ov/c eyevop,7)v aTreiOrjs 8
rfj ovpaviw oTrrao-ia 9 (v. 19 10 ) is in strange contrast with the

1 Radermacher, W. St. xxxi. p. 11 : " Every personality in the world of
letters stands by itself, and even with the best - educated authors one is
never safe from surprises." KffTra.aa.fj.evoi is either subsequent or coincident
action, cf. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses, 3 Edinburgh, 1898, 142-145 ;
Goodwin, op. cit. 152; Blass - Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Griechisch* Gottingen, 1913, 339 ; Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek,
Edinburgh, 1906, vol. i. pp. 132-133.

2 Peculiar to the second part of Acts xix. 26, 27, xxi. 13, xxvi. 29, xxvii. 10.

3 Perfect with present sense.

4 Cf. Trpbs c. gen., " in the interest of," Acts xxvii. 34.

5 Cf. cbs rdxicrra, Acts xvii. 15. 6 Vss. 7, 8 are very effective.

7 The omission of & is not un- Attic and frequent in the Papyri (rjycfjiuv ictpie
et sim.).

8 A litotes of which Luke is fond (second part of Acts) and which he repeats
in the same chapter : ov yap . . . ev ywvtq. (Acts xxvi. 26). OVK 6\lyos xii.
18, xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvii. 4, 12, xix. 23, 24, xxvii. 20; oi&gt;x 6 rvx^ xix. 11, xxviii. 2;
other expressions : i. 5, xiv. 17, xvii. 27, xx. 12, xxi. 39, xxvii. 19. The habit
of returning to a phrase once used is again very obvious here.

9 A Lucan word, also 2 Cor. xii. 1.

10 On v. 20 cf. Blass, Acta Apostolorum, editio philologica, Gottingen, 1895,
p. 268, and Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, London,
1905, p. 382.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 35

changed style of ending (v. 22, 23) : ov&ev e/cro? \ya&gt;v wv re
ol 7rpo(f&gt;ijrai e\d\r)(rav fie\\6vTWv x ryivecrOai Kal Mwtfcrr}?,
el TraOrjTOS o X^to-ro?, el TT^COTO? ef dvacrrdcrecix; ve/cp&v &lt;/&gt;w?
/ji\\t Karajje\\iv rc3 re \aw Kal rot? edveaw. The same may
be observed in the vocabulary as a whole : Ov^o^a^elv (xii. 20),
ofjioOvfjiaSov (ten times in Acts and Rom. xv. 6), TTCLVOLK I (xvi. 34),
i/afl? (xxvii. 41 ), 2 veavtas (vii. 58, xx. 9, xxiii. 17, xxiii. 22 peculiar
to Acts, but also veavicricoL [ii. 17], v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14), local Trpo
(xii. 6, xiv. 13 3 ) instead of e/jLTrpoo-Qev (x. 4, xviii. 17 ; Luke
v. 19, vii. 27, x. 21, xii. 8 bis, xix. 27, xxi. 36), etc., contrasting
with a host of less distinguished words and expressions. In
some cases a striking effect is obtained either consciously or
not just by the use of such uneven Greek. 4 The Ephesian
town-clerk s address opens (xix. 35) with a rhetorical question,
mounts to pathos combined with literary elegance (Kal yap
Kiv$vvevo/jLv 5 eyKaXelo-dai (TTacrews 7repi G rr}? o~ri/jLpov), followed
by a sound genitive absolute (/^T/Se^o? alriov v7rdp%ovTos) .
Then, suddenly, it dies away in the confused construction ire pi
ov ov Svvrjcro/jieOa aTroSovvat, \6yov Trepl rr}? crv(rTpo&lt;f)r)$ ravrr)?.
The dangerous word o-racreax? once being pronounced, the em
barrassment of this too rhetorical dignitary in his efforts to
take it back brings again to the surface the associated Trepi
which had been so elegantly placed the cumbersome style

1 A laboured attraction. The last words Kal Mowers and the next verse
sound very much like headlines from a book of Testimonies, added as an after
thought either by the author or by somebody else.

2 Blass, op. cit. p. 19, thinks it not improbable that a reminiscence of
Homer should be found here.

3 But cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170,* London,
1914, pp. 51-52.

* Cf. C. B. Williams, The Participle in the Book of Acts, Chicago, 1909,
pp. 32-33 on Acts xxi. 34.

5 Again a Lucan word : Lk. viii. 23, Acts xix. 27. Once (different) in
Paul : 1 Cor. xv. 30.

6 Field, Notes on the Translation of the N.T.* Cambridge, 1899, p. 131 ;
Blass, op. cit. p. 213 : Radermacher, Lietzmann s Handbuch zum N.T. i. 1,
p. 99 1 ; Blass-Debrunner, op. cit. 178, prefer, against the usage of the author
and on weak evidence (cf. Hort, The N.T. in the Original Greek, Introduction,
Appendix,~London, 1896, in toe.), a reading which makes the passage less striking.

36 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

reflecting all the while his disturbed state of mind. If freely
invented this touch is a token of consummate skill in reach
ing the effect of eWXr/f t? * by a peculiar 2 but quite adequate
means.

illiterate This uneven character of the Greek of Acts must be largely

ces due to the illiterate documents which went into its composition.
In some places, however, it looks even as if some additional
information on " correct " usage were acquired during the work.
In the Gospel, e.g., ir\r]v is used fifteen times and without excep
tion as an adversative conjunction equalling " But," in Acts it
is never so used, not even in passages of " lower " style.

The unity of authorship of Acts and Luke is, however,
generally accepted on the strength of the apparent unity of
style and syntax. 3 Even the " we " sections 4 correspond in
phraseology 5 with the Gospel, and, conversely, the first chapters
of Acts are in many significant details unmistakably " Lucan." 6
Medical The question of traces of " medical " idiom in Luke has been

language. ^ u ^ e cnan g ec l by the appearance of Cadbury s Style and Literary
Method of Lake (Harvard Theological Studies, vi.), 1920. By
very painstaking methods the whole problem has been sifted out
again, or rather for the first time, as Hobart, 7 even supplemented
with the observations of Harnack 8 and Zahn, 9 cannot be com-

1 KroU, "Die Originalitat Vergils," Neue Jahrbb. xxi., Leipzig, 1908, p. 521 3 ,
quotes Plut. De glor. Ath. iii. 347 a TCUJ/ la-TopLK&v /cpdncrros 6 TTJV dirjyr]&lt;rit&gt;
oxTTTep ypcKprjv irddeai /cat TrpoaxoTrois et SwAoTroiTjcras, cf. the picturesque element
in Acts.

2 Ibid. Longinus, On the Sublime, i. 4, xii. 5.

3 Moulton, op. cit. p. 216 f., e.g. roO + Inf. in Acts; C. B. Williams, op.
cit. pp. 69, 72, participial usage ; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 1 Oxford, 1899,
p. 142 f., compound verbs. For the absolute genitives, see p. 42, n. 3.

4 Acts xvi. 10-17, xx. (4), 5-16, xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16.

5 Hawkins, op. cit. pp. 148-154, 179 f.

6 Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig, 1908, p. 131 f. ; Lukas der Arzt,
Leipzig, 1906, pp. 19-85 ; Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache
und Stil* Leipzig, 1899, pp. 16-18.

7 W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882.

8 Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, l9QQ = Luke the Physician, London,
1907.

9 Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T., Leipzig, 1906 3 = Introduction, New York,
1909.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 37

pared with the conscientious way in which the matter is handled
here. Very significant is the statement on p. 38 f . : " The
question may be ... asked whether the gulf between New
Testament Greek in general and Attic or Atticistic Greek is not
being exaggerated . . . owing to our fresh knowledge of the
vernacular Greek through the papyri. If so, the exaggeration
is probably due to two factors, viz. the overrating of the purely
imitative and classical elements in the so-called Atticists, and
the underrating of the literary element in the vocabulary of the
New Testament writers. I am inclined to revolt slightly also
from the extreme view of Deissmann and Moulton, who minimise
the Semitic or Biblical or Jewish element in the New Testament
and ascribe such phenomena to the vernacular Greek of the
time. I have already indicated that much of Luke s post-
classical vocabulary appears to be due to a distinctly Jewish-
Christian language. This is probably true even of his post-
classical syntax. And still more allowance must be made if it
is assumed that in some parts of his work he consciously imitates
the LXX. or Mark." This view I should like to endorse, as will
appear further in the discussion of the question of translation-
Greek and Semiticising " sacred " prose.

The vocabulary of Luke and Acts is tested by Cadbury on The
pages 10-36 to determine Luke s literary standard by working out
a parallel for A-E with the vocabulary in Schmid s Attidsmus l of Acts
for Dio Chrysostom, Lucian, Aristides, Aelian, and the younger
Philostratus. Words frequent in Attic and later on are omitted
as not characteristic. Five classes are formed, viz. :

A. Common Attic, found in several writers.

B. Only or principally in one prose writer before Aristotle.

C. Absent in Attic prose, but found in poetry.

D. Post-classical prose, including Aristotle.

E. First occurrences in the work under investigation.

For A, B, C, D, E the results for Luke-Acts and for Acts

1 Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern, 1887-97.

38 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

alone are shown in the following table, the last column of which
gives the percentage of the total of significant words.

Class.

Luke-Acts.

Acts.

Percentage.

137

202

119

475

287

100

These results justify the statement quoted above : the post-
classical element is larger than in Dio where it is 21 per cent, in
Lucian 20 per cent, in Aristides 9 per cent, in Aelian 23 per
cent, and in II. Philostratus 16 per cent, but deduction ought to
be made for the necessary use of the vocabulary of " sacred
prose " and for some flaws in Schmid s methods.

More interesting is the next chapter with its extensive notes
on the alleged medical language of Luke, occupying pp. 39-50,
51-64, and followed by an excursus on medical terms in Lucian.
Especially the excursus provides a counter proof, adequate portions
of Lucian being substituted for Luke, which method apparently
justifies the verdict (p. 71) : " There can be no doubt that such
an investigation could produce a volume quite as large as
Hobart s, and that the best examples selected from it would be
found quite as cogent as those of Harnack, Moffatt, and Zahn
to prove by his medical language that Lucian was a physician."

This result is reached by applying a test which has been
strangely neglected in former investigations. Cadbury has
formulated it on p. 50 : " Any sound argument . . . must not
only show a considerable number of terms possibly or probably
medical, 1 but must show that they are more numerous and of

1 Cadbury also quotes from Galen s treatise " On the Natural Faculties "
this unfavourable judgment on the use of technical terms by medical men :
" We, however, for our part, are convinced that the chief merit of language
is clearness, and we know that nothing detracts so much from this as do

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 39

more frequent occurrence than in other writers of his time and
degree of culture. . . . The evidence is cumulative, but it must
also be comparative." Luke should be compared with " non-
professional men, writing with the same culture as Luke and on
similar subjects. If not, the argument of Hobart and the rest
is useless." It may be questioned whether these conditions are
adequately satisfied by the proof that Luke s medical examples
are by no means more striking and abundant than those which
could be collected from Josephus, Philo, Plutarch, or Lucian ;
but the case is really clinched by the lists on pp. 42-45, showing
how overwhelming is the mass of LXX. parallels. Lucian may
be " a fair parallel to Luke " or not, the evidence seems con
clusive that Luke s style does not bear such traces of medical
training and interest as could support an argument from pro
fessional style for " the beloved physician," as the author of the
two books which tradition ascribes to him. He is even guilty
of some passages which make it very doubtful whether he can
have been a physician. 1 But as Cadbury observes on p. 51 :
" One cannot know to-day what an ancient physician would not
have written." Even greater men among them than Luke have
written down very strange things. Moreover, we should be on
our guard not to overrate Luke s degree of culture. The medical
profession was not then what it is now, slaves largely filling its
ranks, and the public did not reserve the name of larpos for a
select few.

But the author s command of the popular icoivr] is perfect. It Luke and

is used to full advantage in Gamaliel s address (Acts v. 38),
eav 77 (as their adversaries are supposing : Subjunctive) ef
dvOpwTTwv . . ., et Se eV eoO ICTTLV (reality) ov Svvtjo-eo-06 KT\*
Here the author betrays himself as composer of the speech as

unfamiliar terms ; accordingly we employ those terms which the bulk of
people (ot TroXXoi) are accustomed to use" (Brock s translation in the Loeb
Classical Library, p. 3, quoted by Cadbury, op. cit. p. 64, note 91).

1 Cf. C. Clemen, in the Theol. Rundschau, x. (1907), p. 102, e.g. the use
of XeTriSes in Acts ix. 18.

2 Radermacher, op. cit. p. 144.

40 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

lie unconsciously has stepped into the place of the person speak
ing. 1 Attention has also been drawn 2 to the accurate use of
the tenses in Acts xv. 37. " Barnabas, with easy forgetfulness
of risk, wishes o-vfjiirapaka^elv Mark Paul refuses av^Trapa\a^-
ftaveiv, to have with them day by day one who had shown himself
unreliable." In Acts xxvi. " The A.V. commits Paul to the
statement that he had actually forced weak Christians to re
nounce their Master. But the sudden abandonment of the
Aorist used up to this point gives a strong grammatical argument
for the alternative rjvdyKafrv : I tried to force. Another
typical instance is G-vvrfbXao-crev (Acts vii. 26). The distinction
between the Present and Aorist Imperatives is in full vigour : ^
Troiei, to stop action in progress (Acts x. 15, xviii. 9, xx. 10) ; //,?)
Trover?;?, to prevent action (vii. 60, ix. 38, xvi. 28, xxiii. 21). Good
vernacular is the use of vTrap^eiv in various constructions, which
is very frequent in Luke and Acts, but altogether absent from
Matthew, Mark, and John. Well known from the Papyri is also
the pronounced preference for the Infinitive passive after verbs
of commanding, etc. This is a decidedly unclassical use, but
it may seem doubtful whether Acts v. 34, xvi. 22 are in conscious
agreement with the classical rule. So with ov + Participle : the
popular tendency was to construe all Infinitives and Participles
with /^;, but for a long time the feeling that ov was yet in all cases
the right negation for statements of fact seems to have lingered.
Literary influence in such cases (Acts vii. 5, xxvi. 22, xxviii.
17-19) is therefore a doubtful assumption. A general estimate
of the author s style and preferences applied to each special case
should guide our judgment here. For such an estimate a test

1 E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa,* Leipzig and Berlin, 1909, p. 482. .

2 By Moulton, op. cit. pp. 128 sqq. : " Luke the Greek physician, and as
such, considering the education of medical men in those times, also a man of
letters." This is, however, asserting too much. It is quite possible that
"Luke was a freedman," but "a man of letters," is, after all, a rather high
distinction. Slaves trained in literature and philosophy were no exception,
but of course neither a current article. The sort of Greek Luke was trained
in I should value with Cadbury rather high, but of his attainment I am
inclined to think less favourably. At most it was rather unequal.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 41

case is presented by Moulton s observation J on the Historic
Present : " Josephus would use the tense as an imitator of the
classics, 2 Mark as a man of the people . . . while Luke would
have Greek education enough to know that it was not common
in cultured speech of his time, but not enough to recall the encourage
ment of classical writers."

After the blurring of old usages, fresh distinctions arose :
GO-?, e.g., is used as a somewhat emphasised relative or in the
sense which in English would be expressed by a demonstrative
and a conjunction, 3 just as is also the Article with places that
occur in the narrative signalled as " stations in the course of a
journey 4 (Acts xvii. 1, xx. 13, xxi. 1-3, xxiii. 32), but xx. 14 sq.
anarthrous," cf. Blass-Debrunner, op. cit. 261 sub. 2. Peculiar
is also o wv 5 in the sense of o oz/o/mfo/Aez/o? in v. 17, xiii. 1 [xiv.
13 D], and also in xxviii. 17. 6

1 Moulton, op. cit. pp. 120-121, quoting Hawkins, op. cit. pp. 113-119. The
Historic Presents in Acts are thirteen in number, nine of them (Hawkins), eight
(Moulton) or " possibly eleven " (Robertson, Grammar, p. 867) occurring in Luke.

2 But Josephus had his " ghosts " (C. Apion. i. 9), who may have earned
these laurels for him.

3 Robertson, Grammar, p. 731, quotes the only instance of 8 n in indirect
question, Acts ix. 6 \a\t]drjffTai trot 6 TL &lt;re Set TroteZV rightly, as a mark of literary
influence, the various reading TL being significant. "Ocra or Tr6.vra. oVa, cf. ix. 16,
would have done quite well.

4 The general rule is that a place named as the end of a journey or of a
distinct part of it is introduced without the Article (but xxviii. 14 TTJV PW/XTJI/, r. 16
regular). Movings from a place already mentioned Jerusalem always excepted
as constantly anarthrous, except v. 28, cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 760
require the Article (xiii. 13-14, xviii. 1-21, 22, but faulty xxi. 7 dirb Trpou).
Places emphasised as stations the text oftenest shows why have the Article.
xxi. 1 Cos and Rhodes (town distinct from the island ?) ; x. 8 turning-point
from which they should return with Peter (in v. 5 merely destination ?), xiv.
21 Derbe, end of the journey ; Lystra, etc., stations on the journey home, xvii.
1, xx. 6, 13-17, xxiii. 32-33. In xxi. 3 e/s Wpov, the vessel was unloaded,
8 efr Kauraplav, end of the voyage, xxviii. 12. In v. 14 e/s rf|v Pu&gt;/n?" =
arrival at the boundary of the ager Eomanus, but v. 16 ds Pufj-yv end of the
travel? end of the crossing, v. 13 of the coasting along Sicily, 13 [Uort6\ovt]
end of the voyage. A mistake seems to lurk perhaps in xxvii. 3, et s 2i5iva :
this is emphasised as a station by Paul s getting "leave to go unto his friends
and refresh himself."

6 Ramsay, Church, p. 52.

6 Cf. p. 57 for the discussion of Torrey s suggestion to explain this as
translation-Greek for di tth.

42 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Increased acquaintance with the living vernacular has
justified much that seemed unwarranted. A slight case is
the omission of 6We9 in acnroi, StareXetre x (Acts xxvii. 33).
The very free use of the partitive genitive would recall the
Semitic constructions with min. The earliest Koivrj, however,
which has left its traces on the pages of Xenophon
knew this construction, and the Papyri have preserved it in a
large number of examples. Even more literary writers than Luke
have sinned against the genitive absolute, the classical rule 2

1 New Phrynichus, ccxliv. p. 342 f.

2 The genitive absolute in Acts :

Chapters i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x.

Good
Dubious .

1
1

Faulty .

Total .
Chapters

3
xi.

1
xii.

1
xiii.

xiv. xv.

xvi.

xvii.

xviii

xix.

XX.

Good

1 2

Dubious .

Faulty .

Total

1 2

Chapters

xxi.

xxii.

xxiii.

xxiv. xxv.

xxvi.

xxvii.

xxvii

Good

3 6

(in total)

Dubious .

3 1

Faulty .

1 2

Total .

7 9

The genitive absolute in the We Sections (and in the remaining parts of

chaps, xvi., xx., etc.) :
Chapters xvi. 10-17. Rest. xx. 5-18. Best. xxi. 1-18. Rest, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16. Rest.

Good

1 2

121

Dubious .

1 1

Faulty .

1 1

Total .112143 16 3

The greater frequency after chapter xvii. is what we should expect. The figures
are apparently in favour of the unity of authorship and the identity of the
author of the we sections and the rest of the narrative. Acts xxi. 10, 31,
xxv. 17 : gen. abs. without noun or pronoun in agreement, frequent in the
Papyri, cf. Moulton, op. cit. p. 74. C. B. Williams, op. cit. pp. 31-32, seems to
apply a different standard, discussing only as " loose constructions " Acts vii.
21, xxi. 17, 34, xxii. 17, xxv. 21. " There are a few other loose constructions
of the genitive absolute in the book. But these few exceptions only emphasise
the fact that the author of the book closely followed the rule to make the
genitive absolute refer to a substantive not connected with the rest of the

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 43

being no longer felt. The same applies to the ace. c. inf. ; Luke
has combined in one verse (Acts xxii. 17) a misuse of both which
appears to be as hard a case as any in the Egyptian documents.
The hinged construction of OTI and ace. c. inf. in chap, xxvii. 10
is, notwithstanding isolated classical instances, a symptom of
degeneration by overgrowth of the constructions with the In
finitive. The indeclinable TrX?^? l has early precedent and, in
Acts, good MS. evidence. Taken from life and thoroughly
vernacular is the dative in ^ev irpd^ (reavra KCLKOV (Acts
xvi. 28). 2

Latinisms might be expected in popular Greek of the first
century, and may serve as an introduction to the less clear case
of Semitisms. The influence of the Latin construction of iubere
c. inf. pass, may be seen in the deviations from classical usage in
favour of infinitive-passive with verbs of commanding (Acts xxiii.
10 being an exception), but the tendency is easily explained by
the clearer sense which this construction gave. Temporal TT/DO
(Acts v. 36, xxi. 38) would be an almost self-evident Latinism but
for Herodotus, Hippocrates, and epigraphical facts prior to any
Latin influence. Very striking is genua ponere and nOevai ra
yovara (Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5 ; Luke xxii. 41 ; Mark
xv. 19), but unless a reason can be suggested for the imitation of
just this expression, spontaneous parallelism may stand as an
alternative. In forensic 3 surroundings Latinisms are of course
natural : Xa/3o^re9 TO Ircavov 4 (Acts xvii. 9), o^recrOe avroL (Acts
xviii. 15), or ayopaloi ayovrcu (Acts xix. 38). A vulgar Latinism
is perhaps ov pera vroXXa? ravras T/yae/m? (Acts i. 5), but it
contains the only instance of the "Lucan" litotes in these first

sentence." It is difficult to judge how connected should be interpreted,
but at least twelve more instances are to be added at all events to those
mentioned by the author.

1 Moulton, op. cit. p. 50.

2 Attic double ace., cf. Radermacher, op. cit. p. 99.

3 " Negative " Latinisms are possibly Sterta (Acts xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30) and
rpterta (xx. 31), corresponding to biennium and triennium.

* A favourite word with Luke : Matt. 3, Mark 3, Luke 10, Acts 19,
Paul 6 occurrences.

44 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

chapters, 1 and this makes inadvertency a less probable explana
tion. It has also been claimed as an Aramaism by Torrey, 2 and
so it will lead us up to the main question of the Greek of Acts,
viz. the so-called Semitisms.

Semitisms. Semitism and Semiticising style are expressions which are
much in need of sharp definition and closer scrutiny. Both
purposes and some more besides will be served by a discussion
of the valuable contribution which Torrey has made to this
subject.

Torrey s This question of Semitisms in Acts has obtained a new

aspect by Torrey s Composition and Date of Acts. It is now
bound up with the larger questions of unity of authorship and
sources by the alleged demonstration of an Aramaic document
extending from i. 16-xv. 35, and translated by Luke. The
remaining chapters he holds to have been written by the same
writer but added as an afterthought. In order to make good
this contention the difference in style between the translated
documents and the rest of the book is emphasised. "It is not
enough to speak of frequent Semitisms ; the truth is that the
language of all these fifteen chapters is translation-Greek through
and through, generally preserving even the order of the words.
In the remainder of the book, chapters xvi.-xxviii., the case is
altogether different. Here there is no evidence of an underlying

1 Somewhat similar is iv. 20 ov dwd^eda . . . /J.TJ XaXeZV. But the first real
litotes is OVK 0X170* xii. 18, cf. xiv. 28, xv. 2, xvii. 4, 12, xix. 23, 24, xxvii. 20.
The first three instances are significant against the " 1 Acts " theory as com
pared with the modification proposed further down in this article. Other
cases are OVK d/mdprvpov, xiv. 17 (again important from this point of view) ;
ov /maxpav, xvii. 27 ; ov rds Tvxovcras, xix. 11, cf. xxviii. 2; ov yuer/nus, xx. 12 ;
OVK dcrrifj.ov 7r6Xews, xxi. 39 ; OVK . . . direi-dris, xxvi. 19 ; ov . . . v yuviq,,
xxvi. 26.

2 Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts (Harvard Theological Studies, i.),
Cambridge, Mass., 1916, pp. 6, 24 claims this as a case of Jewish Aramaic on
the strength of the redundant demonstrative raura?, cf. Dalman, Gramm. des
judisch-paldstinischen Aramaisch, Leipzig, 1 1894, 2 1905, pp. 113 ff. The litotes,
however, is not the less Greek and Latin for this reason. That such a Lucanism
should stand solitary in the beginning of the translation of an Aramaic source
is not unnatural. The author or translator may have abandoned or post
poned the idea of more thoroughly " Lucanising " the style of this document.

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 45

Semitic language. The few apparent Semitisms ( K al l&ov: eyevero
with infill.: rare used in continuing a narrative: Ivwiriov with
genitive : eOero Iv ro&gt; irvev^an TropeveaOai : etc ^ecrov [ev fieato]
avTtov) are chargeable to the KOIVY) ; though their presence may
be due in part to the influence of the translation-Greek which
Luke had so extensively read and written. In either case they
are negligible " (pp. 7, 8).

This statement does not seem to be wholly accurate. To the
" few apparent Semitisms " taking the word in the less precise
sense in which it was used here an imposing array must be
added. Between chapter xviii. and xxii. they are even thickly
enough strewn to impart a distinct colour to the whole. Chapter
xix. is especially characteristic from this point of view, as a
rapid survey will show : (1) eyevero 8e eV r&&amp;gt; TOV A-TroXXw eivat
ev KopivQo) (cf. op. cit. pp. 6 and 7, Acts iv. 30, viii. 6, ix. 3 ; but
also xix. 1, xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17) . . . ; (5) e^afrrio-d^aav els
rb wopa (cf. op. cit. p. 15, Acts iii. 16) . . . ; (8) Sia\y6/jivo&lt;;
Kal treLOwv (cf. op. cit. p. 36, Acts xi. 6 ; but also ekd\ei KOI
eSiSaa/cev, xviii. 25 ; and other instances in chapter xix. 2, 16,
18, 19) . . . ; (9) a)? Se (cf. op. cit. p. 6 -am : teal &&amp;gt;?, Acts i. 10, but
also GO? Se v. 24, vii. 23, viii. 36, ix. 23, x. 7, 17, 25, xiii. 25, 29,
xiv. 5 ; and in " 2 Acts " 18 times) . . . eo-K^ypvvovTo Kal rjTretOovv
(see above, v. 8) /ea/coXoYoiWe? rrjv 6&ov (op. cit. p. 34 ; Acts
ix. 2 ; but also xvi. 17, xviii. 25, 26, xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. 22)
evwTTiov (pp. 6, 7 ; Acts vi. 5 ; cf. xix. 19, xxvii. 35) TOV 7r\ij0ovs
. . . ; (11) Svvd/jLeis . . . o 0eos eiroiei Sta TWV %elpwv (op. cit.
p. 6 ; Acts ii. 23 ; but also xvii. 25, xix. 11, 26, xxi. 11, xxiv. 7,
xxviii. 17) Tlav\ov . . . , (15) cnroKpiOev Be TO irvevjjia . . . eiTrev
avTols (op. cit. p. 7 ; Acts xv. 3, v. 8, iii. 12. The very
common Aramaic -IDNI mi? . . . cf. Dan. iv. 27. The idiom is
also Hebrew) . . . ; (16) KaTaKvpievaas . . . lo-^yaev KaT avT&v
(see above) . . . eK^wyeiv e/c TOV OIKOV eKelvov . . . , (17) TOVTO
$e eyeveTo yvaaTov (op. cit. p. 30 ; Acts iv. 16, y-p, but also
i. 19, ix. 42, xix. 17, xxviii. 22, ii. 14, iv. 16, xxviii. 28) Tracriv . . .
rot? KaTOiKOvo-iv TJ)V ^^^&gt;(7ov . . . 7r7r(Tv &lt;/&gt;. eVt

46 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

(18) 7Jp%ovTo ego/jLo^oyov/jievoi, /cal dva&lt;yye\\ovr&lt;; (see above,
v. 8) . . . ; (19) IvtoTTiov irdvTtov (see above, v. 9) . . . /cal orvve-
tyrifyicrav . . . /cal evpov (Semitic 3rd plural for passive) . . .;
(21) o&gt;9 8e (see above, TDI) e7r\rjpa)6r) ravra (op. cit. pp. 28,
37 ; Acts ii. 1, but also xxiv. 27) e0ero . . . ev TO&gt;
(p. 6, Acts v. 4, see above, p. 8 quoted) TropeveaOai
(23) 7Tpl Trjs 6$ov (see further down) . . . ; (26) ol
yevo/jievoi (see above, v. 11) . . . ; (28) e/cpa^ov \eyovres (see
above v. 8) . . . ; (34) (f)a)vr) eyevero fjuia e/c TTOUVTWV . . .
Kpd^ovres (reduced to Aramaic this would sound much better
and the loose sequence would cause no trouble).

A perusal of these various and unequal cases of Semiticising
Greek is perhaps sufficient to substantiate some doubts. Of
course the style of the first half of Acts is decidedly more
Semitic than that of the second. But it has also often been
observed that within the limits of each of these halves of Acts
the colouring itself is unequal. The usual explanation of the
first fact was found in Luke s sense of local colour. The second
fact, viz. the difference of nuance within each half of the book,
is more difficult to explain consistently. Torrey has recourse
to minimising these shades in both halves, making 1 Acts
" translation-Greek through and through " and 2 Acts almost
pure /coLvrj. Neither the one nor the other seems warranted by
the facts. That this is so follows equally from some considera
tions on the methods which ought to be applied and is confirmed
by the results obtained.
The test of The test of reversion means obviously that a given Greek
phrase which sounds somewhat strange, goes easily into Aramaic.
Now much icoivr}, not even sounding strange even in the order
of the words, has this quality. But strange-sounding Greek may
be due not only to translation, but also to the influence of trans
lation-Greek on original composition. In Luke s case it is evident
that strict account must be kept of this influence. Moreover,
this " Semiticising " style in writing original Greek prose was not
invented by him and applied only for " local colour" but it was

reversion.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 47

the style of " sacred prose." Not only some books of the LXX.
but also the remains of the voluminous and widely read Apo
calyptic writings confirm this. Early Christian literature in
general is written in KOIVY) tinged with the influence of Semiticis-
ing Greek of both these types. 1 To distinguish between these
types, viz. " sacred prose," if Semiticising strongly enough, and
translation - Greek on the other hand is a matter of delicate
handling. Mere reversion is obviously not always a sufficient
test. To deal quite safely some rules must be laid down, among
which these might be followed :

I. Current Septuagintisms are to be eliminated.
II. Cases which can be closely paralleled from the Papyri

should be ruled out.

III. The case for translation-Greek presupposing an under
lying document written either in Aramaic or in Hebrew,
Semitisms which are impossible in one of these lan
guages occurring side by side with such as are only
ascribable to the other are conclusive evidence for
" sacred prose " and against translation-Greek.
IV. The frequency and clearness of the cases should be
tabulated, and the factor of clearness have its test-
value numerically expressed. In this way " stretches "
of weak cases must appear which will enable us to
assign a higher test-value to doubtful numbers which
appear between strong cases.

V. In the case of " 1 Acts " locutions occurring also in " 2
Acts " should count as evidence for translation-Greek
only if they occur in a " stretch " of strong cases.
There is a certain amount of personal equation in this. It
is, however, safer to handle the matter in small doses than other
wise. If one wishes to decide between translation-Greek and
Semiticising prose without such measures, the results cannot
inspire lasting confidence. The criticisms in Dalman s Worte

1 Cf. the quotation from Cadbury, above, p. 37.

48 THE COMPOSITION AND PUEPOSE OF ACTS i

Jesu are very instructive on the value of many alluring sugges
tions even by very competent Semitic and Greek scholars.

After all the question is mainly one of Greek. We have on
the one hand the Papyri, etc., and on the other Jewish and Early
Christian Greek. The first must answer the question : Is this
usage legitimate or Semitic ? The other must solve the diffi
culty whether a given locution is still possible in an original
Semiticising composition or can only be explained as a result
of translation. We may refine our methods as much as possible,
but in the last instance the cases come on the scales of this
balance.

Variations Taking the cases in " 1 Acts " which are discussed, about 85,
as a workable average, the fact of weak and strong " stretches "
at once appears. This was to be expected as Guillemard s
Hebraisms in the New Testament, 1 though utterly antiquated, yet
possesses some test-value and gives about the same results,
chapters, vi., xii., xiii., xiv. being weak.

Giving the results for no more than a provisory estimate, it
appears that the case for i.-v. 16 and ix. 31-xi. 18 is strong, for
vii. doubtful, owing to the difficulty of estimating the value of
separate cases among the host of quotations of which the apology
of Stephen is made up, while chapter xv. rests on one case, the
other instances being doubtful.

The curious fact is that if, therefore, an Aramaic source or
sources be assumed for these " stretches," they coincide with the
rough average result of current source criticism. For that
reason verses v. 16 and xi. 18 are put in, though by philological
means such a sharp dividing line is not obtainable, not even
between " 1 Acts " and the other chapters. As a piece of weak
evidence the cases in chapter xv. might be analysed.

Acts xv. xv - 3 TrpoTrepfydevTes CLTTO is quoted by Torrey 2 as a case of

the Aramaic ]E to denote the agent with a passive verb,

1 Guillemard, Hebraisms, etc., Cambridge, 1879.

2 Op. cit. pp. 7 and 28. The various reading VJTO often occurs, airo being
vulgar. Aw6 has become the rule in modern Greek.

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 49

but cases of this usage from the Papyri and later Greek are
available. Moreover, the same construction occurs in xx. 9.

xv. 4 TrapeSe^Oijcrav diro rr}? fCK\r)(Tias should answer to
Nm$ ]D, but aTrebegavTo 97/^9 ol dBe\(f)oi, xxi. 17, goes as well
into Aramaic, and the passive construction may be paralleled.

xv. 4 oaa o $609 eTroiTjo-ev fjiT avTwv is paralleled in xiv. 27,
but cf. Grinfield, Nov. Test. Gr. ed. Hellenistica, I. ad loc. for
parallels from LXX.

xv. 7 d^&gt; rjfjiepwv dp^aiwv ev vfilv efeXefaro o #eo9 oia rov
o-TO/juaros pov atcovaai, pp. 7, 21, 22, is a strong case for 5 -im
unless the omission of ev vplv by Peshitto and Sahidic should
afterwards appear to be right, which is not very probable. The
case of apxaiwv is not much bettered by reversion ; Peter might
think himself predestined of old just as well as the u/iet? or r)fj,e2&lt;&gt;
he is addressing.

xv. 13 aTrefcpiOr) of James beginning to speak, with parallels
in iii. 12 and v. 8, corresponding to Aramaic and Hebrew
ms, may be paralleled from xix. 15 (see above) and there are
a host of similar cases in the LXX. and some elsewhere.

xv. 18 yvwa-ra CLTT aiwvos is probably direct quotation.

xv. 23 ol Trpeafivrepot, a8eX&lt;/)ot, pp. 7, 39, is a case of exegesis.
The difficulties may be wholly imaginary and " the elder brethren "
the final solution. An adjective may quite well find its place
before aSeX&lt;/&gt;o9, cases being extant in the Papyri.

xv. 28 7T\r)v rovrcov TWV eTrdvayKes may be set right in the
way suggested by Torrey on p. 39, but also without need of any
Aramaic whatever ; cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, Part
iii., sub voce, and Cadbury, op. cit. p. 16, classing it as common
Attic.

xv. 33 cnreXvOrjaav CLTTO, see note on xv. 3.

On xv. 16-18, pp. 38, 39, nothing can be founded. Here the
question of Books of Testimonies comes in. It cannot be dis
carded, since headlines are quoted in xxvi. 23 : el TraOrjTbs 6
Xpiaros and el irpwro* e f avavrdvew ve/epw &lt;/&gt;w9 pe\\ei
K arayye\\eiv rc5 re \a$ teal rot9 eOvwv. The interruption of
VOL. II E

50 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Festus shows that Paul had been pouring out a stream of such
" proof texts " (xxvi. 24 ra 7ro\\a . . . ypd^/jiaTa) referring to
Gospel history (xxvi. 26 ov yap ecrnv ev ycovia TreTrpayfjuevov
rovro) as their fulfilment.

strong and Stronger are the arguments for i. 6-v. 16 and ix. 31-xi. 18.

examples of In the first stretch, discarding all weaker ones, the decisive

p ointe a pp ear to be :

i. 15, ii. 1, 44, 47 ri TC&gt; avro, but of. Cadbury, A.J.Th., July 1920.

i. 22 dp^dfjitvos oVo.

ii. 7 ovyl I8ov.

iii. 16 ecrre/oewcre TO 6Vo//,a for vyLrj Kareo-r^crei/ (cf. below, pp. 141 f.).

iv. 12 TO SeSo/zeVov kv aV^pwTrois.

iv. 25 6 TOV Trarpbs ^/xwi/ Sid 7rvVfj.aros ayiov crTO/xaTOS AaveiS 7rcu8os

O~OV 6L7TIOV.

Perhaps o-vva\io/ievos, i. 4, should be added (p. 23).

In the second stretch the case seems to rest upon five instances :

ix. 31 oiKoSofJLOviJievr} KOL iropevofMevrj TW &lt;/&gt;. T. K.

IX. 32 Slot TTCtVTWV.

x. 15 ovSeTTOTe . . . Trav KOIVOV.

x. 30 aTro Trdprr]&lt;s . . . w/oas (all on p. 34) and a/ofa/xevos (on pp. 6,
23, 25, 36).

Many weaker examples are interspersed and several may be
paralleled from " 2 Acts " :

i. 5 ov perd TroAAas TavTas ^/xepas may be paralleled from Aramaic,

but also from Latin (see above, pp. 43 f.).
i. 10 KGU ws, see above, and cf. xix. 9 o&gt;s Se.
i. 10 KGU I8ov, cf. xvi. 1, xx. 22, 25, xxvii. 24.
ii. 1 ev TW a-v/JiTrXrjpovcrdaL rrjv fjfjiepav Trjs 7rVTryKocrT^s, cf. XIX. 21

(eTrXrjpwOr] Tawa), xxiv. 27 (8tTOS Se TrA^pw^eio-^s).
ii. 22 aTToSeSety/xei ov aTro.
iv. 36 eTTiKXrjOeis aTro, see above XV. 3 Tr/)07re/X(/)^eVTes aTro and XV. 33

aTT6 XvOrjcrav OCTTO.
ii. 23 Sia x l /o5 (x ei /^ v )&gt; c f- xy ii- 25, xix. 11, 26 (see above) ; xxi. 11,

xxiv. 7, xxviii. 17.
ii. 24 wSives TOV Bavdrov is to be read with a capital letter GavdVov,

a personification of death, cf. Od. Sal. xlii. 15, Hos. xiii. 14,

1 Cor. xv. 55.

THE GREEK OF ACTS 51

ii. 33 e^c^eey TOVTO o . . . /^AcTrere *ai aKovT, 7ri&gt;t /mTOS dyi ov being

the reference immediately preceding in the same sentence, cf.

also ii. 17, 18, x. 45 and Grinfield ad loc.
iii. 2 e/&lt; KoiAtas prjrpos avrov, cf. LXX.,

iii. 12 aVeK/oivaTo and v. 8 aireKpiOij, see above xix. 15, xv. 13.
iii. 16 TO oi/o/xa, see above xix. 5 and the use of dvo/xara (i. 15) = persons

and parallels in Papyri and Modern Greek.
iii. 20 Kaipol dva^i ^ecDS UTTO TrpocrioTrov rov xvptov sounds much like a

quotation from some apocalyptic writing.
iii. 24 sounds very much like translation-Greek, though in other

surroundings the case would not be stringent. For o&lt;roi

eAaA^cro.!/ /cat KaTTJyyeiAay see above xix. 8, 9, 16, 18, 19.
iv. 16 yvwrrbv crry/xeiov, see above xix. 17 for yvaxrTos, though &lt;nj^lov

is absent.
iv. 30 ei&gt; rto rrjv X ^P a **T4Vf4V ere for e/cr. T. x&gt; cf. LXX. For similar

constructions cf. xix. 1, xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17.
V. 4 rt on edov Iv rrj KapSip crov, cf. xix. 21 V rw Tryev/zaTi and cf. LXX.

Hagg. ii. 18, Sirac. i. 28.

Besides those adduced above from chapter xix., instances of
about the same doubtful value l might be quoted from " 2 Acts."
The only difference is found in the absence of stringent cases for
translation-Greek and the only occasional presence of patches
of Semitic colour. They are, of course as different in value as
those quoted above from Torrey, the inles laid down above again
not being applied.

xv. 39 eyeyero Se 7rapoixr/xos (rare in class., often in LXX. ; the sub
stantive in Deut. xxix. 28, Jer. xxxii. 37 the construction ey.
TT. instead of Trapw^vvOrjcrav [CTT aAA?)Aovs] absent in LXX.).

XV. 40 Tra.pa8o9f.ls rrj yjtipiTi TOV Kvpiov virb (D a?ro) TCOV aoeA&lt;wv.

xvi. 1 KOL I8ov.

xvi. 2 os /xa/)Tv/3etTo, cf. xxii. 12.

xvi. 3 Kai Aa/?wv 7re/oire/xev.

xvi. 4, 10 a&gt;s Se.

xvi. 16, 17 eyei/ero Se . . . TraiSi o-KTji . . . vTravrrjo-ai ij/xti/, TJTIS . . .
aurvy KaraKoXovOovo-a . . . Kpaev Aeyovo-a . . . 68ov

xvi. 19 e?)X.0V f) e

1 By chance Galatia is in Aramaic Gallia and not Galatiqi as, e.g., Gerarigi
(a district in Philistia). This prevents our solving the riddle (Acts xvi. 6,
xviii. 23) 7-V TaKariK^v x^P av Kai ^pvyiav by retroversion, which otherwise
would have furnished a splendid instance of fallacious proof !

52 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

xvi. 36 aTniyyeiAev . . . rovs Aoyovs rovrows . . . on a7reo~raX,Kav

. . . eeA#oi/TS 7ropevecr$e ev eiprjvr] (cf. XV. 33).
xvi. 40 eeX86vTS oe OLTTO r. &lt;p. io~7J\Oov Trpos rr^v AvSiav KCU iSovres

xvii. 7 KGU ovrot Travres airevavTi [usual meaning is, however, local

over against] TOJV Soy/xarwv Kaio-a/&gt;os 7rpdcro~ovo-i.
XVli. 13 u&gt;s e eyvwcrav . . . ort . . . KarrjyyeXr) iVo TOT; TlavXov.
xvii. 14 eu#ws Se Tore . . . ews 7ri (cf. w? ct s in LXX.).
xvii. 16 Trapw^vvero TO Trvev/xa avTou Iv avTW.
xvii. 17 Kara iracrav rj^cpav.
xvii. 19 SvvdfAeOa yvtovat, cf. Syriac meshkehinan Imeda : why not

e eo~Ttv or the like ?
xvii. 20 r&lt;eyOis ets Tots a/coots T^/XOJV, cf. xi. 22 rjKovcrOr) eis TO, wTa,

sounding much like a negative Semitism.
xvii. 25 UTTO xetpwv dvOpdiTTiviov.

xvii. 26 7roirj(TV 1^ evos ?rav e^vo av^/awTrwv . . . /caTOi/ctas avTwr.
xvii. 31 Iv avS/ot w w/3io-ev, negative Semitism for anna.
xvii. 33 e^fjXOtv K fjLtvov avrwv.
xviii. 2, 3 8ia TO StaTtTa^evai . . . Trpoo-^X^ev avTot, /cat Sia TO

o/xoTex^ ^ e?vai epevev . . . Kal rjp-yd^ovro, y&av yap . . .
xviii. 4 KaTa Trav o"
xviii. 5 ws Se.

xviii. 6 TO alfjia v/xa v CTTI rrjv K(j&gt;aXrjv v/
xviii. 10 AaAet Kat /&gt;t^ crtcoTr^o-^5 . . . ovSets cTTiOrja-tTai &lt;TOL rov

o~ai o~e StOTi Aaos IO-TI /&gt;tot ?roAv5 ev rrj TroAei ravry.
xviii. 23 7roi?^ras ^/aovov . . . e^A^ev Siep^Oyaei/os, cf. xviii. 21 T^V

toprrjv . . . TrotTycrat ets le/ooo-oAv^a.
xviii. 25 OVTOS TJV Kar^^rjfjicvo^ rrjv 6Sbv rov Kvpiov . . . eouv TW

TTvevfJiarL lAaAet /cai eoY
xviii. 26 OVTOS TC ypgaro
xviii. 27 aTroSe^acr^at

In chapters xx. xxviii. a few examples will suffice ; for in
stance xx. 9 KaTeve^Oels CLTTO rov VTTVOV, and xx. 22, 25 KOI vvv
l$ov. In xx. 28 Sta rov aijjiaros rov IBiov would by means of
retroversion yield badma dileh : by his (own) blood, implying that
the ruha dqudsha had assumed flesh and blood in the person of
Jesus. This would be quite interesting and remind one of
Hernias and 2 Cor. iii. 17 o Be icvpios TO Trvev/nd eanv. Yet
it would be mere quicksand to go on. The case is the more
alluring by its Semiticising surroundings : xx. 29 \VKOL

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 53

. . . elcre\V(Tovrai et? u/za? ; xx. 30 e vfjiaiv avrwv avacrr^crovrai
dvSpes \a\ovvres SiecrrpctfA/jieva rov airoGirav rou? fJLadrjras orriaw
eavrwv. Even if the position of this passage did not exclude
the thought of translation-Greek, the fact that {Bapeis would
represent a Hebrew word, the Aramaic using another root, not
meaning " heavy," would be decisive against the theory. Trans
lation-Greek cannot at the same time reflect Hebrew and Aramaic
where these languages differ, this being just the distinguishing
characteristic of Semiticising Greek or " sacred prose " (cf. the
third rule above). In xxi. 5 ore oe eyevero egaprio-at, f^as ra?
Tj/jiepas could be an ashamed Semitism. The root N^Q is re
presented by a more fashionable word than wprcKripovaQai.
The surroundings are again favourable : xxi. 1 &&amp;gt;? oe fyevero
ava^Qr\vai rj/jids arroo-rrao-Qevras air* avrwv and in verse
5 the next words e%e\6ovres erropevo^eOa, where only the
participles blur the Semitic colouring. Further on we find
xxi. 11, 12, 13 7rapaoa)o-ovo-iv els ^etpa? e&va)v. o&gt;? e . . .
Trape/caX-ov/jiev . . . rov /AT) dvafiaivetv avrov et?
rore drreKpidri o UauXo?, and in xxi. 17 aTreSe^avro

Without proceeding any further it is evident that the notion What are
" Semitism " must be sharply defined in order to avoid constant
confusion between translation- Greek and " sacred prose " and
several other misunderstandings.

It is but natural to call every deviation from legitimate Koivf\
in the direction of Semitic idiom a Semitism. Even in cases
where no idiom occurs which cannot be justified thus, Greek
may be said to be " Semiticising " when the crowding together
of otherwise legitimate locutions stamps the passage as tinged
with alien influence. In such a case one decided Aramaism may
turn the scales for translation from Aramaic. With Hebraisms
however distinct, the LXX. will often make the case remain
doubtful.

To see clearly into this matter we should distinguish the
cases which may occur. A man may either have (a) perfect or

54 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

(6) imperfect knowledge of Greek. We may call (a) a " Greek "
and (6) for convenience a " Semite."

Now, either of these two may attempt four things : on the
one hand (I) translation from a Semitic dialect into idiomatic or
(2) into Semiticising Greek, or, on the other hand, (3) original
composition in idiomatic Greek, or (4) in Semiticising Greek.

A "Greek" trying (3) will produce no "Semitisms," a "Semite"
cannot fail to do so. The same holds good of (1), but only
approximately, the underlying Semitic may still shine through
by means of what Psichari calls * " negative Semitisms," that is,
the use of locutions from a higher style, such as Attic, which
would not naturally come in, but are preferred because they
square with a peculiarity of the translated document. 2 We can,
therefore, distinguish between "positive" and "negative" Semit
isms and, what is more important perhaps, between "primary"
and " secondary " ones.

Primary Primary Semitisms are those which a " Semite " commits in

(1) or (3). He is, however, always in danger of betraying him
self by this cause even in cases (2) and (4), since the one source
of these primary or real Semitisms is his imperfect knowledge of
natural Greek. The deviations, however, which a man with
perfect knowledge in this regard for these ends, therefore, a
" Greek " may let pass in cases (1), (2), or (4) have a secondary
cause, secondary because they are due to an extraneous factor :
v Jhe exigencies of the reader whom he is addressing, or of the
documents he is translating. We have still left out of account
the more or less perfect knowledge which this " Greek " author
may have of the Semitic idiom in which his source was written.
Yet with these preliminaries the question of Semitisms in Acts
is perhaps clearly enough put.

Primary Semitisms, either positive or negative, seem to be

1 "Essai sur le grec de la Septante," par Jean Psichari (tyvxapys), Revue
des etudes juives, 1908, Avril.

2 E.g. OVK + participle as an equivalent of Hebrew lo, or tv oj/6/u.ari regularly
for b e shem, while the more popular et s 6fo/m.a is reserved for the few occurrences
of l e shem.

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 55

wholly absent. Secondary Semitisms are especially frequent in
the first fifteen chapters, but are still much in view in the second
half of the book. These secondary Semitisms warrant the hypo
thesis of translation-Greek for i. Ib-v. 16, and so also for ix. 31-
xi. 18. The documents translated were couched in Aramaic of
a Southern dialect with which the translator was not sufficiently
acquainted, being himself from the North.

In the case of chapters vii. and xv. it is difficult to decide
between translation-Greek and mere Semiticising Greek. A slight
presumption in favour of translation-Greek might be found in
the possibility that the author himself acted as translator, but
literal fidelity in translating is very common and Luke has set
his stamp on every chapter of his books.

This possibility that Luke himself was a translator of Aramaic
sources has been brought well within the range of discussion by
the splendid observation of Torrey, 1 viz. that eVi TO avro = lahda.
This betrays a translator from the North, who was ignorant of
the Judean meaning of lahda = o-tyoSpa. 2 Combined with the
Eusebian tradition of Luke s Antiochene descent, the case for
Luke seems to become a good deal stronger.

A discussion of the arguments for the unity of " 1 Acts " as unity of
a whole only partly falls within the scope of this chapter. An " l Acts&gt;
obvious difficulty is perhaps unduly neglected by Torrey on
pp. 64 ff., viz. that this supposed Aramaic author of " 1 Acts "
would have been a veritable dme sceur of Luke. If his Aramaic
went so easily into a Greek that after all is decidedly Lucan,
one might even turn the case the other way round and assume
that Luke had written an Aramaic treatise (as Josephus did),
embodying fragments of Aramaic of Southern provenance. The

1 Torrey, op. cit. pp. 10-14, but cf. Cadbury, A.J.Th., July 1920.

2 On p. 37 Torrey treats xii. 20 dvpo^ax&v as a case for Kin, to be angry,
which, however, is said to have been translated in such a way as to better
agree with the Southern meaning of this root than with the Northern dialect.
But in Cook s Glossary of Aramaic Inscr., Cambridge, 1898, p. 56, this root
is quoted from Zenjirli with the meaning ivrath. As Torrey assigns xii. to
his Aramaic document, a point which would tell against his position may be
ruled out in this way.

56 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

problem of sources in " 1 Acts " is not discarded by making
Luke the translator of an Aramaic document : it seems merely
to shift one step backwards. Moreover, the unity of " 1 Acts "
as " translation - Greek " from one end to the other does not
appear to be proven by conclusive evidence.

A word or two might be added to complete the case. A
dividing line has been drawn above at v. 16, and it is proposed
that v. 17-ix. 30 (with the possible exception of chapter vii.)
should be considered as not necessarily translated from Aramaic,
but as being fully explicable as Semiticising Greek, the secondary
Semitisms being due to the character of the available (written ?)
traditions and to the scene of the narrative. The same applies
to chapter xi. 19-xv. 36, with the possible exception of xv. 1-36.

On pp. 32, 33, however, Torrey discusses v. 17 : dvaa-rds
Be 6 dp^Lepevs KOI Trdvres ol avv avrc*), r) ovora aipecn^ TWV ^a&-
Sovfcaiwv. It is said that one does not " stand up " to be " filled
with anger." The text itself, however, makes it necessary to
refer dvacrrds to Tre(Bd\,ov ra? ^elpa^. If TrXTjcrOevres tyfXov
7T6/3a\ov had been written, not even Wellhausen or Preuschen
would have ventured their " unmoglich" But the text is quite
defensible as Semiticising Greek, and reminds one of Psalm vii. 7
dvacTTrjOi, . . . ev opyrj aov or ci. (cii.) 14 dvao-rds otVret/^crei?
. . . rrjv Setcoz/ and of the constructions of the verb with 9,
eV/, aim, /carevMTriov with a hostile sense. The incongruity of
avaa-rds . . . e7re/3a\ov is a constructio ad sensum quite easy
in ordinary Greek and occurring often enough in the LXX.
Perhaps Hebrew would better answer the purpose than Aramaic
if an underlying document should be accepted. But 77 ovaa
aipecris is said to be (p. 33) a careful reproduction of an Aramaic
locution or rather a Syriac expression which more closely
equals the Greek ovaia. Further, on xiii. 1 Kara rrjv ovaav
KK\rjcriav (p. 37) Torrey says : " The Aramaic was probably
simply (or iTrr) rv n wnn^Si, no accompanying adverb being
necessary, since it was made evident by the context. The com
mentators sometimes compare Rom. xiii. 1, also Acts xviii. 17,

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 57

etc. ; but these passages are not really parallel cases, since in
them the participle, or its equivalent, is indispensable. Other
passages in the Aramaic half of Acts where JTN ^T seems to
be rendered are xi. 22 and xiv. 13."

The use of di ith, however, without tham or thamma = there,
appears to be at least as peculiar as rj ovaa or JJTIS ecmv with fcei
left out. Moreover, this would not fit well in v. 17. In xi. 22 TTJS
ovarjs ev lepovaaXrjp no recourse to Aramaic is wanted, while
xiv. 13 is a different case that should be compared with xxviii.
17 and v. 17. In these three cases rj ovaa, o aw, oi 6Vre? clearly
have the meaning " the so-called." This meaning must have de
veloped from the regular use of the participle followed by some
qualifying statements, e.g. (local), xvi. 3 6Wa? ev rot? roTrot?
, xxii. 5 -7-01)9 efcelcre ovras , (dignity), xxv. 23 rofr /car
ovai (but ttB omit oven), or xix. 35 vewKopov ovaav
(which would give 77 ovaa vew/copos). In the last two cases the
way in which usage has arisen is clear enough, cf. Armitage
Robinson in Ramsay s Church in the Roman Empire, p. 52. l
The case for v. 17 is therefore, to say the least, rather doubtful
and, as it is the first of a series of weak cases, must be abandoned.
This will appear from a rapid survey :

V. 28 rrapayytXip Tra.prjyytcXafj.tv, cf. xxiii. 14, xxviii. 26.

v. 41 &lt;x7ro Trpocrcoirov, LXX. and e.g. xxv. 16 (Kara TrpdcrooTroi/) or xvii.

26 (TTCLV TO irp. rrjs y?js). Neither usage is distinctly Aramaic,
vi. 5 evwTriov Travros rov 7rA?y#ovs, cf. xix. 9, 19 (see above), and

xxvii. 35.

Nothing distinctly Aramaic following, the case for v. 17 as
representing translation-Greek and not an original Semiticising
source or tradition cannot derive the support, which it is in
need of, from the only side left for it.

In spite of its peculiar character chapter vii. ought not to be
omitted. It is said that vii. 13 ev rco Sevrepw (cf. iraKiv IK, Bevrepov,
x. 15, and e/c Bevrepov xi. 9) is Aramaic, but with ev ro&gt; oevrepw
one must supply in thought some word ending in -^09, equi-

1 Cf. also Moulton, Prol. p. 228, and above, p. 41.

58 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

valent to aTravrrjaei, as eyvcopiaBr) is the next word and the story
is treated as well known. Moreover, e/c Bevrepov has seven occur
rences in the LXX. and occurs in the Papyri (Moulton and Milligan,
Part II., s.v., giving one instance of A.D. 123). vii. 23 aveftri eVl
rr)v /capBiav avrov is not distinctly Aramaic and occurs, e.g., in
LXX., Jer. iii. 16, xliv. 21, li. 50, Ezech. xxxviii. 10, Is. Ixv. 16 ;
and dv/3r) (j)dcri,&lt;; rw ^iKidp^w, xxi. 31, reminds one just as much
of the same Aramaic verb. In vii. 38 \6yia %&vra should not
be pressed to render by mistranslation \oyia ^on;?, much nearer
and popular parallels being at hand, viz. the vBcop ^v KOI \a\ovv,
Ignatius Ad Rom. vii. 2, the vBwp of Ezech. xlvii., which is also
found in Od. Sal. vi., xi., xxx. Every student of modern Greek
is reminded also of the favravb vepo. The expression is no more
surprising than 6809 fojcra, Heb. x. 20, or 1 Pet. i. 23 Bid \oyov
^cwz To? Beov KOI JAGVOVTOS, or Heb. iv. 12, ^&v &lt;ydp 6 Xo^o? TOV Oeov
/cr\. The case of vii. 52 At/ouo? for the Messiah is covered by
xxii. 14, and the quotations by the author on p. 33 ; vii. 53
eh Biarayd? dyyeXwv is a curious phrase, but not distinctly
Aramaic and therefore open to explanation by LXX. and
kindred usage.

Equally weak is chapter viii. There is not one tenable case
for translation-Greek here or in chapter ix. up to verse 30. The
instances are : viii. 6 ev TO&gt; d/coveiv avrovs KOL fSKeiTeiv rd arj/jLela
a eTTo/et, cf. xix. 5 (see above), xxii. 6, 17, xxviii. 8, 17. The
corrupt text of viii. 7 is rendered in an Aramaic (p. 34) that
" would almost inevitably " result in this corruption, viii. 10
dvro /jiiKpov eo)9 /jiyd\ov is LXX. and even Greek ; the Bvva/j,is
?] KO\.OV jjuevr] /j,6&lt;yd\rj is a matter of exegesis and icoivrj. That
the deity of Heaven, the great Lord of Heavens (potirSia)
should count in his court among other Bwdjuieis also a " Grand
Vizir," a " Lord of the Palace " (fpiiAw), called the " Great
One," is what should be expected. Why should not the
Samaritans have their Michael as well as the Jews, or the
Tarsians their Sandan ? For ix. 2 TT}? 6Bov cf. above on ch.
xix ; for ix. 3 ev Be TM Tropevecrdai eyevero see above ; ix. 22

THE GREEK OF ACTS 59

is not distinctly Aramaic, and occurs already in
LXX., Judges vi. 34, Ps. li. 7.

For chapter xi. 19-xiv. 28 the average is not better ; xi. 21
rjv %elp Kvplov per avrwv, cf. LXX. (e.g. 2 Sam. iii. 12) ; xi. 22
rjKovo-Qrj Be 6 \6yos eh ra a&gt;ra T% eWXT/o-ta?, cf. above xvii. 20
and LXX., Is. v. 9 rjKovo-0Tj yap et? rd wra Kvpiov ZaftawQ ravra
and 1 Kings x. 6, Gen. xx. 8. Of course this phrase is not dis
tinctly Aramaic, xi. 28 e&lt;/&gt; 6\rji&gt; rrjv ol/covpevrjv cannot be a mis
translation (pp. 20, 21). A man not knowing that NS*IN means
777 (sc. 777 lapafa), 777 in general, and ol/cov^evrj, did not know
enough Aramaic to translate at all. It is a conscious heightening
of colour, a common case of the " laws " of the growth of
legendary narrative. Benigni would call it " quantitative or
proper megalosia." l xii. 3 irpoo-eBero av\\aftelv is a Hebraism
which even Josephus s advisers have let slip through, xii. 10
pvfirjv /jLiav is sound KOLVTJ ; xii. 11 TrpocrSo/cLa is certainly sharper
defined in Torrey s proposed equivalent and would be a distinct
Aramaism, if the equation were necessary or supported by other
strong cases. This not being the case, its inherent weakness is not
taken away (pp. 36, 37). xii. 20 Ov^o^a^wv (see above, p. 55, n.
2) is not stringently for either Aramaic or Hebrew and, moreover,
cf. Plutarch, Demetr. 22, and Qv^o^a^ia, exasperation, Polyaen.
ii. 1. 19, ps.-Justin, 1184. B. xiii. 1 rrjv ovcrav, see above ; xiii. 11
teal vvv IBov, and xxii. 22 a%pi rovrov, cf. LXX. ; xiii. 12 eKir\j]a-
eTrl (p. 7) is good KOLVT) after verbs of emotion ; xiii. 22
v rov AavelS aurot? et? /SacrtXea, LXX. and KOLVT) , xiii. 24

o TTpoa-aiTrov 7-779 claoSov (pp. 7, 29, 37), nothing distinctly
Aramaic, cf. Mai. iii. 1, 2 ; xiii. 25 &&amp;gt;? 8e far\i$pov ^
rbv Spofuiov, cf. Jer. viii. 6 (SieXiTrev 6 rpe-^wv diro rov
avrov) and e.g. ir\r]povv rov xP v (P^ ) or % o8o&lt;;
e? rov dpiOfjiov rovrov, Herodotus ii. 7. Compare, moreover,
Moulton and Milligan, " Lexical Notes from the Papyri " in
Expositor, 1910, ii. pp. 564 f., with instances from the
beyond any suspicion of Aramaism.

1 Cf. Van Gennep, La Formation des legendes, Paris, 1910, p. 293.

60 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

I cannot understand how in xiii. 25 OVK el pi eyw after the
question ri e/u,e vTrovoelre elvai should compel us to think of
the Aramaic NDN N2N. That Blass has stamped ri as " nicht
ertrdglich" is not final. It is quite sound vulgar Greek. Even if
OVK elfu eyw were rightly interpreted " I am not he," it does not
cover ana ana. G. P. Wetter 1 has made the formula ejM el pi
the subject of special research and seems to have ascertained its
currency as part of the theurgical vocabulary. As little dis
tinctly Aramaic is xiv. 2 e/cdfcworav ra? ^ri/^o? rwv e9vtov, cf.
xviii. 10, see above ; xiv. 3 SiSovri a^pela teal repara yiveaOcu and
papTvpovvri, eirl TO) Xo7&) r/)? ^dpiros avrov, cf . LXX. and kindred
literature ; xiv. 8 ^o&gt;Xo? ex KoiXia? ^rjrpos avrov, cf. LXX. ;
xiv. 15 evayye\i^ofjLevot, euro TOVTWV rwv ftaraitov eTmrrpefyew eirl
Oeov ^covra is all LXX. ; xiv. 17 is retroverted on p. 38 into
Trdcrrjs (mikkol = min kol being read as mekal = rpo&lt;pij)

ra? /capSias avrwv as " filling hearts with food
would be "no more Aramaic or Greek than it is English." But
the text is by no means absurd ; e/ATrtTrXwz Tpofyffo KCU evfypo-
ra? tcapblas has been telescoped from &pfrmT\&v
xrjv, which is current in LXX., and tpirnrtibv
rrjv KapSiav, which is equally sound. There are astounding cases
enough of eyn7ri / (/&gt;0 7r ^ 7 7/ u use d by the LXX. in a very strange
way, which make the invocation of Aramaic on this place super
fluous. Therefore, given the absence of distinct Aramaisms in this
stretch, it is decidedly not allowable. For xiv. 27 dvtjyy\\ov
oaa eTTOirjaev 6 0eo? fier* avr&v, cf. above, chapter xv. 4.

These necessary deductions made, Torrey s book has much
furthered the question of Semitisms in Acts. It has provided
some results which, as research will be pushed further with more
refined methods, will perhaps be conclusively proven. If cer
tainty is attained on the extent of the underlying Aramaic, and
the result of these pages, that it extends over i. 16-v. 16, ix. 31-
xi. 18, perhaps also xii. and part of xv. should be confirmed and
corrected by research, the gain for the criticism of Acts would

1 See G. P. : son Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes, Gottingen, 1916.

n THE GREEK OF ACTS 61

not be small. Perhaps also the case for Luke as a translator of
these Aramaic documents could be made more stringent, which
would certainly increase the value of these results.

For the philology of Acts no more can be hoped than an
increased value for some secondary Semitisms in those parts of
the weak stretches, which may perhaps gain the support of some
distinct Aramaisms that will stand criticism. Perhaps also some
primary Semitism may be found which will strengthen the case
for Luke. If it should be discovered in a chapter beyond xv.,
this would be conclusive, but I do not think either of these cases
probable.

Without further reference to the investigations to which the
theory of the composition and date of Acts formulated by Torrey
must give rise, the subject is important enough to justify the
discussion of some more isolated cases of secondary Semitisms.

The replacement of a predicative case by et? (e.g. Acts vii. 21,
xiii. 22-47) might seem a not unnatural extension of the use of
e/9 expressing destination, but it appears in Acts only in the
sphere of LXX. diction. The Papyri and Inscriptions, moreover,
disclaim this suspicion : 1 C.I.G. xiv. 607 et? la aov, Ha)fjL7rt\\a,
/cal 69 Kpiva jSKacrrrio-eiav oarea . . . , or Philologus vii. p. 82
o-re(f)6iv et? ryvfjLvao-iapxov, Pap. Fay. 119 (A.D. 100) f iva ^ et ?
^rwfjiiov ryevrjTcu. A somewhat out -of -place LXX. -ism in the
second part of Acts (xxviii. 15) is justified in the same way. 2
Throughout Acts we observe the construction of ev rf + Inf. It
is one of its characteristic phrases surely apt to provoke Semitic
associations. But we learn from Krapp 3 that the articular
Infinitive governed by a preposition is characteristic of historical
style from the second century B.C. to the first A.D. This helps
us to locate our author in time, and, as far as such a minor

1 Quoted by Radermacher, op. cit. pp. 16, 100, 121 ; cf. Moulton, op. cit.
p. 71.

2 Moulton, op. cit. p. 14, refers to Tebt. Pap. 43 (ii. B.C.) and B.U. 362
(A.D. 215).

3 Der substantivierte Infinitiv, Heidelberg, 1892, quoted by Radermacher,
op. cit. p. 151.

62 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

point will bear the stress, also in the literary world. 1 The
pleonastic demonstrative standing in apposition to a foregoing
noun or, more often, to a participial or equivalent clause is plain
vernacular, though not without classical precedent 2 and as
natural to nearly every language as the so-called "pendant
nominative" is (Acts ii. 23, iv. 10, vii. 35, xv. 17). 3 The
frequent use of periphrastic forms, especially those which seem
to correspond to an Aramaic Imperfect, has raised suspicion.
As has been observed above, possible traces of a Semitic mind
in the second half of Acts should deserve special attention, and
so the Imperfects of elvai with the Present Participle in Acts
xiv. 7, xvi. 12, xviii. 7, xix. 14, xxi. 3, xxii, 19 are important.
In these instances, however, the periphrasis is not real. We
might put a comma between the two parts without damaging
the sense. In Acts xxi. 3 aire^opri^ero was impossible, and in
the clearest case (xxii. 19), tffjbrjv &lt;pv\aKL%cov KCU Sepcov, we should
remember that it occurs in a speech pronounced ev rfj E/fyo&t
StaXe/erft). The Papyri, moreover, give analogous instances of
periphrasis, and an occasional parallel is found even in the
classics. 4 In other tenses it is amply justified by classical
warrant or vernacular usage. Luke has not availed himself of
the advantage which a judicious use of the shades of mean-

1 Luke was consciously a historian, cf. Vogel, op. cit. pp. 12-13 (his use of
the historical books of the LXX., especially 2 Mace., Judges, Samuel, cf. p. 54) ;
Ramsay, St. Paul, passim; though, Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, ii. 2 , 1909,
p. 481, disagrees : " Acts also is relatively isolated as a literary genre, but
to the Hellenic taste it was much less of a foreign product than the Gospels,
for though the wrong conception that it is to be classed as historiography is
done with, yet already the title (of course chosen for this reason) must recall
to the Hellenic mind its own once very voluminous literature of 7r/3cieis."

2 Simcox, Language of the N.T., London, 1899, p. 66, quotes Xenophon,
Ages. 4. 4 oi irpoiKa eS TreirovObres, o5rot ael rjdtws VTrypeTovfft. r&lt; etiepytry,
cf. Symp. viii. 33. Of course the frequency of such a construction may exceed
the limits of natural Greek.

3 Acts vii. 40 is quoted by Moulton, Prol. p. 69, as a typical case in Acts,
though it is a quotation from LXX., cf. also p. 225 and references there.

4 Moulton, op. cit. p. 227, refers to Rutherford, Cl. Rev. xvii. p. 249, for
Thucyd. iv. 54, Antiphon (Fr. M. iii. 67), Aristoph. Ach. 484. In classical
Greek the construction imparts some emphasis.

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 63

ing which this usage is capable of conveying might have
offered. 1

Luke s general attitude towards Semitic influence is therefore character
as hard to define as the extent to which he would or could gemi"!^
have yielded to the opposite force, Atticism or, in general, literary
fashion. We know that he could not possibly have succeeded
as well as Josephus 2 in this direction. We guess that he would
never have leaned to the other side so much as his sources must
have done. A good test case of his attitude in this matter is again
suggested by Moulton (op. cit. p. 16). Luke alone of New Testa
ment writers has substituted in Acts, for the popular eyevero
rfXde and the unidiomatic phrase of translation-Greek eyevero KOI
rj\6e, a construction of eyevero with the Infinitive. This con
struction is an improvement which is warranted by Papyrus
evidence (e.g. lav jevrjrai c. Inf.), and yet it does not fail to recall 3
the sacred style. Such a fine sense in handling the language
justifies us again in ascribing cruder expressions 4 to a dominant
extraneous influence : the translated Aramaic of some of his
sources or the exigencies of an existing more or less " technical "
phraseology, the missionary style of Paul or of other less educated
preachers.

The existence within these limits of something like a "Christian

Greek "

sort of " Christian Greek " is proved, e.g., by the use of 0809 as
equivalent to our words " religion " or " Christianity," Acts ix. 2,
xix. 9, 23, xxii. 4, xxiv. [14] 22, 0809 crwT^pia^ xvi. 17, 6809 rov
Seov or tcvplov, xviii. 25, 26. 5 The absence of the current rvy-
constructions ("by chance," " to happen to ") is perhaps

1 Acts xxv. 10 the Perfect Participle seems to add to the sense of duration ;
in xxvi. 26, however, this is evidently not the case.

2 Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, Strassburg,
1901, pp. 125 f., quotes W. Schmidt, Fleckeisens Jahrbb. xx. pp. 514-517, for the
one Semitism of which Josephus is guilty, viz. Trpoffrideffdai c. Inf. It is
found also once in Acts xii. 3, as has been observed above.

3 ZiW/ify was in the author s vocabulary if he preferred to leave rvyx^vu
alone (Acts xxi. 35).

4 E.g. ds diarayas a.yyt\uv (Acts vii. 53) or rb yev6/j.evov prj/j-a (x. 37)

ev rivi or 6vofj.a tv $ del ffuffrjvai i]fj.ds (iv. 12), and many other cases.

5 Cf. the remarks on this case above.

64 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

also significant. So certainly are the constructions of
with ITTL (Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi. 31, xxii. 19) or ei? (x. 43,
xiv. 23, xix. 4) instead of the dative (v. 14, viii. 12, xvi. 34,
xviii. 8, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 27), which correspond with our to believe
on and to believe in. In the LXX. the prepositional construction
is extremely rare, 1 though it may have been the starting-point.
Even the dative is not used of simple trusting, but it carries a
religious sense, God, an Apostle, or the Scriptures being the
objects. Less markedly Christian is the construction of evay-
&lt;ye\i%ea-6ai. In this case Phrynichus 2 preferred the dative to
the accusative for the person addressed. The technical sense,
" to evangelise" was, of course, favourable for the accusative,
the dative being used only 3 when the message was already
added in the accusative (viii. 35, xvii. 18). The LXX. did, of
course, not yet know this technical sense, and the corresponding
construction is therefore absent.

Greek of The Greek of Acts to summarise the case is essentially

Miring living : it combines conflicting elements into a real unity. This
unity, however, was residing ultimately in the mind of the author.
It was natural for him and this intention has guided him all
along the way to hold the upper side of the popular language.
A sprinkling of more or less literary words and constructions bears
witness to this tendency even in the first chapters, where it was
restrained by the nature of his sources and by an adaptation of
the style to the scene and the persons acting in it. There is also
a generally recognised picturesqueness and dramatic power in
his style and a movement in the narrative which makes it some
times proceed by leaps and bounds. This is perhaps not only
due to the individual character of the author, but it may have

1 Is. xxviii. 16 6 TTHTTetiuv eV avrf ; Sap. Sol. xii. 2 TricrreiVctxrtv eTri ere
Kijpie; Ps. Ixxvii. 26 TricrrejJw ev. Ps. Ixxvii. 36 and Jer. xii. 6 are different
in sense.

2 Ed. Rutherford, ccxxxv. pp. 334 f.

8 Double accusative in Acts xiii. 32, but here the accusative of the message
is taken beforehand from the following clauses.

ii THE GREEK OF ACTS 65

had even a deeper cause. The same is to be observed in Vergil, 1
and there it is signalised as marking Alexandrian influence.
As a reaction against the compact uninterrupted narrative style,
pathetic effects and an episodic composition, meant to give a
dramatic movement to the whole, were preferred. Plutarch 2
appreciated these characteristics in history, and Luke seems to
be in this stream. Yet on the whole his style must have been
a serious drawback. It answered his purposes, being well
adapted to the foreign scene and the exceptional subject, but,
unless more narrative prose of this technique should come to
light, we can but guess that he went far enough in the first half
of his booklet. His personal style is seen in those speeches and
narrative portions of the latter half, where he seems to have
had a free hand, though even here he may have been under the
restraining influence of his Christian readers, and that to a greater
extent than we are able to detect. Yet he undoubtedly is the
most Greek of New Testament writers, 3 perhaps also in this
regard, that he has a fine sense of humour 4 and a certain reserve
of power.

1 Kroll, op. cit. pp. 521 ff., " He aims everywhere at dramatic and pathetic
effects and abandons carelessly whatsoever is not serviceable to these ends.
"EKir\r}$is is the clue to his plan : discarding all attractive prolixity it
steadily mounts towards culminating points which always bear a strong
character of sentiment . . . important preliminaries are often not sketched
or only very briefly, e.g. we do not hear the end of Laocob n, and the union
of Aeneas and Dido is merely alluded to and a part of Aeneas wanderings is
described with a lapidary conciseness which is quite foreign to the traditional
style of epic poetry (e.g. bk. iii. 270 sqq. ). This technique (viz. of the Alex
andrian TTU\\LOV which had won favour during Vergil s youth) is also recalled
by the fact that the narrative does not proceed in an uninterrupted flow but
confines itself from time to time to a sharply limited episode, partly even
coincident with the limits of single books."

2 See above, p. 36, n. 1.

3 Hier. Ep. 20 " qui inter omnes evangelistas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus
f uit, quippe ut medicus." We would not be as sure of this " quippe ut medicus "
as St. Jerome seems to be. The attitude of Galen in the days of the Greek
renaissance under Trajan and Hadrian points in the opposite direction.

4 Of. e.g. McLachlan, St. Luke, the Man and his Work, London, 1919.

VOL. II

Ill

THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS
By WILLIAM KEMP LOWTHER CLARKE

SYNOPSIS
I. VOCABULARY

A. The influence of the LXX. on the vocabulary of Acts as shown by
an examination of (i.) the entire vocabulary, (ii.) peculiar words, (iii.)
characteristic words and phrases.

B. Special affinities of Acts with the apocryphal books, especially :
(i.) 2 and 3 Maccabees, (ii.) Tobit, (iii.) Judith, (iv.) Wisdom, (v.) the
Pseudepigrapha.

C. The bearing of the LXX. on three important problems : (i.) The
/3-text, (ii.) Luke and Josephus, (iii.) Luke s medical language.

II. FORMAL QUOTATIONS

A. Substantially LXX. : (i.) Exact agreement, (ii.) close agreement.

B. Substantial variation from LXX., due to (i.) loose citation, (ii.)
substitution of a gloss, (iii.) adaptation to circumstances of fulfilment,
(iv.) conflation, (v.) recensional causes, (vi.) translational causes.

III. INFORMAL QUOTATIONS, REMINISCENCES, AND ALLUSIONS

A. In the speeches.

(i.) Confirmation of results of previous section,
(ii.) Light on problem of sources of Acts.

B. In the narrative.

(i.) List of passages where influence is possible or probable,
(ii.) Conclusions.

Biblical DR. HATCH in his Essays in Biblical Greek (1889) maintained the

unity of Biblical Greek and the consequent unique importance

m THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 67

of the Greek Old Testament as a guide to the interpretation of
the New. 1 The movement of critical opinion during the ensuing
quarter of a century has been a continued reaction from this
position. Dr. T. K. Abbott (Essays chiefly on the Original Texts
of the Old and New Testaments, 1891) discussed Hatch s work
and concluded that the influence of the LXX. had been much
exaggerated. 2 One verdict of his is worth recording, since it
has been so strikingly confirmed by the course of events. The
number of instances in which the Septuagint alone vouches for
the use of particular words, small comparatively as it is, would
no doubt be considerably diminished if our knowledge of the
current popular language was greater." 3 A fuller treatment of
the subject was provided by Dr. H. A. A. Kennedy in his Sources
of New Testament Greek (1895), the sub-title of which is The
Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the New Testa
ment. His conclusion was that the light thrown by the LXX.
on the New Testament is of considerable importance, but simply
because the LXX. is " the only other record we possess of the
current popular speech prevailing at the time." On this show
ing the LXX. must by now have lost much of its importance,
since the popular speech has become well known, thanks to the
numerous discoveries of papyri in Egypt. The papyrologists, as
was natural, have been inclined to emphasise the importance of
their own contribution to New Testament research, and Professor
Deissmann in Bible Studies (Eng. ed., 1901) minimised the signi
ficance of the LXX. 5 Probably the reaction has gone too
far, and Dr. Milligan s caution was needed : " The denial of a
distinctive Biblical or New Testament Greek is often too
unqualified to-day owing to the recoil from the old position of
treating it as essentially an isolated language, and the whole
question of how far the Greek of the New Testament deviates

1 See especially pp. 10-12. a Pp. 67 ff.

3 P. 87. * P. 137.

6 Pp. 64-70 ; cf. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek (2nd
ed., 1906), passim.

68 THE COMPOSITION AND PUEPOSE OF ACTS

from the Koti^ requires a fuller discussion and statement than
it has yet received." 1

The LXX. The fact is that the LXX. was the Bible of Jews and Christians
alike, and the primitive Church, conscious of being the new Israel
of God, found a natural medium for self-expression in biblical
phraseology. Of course Christian writers vary in the use they
make of the LXX. The second Gospel shows few traces of its
influence, the Lucan writings very many. Dr. Harnack, writing
on the assumption that Luke was of Gentile parentage, remarks
paradoxically : " We must also remember that St. Luke as a
theologian, like all Gentile Christians, was more a man of the
Old Testament than St. Paul, because he had never come to a
real grip with the problem it presented." 2 It is hoped that the
present chapter, devoted to an independent discussion of the
problems of the relation of Acts to the LXX., will throw some
light on the extent to which Luke was " a man of the Old
Testament."

Some have maintained that the dependence of much of the
New Testament, and especially the Lucan writings, on the LXX.
is not to be confined to vocabulary and style. Dr. Selwyn,
who represents such views in England, supposed that much of
the Acts was deliberately composed on LXX. models. 3 Luke
was a prophet and, as such, set himself to find fulfilments of
the Old Testament scriptures in the everyday incidents of
missionary travel. In the course of several books it was impos
sible that Dr. Selwyn should not point out a number of interest
ing parallels between the two Testaments ; but much of his
work seems to suffer from an excess of ingenuity. For instance,
when the apostles entered Macedonia, they are supposed to have
taken with them the book of Joshua or Jesus as a guide-book,

1 Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910), p. xxx.

2 Luke the Physician, p. 127.

3 See St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, The Oracles in the New Testament, 1912.
Cf. also The Christian Prophets, 1900, and some magazine articles. Some
interesting suggestions on the same lines are to be found in Dr. E. A. Abbott s
works.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 69

and to have seen in the topography of Macedonia an almost
exact correspondence with that of Canaan ; the founding of the
church of Philippi was the spiritual antitype of the fall of Jericho,
and so on. 1 But as there are few books of the Old Testament
that have left less mark on the New Testament than Joshua, 2
the theory that it was considered highly significant by primitive
Christian missionaries is improbable. Further, the conception
of the Christian prophets as a new order of scribes, with their
eyes glued to the letter of the Jewish Scriptures, seems curiously
wide of the mark. Nevertheless, the theory that Luke s descrip
tion of events is modelled in certain cases on Old Testament
patterns needs a serious discussion, which will be given in the
concluding section of this chapter. 3

A. (i.) The influence of the LXX. on the language of the Acts Vocabulary,
may be tested first by examining the entire vocabulary. An
overwhelming proportion of the words used in Acts, 88 per cent,
have already occurred in the LXX. 4 But the proportion is
actually less than in the Gospels, the figures for which are
Matthew 93 per cent, Mark 90 per cent, Lk. 92 per cent, John
93 per cent. The reason for this is clear. Luke s 5 vocabulary
is much richer than that of the other evangelists. In the third
Gospel more words 6 are employed than in the first ; and in the
Acts the vocabulary is further increased by the use of terms

1 St. Luke the Prophet, pp. 33-58. The above is a typical specimen of this
author s method.

2 According to Swete, Int. to O.T. in Greek, p. 383, there are no quotations
from Joshua in the N.T.

3 The materials of the following investigation were derived from an independ
ent study of the concordances of Hatch-Redpath and Moulton-Geden ; other
books used will be mentioned where necessary. The LXX. is understood to
mean the books contained in Hatch-Redpath. The later Greek versions, and
with them Theodotion s Daniel, are excluded, but both recensions of Tobit are
included. Unless otherwise stated, Swete s text is implied and Westcott and
Hort s text of the N.T. The choice of books to represent the LXX. is deter
mined solely by the plan of Hatch-Redpath.

4 Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke, p. 5, makes the figure
90 per cent for Luke and Acts together.

5 Luke is used throughout for the auctor ad Theophilum, Lk. for the
third Gospel.

6 Some 300 more.

70 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

descriptive of the conditions of life in the first century of our
era, 1 which could not be expected in the LXX.

Words (ii.) When we come to investigate the words peculiar to Acts,

Acts/* we mus t avail ourselves of the tables provided by Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae (2nd ed.), pp. 198-207. Of 413 words peculiar
to Acts (proper names, Aramaic words, and numerals being
omitted), 261 occur in the LXX. Hawkins reckons 259 ; but
avTo&lt;j)da\p6lv and nerpiuis should be added to his list of LXX.
words. Out of 58 words that occur in Lk. and Acts but no
where else in the New Testament, 51 are found in the LXX.
(7repL\d/ji7T6Lv is not in the LXX. ; the asterisk is omitted in
Hawkins by a misprint 2 ). The figures for all the books may be
given in tabular form.

Not in LXX.

In LXX.

Total of
peculiar Words.

Percentage
found in LXX.

Acts

152

261

413

Lk. + Acts

Lk. ...

188

261

Matt.

112

Mark .

From this it is clear that Luke uses a large number of rare words
which also occur in the LXX., but owing to the quantity of non-
LXX. words also found in his vocabulary, the actual proportions
are not far different from those that obtain in Matthew.

(iii.) Further proof of the exceptional extent to which Luke s
style is influenced by the LXX. is given by a list of characteristic

1 In making the above calculation the pericope adulterae and the ending of
Mark were excluded, as also were proper names, Aramaic words, numerals, and
adjectives derived from numerals. If all the readings given in the concord
ances are included, the proportions are altered only imperceptibly. There is,
of course, a subjective element involved in the decision whether or not certain
forms should be counted as separate words. The figures given cannot be
checked with the aid of Moulton-Geden alone, as the signs of this concordance
do not distinguish between words found in the LXX. and those that occur only
in the later Greek versions.

2 It appears in the 1st edition.

m THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 71

words and phrases in Acts. By this is meant that they occur
at least five times in Acts, and also twice as often as in the rest
of the New Testament, excluding Lk. They reach a total of
69. The following, 68 out of the 69, are found in the LXX., an
asterisk following denoting those which occur at least twenty-five
times, and may therefore be regarded as specially characteristic
of the LXX.

Afy?&lt;r*9, avSpesd$\(f)Oi, av with opt.,* avdyea0ai= (l embark "
(2 Mace. v. 9), dvcupeiv* dvakapftdveiv* (eight times in Acts,
four times in rest, excluding Mark xvi. 19), dvaaTds or dva-
dTroBe^eaOat, d7ro\o&lt;yi(r0ai, drevtteiv, ftrj/jia, j3ov\ij,*
foil, by eVt with ace.,* 71; WCTTO?, SiaX-eyeo-Qai, &id-
Xe/cro?, Stacrcofeu ,* SiaTpiffew, Sia(f)6opd, Siep^eadai withacc.,*
e ai/,* eyKa\eiv, #09, el-Trey Se or elirav Se,* eiVcryea ,* e/carovr-
u-PXns r "? e Xe/7yu,o&lt;ruz 7?,* cvQdSe, e^dyeiv,* e faTrocrreXXet^,*
77 eTTiovaa (rjfjiepa}, eVt/3atVe^,* 7ri,Ka\eiv with prop, noun,*
e &lt;/ncrTamt,* ^77x77/^0., lepOfcraXr/ya,* /catcovv* Ka\ov(jLvo&lt;&gt; with
prop, noun, Kardyeiv,* Karavrav, Karep-^ecrOai,, KeKeveuv* (6)
Xo70? (rov) tcvpiov,* /jLeraTrefjLTrecrdaL, ^7)0-09,* (evt&lV, 6fj.o6vfia-
Sov* ovopari,, opafjia* opL&iv, irals applied to Christ (see Isa.
lii. 13), TraparyiveaOai* Trapa^prj/jia, Trappfjo-id^eo-Ocu, Tra? or
avra? o Xao?,* rd Trept, TriTrXdvai,* 7rX?)$o?,* TrvvOdveaOai,
crepew, Bid crroyu-aro?, o-Tparr)&lt;y6&lt;;,* crvvcSpiov, ravvv, re,* VTTO-
(TTpefaiv, Sid xeipos or xeipwv* ^i\iap^o^. Sixty-eight in
all, of which 33 are " characteristic " in the LXX. One word
only, dvOviraros, of those that are characteristic in the sense
described above, does not occur in the LXX. ; one phrase,
e yeVero foil, by infin., has been omitted from the calculation
owing to the difficulty of verification in the LXX.

For purposes of comparison the corresponding figures for
Lk. are now given. The following words and phrases, occurring
(a) at least five times in Lk. and also (6) at least twice as often
in Lk. as in the rest of the New Testament excluding Acts, 1

1 See Hawkins, op. cit. pp. 15-23, where " characteristic " means occurring

72 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

are found in the LXX., those with asterisks being character
istic in the sense of occurring at least twenty-five times.

Az/acrra9 or dvaardvTes,* OLTTO rov vvv, /3pe(j)os, yiyvecrOai
foil, by GTTL with ace.,* eyevero foil, by /cat,,* eyevero foil, by
finite verb,* el??,* dirdv 7rapa^o\r)v, eiTrev Se or eiTrav 8e,* ev
TO) with infin.,* eVfc&Somt, eiriardrr]^, zfyicrTavai* l$ov yap,
\epovcra\7) p* KaXov/jLevos with names or appellations, Kara-
ia = womb,* \eyeiv 7rapa/3o\r/v, fjuva, z/o/u/co?,
, 7ra9 o or aira&lt;; 6 Xcto?,* TT/DO? used of speaking to,*
? with opt., rt? ef t/yu-wi/, rov before infin.,*

One phrase only, of those that satisfy the above requirements,
eV pea T&V, does not seem to be represented in the LXX. ; of 29
found in the LXX. 14 are " characteristic." 1

In the light of the statistics given in previous sections of
entire vocabulary and peculiar words it would seem that Matthew
was as much influenced by the LXX. as Luke and Acts ; but
such an impression is dispelled by an extract from Hawkins s
list (pp. 4-8) showing the words and phrases characteristic of
Matthew that occur in LXX., the same tests and marks as before
being employed.

Ten occur in the LXX. ava ^wpeiv
av0/j,os, p7]0ev, av\\e&lt;yeiv,

while 9 do not occur dpyvpia plur., /3aai\ia rwv
ovpavwv, fy^dviov, ovap, Trarrjp 6 ev (rot?) ovpavols, irarrjp o
ovpdvios, o-vfju/3ov\iov ^anftdveiv, avvreXeta TOV alwvos, TL CTOL
or vfjilv Sotcel ; 2 some of these prove little or nothing, but an
examination of the figures as a whole, as given below in tabular
form, shows a marked difference between the two writers in
their relation to the LXX. 3

at least four times in Lk., and also at least twice as often in Lk. as in Matthew
and Mark together. The test here is made stricter in order to economise space.

1 E7^ero foil, by infin. is omitted as before.

2 I Sou after gen. abs. is omitted owing to difficulty of verification.

3 The above lists, though as full as possible, are not necessarily exhaustive.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 73

Characteristic
Words and Phrases.

Occurring in
LXX

Characteristic
in LXX.

Acts

Lk. .

Matt. .

B. The vocabulary of Luke, far more than that of the other Lukan
evangelists, is akin to that of the Apocryphal books. Out of
261 words peculiar to Acts which occur in the LXX., 59 are found Apocrypha,
only in those books which have no Hebrew equivalent (Sirach
being counted as such for this purpose). They are as follows :
ayvcticrTOs, dvaSibovai, av(JLK,pi&lt;Ti&lt;$-&gt; dvarpe&lt;piv, civTi/cpvs (in
Neh. xii. 8 N*AB omit) avro^OaX.p.elv, diraaTrd^eadai, d&Kelv,
acr/Aeva)$, d^i^is, (Biwo-is, Srjfjioo-ios, Stdyvtoo-is, Siavveiv, el&lt;r-

/, eK7r\r]povv, KTr\r)pw&gt;a-is, etcreveia,
eTTtfcovpia,

iepocrv\os, /ca9r}/jLpw6s,

pear over 6 a i, /jLerplcos, ovpavoOev, o^XelaOai, Trdvrr), Trapcuvelv,
Trepiao-TpaTTTeii , Trepipriyvvvai, irepirpeTreiv, TrXou?,
ys, 7rpo(ra7rL\6i(T0ai, irpoo KX.iveo dai, Trporeiveiv, Trpo-
,, Trvpd, pwvvvaOcu, o-tcafaj, aKevtf, o-vvSpojjLij, avv-
reKfjbrjpiov, vTrrjpeTeiv, vnro^wvvvvai^ ^tXaz^pcoTrw?,
&lt;f)i\o(f)pova)s, fyvKaKi^eiv, ^Xevd^etv.

Compare the corresponding figures for the other books. 1

Of 51 LXX. words peculiar to Lk. + Acts 3 are in Apocrypha only.

188 Lk. 28

,, 76 Matt. 9

M 40 Mark 5

The afiinities extend to phrases as well as individual words,
and suggest that Luke was familiar with some at least of the
Apocryphal books.

The resemblance between the Greek of these books and that 2 and 3

Maccabees.

1 See Hawkins, pp. 198-201

74 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

of ;the Lucan writings has been noticed ere now, 1 but the figures
given here may prove of interest. Of 2061 words in 2 Maccabees
765 (or 37 per cent) recur in Acts, 737 (35 per cent) in Lk.,
626 (30 per cent) in Matthew, 469 (22 per cent) in Hebrews. Of
1267 words in 3 Maccabees 561 (44 per cent) recur in Acts, 549
(43 per cent) in Lk., 441 (34 per cent) in Matthew, 356 (28 per
cent) in Hebrews. 2 When allowance has been made on the one
hand for the smaller extent of Hebrews, and on the other for
the number of common words which must inevitably be found in
every book, the degree of affinity evinced by Lk.-Acts and
Hebrews towards 2 and 3 Maccabees seems substantially the
same. The extent to which Luke s style resembles that of these
books appears also from an examination of peculiar words.

In the whole Greek Bible two words occur only in 2 and
3 Maccabees and Matthew : Sterr;?, ^Xa/xi;?. There are none
confined to 2 and 3 Maccabees and Mark, whereas 9 words
are found only in Lk. and 2 and 3 Maccabees aycovia (?),
arep, avo-rypos, eirifcpiveiv, ic\icria, TreptaTrreiv,
o-vvTvy%dveiv ; and no less than 27 only in Acts and
2 and 3 Maccabees avd/cpLcris, avri/cpv? (in Neh. xii. 8 N*AB
omit), dafcelv, dcr[jLevws, a&lt;$&gt;i%i&lt;$, Sry/tocrto?, Siavveiv,

fcaTacrT6\\i,v, fJiecrToiHrOai, fjLerpiws, irapaivelv,
TrepLprjyvvvat,, TrpoatcXLveo-Qai, irporelveiv, pcovvvo-Qai,
avveTTeo-OaL, vTro^covvvvai,, (j)t,\av0p(D7rci)s.

These figures suggest that Luke may have read 2 and 3
Maccabees before writing Acts. In the case of 2 Maccabees the
suggestion is highly probable. It was no doubt known to the
author of Hebrews, who belonged to the same literary circles

1 E.g. by Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 105.

2 These figures are given in good faith, but not more than approximate
accuracy is claimed for them. The labour entailed by an effort after complete
inerrancy seemed hardly worth the while. The method employed was to make
out a list of words from the LXX. concordance, verifying in Swete wherever
the reading seemed doubtful, and omitting proper names and numerals ; then
to compare them with Moulton-Geden, counting all words given there as N.T.
words. See Cadbury, op. cit. p. 7, for some similar investigations.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 75

as Luke. 1 A number of phrases in Acts have no parallels in
the whole Greek Bible except in 2 Maccabees. For example,
TTJV /cap&tav, Acts xvi. 14, 2 Mace. i. 4 ;

or %ITWVCLS, Acts xvi. 22, 2 Mace. iv. 38 ;

, Acts xxviii. 23, 2 Mace. iii. 14, xiv. 21 (? Tobit v. 6) ;
Acts xxiv. 3, TroXX?}? elp^vrj^ rvy^dvovre^ . . . Sta rrj? err}?
Trpovoias, may be modelled on 2 Mace. iv. 6 avev /SacuX^/c?}?
Trpovolas dbvvarov elvai Tv%elv elpjjvrjs. The courtly use of
Trpovoia in reference to a ruler is the same in both passages, and
Tuy%dvLv elprjvTjs is not found elsewhere in the Greek Bible.
But the most important instance is the description of the death
of Herod, which seems to be dependent on 2 Maccabees in its
use of traditional material to describe the death of a persecutor ;
the parallels are best shown in two columns. 2

Acts xii. 2 Mace. ix.

20. -rjv 5e dv^^a^y. 4. 7ra/3$ts TOJ $v/xa).

22. Oeov (jxDvrj. 10. TOV . . . TO) i/ ovpaviiov acrr/xoi

aTTTfcrOat SoKovvra (cf. Isa.
xiv. 13).

23. 7rdra^v avrov ayyeAos Kvpiov. 5. o 8e 7ravre7ro7rr?^s Kvpios 6 ^e^s

TOV ]-(Tpa.rj\ 7ro.Ta^v avrov
(cf. 2 Kings xix. 35.)

1 E.g. Heb. xi. 34 f. = 2 Mace. viii. 24, vi. 19, 28 ; for other parallels see
Moffatt, Int. to N.T. p. 32.

Clement of Alexandria deduced from the style of Hebrews that it was a
Greek edition made by Luke of an original Hebrew letter of Paul (see Eus.
H.E. vi. 14). The hypothesis has found supporters up to the present day,
see Moffatt, Int. pp. 435 ff., for the arguments in its favour, and Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae (2nd ed.), pp. 192 /., for lists of words common to the Lucan
writings and the other Gospels on the one side, and Hebrews on the other.
Moffatt s own conclusion is that " community of atmosphere is all that can
fairly be postulated." According to Moulton Luke was " the only N.T. writer
except the author of Hebrews to show any conscious attention to Greek ideas
of style " (Grammar, p. 18). This fact might be considered sufficient in itself
to account for the similarity of style, but it seems unlikely that the develop
ment of the church at this stage was so far advanced as to admit of two
unconnected literary circles with the same atmosphere.

2 These and all other parallels in this chapter are given for what they
are worth ; probably recent criticism has exaggerated their value. Many
apparent instances of borrowing are in reality examples of two writers making
independent use of the common literary stock of the period.

76 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

avO* &v OVK eSwKtv T?)I 86av 4. virep^dvM^. 7. VTreprj^a

ra&gt; $eu).
Kal yevo/xevos &lt;rK(Xr)K6f3pu&gt;Tos 9. wcrre KOL IK rov craj/iaros

15.

xiii. 1. Mava-^r re Hpajc ov ... 29. TrapeKOfMifero Se TO crtu/za

&lt;TVVTpO(j&gt;OS. AlTTTTOS 6

Most of these are resemblances of thought rather than language,
and would hardly be worthy of attention, if it were not for the
two striking linguistic parallels at the end. The avewAT^o/Spwro?
of Acts seems to be inspired by the olwvo[3p(i)Tov&lt;$ of Maccabees, 1
and we have a reference to the avvrpofyos (here only in New
Testament, very rare in LXX.) of the persecutor ; but in a totally
different connection. 2

Tobit. Tobit seems to have been known to Luke, 3 so traces in Acts

are to be expected. The story of Paul s blindness reminds us
of Tobit s similar affliction. Xevr/Se? (here only in New Testa
ment), ix. 18, fell from Paul s eyes ; cf. Tobit iii. 17, xi. 12,
where XeTrtfeii/ is used in the corresponding context. As the
blind Paul needed men as xeipaywyovvres (not elsewhere in New
Testament except xxii. 11), so the men of Nineveh were surprised
to find Tobit VTTO yu/^Se^o? xeipaycoyov/Aevov (xi. 16 N, elsewhere
in LXX. only Judges xvi. 26 A). 4

Judith. Judith was known to the author of Hebrews, 5 possibly also

to Luke. The speech of Stephen belongs to a fixed literary type,

1 I find I have been anticipated in this suggestion, see Selwyn, Oracles in
the N.T. pp. 99-113.

2 It is noticeable that the authors of Acts and 2 Maccabees are both fond
of introducing angels. Perhaps Luke may have dealt with his source, written
or oral, for Acts xii. in the same way as the author of 2 Maccabees may be
supposed to have treated Jason s narrative.

3 E.g. Lk. xv. 20 = Tobit xi. 9; see Simpson in Charles s Apocrypha, i. 199.

4 If the above suggestion is correct, Luke may have spoken of \eiri8es in
allusion to the well-known story, and added dxrei as a kind of apology for the
expression. This would answer the objection of Preuschen, who calls the word
in this context " eine sehr unmedizinische volkstiimliche Vorstellung."

5 Heb. xi. 34 7ra/&gt;e/i/3oAas ZitXivav dXXorpiuv ; cf. 1 Clem. 55 Iovdi.6
. . . TjTTjcraro . . . tt\0U&gt; et s rr/v Trape/j.^o\T]v r&v d\Xo0^Xw . The whole
chapter is a commentary on the Hebrews passage ; see R. Harris, ttidt Lights
on New Testament Research, pp. 169, 170.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 77

an early example of which is found in Jud. v. 5 ff. (apart from
the original passage, Exod. i. 10, Karacro^i^eaOai occurs in the
Greek Bible only in Jud. v. 11, x. 19 ; Acts vii. 19). Jud. v.
20, 21 may be compared with Acts v. 38, 39 ; o-vvSpofiy, apart
from 3 Mace. iii. 8, comes in the Greek Bible only in Jud. x. 18
and Acts xxi. 30, in Judith with 7ra/3e//,/3oX?;, in Acts with
irap/jL/3o\tj in the same context, xxi. 34 ; KaOrj^epivos is found
twice only in the Greek Bible, Jud. xii. 15 and Acts vi. 1, in
similar contexts.

There is a probability that the description of Judas in i. 18, Wisdom.
and especially the curious use of Trprjvijs (=" swollen " ?),
was suggested by Wisd. iv. 19 : teal GGOVTCLL yaera rovro els
art/jiov fcal ei9 vftpiv ev veicpols St alcovos, ort pij^ei
d&lt;pd)i&gt;ovs Trprjpels, KOL crakevcrei avrovs etc 6e/jL\ia&gt;v. 1

Certain affinities which exist between Acts and the Pseud- Pseud-
epigrapha may be fitly discussed at this point. As might be e|
expected, they are of secondary importance, since the eschato-
logical motive, dominant in the Jewish Apocalypses, has left
but faint traces in Acts. The data may be treated under three
heads : (a) a parallel to the prison story of Acts xvi. from the
Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs ; (6) elements in the narrative
of the speech and death of Stephen possibly derived from Jewish
Apocalypses ; (c) some other parallels. The references added in
brackets are to Dr. Charles s edition of the Apocrypha and Pseud-
epigrapha, 1913.

(a) Acts xvi. Testament of Joseph viii. 2

(Charles, ii. 349).

23. TroAAas Se 7ri#ei Tes avrots 4. KOU eA#wv 6 dv?}/3 avr^Js e /^aAe
/3aAov ei s &lt;f&gt;v\a- fj, ct? &lt;&gt;v XciKrjv kv TUJ avrov

rr
tipKTrjv.

1 See F. H. Chase, J.T.S., January 1912, and R. Harris, Am. Journ. of Theol.,
January 1914.

2 Dr. Charles s edition of the Greek text. Most of this section is taken from
a note of mine in J,T.S., xv. (1914) p. 599, with the permission of the editors.

78 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

24. os irapayyeXiav TOiavTijv Aa- 5. Kat o e &gt;s
Btov e/2aAev avTOvs et? T?)V

tv TO is oWjaois, f)
OTTO TTS

TroSas r}(r&lt;f)aX.i(raTO avrwv ei

(a)

25. KaTaSe TO/xecrovvKTtov IlauAos ^Oaa 5e ^r^-

Kat 2tAa?

VfJLVOVV TOV

29.

vii. 3. TOTe ovv tvKaipiav Xafiovo-a
//e.

The two narratives have in common (i.) a beating ; (ii.) a double
casting into prison ; (iii.) the mention of bonds; (iv.) the con
necting of a house with the prison, see Acts xvi. 34 ; (v.) two
words $eo-fjio&lt;j)v\aj; and eTraKpoaaOai which do not occur else
where in the Greek Bible, though ap^tSeo-fjio^vXa^ is found in
Gen. xxxix. ; and (vi.) one word elo-TrrjSdv the only other
occurrence of which in the Greek Bible is Amos v. 19. The
effect is cumulative, and some literary connection between the
two passages becomes highly probable.

(6) The following parallels to the story of Stephen are worthy
of notice. I offer no opinion as to the extent to which Christian
elements occur in these apocalyptic writings.

Acts vii. Ass. Mos. iii. 11 (Charles, ii. 417).

36. ofrros egyyayev CLVTOVS irorfa-as Moses . . . who suffered many

Te/oaTa Kat cn?//.6?a Iv TTJ things in Egypt and in the Red

AtyuTTTw Kat Iv RpvOpp Sea and in the wilderness during

GaAao-o-^ Kai Iv TTJ Ipvj/^w forty years. 1

1 This combination of words does not occur in the LXX.

m THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 79

Apoc. Mos. xxxiii. 2 (ii. 149).

55. uiTtvicras ets TOV ovpavov e?8ei/ And she [Eve] gazed steadfastly
S6av Beov Kal li^crovv ctrrwra into heaven, and beheld a chariot
e /c 8et&lt;oi/ TOV 6eov ... of light . . .

Apoc. Mos. xlii. 8 (ii. 153). l

59, 60. TOV ^T&lt;f&gt;avov 7rt/caAov- But after she had prayed, she
IJLCVOV /cat XeyovTa Kvpit gazed heavenwards and groaned
ITJO-OU, 8tat, r5 7rveu/xa fiov aloud and smote her breast and
. . . /ecu TOVTO elTrwv l/voi/xiy^ry. said : " God of all, receive my

spirit," and straightway she
delivered up her spirit to God.

In illustration of Acts vii. 38, TOV dy&lt;ye\ov TOV \CL\OVVTOS
avTu&gt; ev rq&gt; opei 2ti&gt;a, may be adduced Jub. i. 27, ii. 1 (Charles,
ii. 13), where the angel talks with Moses on the mount, and the
(later) preface to Apoc. Mos. (ii. 138), where the angel is
identified as Michael.

(c) Acts i. 8 eo&gt;9 eV^arou 7-779 7/79. Cf. Ps. Sol. viii. 16,
where Pompey is described as TOV djr ecr^aTov 7-779 7179 (ed. Ryle
and James, Charles, ii. 641).

Acts i. 18 77/9771/779 yevo/jievos \d/cr)crev /-ie&lt;ro9, real ^e^v6rj
TrdvTa TO, &lt;T7r\dyxva avTov. Cf. The Story of Ahikar, viii. 38,
Arabic (Charles, ii. 776). " And when Nadad heard that speech
from his uncle Haiqar, he swelled up immediately and became
like a blown-out bladder. And his limbs swelled and his legs
and his feet and his side, and he was torn and his belly burst
asunder and his entrails were scattered, and he perished, and
died. And his latter end was destruction and he went to hell."
Cf. Acts i. 25 ; if rrprfv^ in i. 18 may be translated " swollen "
(see p. 77) the resemblance becomes more striking.

Acts ii. 8 UdpOot, teal MrjSot. Cf. 1 Enoch Ivi. 5 (ii. 222),
where the " Parthians and Medes" are " the chief nations in the
league against Israel " (Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1912, in loc.).

Acts viii. 10 OUT09 GCTTIV 77 AiWyLU9 TOV deov 77 Ka\ov/j,evr)
Cf. Jub. xl. 7 (ii. 71), where the PJgyptians proclaim

1 See Charles, ii. 126, where the editor apparently sees no Christian influence
here.

80 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

before Joseph " El, El wa AUrer" rendered by Charles, " God,
God, the Mighty One of God," and explained as " the title of a
great magician."

C. There are three important questions which arise in
connection with Acts, in each of which it is natural to ask
what bearing, if any, the LXX. has on the problem : (i.) the
" Western " or /3-text, (ii.) Luke and Josephus, (iii.) the author s
medical phraseology.

(i.) The There are some 50 words 1 used in the Codex Bezae version

of Acts, which do not occur elsewhere in the true text of Lk.
or Acts, it being assumed for this purpose that the Westcott and
Hort text is the true one.

Thirty-one of these are found in the LXX. : Sei^ivov iii. 1,
a(f)vp6v iii. 8, crvveKTTopevecrOai iii. 11, ftapvveiv iii. 14, evepyeia
iv. 24, Sidicpio-is iv. 32, eyfc\eleiv v. 23, (JLiaivew v. 38, rvpavvos
v. 39, &lt;f)vya$eveiv vii. 29, SiaXi/jbTrdveiv viii. 24, xvii. 13, a/u/^o?
vii. 24, Trpoo-ejyi^eiv x. 25, ^laaa^elv x. 25, /3e\riov x. 28,
dfcovcrTos xi. 1, 7TL\d/ji7reLv xii. 7, vvcrtfeiv xii. 7, /3a$yno? xii.
10, eTTiTvy^dveiv xiii. 29, eiriOveiv xiv. 13, iiria-eiziv xiv. 19,
xvi. 19, avafJUfjuvrjcrKeiv xvi. 35, avaino? xvi. 37,
xvii. 30, evriOevai xviii. 4, Kara/3odv xviii. 13,
xix. 12, %opteiew xix. 14, evd\\ea6ai xix. 16
dfji(f)o$oi&gt; xix. 28, TrXetcrro? xix. 32, dvep^ecr9ai xxi. 11.

On the other hand, 19 do not occur in the LXX. :
(Tvv&pios v. 35, e7r^et p?crfc9 xii. 3, rv^ov xii. 15, efavofyeiv
xii. 16, TJSio-ra xiii. 8, erepcos xiii. 35, dvd\\ecr0aL xiv. 10, ^670)9
xv. 4, crv^TJTrjcris xv. 7, eirifcpd^eiv xvi. 39, Suo-ropelv xvii. 23,
aTroKaXeiv xviii. 25, a-vyKaraveveiv xviii. 26, o-vvre^virr]^ xix. 25,

7T6/A7TTat09 XX. 6, L7roXayU-7r&lt;Z9 XX. 8, 7TOTa7TW9 XX. 18, 0/40(76 XX.

19, Karafywvelv xxii. 24, TrpoaTelveiv xxii. 25.

Several words in the above lists are clearly scribal blunders,
and it must be remembered that a corrupt text, such as Codex
Bezae confessedly is, comes badly out of such an inquiry. How-

1 These lists, though as full as I have been able to make them, are not
necessarily exhaustive.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 81

ever, the evidence, so far as it goes, does not suggest any marked
difference between the a and /3 texts in their relation towards
the LXX. In two instances the author of the Bezan gloss seems
to use the Hellenistic Old Testament in exactly the way that
has been shown above to be characteristic of Luke : Acts iv. 24
eTTiyvovres TTJV TOV Oeov evepyeiav . . . Kal eljrov Aeo"7rora
KT\. = 3 Mace. v. 28 TOVTO 8e rjv evepyeta TOV irdvra &-
cnroTevovTos deov, cf. v. 12, 2 Mace. iii. 29, Wisd. vii. 26 ; and
Acts viii. 24 05 7ro\\a K\aiwv ov &eXt/.7rai&gt;ez/ = Tob. x. 7 ov

The question of the influence of Josephus turns upon certain (u.) Luke
passages wherein Luke appears to have been influenced by
Josephus. But the general resemblance of vocabulary and
style between the two authors forms a subsidiary argument,
which has been worked out in great detail by Krenkel, Josephus
und Lukas (1894), pp. 289 ff.

He examines the 751 words * peculiar to the Lucan writings
in the New Testament, and gives four tables of results. Out
of the 751 (a) 309 are found in Lk.-Acts, LXX., and Josephus ;
(6) 87 in Lk.-Acts and LXX., but not in Josephus ; (c) 178 in
Lk.-Acts and Josephus, but not in LXX. ; (d) 177 in Lk.-Acts,
but neither in LXX. nor Josephus. He concludes that a writer
who, on the one hand, shows his dependence on the LXX. so
clearly, and, on the other, has more than twice as many peculiar
words in common with Josephus as he has with the LXX., must
have been influenced by the former in a greater degree than by
the latter. 2

Unfortunately KrenkePs work was written before the Oxford
concordance to the LXX. was available, and considerable deduc
tions must be made before his figures can be accepted. Of his
third list no less than 78 words which are said to be absent from
the LXX., are actually found there, or 83, counting doubtful

1 Note that Hawkins makes 413 + 58+261 = 732 peculiar words, by a more
careful scrutiny of doubtful readings ; see above, p. 70.
a p. 331.
VOL. II G

82 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

readings not found in Swete s text. Of these 74 come in those
parts of the Greek Old Testament which have no Hebrew
equivalent 1 : ayvcoorros, d&lt;ya)via, aiiiov ( = atria), dvaSibovai,
dvaibela, dvdirr)po^ y dvarpetyew, dvevpio-fceiv, avriKpvs (with
gen.), d7ro$e%o-0ai, diro^v-^ei,v, dcrtcelv,
STI/JLOO-IOS, Sidyvcoo-is, Siavvew, eyfcvos,
eK\a\eiv, etcreveia, C^VTTVO^, eTriftodv, e r jri[Sov\r], e
eTriKpivew, 67rio-(j&gt;d\tfs,

ovaia, o%\eiv, irapd^o^os, wapaiveiv,
TrepirpeTreiv, 77X01)9, irpea-fBeia, nrprjv^, Trpocr/c Xiveiv,
Trporpeirecrdai, pwvvvaOai, avfJiTrapeivai, &lt;Tvp,$veiV) crvveXavvew,
, crvvobeveiv, crvvrvy^dveLV , re/c^jpiov, reXecr^opelv,
vTrofavvvvai, viroKpiveaOai^ vTrovoelv,
C^oveiicia, $i\o$&gt;povws, ^Xevd^eiv.

Four actually occur in the rest of the LXX. erceiae, piTrrelv, 2
, afyvpbv while /3aro9, evTropia, TrpocraTreiXelv, arcevij,
o-v/jL7r\r)povv are given in Hatch-Redpath, though absent from
Swete.

In this way the non-LXX. peculiar Lucan words, which Luke
has in common with Josephus, are brought down to about
one hundred. A further reduction may be made for a few
nautical terms, which could hardly be expected in the LXX.,
where the subject is practically unrepresented, and also for such
words as avdviraros, crepacrTos, and others which are specially
applicable to the conditions of the first century. The number
of peculiarly Lucan words absent from the LXX. but found in
Josephus thus becomes about equal to those which are in the
LXX., but absent from Josephus, and this part of Krenkel s
argument thus loses its force.

(Mi.) Medi- The argument in Hobart s The Medical Language of St. Luke,
which even since the publication of Harnack s Luhas der Arzt

1 See p. 73.
2 See Thackeray, Grammar of Old Testament Greek, i. p. 244.

m THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 83

still remains the classic presentment of the theory that the
language of Lk. and the Acts shows that the author had received
a medical training, is twofold, being based on (a) the supposition
that the narratives of healing disclose a special medical interest,
and (6) the employment by Luke of a number of non-medical
terms of frequent occurrence in medical books.

As regards the latter, if it can be shown that these words are
found in the LXX., it is as legitimate to account for their presence
by Luke s familiarity with the Greek Scriptures as by knowledge
of medical literature.

The figures for Acts are as follows. Of the words claimed
by Hobart as medical (of which 6 do not occur in Westcott and
Hort), about 84 per cent are found in the LXX. (including 5
not given in Swete s text). Out of the 30 non-LXX. words, 4
may be disregarded az/eu$ero?, o^XoTroteti/, ovc&)X?7/co/3/3a&gt;T09,
o-vv0pi&gt;7TTiv since Hobart produces no parallels, only analogous
formations, 2 occur in a nautical context in chapter xxvii., where
it seems perverse to suppose any medical interest KO\.V^^OLV,
viroTpe^eiv and 23 are given in Liddell & Scott s lexicon
as used by authors of the classical and pre-classical periods :
dfca)\VTa)s, avaKdOi^eiv, aTroKardcrTao-is, aaiTia, acrtro?, a/

eipiteaOai, bvaevrepiov, elo-tcaXelv, e
, evTropeicrOai, KaOaTTTeiv, K\ivdpiov, oboiTropeiv, o
, Traporpvveiv, irifJiirpao-Oai, TrpO(J7rr)&lt;yvvvai,

One word only remains, dvcorepiKos, and it is
hard to see why any writer should have described high ground by
this term because he was familiar with its technical sense of
" emetic."

This does not necessarily invalidate the argument, for Luke s
choice of LXX. words may have been determined by his previous
training, but it certainly makes a restatement of it desirable. In
a few cases Luke seems to have used LXX. words, but in the vast
majority of instances he employed such words as would have
occurred to an educated Greek with Jewish connections. 1

1 See further, p. 68.

84 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Turning to Hobart s argument from the use of technical
medical language in narratives of healing, we find it hardly
affected by any evidence drawn from the LXX. For this purpose
examples from the LXX. are of no value unless they are taken
from a more or less medical context. Harnack, 1 following
Hobart, has given a list of passages in Acts where Luke seems
to be using technical terms in describing disease. Very few of
these can be paralleled from the LXX. at all. The following
may be noted : e%etyv%ev xii. 23, cf. Ezek. xxi. 7 (12), aSiWro?
xiv. 8, cf. Tob. ii. K)N, VTTVO) ftaBel xx. 9, cf. Sir. xxii. 7,
/caraTTLTrreLv xxviii. 6, cf. 4 Mace. iv. 11. However, these
parallels are of little importance compared with the mass of
evidence which Hobart has brought from medical writers. His
argument is cumulative. Even one such phrase as that in
xxviii. 8, TTVperols /cal Svo-evrepiu) avve^ofjbevov, deserves
attention ; 2 for here there are three usages without parallel in
the LXX. bvcrevrepiu), the plural of jrvperos and avve^eorOai
of disease. 3

Formal Actual quotations in the Acts from the Old Testament 4 must

Sons?" * ^te the Physician, pp. 175-198.

2 In the Gospel, Luke s alterations of the Marcan narrative in stories of
miraculous healings give the best opportunity for investigating the problem.
Harnack, Luke the Physician, pp. 182 ff., gives ten passages of this nature ;
in four of these there is a possibility of Luke having been influenced by LXX.
phraseology : (i.) Lk. iv. 35 = Mark i. 26, ptyav substituted for a-irapd^av.
o-trapdo-aeiv comes 4 times in LXX., p nrTeLv over 100 times, and is constantly
used of casting a body on to the ground; (ii.) Lk. iv. 39 = Mark i. 30 with
^Trtcrras eirdvco avTrjs e7rer^7?(re ry Trupery, in place of Trpoae\6uv -tjyeipev avr^v
Kparriaas rrjs xetp6s. STT^CW tirdvtt) riv6s is a LXX. phrase, e.g. Gen. xviii. 2,
a passage perhaps familiar to Luke ; cf. Acts x. (see below, p. 103 note). There
is no parallel to ^Trerifji rjaev r&lt; irvpert? in LXX., nor is one given by Hobart ;
(iii.) Lk. v. 18 = Mark ii. 3. Luke substitutes Trapa\e\vfj.evos (5 times in LXX.)
for TrapaXvTiKos (not in LXX.); (iv.) Lk. viii. 55= Mark v. 42. Luke intro
duces KO.I ^TT^ffTpe^ev rb irvev^a avrijs, a LXX. phrase ; see Judges xv. 19 (cf .
also 1 Kg. xvii. 21).

8 But it is joined with 06/3y in Job iii. 24 and iriKpiq. in Job x. 1 .

The foregoing section was written in 1913-14. Prof. Cadbury s investiga
tions mark a great advance (see pp, 349 ff.), and had I written later it would
have been on somewhat different lines. The results of my studies are given
without alteration as corroborating his main position.

4 See Swete, Int. pp. 381-405; Dittmar, Veins Testamentum in Novo,

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 85

now be discussed, informal quotations being reserved for the
next section. If the actual quotations are denned as consist
ing of passages cited by KaOtos yeypaTrrcu or other introductory
formula, or the context of which makes it plain that a citation
rather than mere allusion is intended, they appear to be 28 in
number. 1 In places the criterion is somewhat subjective, especi
ally in chap. vii. Where the passage is prefaced by a verb of
saying, it has been treated as a formal quotation. All three
divisions of the Old Testament Law, Prophets and Writings
are amply represented, and some books are quoted, such as
Amos and Joel, which have otherwise left little mark on the
New Testament.

The citations may be divided into : A, those which are in
exact or substantial agreement with the LXX. ; B, those which
show substantial variation. Here again it is difficult to draw the
line, and there are one or two which might without impropriety
be put in either class. 2

A. Passages agreeing with the LXX. may be classed as
showing (i.) exact agreement, (ii.) substantial agreement.

A. (i.) Exact Agreement between Acts and LXX.

Acts ii. 25-28. Psalms xv. 8-11.

25. AavetS yap Aeyei ets avrov

V KVpLOV eVWTTtOV 8. TrpOlDp^fJL ^V TOV KVptOV VOJ7Tl6V

/xov SLO. 7rai&gt;Tos, on e/c Seiwv /xov 8ta Trai ro?, on K Seitov

fwv mi&gt;, Lva /AT) (raXevOw. /zov &lt;rnv tVa /XT) o-aA.ev$w.

26. Sta TOVTO r]v&lt;f&gt;pdv@r) /xou &gt;} 9. Sia rovro rjixfrpdvOrj 7} Kap&ta

KapBia Kal r]-yaX\La.cra.TO f] /xov KCU ?yyaA,Aiao-aro 7}

pp. 130-169. In the earlier part of this article Swete s Old Testament in Greek
has been used. Here, however, in writing out the text of the LXX. Tischen*
dorf was followed. This was originally accidental, but it has been allowed to
stand on the ground that Tischendorf s text is probably nearer than Swete s
to the text current in the first century. It seemed unnecessary to burden
the page with textual notes which will be added when called for at the ap
propriate places in the commentary.

1 See Swete, Int. p. 382. On p. 388 a somewhat shorter list of citations
is given.

2 Textual variations will be treated in the commentary.

86 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

yAukrcrd JJLOV, eVt Se KOI rj crd
IMOV KaracTK^vwo-et e

yAaSo~crd yw,ov } eVt Se Kat
/xov KaTao-KTyvwcrei

27. 6Vt OVK e

t^ets rrjv 10. OTI OVK

eis

/xov ets aTyv,
TOV oo~ioV o~ov

6\ikreiS TOV OCTIOV CTOV tSet

28. eyvwptcrds poi oSovs {WTJS, 11. eyvw/Dtcrds ^u,ot oSovs
fjLf ev^)/)ocrvvTys

TOV Trpoa-uTTOv crov.

Acts iv. 25, 26.

25. 6 TOV TraT/aos -^/xwv Sta TTVCV-
dytov crTO/xaTOS AavetS
crov etvrwv * iVa TI
/&lt;ai Aaoi 4/xe-

TOV TrpocrojTrov crov,

T7^TS V T7^ Se^ta CTOV

et s TeAos.

Psalms ii. 1, 2.

1. iVa TI (f&gt;pvaav Wvr), KOU Aaot

26. Tra/DecTTrycrav ot /^acrtAeis

yTJs KCU ot apxovT&lt;$

\Or)&lt;TO.V 7Tl TO ttVTO KttTa TOV
KVptOV Kttt KttTOl TOV

avTov.

Acts vii. 27, 28.

27. 6 8e dSi/ccuv TOV

avTov CITTWV *

2. TrapecrT^crav ot /^acrtAets T^S
yy^S Kat ot ap^ovTfS crvvrj-

67Tt TO ttVTO KttTa TOV

Kvpov Kat KaTa TOV
avTov.

Exodus ii. 13, 14.
13. Aeyet TOO dSiKovvTf 8tct TI crv

ere KaTecrT^crev ap^ovra Kat 14. 6 Se efTre Tts ere

SlKaCTT^lV 6&lt;f&gt; 77 W/tOV / UpVOVTCL Kttt OtKO.CTT nV &lt;f&gt;

28. p? dveAetv /AC crv 0eAets, ov
TOOTTOV dvetAes ex^ e ^ TOl/
Aty vTTTtov ;

/x^ dveAetv /xe crv
#eAeis 6v T/OOTTOV dvetAes X^s
TOV AtyvTTTtov ;

Acts vii. 35.

TOVTOV TOV Mwvcnjv, ov rjpvr]-

CraVTO 17TOVTS * TIS CT KttT-

Exodus ii. 14.

ete Tts o~e

V TOVTOV 6 #OS Kttt

aOYOVTOt Kat

0-TaAKV crvv

/a^ dveAetv
6^eAets ov T/JOTTOV d
TOV AtyvTTTtov;

avTw ev rfj

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 87

Acts xiii. 33. Psalms ii. 7.

(os Kal f.v r(o i^aAyzu) yeypaTrrat.

TU&gt;
yu&gt;

yeyei&gt;vr/Ka ere.

yeytv-

I J/KO, &lt;T.

A. (ii). Substantial Agreement between Acts and LXX.

Acts i. 20. Psalms cviii. 8.

yeypaTrrac yap eV /3tj3\w

avrou epry/xos KCU /XT) eWto 6
avTi;, KCU TTV

O.VTOV

Acts ii. 34, 35.

34. ou ya/3

ov/savors, Aeyet 8e avros
t7rei&gt; Kv/)tos TW KVpitp IAOV
KaBov (.K Se^twv /xov,

35. ews ai/ ^w TOVS i^Opovs crov

VTTOTToScOV TWV 7To8wi/ (TOV.

Acts vii. 37 (cf. iii. 22).

OUTOS ecrrtv 6 Mcowrys o
rot? vtots la-parjX
V/JLLV avacrrrjo-ei 6 $eos 6/c
TWV dSeA^coi v^xcov cos e/xe.

Acts vii. 40.

etTToVres TW Aaputv Troirjcrov
?zu Oeovs OL TrpoTroptvcrovraL

o? e^ryyayei/ Toyotas CK y&gt;}?
OUK oiba/xtv rt

Acts viii. 32, 33.

32. rj 8e

a vy/xt/aat avrov
oAiyat, Kat TYJV 7rto-Ko7rv}v

Psalms cix. 1.

17T1/

KO.0OV K
QiO rOV&lt;S

T(i

lp (MOV

(TOV V7TO-

Deut. xviii. 15.

crov

(rot
eos o~ov auTov d/c

Exod. xxxii. 23.

Aeyoixri yap ^uof iroi^crov rjfj.iv

i^/xwv. o yap MttWT^S OI!TOS
6 av0/oa&gt;7ros 6s e^&gt;yyaye^ ^/uas
e AiyvTTTOv, OVK ot8a/j.v ri
airrw.

Isaiah liii. 7, 8.

88 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Kal o)$ a/&gt;tvos evavTtov TOV
KtipovTOS avVbv a^covos, oimos
OVK avotyet TO crrd/xa avYov.

33. ev T# TaTretvdkret 17 KP UTLS
avVov TJpdrj Tr)v yeveav avVov
Tts St^y^o-eTat ; 6Yt aiperat
UTTO TTJS y?js 17 fwr) avTov.

Acts xiii. 35.

StoVt /cat ev fTpu&gt; Aeyet ov
TOV

Kat tos dfJLvbs evavriov TOV

Kl/3OVTOS a&lt;^)(OVO?, OVTWS OUK

avotyet TO

8. ev T7j TaTretvwcret 17

avTov r/ /&gt;$?7 T ^V yeveav
avToG TtS StryyTyo-eTat ; 6Vt
at/)Tat a?rb TT^S y^s r/ ^w&gt;)

Acts xxviii. 26, 27.
26. Aeywv TroptvdrjTi TT/JOS
Aaov TOVTOV Kat etTrov
aKOVcrere Kat ov /AT)

Kttt 8Ae7TOVT$ 3\\T Kat

Psalms xv. 10.
OTI OVK eyKaTaAet^eis r)v ^v-
X^^ /^ov ets aS^v, ov8e Scoaets
TOV oo-tov o-ov tSetv 8ia(jiOopdv.

Isaiah vi. 9, 10.

Kttl cfTTC TTOpevdrjTL KOI C17TOV
T(T Aa(^) TOVTO) aKOT^ aKO^ -

Kat ov pr) a-vvrJTf, Kat

3\\sT KO.I OV

ov yw,^ t Sryre tTrayvvOv) yap
ri KapSta TOV Aaov TOT/TOI;,
27. Kat TO is ao~tv /3apos r/KOi;o-av,
Kat

yap 97 KapSia rov
Aaov TOVTOV, Kat Tots wcrtv

10.

tStocrtv

TOIS o^)^aA/xois Kat TOIS

&gt; / \

aKOvo~wo~tv Kat Tti K&lt;

o vvtoo-ti Kat

Kat tao-o/xat avTovs.

B. Free Versions of the LXX. in Acts.

TOVS 6(f)@a\fj,ovs
yw,7y TTOTC t Swo-i Tots o&lt;
Kat Tot? (oo"tv aKOvo~wo~i, Kat
T?; KapSia, crvvwo-t Kat ?rt-
Kat tao~OjU,at avTovs

Acts i. 20.

yeypaTTTat yap ev

li aAuwv* yev^^TO) 17

avTov ep^/xos Kat /x&gt;) eo~T(o o

KaTOtKwv ev avTi/, Kat Tr)v

ttVTOV Aa/?TW

Psalms Ixviii. 26.

vwyotaortv avTcov

KttTOlKWV.

17 eVavAts
Kat ev TOIS

eo~T(o o

Acts ii. 17-21.

17. Kat larai ev Tat?

17/xepats, Aeyet 6 #eos, eK xew
a7rb TOV Trvei /xaTos /xov e?rt

Joel ii. 28-32.

28. Kat e crrat yueTa TavTa Kai CA

aTTO TOV TTVeV/XttTOS fJLOV CTTt

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 89

TTawav crapKa, Kai
&lt;rov(TLV ol viol {yzwi&gt; Kai al
Ovyarepfs {yxcuv, Kai 01 vcavi-
O-KOI tyxcGv opdortis o^ovTat,
Kai 01 7r/3O-/3uTe/3Oi lyxtoi/

(rowriv ot uiot v/xaJv Kai at
(JvyaTcpes v/xwv/, Kai oi TT/K-
cr/3vTpoi vfjLuv evvTTVia fvvTr-
yiao-0?yo-ovTai, Kat ot i/eai/urKot

18. Kai ye ?ri TOVS SovAovs pov 2S). Kat evri TOVS SovAovs /xov Kai
Kai eVi Tas SovAas ftov eV tVi Tas SovAas eV

Tais ?yjA6Ottis KCtvats CKYCIU CKftj/ats CKYtu aTTo TOV

(XTTO TOV TT^e^/jiaTOS /MOV, Kai

19. Kai Saxrw repara cv TW ou^avw 30. Kai &lt;5axra&gt; T/oaTa ev ov

\ -&gt;\^ \ * \ A M \^

avii) Kat crry/zfta e?rt T&gt;ys y?/s Kai CTTI T/ys y&gt;/S aiyxa Kai Tri p

eis
a/xa

aiyu-a Kai irvp Kai aT/xioa KC

KaTTVOV.

20. o ryAios /u,6Tao-T/oa^)7yo-Tai is 31. 6 /y Atos

O-KOTOS Kai ^ creAvyi/yy eis afytxa, CTKOTOS Kai ry

Trplv \OLV vy/jtepav Kvpiov TT/

TTyi/ /j,eya\r)v Kat eTri^avry. rryv uydA?yv Kai e

21. Kai eo-Tai Tras 6s eai/ CTTI- 32. Kai eWai Tras 6s av C TTI-

TO 6Vo/xa Kvptov KaAco-?yTai TO oi O/xa Kvptov

Acts iii. 22, 23 (cf . vii. 37). Deut. xviii. 15 ff.

22. Mavo~&gt;ys /xev eiTrev OTI Trpo^jTrjv 15. 7rpo&lt;j&gt;ifJTrjv CK TWV dSeA^cui o~ov
ij/xi^ dj/ao~Tryo-i Kv/aios 6 $ebs ws /xe di ao-T/yo-i o~ot

VfJLWV O)S O ^OS O~OV, aVTOV

23.

TOU Aaou.

bs 16. KaTa Trdvra oara vyT /yo-a) 7ra/?a

Kvpiov . . .
19. Kai 6 avOptoTTOS os eai /x^

o-a av ao- o

oi/d/xaTt /xov, lyaj cK8tK/yo-(o

Lev. xxiii. 29.

o~Tai i/ airr?y

Aaov

90 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Acts iii. 25.

s etrre ot mot TWV irpo-
Kat Trjs SiaOrjKrjs rjs
o Oeos cu$To Trpos TOUS
v/xcov, Aeywv 737)09
Kat li/ rw cr7re/o/zaTt
croi; tvXoyijO ijcrovTai Tracrat

at TTaT/HCU TT^S

Gen. xxii. 18.

Acts vii. 3.
etTrev Trpos aiJToV
rrjs y^S crou K

crou, KCU
av crot S

Acts vii. 6, 7.

8e ourtos 6 ^eos ort

etrrat TO cnrepfjia avrov Trp-
OIKOV f.v yrj aAAoryot a, KUI
iv avTo /cat
rer/oaKOcrta

7. Kat TO e^i/os w av

K/otvw eyto, 6 ^eos et^Trev, Kat
fj.Ta Tavra e^eAevcrovTat Kat
XarpeiHTOvcriv yaot ev TW TOTTW
TOUTOJ.

Acts vii. 32.

eyw 6 $ebs TWV Trarepiav troi;,
6 $eos Afipaafji Kat IcraaK
Kat IaKto/3. evTpo/^os 8e
yevo^tevos Mwvo~^s OTJK ero

33.

Acts vii. 33, 34.

B avriij 6 Kvpio&lt;$ Avo~ov
TO vTroSra TWJ/ TroSwv o~oi;

crov TrvTa ra
avO wv

Gen. xii. 1.

Kat etTTC KV/)tO9 T0&gt;

e eA$e CK T /)s y^S o~ov Kat IK
TT)? o-vyyevetas o-oi&gt; Kat CK

TOV OtKOV TOV TTttTpOS Q-QV,

Kai Sevpo ets T^V y^ ^)v av
crot Set-to.

Gen. xv. 13, 14.

13. /cat eppeOr) Trpos "Aftpa/j,
yivaxrKwv yvcocr^ OTI frdpOLKOv
eWat TO o-Trep/Jia crov ev yy
OVK tSta, Kat 8ovAtoo~ovo~iv
avTOVS Kat KaKCucrovcrtv avTOV?
Kat TaTretvojcrovcrtj/

14. TO Se e^vos w eav

eyw /XCTO, Se

8e /XCTO, aVo-

Exod. iii. 6.

Kat etTrev eycu etyut 6 Otbs rov
irarpos crov, $eos Afipaajj, Kat
IcraciK Kai ^eo? Ia.KOi/3.
Se MCOVCTTS TO

yap KaTe/^/?Aei/ at evcoTTtov TOV

Exod. iii. 5, 7-10.

5. o &. efTre fjir) eyy terras
Avcrat TO vTr68rjfj.a K

THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS

42.

o yap TOTTOS ec
yv^ dyia eo~Tti/.

Stav eiiSov TT)I&gt; KaKoxriv TOU
Aaou /xou TOU eV Atyu7TT(o,
Kai TOU o-Tevay/zou ai Tou
?yKouo"a, Kat KaTf3t]V e^eAe-
aOai auroi s Kai vvv Stvpo
aTTOCTTetAcu o~e ets

Acts vii. 42, 43.

Se 6 #OS Kttl

CLVTOVS AaT/aei eiv TT/

ytypaiTTai v q* TCUV

7rpO(f)rjriov /z?) cr&lt;f&gt;dyia Kal
Overtax Tr/DocrryveyKaTe /xot T?y

T(T&lt;TpdKOVTa CV T1J

43. /cut av\d{3eT TIJV

TOV MoAo^ Kat TO a(rrpov

TOU ^OU PoXtt, TOVS TU7TOUS

fJLTOLKL(j)

Acts vii. 49, 50.
49. 6 oi /Javds /xot ^povos, /cat -^

TWV Trowv yaov
TTOIOV OLKOV oiVoSo/^creTC /xot,
Aeyet KU/OIOS, ?} Tts TOTTO? T?ys

o*ou, o yap TOTTO? ev &lt;^
&gt;y dyia eo~Ti. . . .

7. e7re

TOU

AttOU /XOU TOU 6V AtyUTTTOJ,

Kat TT}S K/aauyTys UUTWI/ aKryKoa

(ATTO TWV /Dyo8ia&gt;KTWl/

yap T?)I/ 68vvt)v avrutv,
8. Kat KaT/3yv eeAr$ai

K ^(1^09 TtOV At yUTTTlW

Kat e^ayayetv auTOUs K T?Js
yrj? fKCivys, Kat eto-ayaycti
auTOUs ets yiyi/ dya^v Kai
TroAAryv, . . .

10. Kat vw Sevpo a7roo~TiA(o o~e

At-

, Kat eaets TOV Aaoi/
/&gt;tou TOUS utous
y^ys AtyuTTTOU.

Amos v. 25-27.

25.

26. Kai aVeAa/?eTe Tr)v o-Krjvrjv TOU

ox Kat TO dcrrpov TOU #eou
Pat^av, TOUS TUTTOUS
ous 67rot?yo-aTe

27. Kai /itTOiKtw uyuds tVe

Aa/zacrKou, Aeyet Kvpios,
6 TravTOKpdrup ovoua

Isaiah Ixvi. 1,2.
OUTWS Aeyet Kuptos * o oi yoavds
/AOU Opovos, Kat 9) y?J UTTO-

TToStOl TWV TToSwi/ yUOU 7TOIOV

oTKOv otKoSo/zryo-eTe /xot ; Kai

TTOtOS TO7TOS T/y5 K

/xou;

TO"crapa.KOVTa

92 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

50. ou^t ry
Trdvra

Acts xiii. 22.

al /xeTao-Tryo-as avrov ryyetpev
TOV AavetS avTOts eis /3ao-iAea,
w /cat etTrev fjiaprvprio-as
evpov AavetS TOV TOV letro-at,
dv8pa Kara T?)V\ KapStav yuov,
09 vrotTyVft TravTa Ta $eA /y-
/xov.

Acts xiii. 34:.

Se ave

avecrT^o-ev avTov

OTI 8wo"(o VJJLLV TO,
ocria AavetS TO, TrtcrTa.

Acts xiii. 41.

al d(f&gt;avi(j-6r)T,
OTI epyov epya^o/xat Jya) Iv
Tats ^/xe/odts vuwv, epyov o
ov fj,r] TricrTV(r rjT ecxv TIS CK-
vp.lv.

Acts xiii. 47.
OVTCO ya/D I^TCTaATat ^tv 6

KVplOS T60lKOi O~ CIS &lt;tUS

e^vwv TOV efvat o-e ets
piav etos O~xaToi; T^S

Acts XV. 16-18.
16. /XTti TavTa dvacrrp^io Kal

2. Trai/Ta yap TavTa e7rot7^o-ev ?}
X&lt;*f&gt; /AOV, Kat eo~Ttv e/xa Trai Ta
TauTa, Aeyet Kvpios . . .

Psalms Ixxxviii. 21.

evpov AavtS TOV 8ovX.6v ftov,
ev lAeet ayi w e

11.

AavetS rv]v TreTTTooKftav, Kat
Ta KaT6a-TpafJLfJLva avrfjs dv-
Kat

Isaiah Iv. 3.

. . . eto-a/coTxraTe /xoi;, Kat
Tat cv dyadois rj ^VXT)
Kat SiaBiijcrofjiai vp.lv Starry
atwvtov, Ta i o-ta AavtS TO,

TTtCTTa.

Hab. i. 5.

ot KaTa&lt;f&gt;povr]Tal Kal ITTI-
e^aTe, Kat Bavpda-are Oav-
/xacrta Kat d^avicrO^Te SLOTL
epyov eyw epydfouai kv Tats
rjfjicpaLS vfjiwv o ov /xi)
o-?yT eav Tts

Isaiah xlix. 6.

. . . i Sov SeSwKa o~e ets Sta-
6-^Krjv yevovs, ets &lt;ySt5s e^vtov,
TOU etvat o~e ets o-toTTiav cws

Amos ix. 11, 12.

T&gt;)v (rKrjvrjv AavtS T?yv Tre-
7TTO)K7uav, Kat aVoiKoSo/jt/jycrw

Ta TTCTTTCUKOTa ttVT^S, Kat TO,

KaTo-Ka/xyu,eva

17. OTTWS av e

at rjfjLpaL TOV atwvos,
1 2. OTTCDS K^ryT7yo~ojo-tv ot KaTa-

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 93

AOITTOI TWl/ dvOpUTTUV TOV AotTTOl TUV (Xl/fyxOTTWl/, KCU

Kvpiov, Kal TrdvTa Ttt Wvr) irdvra. TOL Wvq &lt;/&gt; ovs eVt-

e&lt; ovs ciriKK\r]Tcu TO oi/o/xa K^ArjTcu TO ovo/xa /xov cV

/xov 67T avTOUS, avrovs, Aeyti Kvpios 6

18. Atyei Kvptos TTOIWI/ ravra irdvra ravra.

Acts xxiii. 5. Exod. xxii. 28.

re 6 IlaGAos OVK yStiv,

on ecrrti dpxieptvs Oeovs ov KaKoAoy^trcis, Kai dp-

t yap ort ap^ovra ^ovra TOU Aaou crov ov

TOU Aaou (rov OVK /)is Ka/cw5. cpi&lt;s.

It will be noticed that, with one exception, viii. 32, 33, the
above quotations all occur in speeches, and all except three came
in the first half of the book. It now becomes necessary to study
the sixteen free quotations more closely, following the guidance
of Dr. Swete, who thus distinguishes the causes which may have
produced variations from the standard text of the LXX. i 1 "It
may be due to (i.) loose citation, or to (ii.) the substitution of a
gloss for the precise words which the writer professes to quote,
or to (iii.) a desire to adapt a prophetic context to the circum
stances under which it was thought to have been fulfilled, or to
(iv.) the fusing together of passages drawn from different con
texts. Of the variations which cannot be ascribed to one or
other of these causes, some are (v.) recensional, whilst others are
(vi.) translational, and imply an independent use of the original,
whether by the Evangelist, or by the author of some collection
of excerpts which he employed."

(i.) The following variations may be ascribed to free citation,
natural in an age when modern aids to study were not available. 2
The last two clauses of ii. 17 are inverted ; avu&gt; and KCLTW are in
serted in ii. 19 ; vii. 3 is shortened by the substitution of KOL Sevpo
for Kal etc rov oifcov rov Trar/oo? crov ; in vii. 32 o #09 AyS^aa/z
Kal I&aaK Kal Ia/eco/3 is read for o 0eos A. Kal 6. I. Kal 6.

1 Int. p. 394.
1 See Sanday in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp 16-19.

94 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS *

I. ; x in vii. 33, 34, Exod. iii. 5, 7-10 is shortened considerably,
and et? AiyvTrrov takes the place of Trpos &lt;3&gt;apaa) ftaaCkia
Alyvirrov ; in vii. 50 ov%l rj xeip /LLOV errolrfcrev ravra rcavra \ is
read for rrdvra yap ravra eTroirjcrev rj ^elp fjiov ; in xiii. 34
$La6r)tcr]v alwviov is omitted and Siadrjorofjiai, replaced by S&&amp;gt;&lt;j&&amp;gt; ;
in xiii. 41, Hab. i. 5 is shortened and modified.

(ii.) There seem to be no clear cases of glosses made by the
writer unless perhaps the change of eavroi? into rrpocricvvelv
avrols in vii. 43.

(iii.) In i. 20 avrwv of the LXX. is changed to avrov to apply
to Judas, and ev avrfj then takes the place of ev rot? o-Kijvao/jLacriv
avrwv, which is no longer applicable. The repetition of Kal
rrpo^revo-ovcrL in ii. 18 makes the prophecy more appropriate
to the events. In vii. 43 Ba^i/X&po? is put for Aa/movcoO to
bring the quotation into accord with the history of the Jews ;
while in xxiii. 5 ap^ovra is substituted for the less suitable
ap%ovras, though the MSS. of the LXX. vary.

(iv.) The fusing of two or more passages plays an important
part in the quotations of Acts. In ii. 17 the prophecy from Joel
is introduced by ev rals ea^drai^ rjfjuepais, taken from Isa. ii.
2 ; iii. 22, 23 is a conflation of Deut. xviii. 15, 16, 19 and Lev.
xxiii. 29 ; iii. 25 is a conflation of Gen. xxii. 18 with Gen. xii. 3,
with possibly a reminiscence of Ps. xxi. 28 ; vii. 6, 7 is a conflation
of Gen. xv. 13, 14 with Exod. ii. 22 and iii. 12 ; in vii. 34 we have
TO v (7rei&gt;ay/j,ov avrov rjtcovaa instead of TT)? rcpavyfjs avrwv
dKiJKoa, probably owing to the influence of Exod. ii. 24 ; a
remarkable combination is found in xiii. 22, where Ps. Ixxxix.
21, 1 Sam. xiii. 14, Isa. xliv. 28 make a composite quotation ; 2
while xv. 16-18 is a conflation of Amos ix. 11-12 with Jer. xii. 15. 3

1 Lk. xx. 37 has LXX. formula. Perhaps Exod. ii. 24b, rrjs Sta^KTjs
avrov TTJS TTpbs A. Kal I. /cat I., has influenced Acts vii. 32, seeing that Exod.
ii. 24 a has influenced vii. 34; see below, under section (iv.).

2 See 1 Clem, xviii., where the first two passages are combined. It is
generally supposed that Acts and 1 Clem, are both dependent on some collec
tion of Messianic proof -texts. See R. Harris, Exp., November 1906, " The Use
of Testimonies in the early Christian Church " ; Moffatt, Int. pp. 23-25.

3 Swete, p. 399.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 95

(v.) The quotations in Acts show the usual New Testament
tendency in that they follow the A text of the LXX. as against
the B. 1 The subjoined list gives the readings in which Acts agrees
with A ; the B readings are added in brackets. For the sake of
completeness we also give the minor variants in favour of the
A text in the quotations already treated under A (ii.) above.

ii. 17 twirviow (evvTrvia), ii. 18 fcau ye (/cat), eVl ra? SouXa?
fj,ov (eVl ra? SouXa?), vii. 40 CK 77)9 Aiyinrrov (ef
vii. 43 roi&gt;9 TVTTOVS (rovs TVTTOVS avTwv), vii. 49 /mot,
(fjiov Opovos), viii. 32 roO Keipovros avrov (rov Keipovros), xiii.
41 etcSnjyrJTai vfuv (B om. V/JLIV), xiii. 47 redeiKa ere et? c/&gt;w?
(SeSatKa ere et? SiaOrffcrjv yevovs, et? 0w?) XV. 16 /carecrrpa/ji/jLeva
with A b (/carecr/ca/x/xe^a) , xv. 17 OTTO)? av (OTTCO?), rov icvpiov
(B om.), xxiii. 5 OVK e/oet? KCIKWS (ov /ca/cco? e pet?). In vii.
49 Acts (except in B) agrees with Isa. Ixvi. 1 B (/; Se 7?})
against A (KOI rj yij).

(vi.) In one instance Acts seems at first sight to be nearer
the Massoretic text than the LXX., namely, iii. 25 = Gen. xxii. 18,
where LXX. renders Heb. H97 ^ ^ ^ Trdvra ra WVT),
while Acts with its iracrai al Trarpial rrj^ 7)7? has fl^O re P re ~
sented. But it is better to suppose that such passages as Gen.
xii. 3, Traarat, al (j)v\al r^? 7?;?, or Ps. xxi. 28, iraa-ai al Trarpial
rwv eOvwv, have influenced the quotation in Acts, than to assume
that the writer has any acquaintance with the original Hebrew,
or is making an independent translation from an Aramaic
version of the speech.

A. In the Speeches. The less direct references to the LXX. informal
are so numerous that any attempt to point them out in detail
must be reserved for the commentator. Many informal quotations
and allusions are distinguished in Westcott and Hort s text by
the employment of uncials, but even after their careful work
gleanings remain for their successors. In the present connection
the use of the Old Testament in the speeches of Acts, apart
from formal citations, has a twofold interest, in that it (i.)

1 ibid. p. 395.

96 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

confirms the results reached in the previous section, (ii.) throws
light on the author s method of composition and the sources he
may have had at his disposal.

(i.) It is clear from the loose manner in which the allusions
are woven into the text that it would be hazardous to use them
as a source from which to draw textual conclusions ; but it is
legitimate to use the evidence, such as it is, for the purpose of
confirming the results already attained. The first three headings
under which Dr. Swete accounts for variations from the standard
text of the LXX. do not apply here. The fourth cause, confla
tion of different passages, is seen clearly at work. Thus Acts
iii. 13 o $eo9 A/Bpaafju Kal laaa/c /cal IaKa)/3, 6 #eo? ra)v
Trarepw JHJL&V, eB6^aa-V rbv TralSa avrov, is formed from Exod.
iii. 6 e&lt;ya) el/ja 6 deos rov irarpos aov, #eo? A/Bpaa/j, /cal $609
IcraaK /cal #eo? Ia/cco/3 (cf. 1 Kg. xviii. 36)+Isa. Iii. 13 o
7ra? fjiov . . . Sogaa-Orja-erai,. The following conflations among
others are also worthy of attention : Acts ii. 24 Xuo-a? ra?
&&amp;gt;8tz/a9 TOV Oavdrov = Ps. xvii. 5, etc. + Job xxxix. 2 (see below) ;
vii. 5 = Gen. xii. 7 + xvii. 8 + Deut. ii. 5 ; vii. 10 = Gen. xxxix.
4, 21 +xli. 40, 41 +Ps. civ. 21 ; x. 35, 36 = Ps. xiv. 2 + cvi. 20 +
Isa. Iii. 7.

Passing on to recensional variations, we note a few instances
where the A text of the LXX. is followed against the B. If iv.
24 (cf. xiv. 15) is based on Exod. xx. 11, the addition of Kal rrjv
6d\a&lt;rcrav agrees with A (and B ab mg ) against B, but the phrase
occurs also in Ps. cxlv. 6. In vii. 30 ev (j)\oyl Trvpos agrees with
Exod. iii. 2 A, B having ev irvpl &lt;p\oy6s. The formation of the
sentence in vii. 14, 15 leads to the conclusion that it is drawn from
Deut. x. 22, where A gives the number that went down to Egypt
as 75 (B gives 70, but cf. Gen. xlvi. 27, Exod. i. 5, which have 75).
However, in xvii. 25 the phrase SiSov^ . . . TTVOIJV recalls the
B text of Isa. xlii. 5 (where A has Sou? TTVOIJV. The passage is
known to the author of Acts, cf. xxvi. 17 with Isa. xlii. 7.) x

1 In v. 10 the rare word lK\p^x eLV occurs tireffev 5 irapaxpTJua* irpfa ro)s
7r65ctj O.VTOV Kal tZtyvtcv ; cf. v. 4 and xii. 23. Possibly it may have been

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 97

Finally, there are three passages in which an independent
translation is perhaps to be postulated.

1. The curious phrase \vcras ra? coSa/a? rov Oavdrov occurs
in ii. 24. 1 In the LXX., e.g. 2 Sam. xxii. 6, Ps. xvii. 5, cxiv. 3,
eoSu e? Oavdrov translates n7D ^Ori (probably = " cords of
death "). As \va-as suits the meaning " cords " better than
" pains," it has been suggested that the phrase goes back to an
independent knowledge of the Hebrew, or an Aramaic version
of Peter s speech. But an explanation from the LXX. only will
suffice, that the phrase is a conflation of &&amp;gt;/ ? Oavdrov with
Job xxxix. 2 r)pi0/jir)(ra$ &e ftfjva? CLVTWV TrX^pet? rofcerov
CLVTWV, o)8fc^a? Se avrcov eXucra?.

2. In ii. 30 = Ps. cxxxi. 11, Acts has etc /capTrov rrjs bafyvos
avrov KoOurcu eVl rov Opovov avrov, which is an independent
version, diverging both from the Hebrew and Greek texts.
While the possibility of the verse having come through the
medium of Aramaic cannot be excluded, a free quotation from
memory is a more likely explanation of the variation.

3. The well-known Messianic passage Ps. cxvii. 22 is quoted
in iv. 11 in a unique form OL/TO? eariv o \l0os o e^ovOevrfOeis vfi
vfjLwv TCOV olKoS6/jiQ)v, 6 jevo/jbevo^ et? /ce&lt;f)a\r)v yuvtas. This is
quite a different version from that of the LXX. \idov bv d-Tre-
Sotci/jLacrav ol ol/coSo/jiovvTes, ovro? eyev^Orj et? /ce(f)a\r)v ymvtaq
which is repeated in Matt. xxi. 42 ; Mark xii. 10 ; Lk. xx. 17 ;
1 Pet. ii. 7 ; Barn. vi. 4. Now in Lk. xx. 17 the author follows
Mark, whereas here he has an independent translation. The
variation seems more than can be accounted for by a lapse of
memory. It should be noted that the version of Acts is even
further removed from the original Hebrew than is the LXX. ;
however e%ovevelv is used as well as d-jro^oKL^d^eiv by the
LXX. to translate DND.

As these three passages all occur in the Petrine speeches of

suggested by its use in Judges iv. 21 A /ccti Qtyv&v, of Sisera s death. Cf.
Judges v. 27 ava. /J-^ITOV rCiv irodZv avrijs . . . tire&lt;rev.

1 Also In Polyc. i. 2 in this form XiJcras rds tiSZ^as TOV $dov.
VOL. II H

98 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

the opening chapters, it is legitimate, though not necessary, to
interpret the first two in the light of the conclusions reached
with reference to the last, and to suppose that the source used
by Luke is responsible for the peculiarities of the text. In this
case the speeches in question are not simply the free compositions
of the writer. 1

(ii.) Two of the speeches of Acts require special treatment in
regard to their use of the Old Testament. Stephen s speech at
Jerusalem in chap. vii. and Paul s at Antioch in chap. xiii. are
little more than centos of Old Testament quotations and allusions.
They recall the past history of the Jews and are naturally couched
in biblical language. 2

Taking the speeches as a whole, there is a clear distinction
between the first and second half of the Acts in respect to the
influence of the Old Testament ; in the later chapters it is far
less marked. For example, Peter s speech to the people at
Jerusalem in chap. iii. is full of Old Testament allusions, while
Paul s Jerusalem speech in chap. xxii. has hardly any (Westcott
and Hort give no uncials at all). The rule is not universally
carried out ; e.g. in the Areopagus speech, chap, xvii., delivered
to an audience supposed to be unfamiliar with the Jewish Scrip
tures, there are a number of literary reminiscences 24 = Exod.
xx. 11; 25 = Isa. xlii. 5; 26 = Deut. xxxii. 8 (?) ; 31 -Ps. ix. 8.
Again, some of the utterances put into the mouth of Peter are
simply strings of LXX. phrases. Two examples may be given :

1 In xii. 11 ^aTr^o-retXej/ 6 /cuptos rbv &yye\ov /cat ^et Xar6

, there seems to be a reminiscence of Dan. Theod. iii. 95 6s a
rbv &yye\ov O.VTOV /cat eet \aro (LXX. e &lt;rw&lt;re) roi)s TratSas avrov. This is
in keeping with the tendency of the N.T. quotations to support Theodotion
against the LXX. ; see Swete, Int. pp. 48, 395.

2 In these two speeches there are a number of passages where Acts, agree
ing with later Jewish tradition, has modified the O.T. records. Thus in vii.
2 the command comes to Abraham when still in Mesopotamia Philo and the
Samaritan Pentateuch have the same tradition ; in vii. 16 Jacob and the
patriarchs are buried at Sichem in Abraham s tomb (perhaps mere careless
ness on the part of the writer) ; in vii. 23, 30 Moses is forty years old when he
flees to Midian and spends forty years there ; in xiii. 21 Saul s reign lasts forty
years. For further " Midrashic elements " in Stephen s speech see the full
note in Encycl. Bibl. 4791.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 99

Acts viii. Deut. xii. 12.

21. OVK O~TLV CTOl jtXC/319 OvSf K\.TJpO&lt;$ OVK O~TIV ttVTCO /tAfpis OVO*

fv Tc5 Aoyoj TOVTCJ), 7} yap K\TJpos . . ; cf. xiv. 28.

KttpSl a CrOV OVK O~TLV CvOcia -D , orr

Ps. Ixxvii. 37.

ej/avTi TOV foov.

rj oe Kapoia avTiov OVK

fJLtr avTov.

Jer. viii. 6.

22. p,Tavo^(rov ovv diro Trjs KaKtas OVK fo~TiV dvOpiam

crov TavTi^s, Kai SerjOrjTi. TOV euro TT^S KaKias avTov

KvpLov i apa dfaOrjo-fTat croi
77 eTTiVoia TS KapSias crov.

Deut. xxix. 18.

23. i? y^/ 3 X ^- 7 ? 17 iriKpias Kai P^ C 01 ^^^ &lt;bvovo~a

opco crc iriKpia.

Isa. Iviii. 6.

In x. 14, xi. 8 we have a short version of Ezekiel s protest.

Acts x. 14. Ezek. iv. 14.

6 8e HeT/aos eiirev /iTiSa/zcos, Kai i?ra fj.rj8aaij}^

Kvpie, OTI ov5e7TOT (f&gt;ayov TOV ^IcrpaT^A ei 7^

7raV KOIVOV Kai aKaOapTov. ov yae/xiai/Tai ev

Kai Ovyo-Luaiov Kai

Acts XI. o. ACOTOV ov f3e/3p(DKa aTro ye-

i7rov 8e /ATiSayticas Kvpie, OTI vecrews /xov cws TOV vvv, ovSe

KOIVOV 7^ aKadapTOV ovSeTTOTe eicreA7yAvc9e^ et? TO o~Toaa JJ.QV

lev eis TO crTO/za /zov. Trav Kpeas etoAoi .

There is a tendency to represent God or the risen Lord as
speaking in an Old Testament manner. Thus in chap. xxvi.
Paul s speech has practically no Old Testament affinities until
he describes the words of the ascended Jesus.

Acts xxvi. Ezek. ii. 1.

15. avaerTTitfi Kai CTTT^I 7ri TOVS o~TrjOt 7ri TOVS TroSas crov.

TroSas crov.

16. t s TOVTO yap CUC^TIV croi, ?rpo-

^f.ipio~ao~OaL ere v7rrypeT7/v Kai
udpTvpa &v T efSes u toy T
croi.

100 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Jer. i.

1 7. ^aipovfJLv6s ere &lt;EK TOV Xaov 8. /ZCTO, crou ey w ei/zi TOV I
Kai IK TCOV $y(ov, els ovs o~9ai ere.

eyo) aTrocrTeAAw ere ai/ot^at 7. 6Vt TT^OS TravTas ovs eav e

ere

1 Chron. xvi. 35.

18. TOV 7Tio~Tp\^aL aVo CTKOTO^s Kai e^eAov i^/xas eK TWV

ets &lt;f&gt;tos Kai T77S

&gt;o ^ 5 v v a , * * Isa. xlii. 7.

2/aTava e?rt TOV c/eov, TOD Aa-

a/xa/oTta)v
i KXrjpov er Tots ^y*a- j^g

JO ai TOtS TO CTKOT05

Deut. xxxiii. 3, 4.

Trai/res ot fiyiacrJicvoL viro
Xet/3S crov .
cr way coy at?

Compare also ix. 15 = Jer. i. 10, xviii. 9 = Gen. xxvi. 24.

Throughout the first part of the book the speeches have a
decidedly Old Testament ring. That this is not so much the
case in the second part may be due to the fact that the writer
was relying less on his own powers of composition, and that he
had at his disposal reminiscences, written or otherwise, of the
actual words used.

B. In the Narrative. The distinction between speeches and
narrative must be carefully observed. As is well known, to com
pose speeches appropriate to the occasion and put them into
the mouth of the various characters was a recognised practice
among the historians of antiquity. The existence of a large
amount of traditional Old Testament material in the speeches
of Acts may likewise be conceded without prejudice to the
literary honesty of our author. But such a latitude cannot be
transferred without question to the narrative. If we find
descriptions of events moulded to any serious extent on the
LXX., the character of a conscientious historian claimed in
the prologue to the Gospel is considerably impaired.

THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 101

An instance will show what is meant. The story of the
meeting of Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch seems prima facie
to be a straightforward record of actual events. Yet it may be
plausibly maintained that the narrative has been built up out
of hints contained in Zephaniah and other parts of the Old
Testament.

Acts viii.

26. avd&lt;TTr)0i KOL Tropevov Kara.
fj.eo-ijfj.f3p iav eirl rrjv oSov rrjv
Karaf3aivQi)(Tav O.TTO lepov-
craXrjfj. ets Ta^av, avrrj ecrriv

Zeph. ii. 4.
= Hebrew & n?p)

"Afwros (of. Acts viii. 40

AlTTTTOS tVtOl tS

27. KOU avcurras kiropevQit] KOL
dvrjp

Aicrcnys Ai^toVoov, os ^v 7rt
Trao-7/5 rrjs ya^s aur^5, [os]

ecrrai.

Zeph. ii. 11, 12.
( = Hebrew narn ijSfj 05 n)

Kat Trpoa-KVvrf(TOvo-LV avrw

K TOV TOTTOD ttVTOV

rpo.vp.a-

7rao-at at
KCU

riai

fj.ov

39. irvevfjia. Kvpiov

iii. 10.

IK TTC/Darcov TTora/xwi/ AiOunrfa&gt;9
TTpoa-Sf^ofMai kv 8tecr7ra/oyu,evois
/AOV, oZtTOvcriv Oixrias /xoi.
Cf. Ps. Ixvii. 32. Isa. Ivi. 3.

iii. 4.

ot Trpocji^raL avrrjs Trvevuaro-
&lt;f&gt;6poi. Cf. 1 Kg. xviii. 12,
2 Kg. ii. 16: Ezek. iii. 12;
viii. 3.

Note the double meaning of ydfa, " Gaza" and "treasure" ; also
the possibility that evvov^o^ and Bvvdar^ represent the same
Hebrew word, since LXX. translates D^"ip by both words, see
Jer. xli. (xxxiv.) 19. The point at issue is, whether this is
merely a natural colouring of the narrative by Old Testament
language, or whether the facts themselves have been put together
out of hints contained in the Old Testament. As the passage

102 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

considered in isolation hardly warrants a definite conclusion, a
list of passages is given where it is possible that similar influences
may have been at work. Where the bare references are given,
it must be taken as implying that the parallels seem of little
importance. It will be understood that this list might be
enlarged considerably.

i. 3 =Tob. xii. 19, see Simpson in Charles, Apocrypha, i. 234.
ii. 2 =Isa. xxix. 6.
ii. 4 =Isa. xxviii. 11, cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 21.

ii. 41 = Exod. xxxii. 28, see Zeitschrift f. N.T. Wiss. (1913), pp. 94-6. 1
iii. 8 = Isa. xxxv. 6 : Leaping of the lame as a sign of the Messianic

kingdom.

iv. 34 =Deut. xv. 4.
v. 2 =Jos. vii. 1.
viii. 26, 27 = Zeph. ii. 4, etc., see above.
viii. 39 =1 Kg. xviii. 12, 2 Kg. ii. 16, Ezek. iii. 12, viii. 3, Zeph. iii. 4,

Bel 36.

ix. 10-12 =1 Sam. iii. 4, Isa. xlii. 6.
ix. 18 =Tob. xi. 12, see above, p. 76.
ix. 38 ff. =Num. xxii. 5-41.

The parallels here are worked out in detail by Krenkel,
Josephus und Lukas, pp. 194-6. A specimen is given here with
the similarities of language underlined.

x. 19, 20. enrev rb Trvevpa avrw Num. xxii. 20. KOL rjXOev 6 #eos

. . . avacrras . . . KCU Troptvov irpog BaAaa//, VVKTOS KOL

&lt;rvv avrois e?7rev avr&lt;, i KaAecrat ere.

x. 21. Tt s f] curta St r}V Trapccrre / Trdpeicnv ot avOpWTTOL ovrot,

x. 33. Tra/oea-ftev avacrras O.KO XovOrjo-ov avrois

xi. 14. n^T/DOV, os AaA^cret prf- aAAa TO pyj/j^a o eai/ AaAr/o~co

TT/SOS o~e. TT/DOS o-e, rov

1 Three thousand were added to the Church in one day, just as 3000
members of the Church in the wilderness perished in one day. A faint vein
of reminiscence of the story of Moses is possibly to be detected in Acts i.-vii.
The story of Pentecost in Acts ii. is generally acknowledged to owe something
to Jewish legends of the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai. The forty days in
Acts i. 4 in connection with the Mount of Olives in i. 12 recall Moses forty days
in the mount, Exod. xxiv. 18. The apostles in Acts vi., like Moses in Exod.
xviii., appoint helpers to share with them the burden of administration. Christ
is depicted as the new Moses in Acts iii. 22, cf. vii. 35 ; see Heb. iii., where the
comparison is made explicit.

in THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 103

The case for direct influence would be strengthened if the
order of the passages in Acts corresponded in any way to that in
Numbers, but on the contrary they are picked out arbitrarily
from all parts of chaps, ix.-xi. in order to make the required
parallels. It is probable that nothing more is demonstrated
than that these chapters are composed in a strongly LXX.
style. 1

ix. 40 = 2 Kg. iv. 35, cf. Tob. xi. 7. 77 8e fivoi%ev rou? 6&lt;f)0a\-
/-tou? of Acts may be taken from /cal rjvoigev TO TraiSdpiov rot/9
6&lt;f)0a\fjLov&lt;; of Kings. These are the only passages in the Greek
Bible where av. r. 6(f&gt;0. is used of a man opening his own eyes
(but cf. Acts ix. 8). It is used of an opening by some one else,
2 Kg. vi. 20, Matt. xx. 33, John ix. 10 ff., x. 21, xi. 37,
Acts xxvi. 18 ; also of God opening his eyes as in 2 Kg. xix. 16,
Bar. ii. 17, Dan. ix. 18.

xii. 23 =2 Kg. xix. 35, 2 Mace. ix. 5, 9, see above, p. 75.
xvi. 14, 16 = 1 Sam. xxviii. 7, 21, 23, see Selwyn, St. Luke, the Prophet,

pp. 50, 51.
xx. 10 =2 Kg. iv. 34, 1 Kg. xvii. 23, see Selwyn, pp. 58 ff.

The parallels are by no means close, as will be seen by an examina
tion of the passages.

The majority of these instances are of slight importance. In
none is the resemblance so striking as in the verses of Zephaniah
with which we started.

It appears from the foregoing that the LXX. has been Con-
an important factor in the composition of some of the speeches
of Acts, but that its influence in moulding the narrative has
been slight, except in chaps, viii.-xii. Now viii., ix. 31-43,
x. 1-xi. 18, xii. form a well-defined section, which may be termed
the Acts of Peter and Philip. There can be little doubt that
Luke regarded these chapters as genuine history, but it may well

1 It is hard to see what purpose, except that of humour, is served when
Krenkel adduces Num. xxii. 28 *cd tfvoii-ev 6 0e6s rb a-T6/m.a. TT}S 6vov, in illustra
tion of Acts x. 34 dvo^as St IT^rpos rb &lt;rr6iM. If veins of reminiscence are
sought here, it is better to use Gen. xviii., where the parallels run consecutively ;
cf. Acts x. 17, 19, 23-25 with Gen. xviii. 2, 3-8, 16, xix. 2.

104 THE COMPOSITION AND PUKPOSE OF ACTS i

be that the tradition had been affected, even to the extent of
remoulding, by certain passages of the LXX. before it was brought
to his notice. Other ways in which Luke betrays the influence
of the LXX. were discussed in the earlier part of the chapter.
No very definite results were attained, but the investigators of
other problems of Acts may find the facts as here stated useful
as criteria by which to test the soundness of their own con
clusions. 1

1 A complete treatment of the subject would include an extension of the
inquiry to the third Gospel, which space forbids. All that can be attempted
is to point out the probable results of such an investigation. It would prob
ably be found that (i.) Luke s modifications of the Marcan narrative were
sometimes dictated by a desire to make it accord more closely with (a) a well-
known incident of the LXX. or (6) conventional methods of treating a story,
and that (ii.) the narratives found in Lk. only are more dependent on con
ventional material than is the case with the special matter of the other Gospels.
The following examples will illustrate these positions.

(i.) (a) In leaving the upper room and proceeding across the Kedron to
the Mount of Olives, Christ is represented as consciously fulfilling prophecy
(rb irepi c^ov rAos ?x ei f Lk. xxii. 37). The analogy with the experience of
David, who went along the same path in his flight from Absalom, would strike
any student of the Old Testament. Resemblances between the two histories
occur in all four Gospels (cf. e.g. 2 Sam. xv. 14 di/do-r^re Kal Qtyupev , with
John xiv. 31 tyeipe&lt;r6e, aywuev evrevdev), but by far the most striking
parallels are found in the additions made by Luke. See Lk. xxii. 32 f., which
seems to be modelled on 2 Sam. xv. 20 f.

Lk. xxii. 2 Sam. xv.

32. Kal ati Trore eTrtcrrp^as ar^pLcrov TOVS 20. tiriffTpttyov /cat Tri(TTpe\^ov roi)s

deX0oi5s eov. dde\(f)ovs &lt;rov fjierd croO. . . .

21. Kal aireKpld-r} E0i T$ /3a&lt;rtXet Kal

33. 6 5t etirev avry Ktfpte, pera croO d7rev % KtptOS Kal ft A riplk flM

Kal els 0uXa/cV Kal els f, /Sao-tXeuy, 6 rt els rbv rbirov o5 &v

* 6 K6pL ^ ^ Kal &gt; aj , d , davaTOV

Kal av e/s ^WT^, 6 rt ^/cet crrai 6

(6) Two details added by Luke to Mark s account of the end of the cruci
fixion (xxiii. 47 f., the " glorifying of God " and the return of the spectators to
their homes) agree with the end of Enoch s life as described in 2 Enoch (Slavonic
Enoch) Ixvii. 1-3. " When Enoch had talked to the people, the Lord sent out
darkness on to the earth, and there was darkness, and it covered those men
standing and talking with Enoch, and they took Enoch up to the highest
heaven, where the Lord is ; and he received him and placed him before his
face, and the darkness went off from the earth, and light came again. And
the people saw and understood not how Enoch had been taken, and glorified

THE USE OF THE SEPTUAGINT IN ACTS 105

God, and found a roll in which was traced : the invisible God, and all went
to their homes " (Charles translation*).

(ii.) Chaps, i. and ii. are, as is well known, saturated with LXX. words
and phrases. For instance, the annunciations of the births of John and Jesus
Christ are modelled on the annunciation of the birth of Samson in Judges xiii.,
as the transcribing of a few verses will show.

Lk. i.

11. u)(f&gt;07] 8 avr&lt;$ ayyf\o$ Kvplov ... 3.
13. elirev 82 Trpos avrbv b &yye\os.
7. Kal OVK rjv atrrots r^Kvov, Ka66n rjv

EXetcrd/SeT vreipa.
31. loov &lt;rv\\r]fj.\^r] . . . vlbv.
15. /cat olvov Kal oi/cepa ov /JLTJ irlrj.

Judges xiii.

ctyyeXos Kvptov irpbs rr\v
Kal elire irpbs avrriv ISov
ffv crreipa Kal ov r^ro/cas, /cat cri^X-

31. Kal ISov &lt;rv\\rj/j.\f/ri iv ya&lt;rrplKal rt^rj

vlbv.
15. Kal Trvev/j-aros dylov irXridrifferai ri

K K0i\ias /jLTjrpbs avrov.
31. Kal KaX^crets TO 6vo/ji.a avrov Ir/aovv.

cf. Matt. i. 21.

auTOS yap crwcret rbv \abv avrov dirb

ii. 23.

4. Kal vvv &lt;f&gt;v\a$;ai Sy Kal /xrj Trlrjs olvov

Kal fjL^dvff/J-a, Kal /AT? &lt;f)dyr]S irdv
aKadaprov.

5. STL I8oi&gt; (TV tv yaarpl l%eis Kal T^TJ

vl6v, Kal crtdtjpos tiri rrjv Kf(f&gt;a\T]v
avrov OVK dva^rjcrerai, OTL va$ip 6eov
fcrrou rb Traiddpiov dirb rrjs KOtXias*
Kal avrbs ap^erai TOV &lt;rwo~ai rbv
IcrpaTjX K xetpos

Again, in a characteristic Lukan parable, such as the Prodigal Son, free use
is made of traditional material.

Lk. xv.

15. Kal wopevOels
rdv rrjs
avrbv eij TOI)S dypovs avrov

fvlrwv TroXt- 34.

Ahikar viii.

Syr. (Charles, Apoc. ii. 775):
" Forgive me this my folly :
and I will tend thy horses and
feed thy pigs which are in thy
house, and I shall be called
evil."

246. Arm. (Charles, ibid.) : "Father,
I have sinned unto thee, for
give me, and I will be to thee
a slave henceforth for ever."

Tob. xi. 8.

bi&gt; rpaxyXov Kal Trpoff8pa/J.ovffa "Awa dir^-rreffev

4irl rbv rpaxv^ov rov vlov avrTJs.

Cf. also Lk. xiii. 7-9 = Ahikar Syr. viii. 35.

A note by H. St. J. Thackeray in J.T.S. xiv. (1913), pp. 389 ff., shows the
kind of discoveries that still await investigators.

18. aj ao Tas Tropevacuai. irpbs rbv irartpa

IULOV Kal tpu avrip irdrep, fj/JLaprov
et s rbv ovpavbv Kal (vuiribv aov,

19. ovK^n eifj.1 ci^tos K\ri&rjvai vl6s &lt;rov

TTolriffbv /j.e ws %va ruv pucdiuv aov.

20.

Kal dpajjujiv eTrtn-ecrfv eirl
avrov.

* See my note in J.T.S. xv. (1914), p. 597, from which, by permission of the editors,
this paragraph is taken.

THE USE OF MAEK IN THE GOSPEL ACCORDING
TO LUKE

By F. C. BURKITT

Treatment IN the following pages it is assumed that the author of the
narrative* third Grospel used the Gospel of Mark practically in its extant

^ orm &gt; anc * a ^ so ^ at wnere he does thus follow Mark he had
no other source available. The differences between Luke and
Mark in these parallel narratives are consequently regarded as
due to the literary manner of the later writer, in a word, to his
style and methods of writing history, not to fresh, independent
information.

Luke s In addition to Mark the Third Evangelist, no doubt, had other

sources. sources f or many parts of his Gospel to which there are no Marcan
parallels, sources such as the mysterious Q. In the Acts,
which is simply Volume II. to the Third Gospel, there must also
have been sources used, written or oral. But we do not
possess them, and we cannot reconstruct them. We can, how
ever, study in detail the way in which Luke has treated Mark,
and judge whether he treated it fairly or unfairly, with historical
acumen, or unintelligently. Our aim will be to form some idea
of the value of the rest of his work as a picture of the early days
of Christianity.

Luke One point may be noted at the beginning. We must beware

Marcan of confounding the narrative of Mark with the actual course

of events in the Ministry of Jesus. No doubt Mark is the best

106

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 107

source we have, the nearest both in time and information to
the actual happenings. And I assume that for all the public
life of Jesus, with the possible exception of the actual Passion,
Luke s other sources gave him nothing like a detailed itinerary
or connected story of our Lord s public career. Now Mark
obviously offers us a very imperfect itinerary at the best. During
the final sojourn in Jerusalem it does assume the nature of a
diary, and indeed from x. 32 onwards I see no reason to doubt
that it is written in strict chronological order. We may go
back further and say that, after Peter s confession at Caesarea
Philippi, the approaching visit to Jerusalem is held steadily in
view. But from the beginning of the Gospel to Mark viii. 26
the impression I get is of a series of anecdotes, arranged only
roughly in the order of time, or indeed in any order at all. The
evidence may show that Luke was as dependent as we are upon
Mark for his information about large sections of the Gospel
narrative, but he had the same right as Loisy or Harnack,
or any other modern writer, to rearrange the tale told by his
authority into what he might consider to be a form essentially
more true to the underlying reality.

A somewhat different question which may be asked is, how St. Luke s
far * Luke s sources may be supposed to reappear intact, or
essentially intact, in his own narrative ? In other words, how
far could we reconstruct Mark out of Luke ? The answer must
be that we. can do very little. The Gospel of Luke is very far
from being a " second edition of Mark, revised and enlarged," as
I have elsewhere ventured to call the Gospel of Matthew. 1 Luke
is a fresh historical work, in which the Mar can thread is often
dropped, and the bits of Mark are ingeniously fitted into the
Lucan scheme by alterations and omissions which would have
made their original setting unrecognisable, were it not for the fact
that the original is still extant.

To take the clearest instance, what information did Luke () The
possess about the final Visit to Jerusalem ? I leave out for the

1 Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, p. 97.

108 THE COMPOSITION AND PUKPOSE OF ACTS

The treat
ment of
Mark by
Luke.

present everything after the Last Supper. This Visit to Jeru
salem was the most public period of the whole Ministry ; in the
words of Acts xxvi. 26 : " The thing was not done in a corner."
Here, therefore, an historical inquirer might be expected to
amass new material. But as a matter of fact Luke seems
to have had little beyond the narrative of Mark. There is the
story of Zacchaeus, the parable of the Pounds, the saying
about Stones crying out, and the story of Christ weeping over
Jerusalem. All the rest of Luke xix.-xxi. is a mere rewriting
of Mark x. 32-xiii. It may be added that the opening section
of Luke xxii. is directly taken from Mark xiv. : Luke does
not seem to have had any information about the policy of
the Chief Priests or the betrayal by Judas beyond what Mark
tells us.

First let us ask how this section of Mark fares in the Lucan
narrative. To begin with, the section of Mark occupies nearly
nine pages in Westcott and Hort, while in Luke it occupies only
eight pages, notwithstanding the fresh stories of Zacchaeus and
the parable of the Pounds. Thus the Marcan narrative appears
in Luke considerably curtailed.

What is more important is that the chronological links have
been removed. The chronology of Holy Week rests on Mark,
and Mark alone. It is from Mark that we infer that the entry
into Jerusalem took place on " Palm Sunday," the cleansing of
the Temple on the Monday in Holy Week, the vigorous disputes
with Chief Priests and others in Jerusalem on the Tuesday, the
Supper at the house of Simon the Leper on the Wednesday. All
this reckoning by days disappears in Luke of set purpose. Jesus
is teaching daily in the Temple (Luke xix. 47) ; on " one of the
days " he is asked about his authority (xx. 1), and in xxi. 7 ff.
there is nothing to show that the great eschatological sayings were
not spoken in the very courts of the Temple itself, with all Jeru
salem listening. These sayings are nothing more than Luke s
version of Mark xiii. 3-37, i.e. words spoken in private to four
intimate friends outside the city on the Mount of Olives, at a

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 109

moment when Jesus had apparently abandoned his public activity
in Jerusalem.

Thus we have not merely to do with the dropping of a few
dates : a considerably different historical picture is presented in
Luke from that in Mark. In Mark, so it seems to the present
writer, we can trace some real reminiscences of an eye-witness.
There is no valid reason to question the accuracy of the reckoning
by days. The entry into Jerusalem in Mark ends lamely with
an afternoon visit to the Temple (Mark xi. 11), just as it may
have done in " real life " ; the very curious story of the cursing
of the fig tree is told in two sections, each of which is accom
panied by details which, while they somewhat embarrass the
miraculous effect (as compared with the way the tale is told in
Matthew), yet at the same time suggest that the story is based
on real recollections of a real incident. Further on in the story
of the Great Commandment the answer of Jesus according to
Mark begins with the recitation of the Shema\ as the answer of
a Jew should begin, and Jesus and the questioning Scribe part
with friendly speeches. 1 All these things have something of
the objective, almost pointless, quality of a spectator s remini
scences. They do not help on the drama, however valuable
they may be to the modern investigator, whose desire is not to
receive a mental impression from ancient writers, but to collect
material for reconstructing the scenes for himself.

The corresponding narrative in Luke, on the other hand,
is admirably staged to produce an impression. The march of the
great drama is not cut up into days. There is nothing left to
indicate the length of Jesus visit to Jerusalem. By day he
remains in the Temple teaching, by night he used to stay out
side the city by the Mount of Olives. Every day the people
assembled early in the Temple to hear Him (Luke xxi. 37, 38).

1 The answer about the Great Commandment is given elsewhere by St.
Luke, so he leaves out the whole of the section of Mark in which the story is
told except a few words (Luke xx. 39, 40, taken from Mark xii. 32, 346), which
as they appear in the Third Gospel give no idea at all of the character of the tale
from which they were extracted !

110 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

This goes far beyond Mark xii. 38a. One gets the impression
not merely of sympathy from the Galilean crowd, but of domin
ance over the whole population of Jerusalem. According to
Luke the entry of Jesus had been that of a monarch taking
possession of his own. The followers of Jesus hail him as King
(xix. 38). He weeps, indeed, at the sight of the City, for he
knows the fate in store for it forty years later. But on his
arrival he turns out the tradesmen at once from the Temple,
and converts it into his place of instruction. There is no in
decision or delay : the challenge to the rulers of Jerusalem is
thrown down at once. And further, I venture to think it would
have passed the analytical skill of our critics, if they had not
the narrative of Mark before them, to discover that the Zacchaeus
story was a later insertion into the main fabric, while the story
of the blind man was not. Who would have guessed that the
Weeping over Jerusalem (Luke xix. 42-44) was an insertion by
the Evangelist into a narrative which did not originally contain
it ? If we only knew of the story through the tale as Luke tells
it, it is likely that w. 42-44 would have been accepted as taken
from the main source, and w. 45, 46, which give the Cleansing
of the Temple, would have been regarded as a secondary addition.
And this would have been all the more plausible, because the
allusion to the future siege would appear to be borne out by xxi. 24
( Jerusalem trodden down by Gentiles) . We should not have known
that xxi. 24 was only Luke s rationalising interpretation of the far
vaguer Apocalyptic phrase about " the abomination of desolation,"
so that the only consistency is the consistency of the Evangelist s
additions and alterations, not the consistency of his materials.

The fact is that * Luke is far too skilful and intelligent a
writer to yield very much to cross-examination. He tells us
what he wants to tell us with lucidity and charm, but you cannot
get much more out of him than what he has chosen to say. It
is the naive, the clumsy, the stupid writers that let out what
they try to suppress, and Luke is neither clumsy nor stupid,
and he certainly is not naive.

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 111

But DOW let us turn to Luke s tale, as it is in itself. What The story
would have been the effect of his story of the Last Days in ir
Jerusalem upon readers who had no other Gospel to compare
with it ? St. Luke wrote that Theophilus might know upon
what the matters about which he had been instructed were based
(irepl &V Karrj^drj^ Xoywv rrjv acr(f)d\iav). No doubt these
matters, \6yoL, were of the nature of doctrines and mysteries,
foundations of the Christian faith, such as are enumerated in
Heb. vi. 1, 2, rather than tales about Jesus the Nazarene.
The object of the Evangelist was not to compile a scientific
historical memoir so much as to give a clear and readable account
of the origines of the Christian Way, an account which, in style
and treatment, should be worthy of its noble subject. Such
an aim includes general historical truth as apprehended by
St. Luke, for the Birth, Career, Death, and Resurrection of the
Lord had really happened ; but it did not necessarily include
meticulous accuracy of detail. To give the broad effects their
proper values it is often necessary to suppress details which, in
the opinion of the artist, are not significant.

Judged by this broader standpoint, what are we to say of the
portion of Luke which we are considering ? Surely it is a fine
and well-proportioned story. Luke takes the tales and sayings
which he finds in his authority, and tells them in his own incom
parable style. Much of Mark s wording remains, but here and
there it is effectively paraphrased. A few additional sayings,
one at least of great dramatic interest, are incorporated into the
narrative, but so skilfully that no break is perceptible. We learn
that Jesus entered the City accompanied by a festive procession
of his disciples, that his first public act was to turn out the
sellers from the Temple, that the grandees of Jerusalem were
hostile, but did not know at first what to do in face of the popular
interest. Jesus speaks openly in the Temple about John the
Baptist, about God s martyred Messengers to those in authority,
about questions of the Law, and against the self-seeking ex
pounders of it. As we might expect, Luke does not fail to tell

112 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

the story of the Widow s Mite, before ending his narrative (as
Mark had done before him) with an announcement of the impend
ing woes and an exhortation to watch for the impending judgment.
In all this Luke has followed his source. He identifies the
coming troubles with the Roman war and the Destruction of
Jerusalem a very questionable piece of exegesis and he has
altered the language of Mark almost in every verse. Moreover,
as I have pointed out already, you cannot reconstruct from the
narrative of Luke either a diary or an itinerary for the stay of
Jesus in Jerusalem. But the general ethical and rhetorical
effect of the whole is very much the same as the narrative in Mark.
It is still the story of the Galilean Prophet coming up to the Holy
City, and there discoursing about Jewish problems and coming
into collision with the Jewish authorities. It is the same play
restaged, not a fresh drama. And when we remember how
differently St. Luke is able to arrange a narrative, as, for instance,
the last visit of Paul to Jerusalem and his subsequent trial at
Caesarea, we shall realise that here in the Gospel he has treated
his source not only with freedom and skill, but also with
intelligence and substantial fairness.
The Before leaving Luke s account of our Lord at Jerusalem

speeches in

Luke. we may consider what light our investigation throws upon the
old question of the historical value of the * speeches in Acts.
The " eschatological discourse" given in Luke xxi. 7-36 is in many
respects similar to the speeches in Acts. How would it appear
to us if we were wholly dependent upon the text of Luke ?

In the first place the unimpeachable witness of the Concord
ance shows the vocabulary of Luke xxi. 7-36 to be characteristic
ally Lucan. The details are best left to a footnote, but the fact
admits of no dispute. 1 The style is eminently Lucan : in addition

1 Of the special Lucan peculiarities noticed by Sir John Hawkins there
occur 5&lt;: /ecu xxi. 16 (Hawkins, p. 37), elirev Trapa(3o\r]v, xxi. 29 (Hawk. 39),
ris with optative, xxi. 33 (Hawk. 46), rod with inf., xxi. 22 (Hawk. 48). The
following words are Lucan : avreLirelv, dTroAo-yeicrflat, yovels, dettrdcu, e-rraipeLv,
efaffT&vcu, Kaipol (pi.), KTa.aQa.iy Xa6s, 77 olKOv^v-rj, ir\T)ffdr)vai, VpO/SdXXetl ,
&lt;rvyyevf is, 0f\os. Further, -n-poffdoKia, ffwo^y and &lt;rr/)ar67re5of

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 113

to those words and locutions enumerated in the footnote we may
notice the phrase "set in your hearts," which is also found in
Luke i. 66 and Acts v. 4. Still more striking is the fact that
the words, " not a hair of your head shall perish," reappear in
Acts xxvii. 34, in the midst of Luke s account of Paul s
shipwreck.

With these linguistic facts in our minds it would have been
impossible not to give full weight to the suspicious circumstance
that the siege of Jerusalem by hostile armies is foretold in so
many words in v. 20 : it would be fairly urged that it is
unlikely that the words as they stand in that verse could have
been what Jesus said. Finally, there is something improbable
in the general situation as given in Luke. Was this discourse the
sort of thing that all the people came early to hear in the Temple
(xxi. 38) ? And, when closely looked at, many of the verses,
e.g. 12-19, are inappropriate to a public speech. Indeed, this
very inappropriateness might have been made the excuse, among
critics of a conservative and apologetic turn, for saving a few of
the sayings as possibly based on tradition. But the rest would
have seemed to be nothing more than a free composition by
Luke. We might have given him credit for remembering to
supply an eschatoiogical air to the discourse, but we should have
regarded it as a mere literary effort, no more historical than the
speech of Paul at Athens.

Well, but what are the facts ? Of this speech, Luke xxi.
7-36, we do know the genesis. It is Luke s version of Mark xiii.
3-37. Let us now take Mark xiii. 3-37 and see how our theories
fare. Some of what has been said in the preceding paragraphs
remains. There is a large Lucan element in Luke xxi. 7-36, an
element which belongs to the Evangelist and does not go back
to the sayings of Jesus. Luke has rewritten the discourse
throughout. For the most part this is a mere matter of style.
After all, we are dealing with translations, with a rendering of

do not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but TrpoadoK^v and oWx 6 " ar charac
teristically Lucan, and Luke has a certain taste for military words.

VOL. II I

114 THE COMPOSITION AND PUEPOSE OF ACTS i

the Lord s words into an alien literature. An impression of them
was required, rather than a report, something, moreover, not too
uncouth for Greek ears. And is not Luke xxi. 7-36 dignified
and impressive ? Note, too, how in v. 26 the evangelist emphasises
the psychological element in the terrors to come rather than the
mere signs in the material heavens. The special Lucan words and
phrases noted above do turn out to be Luke s words, not those
of his source, but he has not altered the general tenor of what was
in the source. Not all his alterations, indeed, are improvements,
and not all his interpretations of his sources prove to be correct.
This is notably the case with xxi. 20, the verse that so much too
clearly indicates the siege of Jerusalem. But when we compare
it with its immediate original, Mark xiii. 14, we see that, whatever
else may be said of it, it is not a mere free composition by Luke.
It is Luke s interpretation of the saying of Jesus about Daniel s
" abomination of desolation," a saying which, as we read it in
Mark, implies some general apocalyptic catastrophe rather than
so mundane and secular an affair as a Roman campaign. How
ever, this is not the place to discuss the older form of this tradi
tional saying ; my point is, that the Lucan form is, after all,
based on tradition. The form which Luke gave it is, as we see,
coloured by the events of A.D. 70, but the underlying substance
of it is older.

More important still is the fact that the speech itself proves
not to be Luke s compilation. It may be, of course, that the
speech in Mark xiii. is not, strictly speaking, historical ; the
discussion of this belongs to another inquiry and need not be
pursued here. But we see it was known to Luke : the reason
that an eschatological speech is put into our Lord s mouth in
Luke xxi. is because Luke found an eschatological speech of
our Lord reported in Mark xiii. He has, indeed, suppressed the
illuminating circumstance that this forecast of the future was
spoken in private to a few intimate associates of Jesus, not
declaimed in the Temple courts. But that circumstance, though
of great importance to historical investigators, would have been

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 115

of little interest to Theophilus : I daresay most Christian congre
gations, even at the present day, care very little whether Jesus
spoke about the future to his disciples in the Temple or on the
Mount of Olives.

However this may be, what concerns us here is not that Luke

has changed so much, but that he has invented so little. It may

indicate that the same has happened with some of the speeches

in Acts. At the same time it warns us not to trust too closely

to the times or the places in which these speeches in Acts are said

to have been delivered, or to place any special reliance upon details

of their phraseology. With Luke xxi. 7-36 in our minds we may

indeed have greater confidence that Peter s great speech after

Pentecost (Acts ii. 14-36) is not an invention of Luke, but we

must be prepared to keep before us the possibility that in the

source from which Luke took it Peter spoke in private, and

that the wording of the speech was quite different, the wording,

but not the general sense. For after all the chief point is, that

the general tenor of Luke xxi. 7-36 and Mark xiii. 4-37 is one and

the same. What does Luke tell Theophilus that Jesus said

about the future ? He tells -him that Jesus said, " First of all,

do not imagine that every calamity is the last. You will suffer

grievously for my sake, but it will be given to you what to say :

in the end your steadfastness will be rewarded. When evil comes,

do not imagine the Holy Place will be inviolable : escape and

hide while there is time, for inconceivable destruction will happen

in heaven and earth ! But when things are at their worst,

the Son of Man will come from heaven as Daniel foretold, and

will gather his saints from their hiding-places. It is all as

inevitable as the leaves on the fig-tree every summer, and it will

surely come in this generation, though no one knows the exact

moment. So watch ! Watch ! Keep yourselves on the alert,

lest you be caught unprepared ! "

Is this a summary of the speech in Luke ? It would stand
equally well for that in Mark. The length and detail of the
common summary is a measure of the general faithfulness of

116 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

^/ I Luke to his sources, and of the confidence which we may reason
ably place in his reports of speeches in his second volume.

Luke s We must now return to our main thesis. What is true of

method. Luke s account of the final visit of Jesus to Jerusalem is
generally true of all the rest of the Gospel. Surely we may con
fess, in the words I have already had occasion to use, that " in
style and treatment it is worthy of its noble subject," and that
the sketch which it gives of the Ministry of Jesus is characterised
by " general historical truth." We read in the Third Gospel of
the preaching of the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus, followed
by his retirement for a while into the desert. When he is ready
(Luke iv. 13 f.) he returns to Galilee as a Herald of good tidings
for the poor and the oppressed. He teaches his message in the
synagogues, and we are given a specimen of his method, which
serves as a sort of overture to the tale of the Ministry (iv. 16-30).
Then follow anecdotes of wonderful deeds, the call of Peter and
others, a collection of ethical counsels for disciples, sayings about
the Baptist, sayings about forgiveness of sins. All this takes
place while Jesus goes from place to place, accompanied by his
twelve chosen associates and certain grateful women who have
been healed by him, and in return support the itinerant Herald
of the Kingdom of God (viii. 1-3). After this we read of a short
visit over the Lake, of the feeding of 5000 men near Bethsaida,
but otherwise there is no indication of absence from the towns
and villages of Galilee. Jesus, however, knows well that the
time for his " exodus " is at hand (ix. 31, 44, 51), and so he sets his
face to go to Jerusalem. It is apparently a leisurely journey
through cities and villages (xiii. 22). No itinerary of it can be
constructed, except that it begins by going south through Samari
tan country (ix. 52 f.), proceeds through Samaria and Galilee
(xvii. 11), and so reaches Jericho (xviii. 35). Theophilus
certainly possessed no atlas, and probably all Palestinian villages
were much alike to him, if not to Luke himself. 1
1 See Appendix B on Vestigia Christi.

iv LUKE S USE OF MARK 117

I do not think Luke intends us to follow the footsteps of
Jesus and his companions. To do so would be to distract our
eyes from the goal. Respice finem is all that these later notices
of place signify. Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum have not
repented, soon it will be too late ; the Son of Man must be handed
over to the Gentiles ; God will avenge His elect speedily, before
the careless expect it, yet not till after some delay, and He is
always ready to forgive those who repent. Something like this
is the impression which these central chapters of the Third
Gospel are meant to convey, and surely they do convey it with
consummate art, with the simplicity that is the highest art. And
much of this simplicity and directness of effect comes, no doubt,
from the fact that Luke is not inventing, but simply retelling,
without essential change, tales that are to a large extent founded
on the reminiscences of those who had heard the Master. The
result is a picture, a sketch, an impression, most admirable from
the point of view from which it is taken. But it tells us little
more than what is on the surface. It tells us what Luke
wished to tell Theophilus, but very little of the nature of the
sources from which Luke worked or of those features in the
history which Luke did not think worth while to record.

One of the sources from which Luke worked was the Gospel Treatment
of Mark. Luke iv. 31-44, v. 12-vi. 19, viii. 4-ix. 50, xviii. 15-43,
and xix. 29-xxii. 14 corresponds to Mark i. 29-39, i. 40-iii. 19,
iii. 31-ix. 50 (with gaps), x. 13-52, and xi. 1-xiv. 17 respectively.
When this list is analysed it will be found that very little of Mark s
material has been dropped, except the section Mark vi. 45-viii.
26, comprising disputes with Rabbis upon clean and unclean,
the long journey to the north outside the Holy Land, the second
Feeding (of the 4000), and a couple of incidental anecdotes con
nected with these events. To the modern historian these things
are important, but they add little to the sacred drama, and their
omission is rather an artistic gain than a loss. Everything else
omitted from Mark by Luke is either small in bulk or represented
elsewhere in his Gospel from another source. We get, therefore,

118 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

the impression that Luke tends to utilise his sources in full.
Further, the material is given almost entirely in Mark s order ;
there are hardly any transpositions or regroupings of material,
and that is all the more noteworthy, as many of the tales in the
early part of Mark appear to have been thrown together almost
haphazard. This adherence to the order of the source does not
come from any theoretical objection to change, seeing that St.
Luke places the scene of our Lord s rejection in Nazara by his
own townsfolk at the beginning of the public Ministry, contrary
to historical probability but for what may be called literary effect.
Yet in doing so he does not transpose the Marcan narrative ;
it would be more accurate to say that he drops the Marcan narra
tive when he comes to it (at the beginning of Luke ix.), for Luke
iv. 16-30 is not based on Mark vi. 1-6, though it may owe some
thing to Luke s acquaintance with those verses.

General The preceding sketch of the literary methods of the Third

Evangelist has been undertaken not so much to appraise the
value of his Gospel as to endeavour to find out what hopes the
investigator of the beginnings of the Christian Church may have
of " getting behind " the narrative of Acts and, what is still more
important, of estimating with what degree of confidence we may
trust the story there told.

One clear result is a demonstration of the difficulty, if not
the impossibility, of " getting behind " Luke by a mere close
consideration of what he chooses to tell us. There is a certain
resemblance between the way the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem is
told in Luke and the way the early history of the Church is told
in Acts i.-xii. I have ventured elsewhere l to conjecture that
both Gospel and Acts are here based on the earlier narrative of
Mark. The chief difference to us on this hypothesis is that the
Gospel chapters are based on the part of Mark s work which is
v extant, while Acts i.-xii. corresponds to the lost part of Mark
that followed Mark xvi. 8. But from what has been said above

1 Earliest Sources, pp. 79 f.

v LUKE S USE OF MARK 119

it is impossible to reconstruct the lost narrative of Mark from
the text of Acts. The most we can do is to note the probability
that such-and-such an episode is ultimately Marcan. 1 Further,
we cannot reconstruct the chronology of Luke s source any
more than we could reconstruct the chronology of Holy Week
from Luke xix.-xxiii. And when we consider how indifferent
Luke in his Gospel appears to be to the details of Palestinian
topography quite a contrast, it may be remarked in passing,
to his intelligent interest in Asia Minor and Macedonia we
must renounce any hope of making anything consecutive or
consistent in the wanderings of Peter and others as recorded in
these early chapters of Acts. The story of Peter and Cornelius
may be a tale rewritten by Luke and put for effect out of its
chronological setting, just as Mark vi. 1-6 appears in Luke out
of its chronological setting. We cannot guess at the relative
proportion which the several events bore to each other in the
source from the way they are told in Acts.

It may be remarked in passing that the vagueness as to place
and time characteristic of Luke as compared with Mark is an
argument for accepting the statements made by Paul about
himself in Galatians and elsewhere, rather than for attempting
to combine them with the prima facie meaning of the corre
sponding statements in Acts.

What reason, then, have we for trusting the narrative of the
first twelve chapters of Acts ? Or rather, what measure of
credence ought we to give them ? Roughly, this : we should
give them much the same measure of credence that we give to
the story of the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem as related in Luke,
as compared with the story in Mark. It seems to me that this
measure of credence may be compared with that which we give
to Shakespeare s Henry V. as compared with Hall s Chronicle.
Shakespeare s play is very much more than a work of fancy. If
we knew nothing about the great Lancastrian except what we
get from Shakespeare, we should still have a great deal of solid

1 The clearest example is the story of Rhoda (Acts xii. 13 ff.).

120 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

information. We should know the outlines of the history and
the heroic story of Agincourt. We should also have a not
unhistorical picture of the character of the heroic king, drawn
for us by a great literary genius. Something of this is what we
have in the Lucan writings. In the Gospel we can partially
control the author s tale, for we possess one of his sources. In
the Acts we are almost entirely dependent on what he has chosen
to tell us.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS
By THE EDITORS

IT may be well at this point to make a superficial comparison
of Acts with the results of these investigations. It is clear that
the writer was thoroughly impregnated with the Greek Old
Testament ; there is no good evidence that he was acquainted
with the Hebrew original. He is able to use Greek like a Greek,
and in this respect he is more Greek than Josephus, but he does
not always write thus ; sometimes, perhaps, owing to the in
fluence of Aramaic originals which he translated, sometimes
owing to his imitation of the Septuagint. But it is also obvious
and this is of great importance that, at least in the Gospel, he
was nearer to the old Jewish literary tradition than was Josephus.
He does not, indeed, copy his sources with quite the same verbal
fidelity as does the Chronicler, but he paraphrases and polishes
far less than Greek custom would have demanded. Above all,
in the Gospel he does not invent speeches. A purely Greek
writer of history would have respected the facts of the life of
Jesus, but would have freely invented speeches. Luke, on the
contrary, respects the sayings of Jesus more than the narrative
of events which lay before him. That is Jewish : to give teaching
and law rather than the accurate and full narration of events is
the ideal. But is this equally true of Acts ? The question is
all the more delicate, because it must be admitted that Luke
had a special reason for respecting the speeches of Jesus : they

121

122 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

had authority. It is a different matter with the speeches of the
apostles, and though there is a presumption in favour of similarity
of treatment, the possibility is open that the writer followed
somewhat different plans in Acts and in the Gospel. We have
not, however, in Acts any of the original documents used by
the writer, and the questions of his sources and his plan of com
position can only be carried further after a discussion of relatively
modern researches into the internal evidence of the book itself.

The we The first period of the history of research on this subject

twofold an began in 1793 when Konigsmann published as his Rector al-

thr S book f P r 9 ram an essa y on the Sources used by Luke in the Gospel

recognised, and Acts. He did little more than call attention to the we

sources and drew from them the conclusion that the writer of

these passages was not the author of the whole book, but had

written a document which an editor had used. Following up

this suggestion after many years increasingly elaborate attempts

to deal with the problem were published between 1821 and 1847

by J. C. Riehm, Schleiermacher, Gfrorer, and Schwanbeck. All

these attempts had certain characteristics in common. They

recognised that the Acts could be divided at chapter xii. or at

chapter xv., and in general they agreed in attributing these

two parts to different writers, as a rule attaching greater value

to the later chapters.

This distinction between the two parts of Acts and the prob
ability that therein is represented a diversity of sources used by
the editor is the permanent contribution of this period. In
working out the details of further suggestions the scholars
mentioned pursued various lines of thought, but none of them
has really proved to be entirely sound.

Riehm. Riehm l thought that Acts i.-xii. rested on a series of small

essays discovered and used by the editor, but that xiii.-xxviii.
rested on his own observation, or on other persons verbal
testimony, except for the speeches and the letters in Acts xv.

1 Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Act. Apost. 1821.

v THE INTEKNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 123

and xxiii., for which he had access to written reports or to written
originals.

Gfrorer 1 thought that the compiler of Acts, writing about Gfrorer.
A.D. 90, used a collection of unhistorical legends arranged by a
zealous Petrinist ; this source covers Acts i.-xii., and only the
speech of Stephen is of first-rate historical value. The remaining
chapters of the book are a good historical document compiled
by a companion of Paul.

Schleierrnacher, 2 following up his well-known theory of the Schieier-
origin of the Gospels from a series of scattered essays which the n
Evangelist collected, thought that Acts had a similar origin.
His work remains a valuable collection of the discrepancies,) V
repetitions, etc., found in Acts, but he did not systematise
his data or give precision to his theory. So far he was probably
not wrong : it is easy to see considerable evidence in Acts for
the use of earlier material and editorial work. Probably, how
ever, it is impossible so to unravel the editor s work as to be
able to determine the exact limits of his sources ; and it is even
harder to reconstruct their contents.

Schwanbeck 3 tried to give definite form to the theory which Schwan-
Schleiermacher had more vaguely suggested. According to him b
the compiler of Acts had used (1) a biography of Peter (Acts
i.-vi. 7, viii., xi. 1-18) ; (2) a biography of Barnabas (iv. 36 f.,
ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xiii., xiv., xv. 2-4) ; (3) a memorandum
made by Silas (xv. 14, to the end of Acts) ; (4) special sources
(e.g. the speech of Stephen vii., and xv. 3-13).

Schwanbeck s work was the most minute and painstaking Reactions
of all these publications, but his theory was so complex and sfhwan-
hypothetical that a twofold reaction followed. The conservative b ,^ k c on
critics pointed out that these theories were based on insufficient servative.
grounds, and, emphasising the essential unity of the book, clung
to the view that it was therefore all equally credible and

1 Die heilige Sage, 1838.

2 Einleitung in das N.T., 1845.

3 Ueber die Quellen der Apo-stelgeschichte, 1847.

124 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

historical. Thus they contributed nothing to the elucidation
of the problem ; for, excited by their refutation of the un
tenable details of the schemes of the critics, they ignored the
existence of the difficulties which had at least been recognised
by their opponents, and, under cover of the confusion occasioned
by the rout of the Liberals of the nineteenth century, succeeded
in evading the consideration of the real problems of Acts.
(6) Radical. On the other hand, the radical theologians of the school of
Tubingen were not more successful ; like the conservatives they
saw that Schwanbeck s structure was larger than his founda
tions justified, and that he had not been sufficiently attentive
to the general unity of Acts. They therefore fastened upon
this unity, and recognising, like all the liberal critics, that the
opening chapters of Acts are largely legendary, deduced the
conclusion that Acts as a whole is legendary. To them it
appeared that any minute criticism of sources was unprofitable
and unnecessary, and they passed on to develop their famous
series of inquiries into the reason why Acts was written rather
than into the method of its composition.

So the matter remained for many years. Schwanbeck s
criticisms and reconstruction were not seriously improved,
though efforts in the same direction never entirely ceased. The
situation was summed up by E. Zeller, whose statement l of the
whole question remains the classic summary of the position as it
was in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Bemhard A new period began in 1886. B. Weiss in his Einleitung in

vives S theor y ^ as New Testament revived the theory of the use of written sources
of written m ^g ear ii er p ar t o f Acts. His lead was followed by other

sources. *

scholars, and between 1886 and 1897 a series of studies were
published which when taken together formed a complete dis
cussion of various possibilities. The close of this period may
fairly be regarded as marked by the articles of A. Hilgen-
feld in Z.W.Th., 1895 and 1896. It is impossible to give a

1 Die Apostelgeschichte, 1854, pp. 489 ff. (English translation, 1875-76, vol
ii. pp. 291 ff.).

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 125

detailed account of this group of writings, which is admirably
summarised by W. Heitmiiller in the Theologische Rundschau
for 1899, but certain points are noteworthy.

(1) An attempt was made (notably by Spitta) to abandon
the obvious division of Acts into a Petrine and a Pauline half,
by arguing that the source which contains the we sections
appears in the earlier part of the book, sometimes from Acts vi.,
sometimes even from the beginning of the book.

(2) Great emphasis was laid on the indications of doublets
which by some critics, especially Spitta, 1 were carefully grouped,
so that Acts was divided into two primitive documents, both of
which had originally covered the same ground and were skilfully
united by the final editor.

(3) Very little attention was paid to the language of Acts,
and no serious interest was taken in the possibility of the use
of Aramaic sources in the earlier chapters.

On the whole, it cannot be said that this period of activity
in research was marked by the same ability as that displayed
earlier in the nineteenth century. The critical insight of the
writers seems inferior to that of their predecessors ; much of their
work was marked by a perverse ingenuity, and by a tendency to
obscure the main problem in excessive detail. Thus their results
have little permanent importance.

There has been no general interest shown recently in the
analysis of Acts, but attempts have been made by J. Well-
hausen, E. Schwartz, and A. von Harnack in Germany, and by
C. C. Torrey in America.

Eduard Schwartz in the Nachrichten of the Konigliche Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, philologisch - historische Schwartz -
Klasse, 1907, pp. 263 fL, published a very valuable disquisition
Zur Chronologie des Paulus. Its importance for the criticism
of Acts is the argument that the chronological data involved
in the death of Herod 2 and what followed show that the writer

1 Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert. 1891
! ! Acts xii. 20.

126 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

has divided a single visit and a single journey into two separate
visits to Jerusalem, each followed by a missionary journey, prob
ably because he had two traditions of this series of incidents and
did not recognise that they referred to the same events seen
from different points of view.

j. Weil. Julius Wellhausen in the Nachrichten of the Konigliche

hausen. Qegdischafi der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen for 1907, pp. 1 ff.,
independently of Schwartz, but in the same spirit, argued that
chapter xv. is a misplaced doublet of the famine relief visit in
chapter xi., and he also tried to distinguish the we source of
the shipwreck from the we source of the second missionary
journey. He maintained that the passages in this story in which
Paul is mentioned are interpolations, and that the original
document had no reference to him.

A. von More elaborate than the work of Schwartz, yet in some

respects less profound, is A. von Harnack s Apostelgeschichte,
1908. It makes little or no allusion to the work of other investi
gators, and is extraordinarily fresh and interesting.

The general unity of Acts, Harnack thinks, is too great to
permit any consistent use of linguistic tests, except the simple
ones of Aramaic idiom, which he did not seriously consider. The
test of logical connection between paragraphs had been pushed
by earlier critics to an extent which would only be justifiable
if man were an entirely logical being ; he therefore fell back
on general principles, and considered the contents of Acts in
relation to the persons and places which are central in the
narrative. This is in some ways a return to older methods, but
Harnack lays more stress on places, whereas the older school
chiefly considered persons.

Acts i.-xv. The starting-point of his inquiry is the evident bisection of
Acts at xv. 35 or xvi. 5. The second part is, in his judgment,
an obvious unit, which cannot be analysed into sources. But the
first part is quite different. The opening chapters, Acts i. 1 to
v. 1-16, are concerned chiefly with the history of Jerusalem ;
but at viii. 40 the centre changes to Caesarea and finally to

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 127

Antioch. Moreover, these changes are roughly coincident with
the central positions of Peter, or of Peter and John, in the Jeru
salem section, of Philip, or Peter and Philip, in the Caesarean
section, and of Hellenistic Christians, notably Barnabas and
Saul or Paul, in the Antiochene section. Working backwards a
closer analysis shows that the Antiochene section most clearly
contains xi. 19 fL, and that the ol ^ev ovv Siao-Trapevres of
xi. 19 picks up the narrative of viii. 2-4, where the same
phrase is found. But viii. 2-4 is the end of a long story
about the Hellenistic Christians which begins in vi. 6. Thus
we obtain an Antiochene source consisting of vi. 6-viii. 4
and xi. 19-24, and the same methods show that this source
continues from xi. 25 to xi. 30, is resumed in xii. 25, and goes
on to xv. 35.

A similar analysis is then applied to the remaining chapters
of the earlier part. Acts viii. 5-40 and ix. 31-xi. 18 seem to
belong to a source in which the interest is divided between
Jerusalem and Caesarea, and xii. 1-24 is its natural continuation.
This source may be called the Jerusalem-Caesarean source, and
in this way the whole of Acts from vi. 1 to xv. 35, with the excep
tion of ix. 1-30 (the conversion of Paul) is accounted for as
belonging either to the Antiochene or the Jerusalem-Caesarean
source.

The sections i. 1-v. 42 are obviously concerned with Jeru- Acts i.-v.
salem, and in some points seem to be connected closely with the Ja ;
Jerusalem-Caesarean source. Further analysis, however, shows
that these chapters are composite, and contain two accounts
which are largely parallel, and in some cases probably give two
versions of the same account. By using this clue a series of
doublets may be discovered, of which the one beginning in
chapter ii. is obviously inferior to that in chapters iii. f., and
Harnack calls the latter Jerusalem source A (Ja), and the former
Jerusalem source B (Jb). He sees a continuation of Ja in v.
1-16 and of Jb in v. 17-42. He thinks that Ja may be identical
with the Jerusalem-Caesarean source.

128 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Thus the complete analysis of the first part of Acts, according
to the sources distinguished by Harnack, is as follows :

Ja (Jerusalem source A) iii. 1-v. 16

Jb (Jerusalem source B) ii. 1-47

v. 17-42
Jc (Jerusalem-Caesarean source,

perhaps Ja) viii. 5-40

ix. 31-xi. 18
xii. 1-24

P. (Pauline source) ix. 1-30

A. (Antiochene source) vi. 1-viii. 4

xi. 19-30
xii. 25-xv. 35

Possible This analysis draws attention to undoubted facts of group-

tionsT*" ing. The question is the choice between two or three possible
explanations. (1) Do these divisions in the narrative represent
the use of different sources, in the sense of written docu
ments ; or (2) separate traditions, in the sense of definite blocks
of information derived independently from separate places and
persons but not necessarily written ; or (3) are they merely
due to the fact that the events really happened in this way ?
It is of course obvious that the tradition of events in Antioch,
if it be true, necessarily goes back to Antioch, and similarly
with the other sources. In this sense Harnack s proposition is
self-evident. The problem is whether we can say more than
this with any certainty. The reason for still maintaining a
certain scepticism is that by common consent there is very little
serious linguistic difference between the various sections of
Acts i.-xv. Thus to base the investigation on the peculiarities
of the narrative, apart from linguistic details seems to be a
dangerous return to the methods of Schwanbeck or Spitta, from
whose efforts the main lesson to be learnt is that the indications
are too faint to justify any certainty of statement. So far,
therefore, as this method is used to indicate a general outline,

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 129

as it is by Harnack, it is attractive, but it cannot be carried out
in detail.

Nevertheless the contributions of Wellhausen, Schwartz, and
Harnack are quite different in tone and workmanship from
the distressingly dull work which was produced in the nineties.
They are marked by much more common sense and introduce
broad historical questions. Many of their arguments are com
plementary, though there is a clear distinction between them, for
Harnack attaches greater value and an earlier date to Acts than
the others would probably allow.

C. C. Torrey s 1 contribution to the source criticism of Acts c.c.Torrey.
is of a different kind. He contends that Acts i.-xv. is the
careful even too careful translation by the writer of the
we sections of an Aramaic document written by a Christian
of Jerusalem. The primary evidence in support of this view
is a series of passages in which obscure or impossible Greek
becomes intelligible if translated, word for word, into Aramaic.
This is corroborated by a number of smaller points, in which the
Greek is more intelligible if it be regarded as a mistranslation.
These vary in importance from those in which the Greelj is
extremely harsh if not impossible to those in which it would
scarcely arouse criticism if found elsewhere, but deserves atten
tion if the theory of an Aramaic original be conceded as otherwise
probable.

This linguistic argument is the permanent contribution of his
Composition and Date of Acts. The subject is discussed else
where, and it is only necessary here to say that so far as the
evidence for an Aramaic original is concerned Torrey does not
seem to be finally answered by his critics.

On the further point of the unity of this Aramaic original,
and its meticulous translation by Luke, the case for a single
source does not seem to be very strong, and the positive argu
ments of Harnack and Schwartz weigh down the scale, especially

1 "The Composition and Date of Acts," in Harvard Theological Studies, i ,
1916.

VOL. II K

130 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

in view of the light thrown on the subject by the use made of
Mark in the Third Gospel.

It remains to consider the problem afresh, gathering up the
points which seem best to have endured criticism, passing over
those which by common consent have proved ineffective, and
adding such suggestions as these studies have produced.
Written Few will deny that progress has been hindered by failure to

oiToraf 111 distinguish adequately between the closely connected phenomena
traditions wm "ch form the basis of Quellenkritik. In any historical work
it is probable that the writer has made use of more than one
tradition ; but these traditions may have been preserved orally,
or in written documents, which may have originally existed in
some other language, and have been accessible to him only
through translations. It is plain that the use of traditions as
distinguished from that of documents will be indicated by
the existence of contradictions in statements of fact, and diver
gences both in forms of thought and methods of presentation,
but not necessarily by any variation of style. If, therefore,
reajly serious differences of language and style can be traced
between different parts of a book, written sources, as distinct
from traditions, may be postulated. The reverse of this argu
ment, however, is not necessarily true, and unity of style does
not necessarily prove the absence of documentary sources ; for
the final editor of the book, who put together the materials
derived from various traditions and documents, may have re
written the whole in his own language. If so, it may be impos
sible to say whether written documents or merely oral traditions
were used.

One further complication has to be considered. If an editor
be using various documents in his own language, and not re
casting them with great freedom, the probability is that the
original style will betray itself, but if he be translating, the
probability is considerable that he will use the same style through
out. This style will be so far coloured by the idiom of the original

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 131

that those who are perfectly at home both in it and in the
language into which it is translated will be able to see that they
are dealing with translation and not an original composition ;
but they will not be able to decide whether the editor was
translating one or several documents.

The question of the original language in which the sources style in
of an early Christian document were written is always difficult.
No doubt the earliest Christians spoke and thought in Aramaic :
but did they produce any historical documents in it ? The
only test is that of style. The more practised a translator
the less the idiom of the original language is perceptible ; but
probably no one can always cover his traces successfully. More
over, human frailty provides the critic with a further occasional
help. Any one who has tried to translate knows that it is
fatiguing work, and that after a time the tired brain refuses
to follow the argument of the writer : it is impossible to trans
late and study an author simultaneously. The result is an
occasional mistranslation, due to taking the words in a plausible
but wrong sense. This produces sometimes a meaningless
passage, sometimes one which can be greatly improved by dis
covering what original it represents. Nor is this all. If any
one of ordinary capacity tries to translate he will speedily
become confused in his mind between the two languages, and,
when sufficiently tired, will scarcely know which idiom he is using.
The words, for instance, may be Greek, but the idiom Aramaic,
and at times the translator will produce something quite un
intelligible. 1

This nice discrimination of style is in the end the only real
proof of the use of a lost original source in another language.
It can be applied by but a few scholars, and the rest are
obliged to follow with humility. But this humility need
not extend to the point of blind acceptance of opinion, or of

1 The same phenomenon occurs in talking two languages. One may spend
an evening turning, almost with alternate sentences, from one to the other, and
end by being able to use neither without error. It is merely a form of fatigue,
and explains many " translation-phenomena."

132 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

an equally blind abandonment of the problem. In Torrey s
hypothesis, for instance, Semitic scholars are unanimous in
admitting his mastery of Aramaic : the point at issue is
whether the Greek which he translates back into Aramaic is
in some places inconceivable as an original composition, and
in others unidiomatic. Knowledge of Hellenistic Greek, not
of Aramaic, is required for this purpose, and many who do
not know any Semitic language are qualified to discuss the
point. Indeed, they are likely to be far better critics of
the question than those Semitic scholars whose acquaintance
with Greek is limited. After all, many things can be said
similarly in two languages, and the man who knows Semitic
idioms well, and Greek less intimately, is apt to find Semitic
originals in every document which he touches, because he realises
that some phrase or idiom would be perfectly good Semitic, and
does not appreciate the fact that it is also perfectly good Greek.
Editorial When the question of language and the general boundaries

of sources has been settled, the most difficult problem of all
remains, for it will sometimes be possible to detect short passages
which have been put in by the editor in order to improve or
elucidate a narrative. But it must be remembered that many
critics have erred by assuming too easily that the editor always
did his work badly, and that the original document which he was
copying was invariably logical. There is not, however, really any
decisive reason why it should always be the editor, and never
the writer of the original, who is illogical.

Many of these points have been consistently overlooked by
critics who have investigated Acts. They have not distinguished
between criteria pointing to the use of written documents, and
those indicating merely that an historian dealing with a large
subject naturally used several traditions corresponding in the
main to the localities with which he was concerned. They have
been inclined either to overestimate the unity of style in the
book or to exaggerate the divergencies of thought ; and have been
singularly blind to the generally Semitic idiom of the earlier

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 133

chapters as compared with the much more purely Greek style
of the later ones. They have either ignored entirely the traces
of illogical connection, or have attributed them all and much
which was not really illogical to the editor, and none of them to
his sources. The truth seems to be that although there is a
prima facie probability for the use of written sources in Acts,
and especially for Aramaic sources in the earlier chapters, the
writer wrote too well to allow us to distinguish with certainty
either the boundaries of his sources or the extent of his own
editorial work.

In the following paragraphs, therefore, no attempt will be Evidence
made to distinguish minutely the work of the final redactor.
This point can best be discussed in the pages of a commentary.
But it is possible and necessary to bring together the existing
evidence for the use of sources in Acts and to indicate the com
parative probability it is never more of alternative theories.

The two treatises or \6yot, addressed to Theophilus, and
generally known as the Gospel according to Luke and Acts,
obviously form a single literary work. The critical questions
concerned with them deal with the documents and traditions
which may have been used by the author, and the way in which
he put them together.

To solve these problems we have, apart from the probabili- j
ties established by the tradition of the writing of history,
among Greeks and Jews, and, above all, by the author s use of
Mark in the Gospel, only two sources of information.

(1) The statement of the author in his preface at the
beginning of Luke.

(2) The internal evidence given in Acts by linguistic indica
tions and by seams which show that he has passed from one
source (traditional or documentary) to another.

The opening verses of the Gospel and of Acts are often, but Ancient
somewhat loosely, called Prefaces. Ancient writers, however,
distinguished between three phrases which might with more or

134 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

less correctness be translated by Preface TrpooifjLiov,
and TrpoefcOecris. 1

The TTpooifjiiov was the introduction at the beginning of a
work explaining the writer s purpose. This naturally would
come at the beginning of the first of a series of \6yoi or books ;
and, as a rule, nowhere else.

The TTpoypatyrf and TrpoetcOeo-is were devices sometimes, but
not always, adopted by historical writers to serve as signposts
to their readers. They were especially used at the beginning
of a Xoyo? in a work comprising many \6yoi to show the stage
which had been reached in the narrative. The 7rpoypa&lt;f)rj differed
from the Trpoe/cdecr^ only because it was not an integral part of
the text. This is clearly seen from Polybius, who says (xi. 1.5):
. . . l cra&gt;9 Se Tives eVtftyToOflr* TTCO? r^fiels ov 7rpo&lt;ypa&lt;f)a$ ev
ravrrj TTJ /3i/3\w, KaOaTrep ol Trpo rjfjb&v, aXXo, /cal Trpoe/cOeo-eis
KaO* eKaaT^v oXfyLtTTtaSa 7T7roir)Ka/ji6v TWV TTpd^ewv. 6&lt;ya) Be
Kpiva), xprfcn/jiov /j,ev elvai TO TWV Trpoypatywv 76^09 . .
Oewpwv $e Sia TroXXa? atria? real ra? rv^ovaa^

ov TO T&V Trpoypatycov yez&gt;o?, ouT9 ical
TOVTO TO fjbepos /caTr)ve%9rjv T??9 yap
ov /JLOVOV lo-oSvvafjLovo-rjs Trj 7rpoypa(j)f), a\\a /cal ifkelov TL
Svvafjievrjs, a/jia Se KOI %(t)pav e^oixTrj^ acr^a\eo"Tepav $&gt;ia
TO o-v^TreirXe^dai Trj 7rpay/j,aTeia, TOVTM p,a\\ov eBoKijjbd-
aa/jLev xpfjaQat, fjiepet, KT\. That is to say, " But perhaps
some are asking why we are not using Trpoypa^ai in this book
like our predecessors, but have prefixed TrpoeicQea-eis to each
Olympiad. Now I consider that the usual kind of irpoypafyai
are useful, . . . but noticing that for many ordinary reasons
Trpoypatyai are treated lightly and are destroyed, I was induced
to adopt my present procedure. For Tr/ooe/c^eo-et? have the same

1 The technical question of the literary use of Trpoypa&lt;j&gt;at and
is best discussed by R. Laqueur in his "Ephoros" in Hermes xlvi. (1911), pp.
161 ff. See also Th. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, 1882, pp. 141 ff., 464 ff. The
application of the facts to Acts is made but rather perversely by E.
Norden, Agnostos Theos, 1913, pp. 311 ff. Some critical doubts as to the
technical use of these phrases are expressed in Appendix C.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 135

value as Trpoypa^al, indeed somewhat more, and, besides, they
come in a safer place because they are an integral part of the
text, so that we thought it best to make use of them."

It is clear that a 7rpoypa&lt;f)ij is a label with the table of contents
attached to a \6yos, or (which is the same thing differently
described) to a ro/*o9, while a Trpoeicdeo-^ is a similar statement
incorporated into the text. If properly drawn up it contained
a statement of the subjects discussed in the previous Xo709, and
of those which would be dealt with in the ^0709 to which it was
prefixed.

Not all writers made use of this device, but it was obviously
useful and common. The customary form of Trpoe/cOecris may
be found in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus : it gives a short
account of what has been dealt with in the preceding book, and
a summary of what is to come. For instance, in Diodorus
Siculus ii. 1 there is the following scheme, rj /juev Trpo ravrrj^
/3t/3Xo9 . . . Trepie^et, ra9 tear AiyvTrrov TTpd^ec^, ev als
V7rdp-%ei, ra . . . fjLV@o\o&gt;yovfjL6va . . . teal raXXa ra . . .
7rapaSoj;o\o&lt;yovfjLva . . . Trpbs Be TOVTOL? . . . ^9 Se . . .
eireura be . . . en Se . . ., ev ravrrj Be dvaypdtyofjLev ra9
Kara rrjv Aaiav yevojjievas Trpdfeis. The same type of
construction can be found in other writers, especially in
Polybius and in Josephus, Antiq. viii., xiii., xiv., xv. 1

The important point is that the TrpoeKdea-^ summarised the
contents of the previous 710709 in a long pev clause and then
in a corresponding 8e clause gave a shorter summary of the
contents of the ^070 9 which is being opened.

Obviously the opening verses of Acts are a 7rpoeK0eo~is, but Acts opens
the difficulty is that there is no 8e clause, which is needed gram- ^ ^ a ^ c&lt;rts .
matically to balance the sentence, and required by the general
construction of a TrpoeKdeo-^ to give the contents of the Xo709
which is just beginning. Ed. Norden thinks that the Se clause
must once have been present, and believes that in the source of

1 Elsewhere Josephus has a different method : ending one book with a
/JLCV clause and beginning the next with a 5e clause.

136 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Acts the text must have run rov JJLGV Trpwrov \o^ov . . .
dveKrjiJifyOri, vvvl Se ra awe^r) TOVTOLS a re avros irapwv
el$ov, a re Trap a\\wv d^ioTrio-rwv ovrwv 7rv06/JL7]V (rv^pd-^rai
Treipda-ofJiai ^XP L T ^ &lt;? e 7r * T ^ ? f P&lt;wyu,?7? eVt^T/yLtta? rov
Hav\ov. Had Acts been constructed properly, according to
the rules of Hellenistic writing, the opening would doubtless
have been so phrased, but there is no certainty that it was,
and the preferable alternative is to recognise that here, as
elsewhere, the writer is not completely skilful.

Thus taking the Lucan writings 1 as they stand we have a
genuine Trpooiijuov to the whole work in Luke i. 1-4, and the
beginning of an imperfect jrpoeKOecns to the second Xo^yo? in
Acts i. 1.

According to the 7rpoo//uoj&gt; the purpose of the \oyoi sent to
Theophilus was to assure him of the certainty of the things in
which he had been instructed. The author says that many
attempts had been made to draw up (dvard^aaOai) the narrative
of the TTpajfjidrcov 7T67r\r)po&lt;f)op f r)fjievc0v among them, on the
basis of the tradition of those who had been eye-witnesses and had
taken part in them. The next phrase in his statement is obscure :
e So^e KafJLol Trap^KoXovO^Kori, dvwOev iraaiv d/cpi,/3a)s Ka0e^^
a 01 ypd-^rai. 2 To what does iracriv refer ? It may mean either the
events alluded to (irparyfjidTcov) or the previous writers (vroXXot).
The latter seems to be indicated by the general balance of the
paragraph, and, if so, the important point is the implication, slight
but unmistakable, that the author himself had not been an

1 What was the original title of the whole ? The first Xo7os certainly
was not called TO evayy&iov Kara Aovicav when it was sent to Theophilus :
it required this title when it was detached from Acts, and became part of the
fourfold gospel canon. It is unfortunately easy to forget that Luke and
Acts came in the New Testament as separate books. Is it possible that
TTpd^eis (-Trpd^eis r&v airoffrbXwv is a late form) was originally the title of
the whole ? But against the view that the author himself gave the title
7rpdeis to the whole work or even (as Zahn has come lately to believe) to the
second volume is the fact that in the text of his writings this noun and
usually also the verb Trpctrrw are used in malam partem.

2 The use of these words is curious and technical. They are discussed in
Appendix C.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 137

or an vTreperijs TOV \6yov. Moreover, if on other
grounds the theory be acceptable that the compiler of the whole
is not identical with the author of the we sections, the interest
shown in the preface in the narrations of avroTrrai, explains why
the compiler preserved the use of the first person. He desired
to indicate that here at least he was using the narration of an

The only method of discovering internal evidence in a book The
which, as its treatment of Mark shows, cannot be expected easily
to reveal its composition by its style, is to consider the seams, ? f Acts -
not of language but of narrative, which suggest that the editor | r\
has passed from one tradition to another. Of course such
seams do not in themselves prove the use of documentary
sources : they only indicate that it is possible. Whether this
possibility is probable or not will always remain a matter of
judgment. It is, however, to be remembered that, in the case
of a writer who is known to have been in the habit of using
documentary sources, to regard this possibility as improbable
is quite as much a subjective act of individual judgment as
it is to treat it as probable. 1

The first * seam which attracts attention is not in the Acts Accounts of
but in the Gospel. Its importance for the study of Acts is the tt
light which it throws on the source or tradition used in the early
chapters, and on the method of the editor.

In Luke two traditions are combined in the account of the
Passion and Resurrection. One was undoubtedly documentary,
for we still possess it in a separate form in the Gospel according
to Mark. The other may have been written or oral ; there is no
decisive evidence. Throughout the last chapters of the Gospel
though Luke uses the greater part of the Marcan narrative he

1 The choice is not between subjective and objective criticism,
but between subjective criticism and ignorance. The problems are not
invented by critics ; they are internal in the books. We cannot advance
knowledge without taking up a position of some kind.

138 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

prefers this second source, edited so as to fit into the other as
his framework.

It has generally been held that Luke has freely changed
the wording and meaning of Mark ; and on the hypothesis that
Matthew and Luke both used the Greek Mark, the evidence of
a comparison between the three gospels supports the primary
nature of Mark. The verbal differences between Mark and
the Lucan version of Mark have, it is true, been explained
by Professor Torrey as due to a separate translation made
from an Aramaic Mark. This would render it impossible to
appeal to Matthew as evidence that the existing gospel of Mark
is verbally identical with the Marcan source of Matthew and
Luke, and is not a later recession of it. But Torrey s theory
on this point seems unnecessary. Even, however, if it be
conceded, the historical evidence remains, and Mark s account
is historically more probable than Luke s.

Mark implies the departure of the disciples to Galilee,
clearly intending to lead up to the Galilean tradition of the
totetheT a PP earanc es of the Risen Jesus. Luke prefers the contra
dictory tradition, which makes Jerusalem the centre of every
thing, leaving out all reference to Galilee. Whether written or
oral this tradition can scarcely have originated anywhere except
in Jerusalem. Luke has pieced this into the Marcan framework
so skilfully that, but for the existence of the Gospel according
to Mark, the composite character of his narrative could never
have been so much as suspected. He did not abruptly stop
using Mark and continue from another source, but wove the two
together so that there is not so much a single seam as a prolonged
splice.

Are the opening chapters of Acts the continuation of this
tradition, or are they, like the closing chapters of the Gospel,
produced by the interlacing and editing of various sources,
written or oral ? If the latter view be adopted, can we trace
in Acts the continuation of Mark, as well as of the other source ?
Or does Acts represent a wholly new source ?

Luke s in-
piecing ir

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 139

Harnack s analysis of Acts i.-v. makes the further formulation Acts i.
of this complicated problem possible. Clearly Acts i. and ii., xhfad *
the account of the Ascension, the choice of Matthias, and the Gos P el -
gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, can fairly be regarded as con
tinuing the tradition of Jerusalem followed in Luke xxiv.
Whether it is accurate is of course a different question ; the Gali
lean narrative of Mark seems to prove that it is not ; but it is a
consecutive narrative, and there is no seam between it and the end
of the gospel, except that which is provided by the division into
two books, clearly due to the editor. It seems to be the tradition
of a circle of Christians living in, or coming from, Jerusalem, who
had attached themselves to Peter on his return to Jerusalem and
had ignored or forgotten the Galilean tradition.

The questions then arise (1) whether this splice extended Problems
beyond chapter ii. ; (2) whether (since Harnack doubts it)
chapter i. as well as chapter ii. belongs to it ; (3) whether it was
written or oral, and, (4) if it were written, was it Aramaic or
Greek ? To answer the first of these questions demands a
decision on the arguments of Harnack and Torrey.

Harnack s theory is based chiefly on the same phenomenon Doublets in
as assisted an earlier generation of scholars to a triumphant
analysis of the Pentateuch. The five opening chapters of Acts,
like the opening ones of Genesis, are marked by doublets : there
are two accounts of the same events. The main incidents in
Acts ii.-iv. can be described as follows :

(1) The gift of the Spirit, Acts ii. 1-13 and also Acts

iv. 31.

(2) A speech of Peter, Acts ii. 14-36 and also Acts iit.

12-26.

(3) A record of extraordinary conversions, Acts ii. 37-41

and also Acts iv. 4.

(4) The growth of communism, Acts ii. 42-47 and also

Acts iv. 34-37.

This is similar to the doublets in the narrative of creation

140 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

in Genesis. They are not indeed so impressive, for the events
of creation can have taken place once, and only once, while
Peter doubtless spoke often, great conversions may have often
been made, and so far as the gift of the Spirit was regarded as a
transient phenomenon of excitement, it could be repeated. But
this cannot be said of the accounts of the growth of communism.
An editor may easily admit by inadvertence summaries in similar
language and of identical content from two sources ; but he
is very unlikely to treat a summary of his own in this way at
an interval of two chapters. 1

Acts ii. This prima facie case for considering the possibility of two

sources is confirmed by certain small points of language and
thought, justifying the distinction of Acts ii. from Acts iii.

In Acts iii. f. Jesus is four times (iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27, 30) described
as a Trals of God (though the phrase Trat? 6eov does not itself
occur), but nowhere else in Acts is the phrase found : it is rare
and usually liturgical in early documents. Moreover, Peter is
usually accompanied by John ; the importance of this is in
creased by the fact that John takes no part in the action of the
narrative : he is mentioned, but does nothing. 2 There is also
a slight but perceptible difference in doctrine between the two
speeches of Peter. In ii. 38 Peter calls for repentance from his
hearers and for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which

1 On the other hand the author is capable of repeating a summary derived
from one written source as is shown by his treatment of Mark. See Cadbury,
Style, and Literary Method of Luke, p. 111.

2 This peculiarity extends to Jc (viii. 14) : this may mean that Ja and
Jc are closely connected, or that the Peter part of Acts viii. is a fragment
of Ja and not originally connected with the Philip part. But Peter and John
are also mentioned in Luke xxii. 8 (not in Mark xiv. 13), so that if this com
bination is pressed as the sign of the Jerusalem source it must be extended
to include the last days of Jesus. Such a Jerusalem source for Luke s passion
narrative has been independently proposed by some scholars, e.g. Perry, The
Sources of Luke s Passion-Narrative, 1920. The alternative explanation would
be that the editor is responsible for the combination wherever it appears,
since elsewhere he represents messengers in pairs (Luke vii. 18, not Matt. xi. 2 ;
Luke x. 1, not Matt. x. 5, but cf. Mark vi. 7 ; Acts passim ; even angels are
in pairs, Luke xxiv. 4, not Mark xvi. 5 ; Acts i. 10) and since in Acts i. 13
he not only arranges the eleven in pairs but has the unique order, " Peter and
John."

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 141

will obtain for them remission of their sins. In iii. 19 he calls
for repentance to wipe out their sins, but baptism is not
mentioned. Much stress cannot be laid on this point, for the
references to baptism in chapter ii. may be and probably are
redactorial. If, however, the views expressed in Vol. I. p. 340
be rejected, the case in favour of Harnack s analysis of sources
is proportionately strengthened. In any case the theological
difference between the two speeches is not confined to the ques
tion of baptism. In Acts iii. the return of Jesus is the main hope
and message of the disciples : in Acts ii. this hope is in the
background, if it be present at all, and the central place is given
to the gift of the Spirit, and to obtain it for the Church is the
main work of the ascended Jesus. This confirms the general
impression, adequately represented in Catholic teaching, that
the purpose of Acts ii. 1-13 is to describe the foundation of the
Church as the Apostolic body which had then received and could
henceforth transmit Power from on High, a theory of which Acts
iii. is ignorant, for it regards the gift of the Spirit as a transient
supernatural phenomenon, promised and given to the disciples
in hours of need.

Without contending that these arguments completely prove
Harnack s hypothesis they seem to render it probable, especially
when it is remembered that the writer is known to have been
in the habit of using and editing earlier documents.

Were either of these hypothetical sources in Aramaic ? The

It is here that Torrey s arguments have to be discussed. The ae
collateral evidence of the facts known to us is against him.
Whatever may have been the original language of Mark it must
have been known to Luke in Greek, and the same is true of Q,
if that be regarded as a single document. But the evidence
contained in Acts itself seems convincing. It is impossible
to discuss each example which he gives, together with Burkitt s
adverse criticism ; they must be dealt with in the pages of the
commentary. But two examples may be given.

(1) Acts iii. 16 teal rfj trio-rei rov ovofjuaros avrou TOVTOV

142 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

bv dewpelre KOI oiSare ea-repewaev TO ovo^a avrov, Kal rj
rj Si avTov eScofcev avT(p TTJV 6\oK\rjplav ravrrjv
TTCLVTWV vpwv. The impossibility of any satisfactory
translation of this passage is notorious, but it is easily explained
if it be translated into unpointed Aramaic : n&gt;D " "T

mm m n Nnsovn nom *ipn pnsw p$-n pnuN pn
pD^O D~rp N"TN nwSn rh- The translator seems to have read
in the middle of this sentence nptp P]j?.n = eo-repicoae TO ovofjua
V) but what was meant was npip ^j?n = vyifj /caTeo-Trjo-ev

ov, a phrase idiomatic in all respects, and suiting its con
text perfectly, as the sentence runs on from that which precedes
it, and the subject of vyirj KaTea-T^aev is o #609 in v. 15.
But the suggested mistake on the part of the translator is a
very natural one, since he had before him the same letters
(rTEft) which he had immediately before correctly read as
rrptp (his name), and it did not occur to him that in this place
it should be read rrptp (put or made).

This seems convincing ; by the consent of all those who
have sufficient knowledge of the language the suggested Aramaic
is easy in itself but liable to have been misread by a tired trans
lator ; it gives an admirable sense while the Greek is unintelligible
as it stands. 1 Burkitt, 2 it is true, offers a rival suggestion. He
thinks that it is possible to punctuate thus : TOV Be

?js a7rKTeivaT6, bv 6 #eo9 ij&lt;yei,pv GK ve/cpcov, ov

6&/JL6V /cal Trj iriGTei TOV o^oyLtaro? avTov TOVTOV
bv 6ewpeiTe /cal otSare ecrrepeaxre TO ovofia avTov teal f)
7r/(jT? rj St avTov &(0K6v avTcS KT\. But it seems improbable
that any one who had just written ov as a genitive dependent
on iJidpTvs should write Trj 7Tio~T6i, as a dative dependent on it,
when he might so easily have written r?)9

1 It might be said that unintelligibility suggests textual corruption rather
than the use of an intelligible Aramaic source, but few who have actually
made translations would say this, and one would have supposed none
who have corrected the efforts of others.

2 Journal of Theological Studies, xx. (1919), 320 ff.

3 The concordance does not reveal any instance of /u-dprvs with a dative,
the genitive is the usual idiom. Nor does the use of TOVTOV here seem to be

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 143

(2) Similarly in Acts ii. 47 there is notorious difficulty in Acta u. 47,
the phrase o Se Kvpt,os TrpocreriOeL TOVS a

eVl TO avro. The narrator in this passage is describing
the growth of the community : " Day by day, continuing
stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread
at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness
of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people."
The verse which follows is natural enough except the last three
words. What is the meaning of eirl TO avro ? It can only mean
together or in the same place (cf. ii. 44 vraz/re? Be ol
TTiarevo-avTes r^a-av eirl TO avTo KT\.) and is constantly used
in the LXX. as the translation of Trr and Y77T 1 ( c f- a l so Luke
xvii. 35 and Acts i. 15, ii. 1, iv. 26). But in this passage this
meaning is obviously inadmissible.

The ancient interpreters felt the difficulty and tried in various
ways to overcome it. In the Textus Receptus eVl TO avTo is joined
on to the next sentence, but the textual evidence is decisive
against this reading, which is only important as evidence of the
inability of early readers to explain the correct text. The para
phrastic text of D also tries to emend the difficulty by reading . . .
KaO i^fiepav eirl TO auTo ev TTJ stacK^a-La. No modern com
mentator has so far succeeded in explaining the difficulty. But
the problem is solved at once if evrl TO avTo be translated back
into Aramaic by the adverbial compound hnrjS (or N"rnS) which
has in the Judaean dialect of Aramaic the meaning greatly,
exceedingly. This second sense is exactly what is needed
instead of together, and the probability that this is the true
explanation of the difficulty is greatly increased by the fact that
the word has this significance only in Judaean l Aramaic, and

parallel to the instances of a resumptive rovrov which Burkitt quotes ;
it needs the /ecu before rfj Trlo-rei to make it natural. It should be noted that
the Western text seems to have taken Burkitt s view and inserted iirl before
rfj TTtorei in order to make it possible.

1 Found in both Targums (cf. Onkelos, Gen. xii. 14) and in the late Christian
Palestinian dialect ; but not in Midrash or Talmud (cf. Dalmau, Grammatik,

144 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

might well be unknown to the editor of Acts, and that when it
is used to modify a verb it is regularly placed at the end of the
clause.

The full translation into Aramaic suggests another small
point. The whole passage would run pT? n "rS NVT fjp lD N*H^
N^n^ D v f?3. The preposition h in the fourth word (*~fp) might
signify either the dative or the direct object. Doubtless (if the
original were really as suggested) it was intended for the dative,
but, if the translator failed to recognise the peculiar Judaean
meaning of {onS, it was inevitable that he should render it with
the Greek accusative. The meaning of the original source would
be, " The Lord added greatly to the saved." l

Professor Burkitt is not convinced by this rendering, and
prefers to follow out a suggestion made by Mr. Vazakas, 2 who
noted that eVl TO avro is often found in connection with meetings
for worship, so that for instance when Ignatius says 6rai&gt; yap
TTVKVW eVl TO auro yivecrOe it means " when you go constantly
to church." Surely both Mr. Vazakas and Professor Burkitt are
confusing the connotation of the phrase with its actual denota
tion. No doubt it connotes at least when combined with
appropriate verbs meetings for worship, but it denotes merely,
" at the same place." Moreover, though the interpretation of
a phrase may take connotation into account, the grammatical
structure of a sentence rarely does. Professor Burkitt s ren
dering only just stops short of rendering eVl TO avro as though
it were a dative dependent on Trpoo-eriOei, and is obliged to treat
TrpoorTiOevai as though it were a synonym for avva^eiv. The
Greek is in fact impossible, and cannot be explained except as
due to a confusion of thought such as is common in translations. 3

1 It should be noted that attempts to refine on the meaning of the various
present or aorist participles is negatory if Aramaic be presupposed. Any one
who doubts this may be invited to translate into Aramaic the story of the
theologian who, when asked if he were saved, replied that he wished first to
know whether his questioner meant ae&lt;Tw&lt;r/u.tvos, vudeis, or merely &lt;ru6fji.evos.

2 Journal of Biblical Literature, xxxvii. (1919), 105 ff.

3 It might be said that this passage is a very undesirable one to use,
inasmuch as, according to the view here taken, it comes exactly at the juncture

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 145

There are many other indications of an Aramaic source in
these chapters, collected by Professor Torrey, which are less
spectacular, but taken together seem to present an extremely
strong case in favour of translation from Aramaic. Obviously,
however, such evidence can prove nothing as to the extent or
number of the documentary sources indicated. Thus Torrey s
hypothesis so far as its linguistic side is concerned, and this
is its strength, combines excellently with that of Harnack, and
probably justifies the statement that all the facts are best
covered by the supposition that Acts ii. represents one Aramaic
source called B, and Acts iii. another, known as A.

It is now possible to discuss the extent of these two sources
and their affiliation with others.

Does Acts i. belong to source A or source B ? Harnack is Acts i.
doubtful, but thinks that if it belongs to either it is to B. This is
surely right : moreover the continuity between Acts i. and the
special tradition of Jerusalem in Luke is so clear that it seems
probable that source B is identified with this source in the
Gospel. It is for the learned in Aramaic to consider whether
there is any evidence of translation in these last chapters of
Luke.

The recognition that Acts iii. introduces a new source and Actsiii.
that it is probably a translation from the Aramaic raises new
problems. If Acts iii. and iv. had been found in one book and
Acts i. and ii. in another, there would be few to doubt that it
was a variant tradition of the gift of the Spirit, with which it
ends, and it would have been accepted as historically more
probable. 1 But if so we have here an acephalous source. It
assumes the presence of the apostles in Jerusalem : it does not

of the sources. But the general reason for this objection is that junctures are
often covered by " connective tissue," and it is clear that here there is none.
Acts ii. 47 is as much part of the Jerusalem B source as any part of the chapter,
and eirl TO O.VTO belongs to it, so cannot, with our present text, go with the
beginning of chapter iii.

1 It is worth observation that it is noticeably nearer to the point of view
represented by Mark xiii. 11, which seems to look forward to the gift of the
Spirit mainly as an assistance to the disciples in time of persecution.

VOL. IT L

146 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

say how they came there. Can we guess at its antecedents, or
find its sequel ?

Perhaps we can never even guess with profit at its ante
cedents. We cannot tell whether it really is a purely Jerusalem
narrative, or belonged to the Galilean tradition, the beginning
of which c Luke may have omitted as in the interests of the
Jerusalem tradition he omitted or changed the end of Mark.
Nevertheless, though the verdict of non liquet be inevitable,
there will probably always be a few who will sometimes allow
themselves to think that these chapters continue the Marcan
narrative and that the John who accompanies Peter was, in
the original form of the tradition, not the son of Zebedee, but
that other John whom later tradition associated with Peter
John Mark.

Acts iv. /. The question of continuation is equally doubtful. Does
iv. 36 fi., the story of Barnabas selling his property, belong to
this tradition ? Does the story of Ananias and Sapphira which
follows in v. 1-11 ? Or does the story of the apostles miracles,
arrest and release on the advice of Gamaliel in v. 17-42 ? Except
in the last case there is no special reason for associating these
with Acts i. and ii. rather than with iii. and iv., but it is probable
that the second account of a hearing before the Sanhedrin is
another variant of the incident described in iv. 1-23. If so the
version in Acts v. 17-42 is clearly the inferior one, and belongs,
as Harnack has seen, to the B source. It is one of the sections
which has least claim to be history. To say nothing of the angelic
interpositions to rescue " Peter and the Apostles," the know
ledge shown of a speech by Gamaliel in the Sanhedrin, in which
he appeals to events which had not yet happened, and dates
them earlier than others which had taken place some twenty-
five years before, 1 contrasts unfavourably with the story in Acts
iv. 1-23, which has in it nothing to suggest that it is unhistorical.

1 The insurrection of Theudas to which Gamaliel is made to refer took place
in 44 A.D. and the census of Quirinius which is described as earlier was held
in 6 A.D.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 147

Thus, the probable analysis of chapters i. to v. would seem
to divide the section into two sources which, following Harnack,
may be called A and B.

A contains Acts iii.-iv. 35. B contains Acts i.-ii. and v. 17-42.
It is doubtful whether the remaining parts of chapters iv. and v.
should be attributed to one source rather than to the other.
Both these sources represent traditions belonging to Jerusalem,
but B seems the continuation of the non-Galilean source used by
Luke in the Gospel, and A may perhaps be connected with the
Galilean tradition of Mark.

With chapter vi. a new section begins. The obvious facts Acts vi. s.
and problems in it are : (1) Acts vi.-viii. 3 describes a new factor
in the history of the Church in Jerusalem the growth of a
Hellenistic as distinct from a Hebrew Christianity. This led to a
more violent persecution and to the scattering of the Hellenistic
Christians outside of Jerusalem. (2) Acts viii. 4-25 describes
the evangelisation of Samaria first by Philip, then by Peter.
(3) Acts viii. 26-40 and Acts ix. 31-x. 48 describe a missionary
journey ending in Caesarea, undertaken first by Philip, then by
Peter. (4) Acts xi. 19-26 describe the evangelisation of Antioch
by the disciples of Stephen, by Barnabas, and by Paul, whom
Barnabas selects as an assistant and fetches from Tarsus. It is
clear that in a certain sense, therefore, we have here Samaritan,
Caesarean, and Antiochian traditions. But there are several
problems involved in their consideration. The story of
Stephen s preaching, and the quarrel which arose among the
Hellenistic Greeks among themselves, between Christian and
Jewish factions, covers Acts vi. 8-viii. 3. Is this based on
an Aramaic original, and does it come from Jerusalem or
Antioch ?

Torrey claims that it is all part of the original Aramaic source,
but his evidence here is much less satisfactory than before. None
of the instances of mistranslation which he quotes comes from
this section, and only two of the instances of Aramaic idiom.

148 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Of these the more striking one is in Acts vii. 53, for et?
Siarayas dyyeXwv is almost hopeless in Greek, but represents
easily enough an Aramaic pSp ^^^oS in which the h
corresponds to by or according to (&m or Kara) rather
than to the to (et?) by which it is often rightly translated
in other contexts. If it were not for this instance it might
seem probable that Torrey s theory ought to be abandoned for
this section, but, in face of it, it is only justifiable to say that
the evidence is much weaker than elsewhere, and that the real
strength of the case for Torrey s position is the sense so hard
to communicate that the style is here the same as in
Acts i.-v.

On the other hand, it has been held by many critics that the
section is composite, and to analyse it was a favourite endeavour
of the critics of the end of the nineteenth century. The real
facts upon which many divergent theories were based are :
(1) an apparent doublet in the account of the accusation brought
against Stephen, so that the substance of vi. 9-11 is repeated
in vi. 12-14.

v Se TLVCS TMV eic 2L&lt;vveKiv7)o~dv re TOV \aov

teal TOVS 7rpeo-/3vTepovs Kal

AiftepTivcov /cal Kvprjvaiwv TOVS 7 pa JJL pare 2s, Kal eTTLcrrdv-

Kal *A\ei;av$pea)v Kal TWV re? avvrfpTraaav avTov Kal

KtXt/ao.9 Kal A&lt;7t&lt;x? tfyayov els TO (rvvebpiov, e-

rc3 Sre^az ft), arrjcrdv re fjidprvpa?

Kal OVK icr^vov dvTKrTfjvai, \e&lt;yovTas f O avOpcoTros OV

Trj o-o&lt;f)ia Kal TO) TTvev/jLari ov iraverai, \a\ayv

to e\d\L. Tore v7re[Ba\ov Kara TOV TOTTOV TOV dyiov

\eyoi&gt;Tas OTL *AKr)- [TOVTOV] Kal TOV vo/nov, a

avTov \O\OVVTOS pr)- KoafjLev yap avTov

/3\do-&lt;f)7)/j[,a els M(0vo-f)v OTL Irjcrovs 6 Na^copalos OVTOS

Kal TOV deov. KaTa\vo~ei TOV TOTTOV TOVTOV

Kal d\\d%ei Ta e6rj a Trape-

fjfMV

(2) The same phenomenon appears in the conclusion of the

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 149

story : the stoning of Stephen is described twice, vii. 54-58a
and vii. 586-60.

A/cozWre? oe ravra OLC- Kdl ol pdprvpes aTreOevro

TTplovro rat? Kapoiais avrwv rd l^drta avrwv Trapa

KOI e(3pw)(ov TOU? ooovras eV TroSa? veaviov

avrov. vTrdp-^wv Be 7T\rfpr)s ^av\ov. KOI e\t,6ofto\ovv rov

TTvev/jiaros dyiov drevicras et9 2re&lt;f)avov eVtXaXou/ie^o^ /cal

rov ovpavov el&ev $6t;av Oeov \eyovra Kupte "l^aov, Se^ai

ie e%i&v TO irvevfjid fjiov ^et9 &e Ta

elirev *l$ov &lt;y6vara eicpa^ev (f&gt;(0vy fjLeyd\y

TOi/9 ovpavovs SiTjvoiy- Kvpie, yu-r; (JT^CTT;? aurot?

/cat TOI^ utoz^ rof) dvOpco- T&VTiflt TTJV dp,apTiav teat

TTOV etc Beiwv ecrTMTa rov Oeov. rovro eiTrcov e/

r wra avrwv, KCLI
o/^aOvfjiaoov eV
avrov, KOI eK/3d\6vre&lt;; e^co

These doublets seem to be more than merely infelicitous
repetitions, and really represent two traditions. According
to one Stephen was lynched, according to the other he was
executed with some informality by the Sanhedrin. The
existence of this divergence is obscured by the insertion of the
speech which implies that the Sanhedrin acted as judges.

This much seems probable, but some critics have gone further The speech
and analysed the speech of Stephen into two sources. 1 Many of
these analyses are ingenious, and momentarily attractive, but
none of them survive the test imposed by the question whether
the text as it stands is improbable. The doublets in the narra
tive are real enough, but the supposed strata in the speech are
imaginary and are not doublets. There seems more to be said
for the theory that the whole speech which bears so little

1 The least unreasonable analysis is that of Feme. He postulates a Jewish-
Christian source containing vi. 9-11, vii. 22-28, 35-43, 51-56, 59-60, viii. 16, 2,
and a Hellenistic source containing vi. 12-14, vii. 2-21, 29-34, 44-50, 57-58 }
viii. la, 3.

150 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

relation to the accusations brought against Stephen is a
free composition, either by the writer of Acts or by the author
of the source x which regards the death of Stephen as due to
the Sanhedrin, inserted into an earlier narrative which related
that he was lynched. If any one will read Acts vi. 8-11, and
vii. 54-viii. 1, omitting the intermediate verses, he will not detect
any break in the narrative. This is of course no proof, but the
j, suspicion will probably always remain that we have here a later
edition of an early narrative, not its original form.

For the historian the important point is that, though no one
of the complicated theories of Feine, Spitta, etc., is probable, they
all rest on a few real facts which point to the general hypothesis
that Acts vi. 8-11 with the conclusion of the narrative (espe
cially if this be limited to vii. 54-58a) describe the martyrdom of
Stephen as an act of lynching, prepared by a vigilance committee
of Hellenistic Jews, while Acts vi. 12-vii. 53 taken with vii. 586-
60 describe a judicial execution by the Sanhedrin. Which is
the more probably true ? It is in general very unlikely that
during the Roman dominion in Jerusalem the Sanhedrin
could have carried out such an execution. Moreover, unless the
whole tradition of Paul s connection with the martyrdom be
unhistorical, Stephen s death cannot be placed at any date
when the Romans were not in power ; for Herod Agrippa had
no authority in Jerusalem until 41 A.D.

Thus analytic criticism of Acts at this point really con
tributes something to the clearer statement of the historical
problems. At the same time it does not seem that even the
moderate suggestion made above has quite as much probability
as the analysis of chapters i.-v. It is possible that the doublets
in the narrative are accidental, and due to mere roughness of
style ; that Stephen really was tried before the Sanhedrin, which
had no intention of inflicting an illegal sentence, but the crowd
intervened and hurried Stephen to his death. The reason for

1 The facts given in pp. 112ff. as to Luke s use of the speeches in Mark
support this alternative.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 151

preferring the analytic view is that the existence of the doublets,
in the accounts of the accusation and death of Stephen is
rather strong evidence, and that the references to the witnesses
and the garments seem intended to show that the death of
Stephen really was by judicial process, but are historically in
accurate. It is true that according to the tractate Sanhedrin
the witnesses had to begin the stoning and that the disposition
of the garments was also regulated : it was, however, the
garments of the convict not of the witnesses.

It should be noted that the introduction of a trial which
throws the opprobrium of judicial murder on the Jewish autho
rities, not on the people or on the Romans, is quite in keeping
with the interest of the author of Acts, who is always anxious to
show that Jesus, Peter, Stephen, and Paul were the victims
of injustice at the hand of the Jewish rulers who condemned
them when obviously innocent, while the Roman officials
acquitted them, or acquiesced in the crime under protest.

Harnack, as usual, has disregarded these minor points, in
order to grasp with more vigour the main contention of the writer
of Acts, that the death of Stephen, and the persecution of the
Hellenistic Christians which followed, were turning-points in the
history of Christianity, because through them came the mission
to the Gentiles ; and therefore the evangelisations of Samaria
and Antioch are connected with the persecuted Hellenists by the
formula ol /Aez/ ovv (in viii. 4 and xi. 19). But it is at least
open to doubt whether Harnack is right in thinking that this
formula in xi. 19 so far connects the story of Antioch with Stephen
as to justify us in calling the story of Stephen the beginning
of the Antiochian narrative. Nor does he adequately discuss
the possibly composite character of the tradition of Stephen and
the relation of this question to his theory. It seems at least
possible that the stories of Stephen s death are part of the
traditions of Jerusalem, and that the connection of Acts xi. 19
with Stephen is redactorial, though probably correct. It must,
however, be noted that Acts vi. can scarcely come from the

152 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

Personal or
traditions.

The con
PaS. 0n D

same documentary source as Acts i.-v. since with it begins the
common use of /jLaOvjTifc in the sense of Christian, of which
there is no example in Acts i.-v.

As Harnack has seen, the Caesarean and Samaritan traditions
are linked together by the names of Philip and Peter, and the
characteristic recurrence of John as Peter s companion in the
Samaritan section suggests a close relation with source A in
Acts i.-v.

Was it around persons or around places that these traditions
g r ^w up ? No one can answer certainly, for history shows that
traditions do both. The question then arises whether the Petrine
portion of the Samaritan narrative, the only part of this section
of Acts at all reminiscent of the Jerusalem Source A, does not
represent a different story as to early Christianity in Samaria
from that in the Philip section. The general schematisation by
the editor is very apparent. He clearly wishes his reader to be
convinced that though the evangelisation of a gradually increasing
district was the work of the Hellenists, the original disciples
especially Peter approved and co-operated. Access to the
Pauline epistles probably will lead the historian to think that the
spread of the Church was less peaceful. He may even accept
the suggestion that the difference between Peter s hostility and
Philip s friendliness towards Simon Magus is a hint of deeper
differences, as to which the writer of Acts is silent consistently
with his general policy of omitting almost all references to
quarrels among Christians. The possibility cannot be ignored
that there were two traditions as to the foundation of Caesarean
Christianity, one attributing it to Philip, the other to Peter,
and that the writer of Acts has combined them.

Besides this possibly composite account of the spread of
Christianity as far as Antioch, the editor has prepared the way
for the great theme of the second part of his book by telling the
story of Paul s conversion. He does so three times in the course
of Acts. Had he more than one source at his disposal ? There
is no sufficient evidence, but there is something to be said for

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 153

the view that the account in Acts xxii. and xxvi. is nearer to
Paul s own story, and that in Acts ix. there has been some editing
in accordance with other versions, which made Paul more depend
ent on those who were Christians before him. The story of
Ananias, as told in Acts ix., in Damascus, seems to be exactly
the kind of story against which Paul protests in his epistles,
urging that he was an apostle "neither of man nor through man."
Thus the possibility it does not amount to more exists that
Acts ix. partially represents the tradition of Jerusalem as to
the conversion of Paul.

In the second part of Acts xi. and the following chapters there Acts xi.
is clearly a fragment of Antiochian tradition. It covers xi. xii ". 25?
19-30 and xii. 25-xiv. 28. It describes Paul and Barnabas as xiv&lt; 28&gt;
preaching in Antioch and undertaking a mission to Cyprus and
Galatia. Harnack also reckons to this Antiochian source Acts
xv. But why should this be so ? Schwartz s view that Acts
xv.-xvi. 5 represents the Jerusalem tradition of the same events
as Acts xi. 19 fL seems preferable. The reason is not any incon
sistency or seam in the narrative as it stands, but that no
other theory seems equally well to solve the problem provided
by the comparison of Acts xv. with Gal. ii.

The main points of this famous puzzle are that in some ways Acts xv.
Acts xv. seems to represent the same incidents as Gal. ii., but
to give a very different account of them, and that though,
according to Acts, this visit of Paul to Jerusalem was his third,
in Galatians he calls God to witness that it was only his second.

The result of this difficulty has been to induce some writers
to identify the visit mentioned in Gal. ii. with that in Acts xi. in
connection with the famine relief, 1 and to suppose that Galatians
contains no reference to the events described in Acts xv. because
it was written before the meeting in Jerusalem took place. This
satisfactorily answers the difficulties provided by Galatians,
but it leaves the equally great ones of 1 Corinthians quite un
touched. How could Paul treat of el^w\o6vra as he does in

1 See pp. 277 ff. for the argument in favour of this view.

154 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

1 Corinthians, if an agreement on the subject had been reached
by him and the Church of Jerusalem ? * If Acts xv. represents an
Antiochian version of the incidents at Jerusalem no answer can
be given ; but the matter becomes altogether easier if it be
supposed that Acts xv. is the tradition of Jerusalem. In this
case it may well be a doublet of the account in Acts xi. which
is clearly Antiochian, of the visit of Paul and Barnabas to relieve
the famine in Judaea. It should be noted that there is no
reason to suppose that either account is insincere. Unless
written records are preserved the most extraordinary discrepan
cies arise in an incredibly short time even among the most
careful and trustworthy persons. Any member of any faculty
of any university could probably illustrate this fact from his own
experience. It would be consistent with all that is known of
redactorial methods to suppose that the editor of Acts found two
accounts of the arrival at Antioch of messengers from Jerusalem,
followed by a mission to Jerusalem of Antiochian representatives.
According to the Antiochian account it was chiefly concerned
with the obtaining of relief for the poor in Jerusalem ; according
to that of Jerusalem it was an attempt on the part of that
Church to keep Antioch in the path of orthodoxy. The editor
perceived the difference between them, thought that they
referred to separate events, and separated them by the story of
Paul and Barnabas missionary expedition to Cyprus, Pamphylia,
and Galatia.

Schwartz s But Schwartz has seen that this conclusion carries with it a
Iary further consequence. The unavoidable corollary is that just
as the meetings in chapters xi. and xv. are one and the same,
so also the journeys which follow them are also identical. It
then becomes worthy of renewed notice that neither account is
complete. The story of the first journey stops, so far as any
detailed account is concerned, in Lystra and Derbe, and is
suddenly wound up by a few sentences which are surely

1 The more the present writers have considered this point, the more
does this objection impress them. See, however, pp. 272 ff. and 322 ff.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 155

redactorial. The story of the so-called second journey
begins with a passage which summarises the first part, but
in Lystra begins again with a detailed narrative. Leave
out the summary descriptions at the end of the first journey
and the beginning of the second and there is a tolerably full and
connected narrative. We cannot, of course, be quite certain as
to the original text of the juncture ; Schwartz suggests that
Barnabas actually did return to Antioch from Lystra and Derbe
though Paul did not do so. In this case we have in Acts the
record of one long missionary expedition of Paul through Cyprus,
Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia. During the first part
of it he was accompanied by Barnabas, but not during the
second, for Barnabas went back to Antioch after preaching in
Galatia, and did not go on into Asia. If this be so, it is natural
to ask whether the division of this missionary expedition into
two was not due to the fact that the writer of Acts had seen
or heard of a tradition which described Barnabas and Paul s
conjoint journey, and, being written by some one nearer to
Barnabas than to Paul, said nothing about what happened to
Paul after Barnabas left him.

This theory is attractive : but from the nature of the case
can never be certainly proved. The writer of Acts was con
vinced that there were two journeys, and not one, and it is no
more possible to undo his redactorial work than it would be in
the gospel if we did not possess Mark. All that can be said is
that just as Mark justifies the certain assignment of various
parts of the gospel of Luke to different sources, so the existence
of Galatians justifies the tentative suggestion that Acts xi. and
xv. are parallel traditions of the same visit of Paul to Jerusalem,
and the corollary that the journey described in Acts xiii. f. is the
same as that summarised in the opening verses of Acts xvi.

The whole question revolves round Acts and Galatians ii.
If we had not Galatians, which is to the criticism of Acts what
Mark is to the criticism of Luke, the problem would be invisible.
The account in Acts would lose most of its difficulties ; but it

156 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

is hard to reject 1 the classical view that Acts xv. corresponds
to Galatians ii., and the central fact in the problem then becomes
Paul s testimony that this was his second and not his third
visit to Jerusalem. If so there is no reasonable solution except
that which identifies Acts xi. with Acts xv., and explains the
problem as the result of a loose use of sources.

Acts xii. One chapter remains to be treated. Chapter xii. gives the

account of Peter s imprisonment and escape in the reign of Herod
Agrippa I. This is one of the few passages in the early part of
Acts of which the chronology is relatively certain. It must
have happened in A.D. 44, 2 and before the famine in Jerusalem,
which did not take place, according to Josephus, before 45 if
not 46. Therefore chapter xii. ought to come before chapter xi.
In other words, it is placed correctly with regard to the Jerusalem
version of the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, but wrongly with regard
to the Antiochian account. This is not unnatural, for it obviously
belongs to the Jerusalem tradition.

It may, however, be legitimate to suggest a further compli
cation in the Jerusalem tradition. Acts ix. 32 suddenly intro
duces Peter as journeying through the whole country, but there
is no explanation as to how he came to be doing so. If chapter
xii. 1-17 be inserted before Acts ix. 32, an admirable connection
is given.

A curious and in some ways attractive consequence would
follow from the acceptance of this rearrangement, which is in

1 An attempt to reject it is made in K. Lake s Earlier Epistles of St. Paul,
but on further consideration it seems that the arguments then given only
emphasise the differences in detail and the different points of view in the two
accounts. The general impression of identity remains, though if the analysis
of sources in Acts be rejected, the position adopted in the Earlier Epistles seems
inevitable. See also pp. 277 ff.

2 It is plain that Peter left Jerusalem at the time of or just before the
death of Herod Agrippa. Therefore the departure of Peter can be dated with
great probability as the spring of 44 A.D. It is interesting to note that Eusebius,
apparently in order to accommodate the facts to the belief that Peter was
bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, puts the foundation of the Church of
Antioch and the departure of Peter for Rome in the year 42 A.D., though he
puts the death of Herod Agrippa correctly in 44 A.D.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 157

itself by no means radical, representing only a change in the
order of a source, to which several parallels could be adduced
from the way in which Luke made use of Mark. The activity
of Peter in Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea could reasonably be
supposed to occupy the greater part of a year. If Peter returned
to Jerusalem at the end of this period he would have arrived at
just about the same time as Paul and Barnabas came from
Antioch on the mission described in chapter xi. In that case
the discussion between Peter and the stricter sect of Christians
in Jerusalem must have taken place at the same time as the
discussion between the same group and Paul and Barnabas.

It is noticeable that in Acts xv. the speeches of both Peter
and James refer to Peter s preaching to the Gentiles and his
mission to them, and say nothing about Paul and Barnabas. If
it were not for the context in which these speeches are placed
one would say that they are much more appropriate to a dis
cussion of the episode of Cornelius than to that of the Church
in Antioch. A good many difficulties would be cleared up if
the discussion at Jerusalem were supposed to be dealing with
Peter and Cornelius as well as with Antioch and Paul.

If this reconstruction were accepted the chronological order
of events would be : (1) the death of Herod and Peter s depar
ture from Jerusalem ; (2) Peter s journey through Palestine to
Caesarea ; (3) the famine in Palestine ; (4) Peter s return to
Jerusalem and the Apostolic Council, related from the Antiochian
point of view in Acts xi. and Galatians ii. and from the point of
view of Jerusalem in Acts xv.

The second part of Acts is written in a style which is obviously The second
different from that of the first, though the difference is not Act8.
susceptible of statistical demonstration and does not exclude
a remarkable unity in all parts of the book. It presents fewer
problems in the identification of sources than the first part, but
raises questions of the greatest importance for the authorship
of the book.

158 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Th we- The most remarkable phenomenon in these chapters l is

the alternation of style between the first person plural and the
third person. The change is made as follows :

(1) Acts xvi. 1, first person.

(2) Acts xvi. 17, third person.

(3) Acts xx. 4, first person.

(4) Acts xxi. 27, third person.

(5) Acts xxvii. 1, first person.

(6) Acts xxviii. 17, third person.

Thus there are three sections written in the first person
plural. The first begins in Troas, and ends with the arrest of
Paul and Silas at Philippi. The second begins in Philippi
the place where the first " we section " ended, and ends with
the interview in Jerusalem between Paul and James. The third
and last begins when Paul leaves Palestine, and ends when Rome
is reached.

Between these passages come long sections of narrative
in which Paul is the chief subject and the first person is not
used. In general it may be said that whereas there is some
difference in style between Acts i.-xv. and the second part of
the book, there is none between the " we " sections and the
narrative in which they are embedded.

This presents a curiously difficult problem. On one point
only is there a decided majority of favourable opinion. Few
students doubt that the origin of the " we " sections is the
actual diary of a companion of Paul. But to what extent this
diary went, and the relation of the diarist to the compiler of
Acts is disputed.

Four possibilities have received considerable assent, but
none unanimous support.

(1) The traditional view is that the diarist is identical with
the compiler of Acts and uses the first person to show that he
was present during these parts of the events narrated.

1 In the Western text of Acts xi. 20, there is another " we," but it is probably
not genuine.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 159

(2) The diarist is not the compiler of Acts but added to
his own diary the intervening sections of narrative, thus producing
a connected whole, which was later taken over by the compiler
of Acts and formed the main source of Acts xvi.-xxviii.

(3) The diarist wrote nothing except the " we " sections ;
another writer added the intervening parts in Acts xvi.-xxviii.,
and the final editor added this composite work to Acts i.-xv.

(4) The diarist wrote nothing except the " we " sections, and
the compiler added the intervening sections as well as Acts i.-xv.
from other information.

No one of these theories can be lightly dismissed as absurd,
and the difficulties of each are the strong points of the others.

The most clarifying and convenient procedure is to begin
with a consideration of the possible meaning of the first person
in the " we sections " and of its difficulty on any hypothesis.

The certainty with which eminent critics have put forward
contradictory statements on this question seems due to their
unconscious assumption of a previous point which they have
very rarely discussed. That point is whether in their original
form the two \oyoi sent to Theophilus contained a direct state
ment of authorship. Unfortunately that is exactly what we
do not and cannot know. In the first place the title " the Gospel
according to Luke " is surely not original, but was given to the
first " treatise " after it had been separated from the second and
incorporated into the fourfold canon of the Gospels. Its value
as evidence is not that of an integral part of the original book,
but of a summary of ecclesiastical tradition probably made in the
second century. 1 Thus we do not know whether the original
form of the first treatise was anonymous, as it is now, or con
tained a statement of authorship. In the second place who was
Theophilus ? No one knows. There is no early tradition, and
Origen was inclined to think that Theophilus is merely an
imaginary name for Christian readers in general.

If Theophilus was a real person, no doubt he knew who

1 The \ T alue of this tradition is discussed on pp. 250 ff.

160 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

wrote the book sent to him, but if not the work may have been
really as well as formally anonymous.

But in discussing the " we " sections this difficulty has been
passed over. One group of writers has unconsciously assumed
that of course the original readers knew who wrote the book and
therefore that the " we " sections were intelligible as a reference
to the author. Another group has assumed equally unconsciously
that the book was anonymous, and therefore that the " we "
sections had no such reference. Each group started with its
own assumption, but was unconscious of it, and treated it as a
triumphant conclusion when it emerged again from the scientific
consideration of the first person. Unfortunately an assumption
cannot change its nature by being passed through never so many
scientific processes.

If no such assumption be made and only by an effort of
will can we refrain from making it the difficulty of the " we "
sections appears equally great on either of the main hypotheses.
In the first place the importance of being an eye-witness was well
enough understood in the first century, and the use of the first
person, of which there are many examples, is a natural method
of expressing it. But the value of such direct testimony depends
partly on who gives it. There are few or no parallels to the use
of the first person by a writer who does not reveal his identity
in the text of his work. On the other hand, if the use of the
first person be not a claim to give first-hand evidence it remains
equally a puzzle why the writer of the whole did not say who
was the writer of the source to which he attached so much value.
It is of course possible that he had found the diary, or a docu
ment about Paul including the diary, and used it as a source,
preserving the passages in the first person to prove that he had
here fulfilled the claim made in the preface to give the evidence
of eye-witnesses. But there is no proof that this is the case.
Therefore the frequent contention that the " we " sections prove
the authorship of Acts by a companion of Paul is ungrounded.
The truth rather is that they are a remarkably difficult pheno-

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 161

menon, and their interpretation depends on, and does not solve,
the problem of the authorship of Acts.

They prove that certain parts of Acts were originally written
by a companion of Paul, but they are explicable (with about
equal difficulty) either on the hypothesis that he edited the
whole of the Gospel and Acts, or that the editor of the whole
made use of them, changing their style in places, but preserv
ing the idiom as showing the value of these sections.

A plausible but fallacious argument 1 has sometimes been The
put forward to show that linguistic considerations prove identity
of the editor with the writer of the we sections. This was
done first in 1866 by Klostermann in his Vindiciae Lucanae,
with greater clearness, though with a characteristically correct
reserve of judgment, by Sir John Hawkins in Home Synopticae,
and in a more spectacular manner by Harnack in his Beitrdge
zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, especially Parts I., III.,
and IV., published between 1906 and 1911.

Harnack s method, which has attracted attention in wider
circles than those reached by the earlier books, was to examine
word by word two of the c we passages, discussing those words
or idioms which are characteristic of Luke s style. Then he
makes a list of words that occur in the we passages and else
where in Luke and Acts, but not in Matthew, Mark, or John. 2
Finally he prints the whole text of the we passages, under
lining the Lucan phrases and words. By all these methods the
same fact is proved, the great similarity of language in the we
passages and in the rest of Luke and Acts. This fact is not and
never has been denied. But when Harnack makes deductions
from the fact, his statements become less reliable. For he
assumes that the relative abundance of Lucan words in a passage
is evidence for or against the use of a source. In the ( we
passages the identity of language is, he believes, too great to allow

1 The following section on the linguistic argument is by Dr. H. J. Cadbury.

2 According to Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 78, there are about 130 such
words or phrases in 190 places in the 97 verses of the we sections.

VOL. II M

162 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

of the hypothesis that a source was used for these sections. The
author of the whole historical work must be himself the author
of those we passages within it, must be, in short, a com
panion of Paul, presumably Luke the Physician. To the obj ection
that many other parts of this work appear to have been based on
sources, and yet have been revised by the editor so as to bear
marks of his own distinctive style and vocabulary, Harnack
makes a twofold answer : (a) Certain parts of the Gospel of
Luke are dependent, it is true, on Mark and on another source
(Q), yet where these sources are used, the author has only
slightly transformed them, adding a few touches of his own, but
retaining so much of the vocabulary of the original source that
if no other Gospel were in existence we should know that Luke
was dependent on a written source. (6) In Luke i., ii., and
Acts i.-xii., xv., " the vocabulary and style are so absolutely
Lucan that, in spite of all conjectures that have been made, the
hypothesis of a Greek source is impossible, for there is nothing
left for it."

Closely criticised, this argument appears fallacious, but
in its method and principles rather than in the details. For
it assumes that it is possible by the vocabulary and style of a
passage in Luke or Acts to determine whether or not a Greek
source has been used in its composition. But the style of these
writings is throughout homogeneous, and the relative abundance
of Lucan terms is not always due to the influence of sources.
It cannot be denied that the we sections abound in char
acteristic Lucan words and phrases. But if we are to put con
fidence in numerical comparisons we shall have to confess that
Luke i., ii., for which Harnack claims equal originality and in
dependence, uses such terms with less than half the frequency
of the we sections. In fact even the Q passages of Luke,
in spite of their faithfulness to their source, have nearly as many
Lucan expressions as these chapters of the Infancy. And
particularly where Luke is using Mark for this is the surest
ground for comparison we are able to see how effectively the

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 163

author covers over his sources, even when dealing with material
which permitted less freedom than other parts of his history.

In these matters Harnack s statements are especially mis
leading. In connection with an analysis of two short passages
taken by Luke from Mark he makes the following statements :
" In spite of all the freedom with which the author of the third
Gospel treats his source, the style, the syntax, and also the
vocabulary of that source are still everywhere apparent." " The
source is, as one sees, on the whole only slightly altered (some
characteristic idioms and solecisms of Mark are nevertheless
erased) ; moreover, its peculiar style here stands out clearly in
comparison with those parts in which Luke could give himself
freer rein, for it is evident that in chapter iii. fL he has kept as
closely as possible to the already existing type of Gospel narrative.
Compare the /cal beginning a new sentence ten times repeated
(just as in the source, and quite in opposition to his own style)."
" Here also the constant occurrence of /cat at the beginning of
sentences is for every careful reader of the Acts an evident proof
that the author is following a source and not speaking in his own
words. Otherwise the narrative is in detail (in style) so much
altered and polished that the special character of the source is not
immediately discernible " (Luke the Physician, pp. 87, 89 f., 93).
But let us examine these statements. Harnack mentions the
use of KaL to begin a new sentence as due to Mark and gives some
statistics in a footnote. But by actual count /cat is also much
more abundant than Se in Luke i. ii., which by his hypothesis are
not from a source. He says that the vocabulary of Mark is
still apparent through the Lucan editing. Yet an actual count
of the occurrence in Lucan writings of words impartially chosen
as characteristic of Mark * shows that these occur as often or
oftener in the parts of Luke and Acts not derived from Mark.
And when Harnack says that in these Marcan passages Luke
kept as closely as possible to the already existing type of Gospel

1 See lists in Hawkins, Home Synopticae, pp. 9 E., and Swete, St. Mark,
p. xliii.

164 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

narrative, imitated the phraseology of Mark, etc., lie plainly
admits that in " those parts in which St. Luke could give him
self freer rein " he could show more abundantly features of his
own style, even were he using a source. In other words the
comparative abundance of Lucan terms in the we sections
is not final proof that no source was being used.

And sometimes at least even in copying Mark the Lucan
characteristics are almost as abundant as in the we passages.
One illustration may here be sufficient. Harnack, in return
ing again to this argument in The Date of the Acts, pp. 15 fL,
expresses himself as follows :

Let us take, by way of trial, the account of the shipwreck ! If
a source were present here it would be exceedingly improbable a
priori that we should discover between it and the rest of the Acts
of the Apostles or the Gospel of Luke any relationship either in
language or in style that would be worthy of mention ; for neither
work is elsewhere concerned with sea voyages. And yet, how over
whelming even here is the multitude of coincidences ! Let us
consider only the first three verses.

Here follows a full commentary on Acts xxvii. 1-3, showing
its Lucan characteristics, including eight of the kind noted above,
that is, expressions found elsewhere in the Lucan writings but
not in the other Gospels. Harnack then continues :

All these coincidences are found in the small compass of three
verses. That this is due to accident, and that through accident the
author of the Acts had come into the possession of an original docu
ment whose style and vocabulary so completely, and in every tiny
detail, coincided with his own, is an impossible assumption. Hence,
if one would escape from the admission of identity, there remains
only the hypothesis that the author has entirely recast the document
that had come into his hands. But what were the words of this
document, and what could have led the editor to recast a record
so absolutely simple in character ? No ! every one must recognize
that we have here primary narrative, that there has been no working
up nor revision.

There is, however, in spite of Harnack, in Luke s writings
one other account of a sea voyage the storm and threatened

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS

165

shipwreck of Jesus and his disciples on the Lake of Galilee in
Luke viii. 22-24. Neither Harnack nor any one else will main
tain that these are the independent composition of Luke. They
are plainly a revision of Mark iv. 35-39, for they agree with it in
thought, in position, and in several verbal details.

The following is the text of the two passages. Words
characteristic of Luke are underlined as in Harnack.

Mark.
35 Kal \eyei avTols ev e/ceivrj

Luke.
22 E-yez^eTo Se ev

rwv

Trj tjf^epa oy^ta? yevo/jievrjs

36 &gt;/-/

66? TO Trepav.
TOV o^Xc
Pdvovaiv avTov a&gt;? rjv ev TW
Kai aXXa 7r\oia Tjcrav
avTou. 37 Kal
\ai\a\{r /jieyd\7j dvefjiov
TCL KvaaTa e f irefBa\\ev e
ifkolov atcTTe ijor t
TO 7r\olov. ^ Kal TJV auTos ev
Trj irpvavy eTTi TO irpocrKefyd-
\aiov KaOevScoV Kal eyeipov-
(Tiv avrov Kal \eyovaiv avTO)
AtSacr/caXe, ov yu-eXet crot 6Vi
dnroX^VfjieOa; 39 Kal Sieyepdels
eTreTiaTjcrev TCO dveuw Kal elirev

/cal eiTrev irpos avrovs AteX

TO Trepav Try?

avrwv d&lt;f&gt;v7rvci)o-ev Kal

ve^ov e

Ka ^ eKivSvvevov. 24 r jrpoae\66v-
Te? Se Biyylpav avrbv \eyov-
res

diroXXvueOa. 6 Se

TO&gt; dveuw Kal

Kal eKoiraaev o aveuos, Kal
eyevero ya\tjvrj

K \VWVL TOV vSaros Kal eirav-

aavTO. Kal eyevero

Here again within the small compass of three verses are found
many Lucan characteristics, including at least nine words or
phrases peculiar to Luke among the evangelists.

To use Harnack s words, " the author has entirely recast the
document that had come into his hands." If his original had
not been preserved we should never have suspected from his
language that this was the case, but should have asked with
incredulity, " What were the words of this document, and what

166 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

could have led the editor to recast a record so absolutely simple
in character ? "
con- The general conclusion from any discussion of these lin-

clusions. .. .-i-iin , . . .

guistic questions is that they lead to nothing, if no assumption
be made at the start.

The fact which emerges most clearly is that there are slight
differences of style between various parts of Luke and Acts, and
that the style of the we sections is closer to the style of the
redactorial changes in the sections known to be taken from
Mark than the first part of Acts. This shows that the editor s style
resembled that of the diarist more nearly than it did that of
Mark or of the source used in Acts i.-xv. It does nothing
more ; and the fact is not in itself very significant if the Aramaic
element in Mark and Acts i.-xv. be taken into account. If it be
held on other grounds that Acts probably was written by a
companion of Paul the linguistic facts fit in admirably with this
conclusion. But they fit no less well if it be thought that the
authorship of Acts by a companion of Paul is impossible,
Similarly, if it be believed that the writer of Acts was a physician
the language of Acts offers no obstacles ; but neither does it
forbid the view that he was nothing of the kind.

This negative conclusion ought not to be surprising, for,
as is shown on pp. 112 fE., the indisputable evidence of Mark
the one still extant document which Luke used discredits the
suggestion that we can distinguish the sources of Luke by
linguistic evidence. Though there are variations of vocabulary
and idiom between various parts of the Lucan writings these
often prove to be fallacious as tests when they can be controlled,
and should not be trusted when they cannot.

The final decision whether the editor of Acts was the com
panion of Paul who wrote the we sections depends on the
argument as to the comparison of Acts with the Epistles.

If on these grounds it be held that the editor of the whole
is identical with the writer of the we sections the analysis
of Acts may end here. It is true that such a conclusion does

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 167

not preclude the opinion that occasional sentences may be inter
polations, but their consideration belongs to the commentary
rather than to an introduction.

If, on the other hand, it be thought that the description of
Paul in Acts is too different from the Paul revealed by the
Epistles to come from the pen of one of his companions, the
choice remains between the last three of the four alternatives
already given. The writer of the we sections may have
himself supplied the intervening sections of narrative ; or the
combination of the we sections with the intervening narra
tive may have been made by some other Greek writer, and the
editor of Acts, who revised the whole, used it in this already
composite form ; or finally the combination may have been
made by the editor himself.

The first of these possibilities will appeal to those who think
that Acts xv. and the Apostolic decrees cannot have been
accepted as true by a companion of Paul, but see no difficulty in
the description of the events in Jerusalem in Acts xxii. But
otherwise it has little advantage over the conservative view, for
it is not necessary to think that a companion of Paul or even
Paul himself knew everything about the early church in
Jerusalem, and the extremest analytic view of the first part of
Acts is quite consistent with the editing of the whole by Luke,
the companion of Paul, if the references to Paul in Acts ix. and
xv. be regarded as not too contradictory of Paul s own statements
in the Epistles to be attributed to one of his companions.

The second possibility has similarly little to commend it in
preference to the third, unless it be held that there are many
relatively small interpolations in the text of the later chapters
of Acts and several incidents in them which are not historical
and readily distinguishable from the general body of the narra
tive. It is hard to see convincing evidence that this is the case,
even though certain sections such as the story of Scaeva
raise occasional doubts. Again, it seems better to discuss such
points in the body of the commentary.

168 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

The growth Before passing on to consider the purpose of Acts, it may
conduce to clearness if a^ummarj be given of the stages which
apparently have been passed through before Acts reached its
present form, and of the difference made to the historian by the
results of analytic criticism.

1. The automatic action of human memory, and the natural
desire to preserve the records, led to the formation of local
tradition in every place where a Christian church was founded.
The problems needing further discussion in this stage are :
(a) Were these traditions already in writing, and if so, in what
language ? (b) Did they already contain parallel traditions of
the same events, thus creating doublets ? The present writers
think that they already existed in Aramaic writing and that
they did contain doublets. But the question is obscure and
incapable of complete solution.

2. The second stage was the collection of several of these
local traditions into a connected narrative. That this was
ultimately done is shown by Acts. The problems relating to it
are whether this collection was first made in Aramaic or in Greek,
and whether it was made first by the editor of Acts or by some
predecessor whose work he used. That it was so far as we
know never more than a partial collection is shown by the
fact that the editor of Acts was only acquainted with the tradi
tions of Jerusalem, Caesarea. and Antioch. He has nothing to
say as to the tradition of the spread of Christianity in Damascus
or in Tarsus. 1 It is worth considering that these are both
traditions which must have been well known to Paul, and it is
hard to think that they were unknown to any of his intimate
companions, especially to a companion with an interest in the
story of the beginnings of Christianity.

3. A new stage in the growth of formulated tradition was
reached by the diarist who preserved an account of his travels
in company with Paul. The essential difference between this

1 It is possible that he knew, but preferred not to use these other traditions ;
but to the present writers this seems very improbable.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 169

and the preceding stages is that it is concerned with individuals
and with the missionary enterprise of an apostle, not with the
local tradition of churches.

4. A further stage was the completion of the diary of the
journeys with Paul by the intervening narrative of Paul s
labours. Was this done by the diarist himself or by some one
else?

5. The whole of the preceding stages were revised by the
editor of the two \6yoi, sent to Theophilus. Once more, was
this editor the same as the diarist ?

6. Somewhat later the two \6yoi were divided, and the first
made into an evayyeXiov, while the second was given (or re
tained ?) the title of irpd^e^.

7. A final stage was reached when the whole of the Gospel
and Acts was revised and vigorously amended textually. This
stage will be dealt with in another place, but it is mentioned
here because of the belief entertained by Blass and Zahn that
it came before, not after, the preceding stage and was under
taken by the diarist himself.

That these stages were passed through before Acts reached
its present form is certain. The problems involved are all
internal to the various stages ; with their consideration we
pass out of the domain of certainty into that of variously gradu
ated probability. Assuming that the name of the diarist was
Luke the choice of possibilities seems to extend from the view
which attributes to him only stage 3, to that which attributes
to him all except stage 1, and thinks that this stage was not in
writing before his time. The present writers are more inclined I/
to the former than to the latter extreme, but do not feel able
to exclude a series of possibilities, down to the admission that
the final editor may have been a companion of Paul at times, but
if so he did not have a good understanding of the mind of Paul
as shown in the Epistles.

Kecon-

The points on which the analytic arrangement of sources etructhm of

history.

170 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

and a comparison with the Gospels and Acts give a different
view of the course of events from that presented by the text of
Acts as the editor arranged it, are, after all, not very many, and
it is impossible sufficiently to emphasise the fact that the main
reason for ever deserting the opinion of the editor is not sub
jective criticism of Acts, but the definite statements of Mark
and Paul. It is their evidence, not his own suspicions, which
forces the critic to seek in Quellenkritik some solution for the
differences presented by three such early witnesses as Mark,
Paul, and Luke. Led in this way to the analysis of the narrative,
he is sometimes induced to go further, and to apply the same
methods to solve the problems presented by the less perceptible,
less important, yet surely not imaginary, discrepancies which
are revealed by the text of Acts itself.

Beyond doubt, Luke and Acts give a connected and in
telligible account of the events which intervened between the
arrest of Jesus and the growth of Hellenistic Christianity. If we
had not other documents, we should have no power and little
reason to go behind it. The most that could be said is that the
reference to Christians in Damascus shows that the spread of
Christianity was somewhat wider and progressed somewhat
faster than Acts would suggest. But the evidence of Mark
shows that there was another tradition which represented the
appearance of the risen Lord as taking place in Galilee, so that
a full narrative of the events ought to include the flight of the
disciples to Galilee, the appearance of the risen Lord, and their
return to Jerusalem. It is true that certain alternatives have
been suggested. The best known of these, and the most attractive,
is offered by Johannes Weiss in his Urchristentum. He believes
that the Marcan tradition is wrong. What really happened,
according to him, is this : Jesus said, 1 in his conversation with
his disciples just before entering the Garden of Gethsemane,
" After I am risen, I will lead you into Galilee." This was
misinterpreted, and reappears in a later and mistaken form as,

1 Mark xiv. 28.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 171

" After I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee ; there ye
shall see me." l Thus the Galilean tradition is an unhistorical
attempt to provide a fulfilment for the words of Jesus. The
true interpretation of the Greek implies that the disciples re
mained in Jerusalem waiting for the return of their master to
lead them to Galilee : he never came, but he was seen, and the
disciples received the Spirit instead of the Parousia which they
expected. This is ingenious, but it is difficult to think that the
Marcan tradition can really be explained in this way. It is
bound up with Johannes Weiss s view that the whole story of the
empty tomb is a relatively late tradition. 2

A more subtle theory has been suggested, though never fully
expounded, by F. C. Burkitt, to the effect that the lost conclusion
probably contained a statement of how the disciples started for
Galilee, but were turned back by a vision of the risen Lord while
they were still near to Jerusalem. The objection to this theory
would be that it is difficult to believe in the survival of, and
indeed emphasis on, the tradition that Galilee was the place
where the risen Lord was seen, if, as a matter of fact, he was
really seen somewhere else. 3

Thus the historian is driven to the conclusion that the account
given by the editor of Luke and Acts is wrong, not primarily
because of any subtle criticism, but from a preference for the
earlier tradition of Mark. It is not the critic but the evangelist
who raises the difficulty. But the recognition of this difficulty
justifies a consideration of the suggestion of internal criticism
that in Acts i. 1-v. 42 we are dealing with a narrative which has
two Aramaic documents behind it. It is probable that Acts i.
and ii. continue the Jerusalem tradition found in the last chapters
of Luke, and that iii.-iv. 35 is another tradition of the same

1 Mark xvi. 7.

2 For the critical reasons in favour of the truth of the Marcan tradition
that the women visited the tomb on the third day, see K. Lake, The Resurrection
of Jesus Christ, pp. 166 ff.

3 It is of course presumed that Matt, xxviii. 9 is a doublet of the words of
the young man seen by the women at the tomb.

172 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

events. Acts iv. 36-v. 16 is a record of three incidents in the
history of the Church in Jerusalem, any or all of which may be
connected with either or neither of the preceding sources ; but
the story of the trial in v. 17-42 is probably another version of
the event described in iv. 1-31. The historian is thus dealing
with narratives which are more probably parallel versions of
the same incidents than a consecutive account of separate
ones.

The two accounts of the early Church in Jerusalem agree
in representing the disciples : (1) as under the leadership of
Peter ; (2) as inspired at least some of them and sometimes
by the Holy Spirit ; (3) as opposed, but not seriously per
secuted, by the Sanhedrin ; and (4) as organised on a commun
istic basis. One of these accounts, but the obviously inferior
one, gives a narrative which is linked directly with the Jerusalem
tradition of the Gospel of Luke, it represents the apostles as
staying permanently in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. The
other narrative seems to have no beginning, and it is impossible
to notice this without thinking of the Galilean tradition which
has in the Gospel no completion. The historian is more than
ever confirmed in the view that Mark gives the oldest account,
but that for some reason, now untraceable, the Church forgot or
ignored the Galilean episode in which the disciples went
back to (or towards ?) Galilee, saw the risen Jesus and returned
to Jerusalem. Whether the A source in Acts really represents
a fragment of this tradition cannot be decided ; but it is an
attractive guess that the Galilean episode was related at the
lost beginning of the A source, and that Luke felt that it was
incompatible with the Jerusalem tradition of his choice. This
much may even seem probable ; but it is more hazardous to
assume that the whole of this Galilean tradition was part of the
lost conclusion of the Gospel of Mark. 1 Indeed this assumption
seems to be positively improbable in view of the fact that source
A seems to have been Aramaic, while Luke knew Mark in

1 This view has the support of J. Weiss and F. C. Burkitt.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 173

Greek. 1 Probably Mark and source A represent two extracts
of the same originally Aramaic Galilean tradition. A tenable
alternative is that, contrary to Torrey s view, Luke used Greek
translations of all his Aramaic sources, as he did for Mark. In
this case the translator whom Torrey has detected is not identical
with the editor of Acts.

Similar help is given to the historian by the analysis of
Acts vi.-xv. If Galatians were not extant it would be possible
to hold that the course of events was that which the editor of
Acts believed it to have been, that is to say the Church passed
over to the evangelisation of the Gentiles by a series of events
which followed each other. The first stage was the preaching of
Philip in Samaria, if indeed the editor regarded that as preaching
to the Gentiles. The second stage was the conversion of Cornelius
to Christianity and of Peter to the recognition of the Gentiles.
The third stage was the Gentile mission in Antioch. Few
can doubt that the editor of Acts regarded these events as con
secutive rather than synchronous. Moreover, the result of the
Antiochian mission was, he thought, two distinct visits of Paul
and Barnabas to Jerusalem, one to relieve the distress caused
by famine, the other to discuss the legitimacy of the mission
to the Gentiles.

The whole story is intelligible, and, at least at first sight,
contains nothing to rouse suspicion, but the historian is faced at
this point by two pieces of evidence which really raise legitimate
doubt. In the first place, before the death of Stephen there were
already Christians in Damascus, and in the second place the
account given by Paul himself in the Epistle to the Galatians
cannot be reconciled with that in Acts. At this point, therefore,
the historian is justified in considering whether an appeal from
the editor of Acts to the sources which he used is not a possible
solution of the problem. It then becomes clear that the theory

1 It is true that Torrey thinks that Mark is a translation, and that Luke
knew both the Aramaic original and the translation, but there seems to be no
sufficient evidence in favour of the latter part of this complex hypothesis.

174 THE COMPOSITION AND PUKPOSE OF ACTS i

of sources drawn from at least two centres of tradition and
representing parallel accounts of the incidents common to both
traditions brings Acts into harmony with Galatians, instead of
leaving them irreconcilable as is the case when the editor is
followed without criticism.

So far there is a reasonably strong case for the theory which
divides Acts into parallel sources even while admitting that their
exact delimitation is impossible. Anything further is hazard
ous, but it is just as hazardous to assume that the editor
may be trusted as it is to rearrange his material. The point of
most importance is obviously the relation between Acts xii. 17
and Acts ix. 32 ff. If a dislocation of sources such as can be
paralleled from Luke s treatment of Mark be supposed, the
return of Peter to Jerusalem from the conversion of Cornelius
synchronises with the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem,
or is, at most, separated from it by a very short interval of time.
This result is much less certain than the identification of the
famine relief visit with the Apostolic Council of Acts xv. But
if it be true it gives a very probable picture of events. The
Church was spreading in every direction from Jerusalem. The
two problems which became pressing were the relation of the
Church to the Jewish law as applied to Gentile converts and the
economic necessities of Jerusalem. The same people were con
cerned with both problems, and the criticism of sources suggests
that their discussion came to a head in Jerusalem at the same
time rather than, as the editor s use of the sources would suggest,
at three separate moments. The effect of this discussion was
to send Paul on his journey through Asia Minor and Greece. We
are not told what happened to Peter, but other evidence assures
us that it had the same effect upon him, for the Pauline Epistles
give us glimpses of him in Antioch and Corinth, and tradition,
which there is no reason to reject, tells us that he reached Eome. 1

1 The statements of Paul in Galatians suggest that Peter originally intended
to preach only to Jews. But tradition seems to show that he did, in fact, make
converts also among the Gentiles. Probably both he and Paul began by
preaching in the synagogues, but found their chief success outside of them.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 175

After Acts xv. the historian has but little to learn from
analytic criticism. Various attempts have been made to dissect
the second part of Acts into two sources ; but none has won any
permanent place in the esteem of scholars. All that need be
said is that 1 and 2 Corinthians * play here somewhat the same
part as Mark and Galatians do in the consideration of Acts i.-xv.
They warn the reader how imperfect and one-sided a record Acts
is. It omits all the story of the dissensions in the Corinthian
church, and nothing in Acts would account for the strong lan
guage which Paul uses in Corinthians about his misfortunes at
Ephesus. The writer of Acts obviously omits and compresses :
did he do so from ignorance or deliberately ? If he was ignorant,
can he have been a companion of Paul for any long period ? If
he did it deliberately, he surely was not writing with the primary
object of telling the facts about the spread of the Gospel. He
has suppressed the struggle between Paul and the extreme Greek
party, just as he modified the story of the struggle between Paul
and the Judaising party. Not to give a complete record, but to \
fulfil a didactic and possibly apologetic purpose was the object
of the writer.

Whatever views may be held as to the analysis of Acts and The literary
the recovery of the sources used by the editor, it remains necessary lets.
to carry further the question raised by the last paragraph, What
was the plan and purpose of the editor ?

So far as the plan of the editor, in the sense of merely literary
composition, is concerned, it is obvious that he arranges his
material in a natural and orderly manner, so as to describe
the spread of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome, and divides

Missionaries may preach where they choose, but they make converts where they
can.

1 An attempt was made in K. Lake s Earlier Epistles of St. Paul to sum
marise the evidence of 1 and 2 Corinthians. This should be supplemented by
a consideration of J. Weiss s commentary on 1 Corinthians. But it is perhaps
worth mentioning that it was the sense of contrast of 1 Corinthians with Acts
which led the writer of the Earlier Epistles to turn to Acts, before going on to
the Later Epistles, which he has not, however, forgotten.

176 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

his narrative by short summaries of the progress made. Far
the best statement of this is given by Professor C. H. Turner
in the article on Chronology in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible.
He writes as follows : " The picture is cut up, as it were, into six
panels, each labelled with a general summary of progress, and
with so careful an artist, the divisions thus outlined are, in the
absence of more precise data, the natural starting-point of in
vestigation, (i.) First period, i. 1 : The Church in Jerusalem
and the preaching of St. Peter : summary in vi. 7 : And the
word of God was increasing, and the number of disciples in
Jerusalem was being greatly multiplied, and a large number
of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (ii.) Second
period, vi. 8 : Extension of the Church through Palestine ; the
preaching of St. Stephen ; troubles with the Jews : summary in
ix. 31 : The Church throughout all Galilee and Judaea and
Samaria was having peace, being built up, and walking in the
fear of the Lord and in the consolation of the Holy Spirit was
being multiplied. (iii.) Third period, ix. 32 : The extension of
the Church to Antioch ; St. Peter s conversion of Cornelius ;
further troubles with the Jews : summary in xii. 24 : And the
word of the Lord was increasing and being multiplied. (iv.)
Fourth period, xii. 25 : Extension of the Church to Asia Minor ;
preaching of St. Paul in Galatia ; troubles with the Jewish
Christians : summary in xvi. 5 : The Churches then were being
confirmed in the faith, and were abounding more in number
daily. (v.) Fifth period, xvi. 6 : Extension of the Church to
Europe ; St. Paul s missionary work in the great centres, such as
Corinth and Ephesus : summary in xix. 20 : So forcibly was the
word of the Lord increasing and prevailing. (vi.) Sixth period,
xix. 21 : Extension of the Church to Rome ; St. Paul s captivi
ties : summarised in xxviii. 31 : Proclaiming the kingdom of
God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ
with all boldness unhindered.

" Of these six sections, the protagonist in the first three is
St. Peter, in the last three St. Paul, and the two halves into which

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 177

the book thus naturally falls make almost equal divisions at the
middle of the whole period covered."

There is only one point on which this statement may perhaps
be supplemented or corrected. The general statement that Acts
is arranged by the editor into a series of panels is incontro
vertible ; but are there only six ? The doubt arises from the
fact that at least two other passages may be taken as
summaries similar to those mentioned by Professor Turner
Acts ii. 47 and xi. 21. But this is a relatively minor question, 1
and the general correctness of the analysis is probable.

The purpose of the editor, as distinct from the plan of com- The pur-
position which he followed, is more important and more difficult. Editor. *
It can hardly be described by any simple formula. Few books
are ever written with a single purpose. The preceding discussion
shows that pure history the correct narration of all important
events cannot have been the aim of the editor. It was rather
that object for which the Lucan writings have always been used
* to give religious instruction. Therefore, by taking the Gospel
and Acts as they stand, it is possible to form an accurate idea of
the type of Christian teaching which he put forward and his
contemporaries accepted. But before considering this side of
the matter it is well to notice another, which, even if secondary,
was probably far more important to the mind of the writer than
it is obvious to ours. Are not the Lucan writings an apology for ^
Christianity to the heathen as well as a manual of instruction
for the Christian ?

It has often been recognised that, whatever else was the Acts as an
purpose of the writer of Acts, he was anxious to defend the Christianity

1 See also Prof. C. J. Cadoux, Journal of Theological Studies, 1918,
pp. 333 ff., and Prof. B. W. Bacon in the Harvard Theological Review, April
1921. Both these writers go beyond Prof. Turner, and press the chronological
aspect of the panels. Their suggestions are full of interesting possibilities,
but bear chiefly on the problem of Chronology, which will demand separate
treatment in the Commentary. Reference may also be made to Moffatt s
Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 284 ff. Moffatt thinks that the progress
in the narrative implied by these panels is geographical rather than chrono
logical. More probably it is both : progress usually is.

VOL. II X

178 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Church against the suspicions of the official world. The general
truth of this view rests securely on the internal evidence of the
whole book, but it is difficult to formulate, because many facts
well known to the writer are obscure to us. These are implied,
but not explained, in the Preface, in which the writer addresses
Theophilus as most excellent, and endeavours to help him to
know the certainty of the information which he has received.
The whole problem turns on these phrases. It may be resolved
into three questions : (1) Who was Theophilus ? (2) What is
the meaning of the title most excellent ? (3) What kind of
information is implied by the words Trepl wv fcarrj^O^ \oycov ?

Theophilus. (1) There is absolutely no tradition of any historical value
as to Theophilus. It has even been suggested that his name,
Lover of God, merely means the Christian Reader. There is,
however, no evidence of this custom in antiquity, and it is far
more likely that Theophilus was a real, though forgotten, person.
The notes appended to MSS. of the Gospels sometimes say that
Theophilus was a disciple of Luke (H. von Soden, Die Schrifien
des N.T. i. p. 319), sometimes that he was a man of senatorial
rank (avyKk^TiKov ovra KOI ap^ovra tcro)?), because he is
addressed as Kpanaro^ (op. cit. p. 324), but these statements
are obviously only deduced from Luke, and are important as
showing the absence of any independent tradition.

Kp&THTTos. (2) The title KpaTLcrTo^ is usual in Greek to represent high
official position. It is so found three times in Acts of Felix
in the letter sent to him by Lysias, and again in the speech of
Tertullus, and of Festus in the speech of Paul. 1 It is also used
by other writers in their dedicatory addresses, for instance, by
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who dedicates his De orat. antiq. to
/cpaTLcrre "Kp^ale. On the other hand, the adjective is nowhere
used by a Christian in the first two centuries of a brother Chris
tian. It is, of course, scarcely probable that a Roman governor
had the Greek name Theophilus, but the Greeks were notoriously
apt to extend by courtesy the application of titles, and it remains

1 Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, and xxvi. 25.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 179

extremely probable that Theophilus was an official of some
kind.

(3) The meaning of /car^eo) is in itself probably neutral,
It is used in the Church to describe the instruction given to
young converts, and the interpretation of Acts has been pro
foundly influenced by this custom. It is so used in Acts xviii. 25
of Apollos. But it is also twice used in Acts of the false informa
tion given about Paul by his enemies to the Jews in Jerusalem, 1
and a variant of the phrase to know the certainty is also
twice used of official investigation. 2

Thus the evidence of Lucan usage does not support the usual
explanation of commentators that Theophilus was a catechumen,
thirsting for religious instruction, but rather suggests that he
was a Roman official concerned with the public safety and legal
procedure. He had heard stories damaging to Christians,
perhaps especially to Pauline Christians, and the purpose of the
writer was to disabuse him of these slanders by putting before
him the exact facts.

The questions which would naturally occur to a magistrate s
mind were two. Were the Christians practising a lawful religion ?
Were they doing anything by word or deed which called for
administrative action ?

The earlier the date ascribed to Theophilus, the more probable
it is that the question of the illicit character of the Church was
in his mind, for in the Empire the distinction between a lawful
and unlawful religion was rapidly being forgotten. 3 The theory

1 Acts xxi. 21, 24. 2 Acts xxi. 34, xxii. 30.

3 See K. J. Neumann, Der romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf
Diocletian, i., 1890 ; P. Allard, Histoire des persecutions pendant les deux pre
miers siecles, torn. i. ; also his article on " La situation legale des Chretiens pen
dant les deux premiers siecles " (Revue des questions historiques, 1896, pp. 5 ff.) ;
L. Guerin, " Etude sur le fondement juridique des persecutions dirigees centre
les Chretiens pendant les deux premiers siecles de notre ere " (Revue hist, de droit
fran$ais et etranger, 1895, pp. 713 ff.) ; J. E. Weis, Christenverfolgungen, 1899;
Th. Mommsen, Historische Zeitschrift, 1890, S. 389 ff. ; Romisches Strafrecht,
1899 ; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, 1894 ; W. M.
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 (1893) ; A. Linsenmayer,
Die Bekdmpfung des Christentums durch den rdmischen Staat, 1905.

180 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

was that all religions were forbidden unless they had been
definitely sanctioned ; but, in the Provinces especially, the
general principle was to accept any local cult, provided it con
tained nothing detrimental to good order. Still, to be able to
prove that a religion was lawful was a point which any apologist
would be likely to make.

How could a Christian do this ? No religion could in practice
expect to be tolerated unless it was that of a recognised race
of men, and no new religion could be licensed. This explains
why all the Apologists, except Aristides, argue that Christianity
is the true religion of Israel, and Aristides tries to cover the same
point by arguing that the Christians are a new race, and
therefore so it is implied have a right to a new religion.

That Luke has anticipated the Apologists in this respect can
be seen in the Gospel as well as in Acts.

The Gospel The preface to the Gospel is so worded as to lead the reader
ApoTogy. to suspect that he is about to peruse an ordinary work by a
literary man of the period, but suddenly he finds the author
adopting the Hebraic style of a native of Palestine. It may
be that at this point he is translating from a Semitic source,
but in any case he introduces Theophilus in this manner to the
first stage of his argument, the origin of the new faith in the
Temple at Jerusalem. In contradiction to Matthew, who
desires to emphasise that Jesus was born as Christ, in accordance
with prophecy, at Bethlehem, the Third Gospel dwells on
the connection both of the Forerunner and of Jesus with the
Temple. The scene opens with the ministration of Zacharias
in the Sanctuary ; and the Temple, throughout the first two
chapters, is always the background. The predictions of the
future glories of the divine child clearly foreshadow the attributes
of the risen Lord in Acts. Thus the promises made by Gabriel to
Mary at the Annunciation are that the child shall be great and
shall be called vlbs v^riorrov, he shall sit upon the throne of David
his father, and he shall be called wo? Oeov. The Virgin is to con
ceive when the Holy Spirit comes upon her (irvevfjia ayiov eVeXei/-

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 181

eVt &lt;re). In the Magnificat we have an undoubted echo of
Hannah s song on the birth of Samuel, who was destined to be
the prophet deliverer of Israel, and in i. 54 the words avreXdpero
larparj\ TratSo? avrov are a reminder of the passages in Isaiah
which lead up to the revealing of the servant of Jehovah. In
the Benedictus a similar note is struck. The horn of salva
tion is to arise from the House of David, /caOax; l\a\7]o-ev ia
cTTO/jLaTos TWV dyicov air al&vos Trpo^ijTwv avrov, and it is the
sign of salvation from our enemies. In like manner the angels
announce that a Saviour is born 05 ecrnv ypiarbs KVQLOS, and
Simeon on seeing the child Jesus calls him TO crwrrfpiov aov

The point throughout is that Jesus and his work are the
proper culmination of the history of Israel, foretold by the
prophets, and by those who represent the true leadership of the
nation.

In the succeeding chapters of the Gospel and in Acts the key
note is the unity of the progress of the Gospel inaugurated by
Jesus, continued by the Twelve, and carried to the ends of the
world by Paul. The difficulty lay in bridging the gulf which
separated the Pauline teaching and the primitive Christian
message. Paul as presented in the Lucan literature is not the Paul
self-revealed in his epistles, a man relying on his own spiritual
experiences, and almost fiercely independent of those of others ;
but an earnest missionary, scrupulously deferential to the
authority of those older than himself in the faith. We are
more impressed by the correctness of Paul s attitude than
by his greater qualities. He is scrupulous in offering the
Gospel in due order, seeking out the synagogue directly he arrives
in a new city. His conduct to the Church of Jerusalem is repre
sented as irreproachable, his attitude towards the Jews is beyond
criticism, the concluding chapters are mostly devoted to forensic
matter, that is, to speeches proving the legality of Paul s position.
Nothing to all appearance could be a more unexpected sequel
to the story of the preaching and death of Jesus and the signs

182 THE COMPOSITION AMD PURPOSE OF ACTS i

following the Resurrection than the defence of Paul in Acts,
yet it is germane to the argument of the author. He is anxious
to show the unity between Israel and Jesus, Jesus and the Twelve,
the Twelve and Paul in order to establish the legitimacy of
Christianity as the religion of the Chosen People. Therefore he
obviously schematises the stories of Jesus, of Peter, and of Paul
so as to bring out the parallelism between them.

Just as in Acts Paul begins his ministrations everywhere
in the synagogue, so in the section peculiar to Luke had Jesus
done before him ; and as at Lystra Paul was dragged ef o)
T?}? 7roXeft&gt;9 to be stoned, so had it been with Christ at
Nazareth. 1 The writer of the Gospel is naturally bound by his
sources, and possibly by tradition, as to his manner of relating
the story of Jesus ; yet when he comes to the appointment of
the Twelve he carefully disconnects it from the mission to
Jews only, as in Matthew x., and gives the incident an addi
tional importance by stating 2 that Jesus bestowed on them
the name of apostles (01)9 /cat aTrocrroXou? &&amp;gt;vo^acrev}. Just
as Barnabas and Saul were chosen for the mission to Gentile-
lands after prayer, so were the Twelve selected after Jesus
had been SiavvKrepevcov ev ry Trpocrev^y rov Oeov. The intro
duction to the discourse in chapter vi. differs significantly from
that to the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus, like another
Moses, goes up into the mountain, followed by his disciples.
In Luke Jesus chose (e /cXefa/^sz/o?) the apostles on the mountain,
and came down with them (Kara/3a$ per avrwv) to give his
instruction with his disciples to the multitude. Here the design
of Luke is evident. He represents the Twelve as the official
preachers of the Gospel, descending with the Master when he
proclaims its moral principles. The same appears in the dis
course itself. In Matthew it is the interpretation of the Law

was cast down before he was stoned, with the idea that he might be killed by
the fall.

2 So also in Mark ; but the text is here doubtful, and may be an accommoda
tion to Luke.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 183

by Jesus, whereas in Luke it is a missionary address in
which the Law is not mentioned or quoted. * Luke is careful
to show that in his opinion the apostolate was a permanent and
not a temporary office, as is implied by Matthew ; for, whereas
Matthew makes the selection of the Twelve precede the discourse
about preaching in Palestine to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel, Luke connects it with the sermon which contains the
essence of a world-wide propaganda.

Although the other evangelists mention the preaching of
Jesus from town to town, they do not appear to do so with
the set purpose, seen in the Third Gospel as compared with
Acts, showing that the missionary work of the Apostles was in
conformity with the precedent set by Jesus.

But, it might have been said, the Jews rejected Jesus and
his followers. How, then, could Christianity be the true religion
of Israel ? The answer which the writer seems to suggest is the
traditionally Christian one, that the Jews had always rejected
the teachers whom God had raised up. Their treatment of Jesus
was unjustifiable ; Pilate and Herod did not condemn him, they
only yielded to pressure. The righteous man in the Sanhedrin,
Joseph of Arimathea, had opposed his execution 1 and given
him honourable burial, but his colleagues had gone their wicked
way, as their fathers had done. Similarly in Acts, Gamaliel,
the most prominent Jewish teacher, befriends the Apostles,
though the priests persecuted them as far as they dared. Stephen
is condemned and stoned, and his defence is nothing but a long
argument to show that this is exactly what the Jews might
have been expected to do ; it confirmed rather than refuted the
claim of the Church to be the true Israel.

So also Paul is accused by the Jews, but supported by the
Pharisees and by King Agrippa ; and in Rome the prophets are
quoted to show that nothing but the obstinate refusal to recognise
their own religion could be expected from the nation.

The conclusion is obvious : the writer desires Theophilus to

1 A point, be it noted, peculiar to Luke.

184 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

understand the claim of the Church to be the true Israel, and
consequently that its worship was lawful in the Roman Empire.
Equally plain is the running stream of suggestion that the
Church was harmless, had always been found so, and could not
justly be punished. A comparison of the trial of Jesus in Mark
with that in Luke shows how strongly Luke brings out the
favourable judgment of Pilate. The same purpose is naturally
less visible in the early chapters of Acts, but even there the
general description of the Church seems calculated to disarm
criticism. In the story of Paul it is very plain.

He was the subject of constant persecution but in no instance
has it so much as a show of legality. On the contrary, all
who are in authority, notably the Roman officials, are made
to show him marked consideration. Until the Council of
Jerusalem he and Barnabas are not molested save by the envy
of the Jews, who stir up the people and drive them from city
to city, and at Lystra Paul is stoned by the mob but is not
seriously hurt. 1 The only Roman mentioned in this section
is the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who became a believer.

Paul s second journey (ch. xvi. fi.) is marked by persecution.
At Philippi he is accused as a disturber of the peace and of
introducing customs which it was unlawful for Romans to observe.
He and Silas, however, complained that they were unjustly
imprisoned and scourged as men who had not been condemned,
and pleaded their Roman citizenship so that they were at their
insistence publicly acquitted. It appears indeed to be the
point of the whole story to show that they were absolutely
guiltless of the charge of rioting or teaching unlawful practices. 2
At Thessalonica Jason, their host, was accused of harbouring
men who were violating the law and proclaiming Jesus a

1 Acts xiv. 19-20. Paul was supposed to be dead. He was stoned in a
riot, but when the disciples stood round him he arose and went into the city.
The incident recalls the escape of Jesus at Nazareth, Luke iv. 28-30.

2 Acts xvi. 37 Selpavres r//xas S^/iocrig. dKaraKpirovs . . . /cat vvv \ddpa
-^as ^KjSdXAoiKj-ij . The contrast is between the public nature of the insult
and the privacy of the would-be apology on the part of the magistracy.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 185

rival emperor (jSao-i\ea). The politarchs dismiss the charge
as absurd, take security of Jason and set them at liberty. 1
At Corinth Gallic declares that he can take no cognisance of
purely Jewish disputes and refuses to hear the charges made
against Paul. At Ephesus the Asiarchs protect Paul by sending
their advice that he should not show himself in the theatre,
and the town-clerk (ypa^/jLarev^) pointedly acquits Gains and
Aristarchus, who were brought before him, of being temple
robbers or blasphemers of the goddess Artemis.

The section xxi. 14-xxvi. 32 is a defence of the legality
of Paul s position. In deference to the desire of the Jewish
Christians he had consented to bear the expenses of certain
brethren in discharge of vows they had taken. On being seen
in the Temple he was attacked by the fanatical Jews and accused
of bringing heathen Greeks into the Temple. This was a
capital charge, but the Jews, and apparently the high priest,
were determined to have Paul killed whether guilty or not,
and a band of assassins was formed to slay him. Paul, who had
declared himself to be a Roman citizen, was carefully protected
from injury by Claudius Lysias and sent under a strong guard
to Felix the procurator at Caesarea. As has been already stated,
his defence to the Jews was that as a Pharisee he had always
observed the Law. Before Felix he was charged by Tertullus
with being a disturber of the peace throughout the Empire, a
leader of the faction of the Nazarenes, and one who had tried
to pollute the Temple at Jerusalem. 2 Paul s answer was
virtually that the Jews had no proof, as they had not produced
the Asiatic Jews, the only witnesses whose testimony would
have been of service to them. 3 Felix is represented as knowing
too much about the new religion (aKpiftearepov et Sw? ra vrept r?;?

1 Acts xvii. 5 ff.

1 Acts xxiv. 5-6. Paul is accused generally as a disturber of the peace,
as the head of the Nazarenes, and particularly of trying to pollute the Temple.
Note Tertullus does not charge him, as did the Jews (xxi. 28), with having
actually done so.

3 Acts xxiv. 19

186 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

6Sov) to listen to this charge and to have kept Paul under arrest
merely because he hoped to extract more money from him.
Festus, his successor, acted with prudence and refused to be
hurried into precipitate action on his arrival. He offered Paul
a trial at Jerusalem, and accepted without hesitation his appeal
to Caesar. 1 Herod Agrippa next appears on the scene. Being
a Jew, he was more capable than a Roman of deciding the
issue. His verdict was decisive : " This man doeth nothing
worthy of death or bonds. ..." He might have been released
but for his appeal. Arrived at Rome, no more is said of the
charges against Paul. He is simply allowed to live in a private
house of his own, to receive his friends, to preach the kingdom
of God, and to teach about Jesus. The meaning of the last
two verses of Acts is that Paul was either acquitted or allowed
to live in a house of his own to which his friends were given
free access. 2

Significance The termination of Acts is extremely significant. The climax
; *k is the freedom accorded to Paul. A very large proportion of Acts

of Paul. has been devoted to the discussion of the charge made against
him that he was a seditious person who had tried to profane the
Temple. The Jews had spared nothing to secure his condemna
tion. The High Priest Ananias had showed the utmost animus
in the trial before the Sanhedrin. Yet Felix, venal and unjust
as he was, desirous as he was to gratify the Jews, dared not
pronounce sentence against Paul. Festus tried to induce
Paul to go to Jerusalem to be tried, but was forced to allow
the appeal to Caesar. Agrippa, a Jew, not blinded by prejudice,
heard the Apostle and proclaimed him innocent without hesi
tation. At Rome, even the Jews disclaim all interest in the
prosecution, and though nothing is said of his trial before Caesar,
he is left free in his own hired house, at perfect liberty to see
his friends and to preach and teach his message. Of what

1 Acts xxv. 12.

2 Acts xxviii. 16. On Paul s arrival at Rome he was allowed to live
where he chose under guard, but in 30-31 the soldier who kept him is not
mentioned.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 187

happened to him later there is no record, 1 but the writer of
Acts might well have added : "So you see nothing could be
laid to Paul for his preaching Jesus. As a Jew and as a Roman
he was legally guiltless." The religion which he preached was
the ancient faith of Israel, rejected by the Jews, only by reason
of their traditional lack of obedience to the guiding of God and
of his prophets. It was therefore a lawful religion in the Empire.
In its lawful pursuit neither Jesus nor Paul had ever been con
victed of bad behaviour by a competent magistrate. In the
capital of the Empire itself, Paul, while still under surveillance,
had preached without let or hindrance from the authorities.

The didactic purpose of the editor of Acts is clearer than The
his apologetic object, and has often been described. pmpow

It can be treated in several ways, each with its appropriate Acts&gt;
advantages. Following the order of theological importance,
it would be natural to take successively the teaching about God,
about Christ, about the Spirit, and about the Church. But
there is much to be said for taking rather the order in which
the Gentile world would have faced the matter. The first
question would have been as to the Church. What did it claim
to be and what was its message ?

The answer, that the Christian Church was the ancient people The
of God, was at least as important for the instruction of converts
as it was as a justification before Roman lawyers. It was
indeed more likely to be accepted as a privilege than entertained
as a defence. As has been said already, this point is emphasised
by Luke more than by Matthew, and far more than by Mark.
Indeed, the Lucan writings stand out as the earliest documents
which represent the self-consciousness of the Church and the
belief that its history was the final development of the divine
promise that the true Israel should be God s own people. That
development involved the provision for the changing of the

1 Acts never tells what happened to any of such leading characters as
Peter or Barnabas : they simply drop out of the narrative. James only is
mentioned as being beheaded.

188 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

basis of the promise in the last days, so that the opportunity of
enjoying its privileges should be extended to the Gentiles, and
the congregation, or people of God, be no longer on a national
basis. The Christians, therefore, adopted, in speaking of them
selves, the title of Ecclesia, which to Hellenistic ears must have
inevitably taken with it the claim that they were the chosen
people, the true Israel. For e tacky o- La is used in the Septuagint,
except in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, to mean
the People of the Lord assembled together for common action,
and it is this use of the word in the Septuagint which is really
important, rather than any considerations derived from Greek
etymology. 1

This contention necessitated a new series of arguments from
prophecy, and Acts shows how part of the Christian theology
was the elaboration of proof texts to demonstrate that the
promise was not to the Jews only, but also to a congregation
chosen out from the Gentiles. We have, in fact, the beginning
of the arguments of the Christian apologists, and of such writers
as the authors of Hebrews and Barnabas, who desire to show
that the whole of the Old Testament foretells the Christian
Church and belongs to it.

The true Inasmuch as the Church was the ancient people of God,
it followed naturally that the primary object of the earliest
Christian mission to the Gentiles was in one respect entirely
identical with that of the Jewish mission. Both the Church and
the Synagogue believed in the God of the Jews, held that he was
the only true God, and endeavoured to turn the heathen from the

1 Etymologically ^KK\rjcria means the assembly called out from a Greek
city by the herald, but as is usually the case with well-known and often-used
words, this original sense, referring to the method of the assembly, was com
pletely merged in the acquired sense of the persons composing the assembly.
It translates qahal, but for those who, like the first Christians, took the Septua
gint as their sacred book, the fact that it represented qahal rather than e dhah
would be a point of small importance. The word would be familiar to all as the
characteristic designation of Israel, the people of God, especially in Chronicles,
Ezra, and Nehemiah. This remains true even though the origin of the word is
probably the translation of Keneseth, the ordinary word for a synagogue. See
F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 3-15 and vol. i. p. 304.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 189

worship of idols to his service. So far as the Gospel and the
early chapters of Acts are concerned there is of course little
trace of this propaganda, for there was no controversy on this
point between Jesus and the Jews or between them and his
disciples. There are really only four places in which Acts gives
a direct account of Christian preaching to the Gentiles, and in
these the worship of the true God is put into the foreground.
At Lystra Paul begins his speech, " We are men of like passions
with you, and our message to you is to turn from these vanities
to a living God." Similarly at Athens the message of Paul to
the Greeks is that he announces to them the God * who made
the world and all that is in it. It is not until the end of his
speech that he mentions Jesus, and then not as f the Lord,
but as a man whom God had appointed to judge the world. x
Much the same may be said, though with less certainty, of the
speech of Paul at Miletus to the Ephesian elders where he sum
marises his teaching as testifying both to Jews and Greeks of
repentance (or conversion) to God and faith in our Lord Jesus.
Once more, in explaining his preaching to Agrippa II., Paul
describes his mission to the Gentiles as a call to repentance and
conversion to God. Moreover, apart from these special refer
ences, it must be remembered that to Gentile eyes the whole of
the Gospel and of Acts would appear as one continuous plea
for belief in the God of Israel, the claim of whose missionaries
was justified by history, by prophecy, by miracles, and by the
resurrection of his anointed servant, Jesus.

More controversial, and in some ways more important, than Jesus.

1 It is noticeable that this is an example of an unmixed " Son of Man "
Christology. It seems to us to belong to a less developed form of thought
than that of the editor of Acts. This is one of the minor reasons in favour of
the view that there is a documentary source behind the second part of Acts.
It is well to remember in this connection that although there is abundant evi
dence that the speeches in the literature of this period are the least likely part
of any book to have escaped revision, and may even be the free invention of
editors, it is also true that the comparison of Luke with Matthew and Mark
suggests that he found speeches in his sources, and contented himself with
comparatively small revisions.

190 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

the preaching of the true God, which marked the connection of
the Church with Judaism, was a change in the view held as to
Jesus.

Two points stand out here as characteristic of the Lucan
writings. Though Jesus is the Son of God, Messiah, the Davidic
King, and the Son of man, these titles and their implications
come from the sources used in the Gospel or in Acts. They are
accepted by the writer and are not peculiar to him. But in no
writing certainly earlier than Luke is the statement to be found
that Jesus was the Son of God because he was born of the Virgin
Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit. 1 In Mark the divine
sonship of Jesus begins at the Baptism. 2 It is true that the
Lucan view is also held in Matthew, but it is less emphasised ;
and it is by no means certain that Luke is later than, still less
dependent on, Matthew. Thus Luke is clearly differentiated
from Mark on the one hand and from John on the other by his
doctrine of the Divine generation of the Son by birth from the
Holy Spirit and Virgin Mary, 3 not by the descent of the Spirit
at the Baptism, nor by eternal pre- existence as in Johannine
Christianity. 4

Equally important and equally characteristic of Luke is the

1 Luke i. 35. Cf. Vol. I. pp. 398 and 400.

2 The words in Mark i. 9 ff. can originally have meant nothing but that Jesus
became at the Baptism the Son of God by the impartation to him of the Holy
Spirit. Only when the nativity stories were prefixed, could it be taken to mean
that Jesus was then announced to be what he had been in reality from the
beginning.

3 See further, p. 200.

4 It is impossible to discuss here the difficulties of a precise formulation of
the Johannine doctrine, or the history of Christian doctrine on the subject before
Origen. But it is permissible to point out that a promising line of enquiry
begins by asking whether John i. 14 used the phrase fj.ovoyevf]s of the incarnate
or the pre-incarnate Logos. Hort s famous dissertation is the beginning of
wisdom for students approaching this subject, but it may be added that even
if the variant in John i. 13 (3s eyfwijO-ri /c.r.X. instead of ol eyevv^Q-qtrav} be
not genuine, it is very early, and thus reflects the belief that the Logos who had
existed with the Father from the beginning was begotten in time, and so became
/j.ovoyevr)s. John holds to the pre-existence of the Logos, but this is not the same
as the doctrine of the eternal generation. Nor is it germane to the subject
that the Fathers of the later centuries thought one way or the other.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 191

sense that Jesus was the living head of the Christian Church.
This marks the divergence from Judaism, and the self-con
sciousness of Christians that even though they are the Con
gregation of the Lord they are not the Synagogue of the Jews.
This is a real change from anything which can have existed in
the original Jewish community, and is marked by the adoption
of the title Lord for Jesus. It means that to the writer Jesus
was not so much the national king of the Jews or the super
natural judge of the living and the dead (though he was these
also) as the supernatural leader of the Church.

Is it fair to go further and say that to the editor of Acts
Jesus was the centre of worship or even an object of it ? Here
again much depends on the discrimination of sources. In the
early chapters of Acts the centre of worship is God the God
of the Jews. Jesus is his holy servant through whose name
miracles are wrought ; prayer is directed to God, not to Jesus. 1
It is true that the dying words of Stephen are an appeal to
Jesus to receive his spirit, but it must be remembered that at
that moment he was seeing the vision of the risen Lord at the
right hand of God ; the words are a petition for help, not an
act of divine worship. " He saw his Master in the skies, and
called on him to save." On the other hand, the appellation of
Jesus as Lord, which is certainly characteristic of the editor of
Acts, was a long step in the direction of deification and con
sequent worship. 2

What in any case stands out clearly is that just as the relation
to the true God marked the ancientness of the Church, its
relation to the Saviour marked its newness. The Church is

1 Cf. iv. 24 ff.

2 J. Weiss and others seem somewhat to exaggerate the evidence for the
worship of Jesus by the first Christians. To regard him as a supernatural pro
tector and helper the Saviour and as one whose name was potent to influence
God and to conquer devils is one thing, but to worship him with the same
worship that is given to God is a different matter, against which all JeAvish
tradition would have revolted. The question may be raised in this connection
of the meaning of Revelation xxii. 6-9. Is it possible to avoid the identification
with Jesus of the angel, who announces that he will come quickly, but re
pudiates worship ?

192 THE COMPOSITION AND PUKPOSE OF ACTS i

the ancient people of God, but it is also a new thing in the
history of the world. Of course the writer would have said that
this was the fulfilment of prophecy and was part of the divine
plan. In this respect Acts is the logical antecedent of Aristides
with his startling claim that Christians are a new race. On
the negative side there is a noteworthy absence of any meta
physical speculation as to the original relation between God and
the Lord. Nor indeed would this be otherwise. The Lord
was the Son of God * begotten not of his Father before the
world, but of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.
The Holy A third point which characterises the thought of the editor

is the belief that Christians were inspired by the Spirit owing
to their membership in the Ecclesia and its connection with the
Lord Jesus. The connection of the Ecclesia with the Lord
Jesus is implied throughout Acts, as it is in all other early
Christian literature ; the apostles are specifically his mission
aries, and to his service Paul is converted. But it is not less
plain that the members of the Church were regarded as gifted
with the Holy Spirit, even though certain points are obscure
in the view which is presented of the working of the Spirit. 1
It seems plain that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord of the
Old Testament, but it is also sent from God by Jesus (Acts ii. 33),
and in one place it is apparently described as the Spirit of Jesus
(Acts xvi. 7). This reminds us of the manner in which in Komans
viii. the words Christ, * the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of
God, the Spirit, are interchanged, with no apparent difference
of meaning ; but in Acts the connection of the Spirit with the
Lord has not quite reached the stage of identification represented
by such passages, or still more by the direct statement, " The
Lord is the Spirit " in 2 Cor. iii. 17. Moreover, the apparent
exchange of usage between Spirit and angel of the Lord
in the story of Philip (Acts viii. 26, 29, 39) suggests the con
fusion between angel and Spirit which is noticeable in Hernias
and Tertullian, and seems to have its origin in a remote chapter
i Cf . Vol. I. pp. 325 ff.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 193

of Jewish theology. There is, however, nothing which really
enables us to answer the question whether the Spirit was com
pletely hypostatised or was regarded as an impersonal element
sent by or from God. On the one hand, the Spirit * speaks,
which is a personal act ; but on the other hand it is poured
out, which points rather to the view that it was an element,
or, to use the customary and convenient phrase adopted by the
Germans, a Fluidum. Constant combination of these views,
inconsistent with each other though they seem to us, is as notice
able in Acts as it is in almost all early literature. It is as common
to say that a man was filled with the Spirit and therefore spoke,
as to say that the Spirit spoke through the man.

Psychologically this difference of expression and the apparent

confusion of views which it implies is due to an underlying

difference of experience. The prophetic speaker feels that he

speaks because the Spirit first spoke to him ; the message which

he delivers is not his own, but that of the Spirit which constrains

him ; the Spirit is greater than he is, and if there is any question

of absorption, it is the Spirit and not himself which

predominates and survives. But from the people this feeling

of the prophet is hidden : to them it is clear that the prophet

speaks, and the Spirit is looked on as an element which affects

him in a manner analogous to the working of wine. It would

be out of place to discuss here the degree of truth reached by these

theories ; but it is important to notice that the double line of

thought which is so clear in Acts is not merely due to the survival

of various forms of primitive theology, though this no doubt

affected it, but also to the fact that we have the description of

the phenomena of inspiration from two angles of vision that

of the prophet, who regarded them from the point of view of

perception from within, and that of the people, who regarded

them from the point of view of observation from without.

Ancient and mediaeval theology erected a doctrinal edifice by

means of the application of logic and metaphysics to the data

provided by these two descriptions of the phenomena of inspira-

VOL. II O

194 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS

tion, but the productive work of the future will consist chiefly
in the attempt to go behind these descriptions to discover the
actual facts. In other words, we are brought here to the territory
which has been marked out as his own by the student of psycho
logy and to that particular part of it which has become famous
from the application to its dark recesses of the theory of subliminal
consciousness.

The general conception in Acts is that Christians normally
- receive the Spirit, but not that all their actions are inspired
by it. It is, as it were, only sometimes that the Spirit takes
possession of them, and they speak in the spirit, either with or
without glossolalia, or perform miracles of healing or of punish
ment by its means. The Christian is not so much a man who
is always and entirely possessed by the Spirit, as one who is
capable of obsession, or, one might almost say, liable to obsession,
at critical moments. It is, however, not wholly plain in what
way the editor conceived the means whereby the Spirit was
imparted to Christians. It was certainly given to the apostles,
and only the apostles could impart it to others ; but was it by
baptism or by the laying on of the hands of the apostles or by
both ? x

The Church The benefits derived from membership in the Church are not
Kingdom elaborately stated, but they can be discerned with reasonable
of God. clearness. The editor of Acts and possibly the source of the
later chapters agreed with Matthew in regarding the Church of
the Lord as identical with the Kingdom of God of which
Jesus had spoken. That he did so is clear by the passages in
which the Kingdom of God is spoken of in Acts 2 even though
in the gospel other passages taken from Mark or Q represent an
earlier use. In none of the passages in Acts is it impossible that
the Kingdom means the Church, and in most of them this is the
most obvious meaning. Nevertheless the phrase Kingdom of

1 See Vol. I. pp. 337 ff. for a discussion of the relation of the editor to his
sources in connection with baptism.

2 Acts i. 3, 6, viii. 12, xiv. 22, xix. 8, xx. 25, xxviii. 23, 31. See also
Vol. I. pp. 324 ff.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 195

God is relatively uncommon in Acts, 1 and its use ought not to be
unduly emphasised.

A further point closely connected with the Church, and The
emphasised in Acts, but either not found or quite subordinate
in Matthew or Mark, is the forgiveness of sins. In the speech
of Peter in Acts ii. the Messianic prophecies are explained as
fulfilled by the gift of the Spirit to the Church and the forgiveness
of sins. In the speech of Peter to Cornelius in Acts x. the con
clusion of the whole is the offer in v. 43, supported by prophecy,
of forgiveness of sins to all who believe in Jesus. In the speech
of Paul to the Jews at Pisidian Antioch in Acts xiii. the point
to which everything leads is v. 38, " through him is forgiveness
of sins announced to you, and from all things from which by the
law of Moses you could not be justified, by him every believer is
justified." In his speech before Agrippa in Acts xxvi. he claims
that his mission to the Gentiles has for its object that " they
should receive remission of sins and a part among those sanctified
by faith " in Jesus. Finally, in his last speech to the Jews in
Rome in Acts xxviii. he seems to treat the Kingdom of God
of which he testified (v. 23) as identical with the salvation (or
message of salvation, o-cDTtjpiov) of God (v. 28).

The point of view of these passages seems to be different
from the purely Jewish view of repentance as the adequate
basis for salvation, which is replaced by the miraculous action
of the Lord. It is, in fact, not merely forgiveness in the sense
in which Ezekiel, for instance, connected it with the re
pentance of turning of the wicked, but a complete change
of nature.

It is easy to see that this development may be entirely
due to Hellenistic influences akin to the sacramental view
of grace which dominated Catholic Christianity and the other
mystery or sacramental cults of the first four centuries. But
it is also found in some Jewish sources of the Diaspora,
notably the Oracula Sibyllina, where the work of bestowing

1 Acts i. 3, viii. 12, xiv. 22, xix. 8, xxviii. 23, 31.

196 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

miraculous freedom from sin is one of the functions of the
Messiah. 1

TheResur- Finally, it would seem that a resurrection to immortality is
one of the benefits offered by the Church, though it is curious
how small a part is played in Acts by this doctrine. In the
earlier chapters it is mentioned in Acts iv. 2, but only because
the Sadducees objected to the preaching that Jesus had risen,
as justifying a belief which they rejected. Obviously there
was no more controversy between the first Christians and the
Jews in general as distinct from the Sadducees as to a belief
in a general resurrection 2 than there was as to the nature of
God. But just as the nature of God became important in
Christian preaching to the Gentiles, so also did the general resur
rection, and it is consequently mentioned five times, in Acts xvii.
18 and 32, in Paul s speech at Athens, and in Acts xxiii. 6,
xxiv. 15 and 21, in Paul s defence before the Sanhedrin and
before Felix, where he contends that in preaching a resurrection
he was justified by the best Jewish tradition of the Pharisees.
Clearly a general resurrection was part of the Christian teaching
which the editor of Acts accepted, but it appealed to him as
part of the Jewish tradition. The resurrection of Jesus was the
evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, rather than proof of the
general resurrection. 3

Comparison It is desirable, in conclusion, to attempt roughly the task
^tt^ther of fixing the general position of this system of theology as corn-
books, pared with that of the other main documents of New Testament
theology. It is clear that the point which really divides the
Lucan theology from that of Mark or of Matthew is the con
ception of the Church as a community separate from Judaism,

1 Cf. H. Windisch, Taufe und Siinde im dltesten Christentum, pp. 34-45.

2 Of all men or of Jews and Christians only ?

3 In that respect Paul s epistles are the complement of Acts. He bases
his argument in favour of a resurrection on Jewish eschatological belief, with
the addition where he speaks to the Gentiles of the clinching argument that
Jesus had actually risen. Norden missed this point in Agnostos Theos, where
he treats the Resurrection as synonymous with aQavaffix. Cf. F. C. Burkitt,
J.T.S., 1914, pp. 455 f.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 197

but at the same time the true representative of the ancient
people of God. That is why Luke, unlike Matthew and Mark,
was obliged to produce a second book, and not merely confine
himself to recounting the life and the teaching of Jesus.

Mark seems to have had the single object of persuading his Mark,
readers that Jesus was the Messiah, in spite of the fact that
Jesus himself had not proclaimed this openly. In order to
establish his case he tells the story of the wonderful deeds of
Jesus ; as a second line of evidence he quotes the testimony
given on two occasions by the voice of God, first at the Baptism
to Jesus himself, and the second time, in identical words, to three
disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration ; and as a final cor-
roboration of these two lines of proof he adds the culminating
witness of God in the resurrection. It does not appear to be
any part of his plan to suggest that the teaching of Jesus was
a new law, different from the law of Moses, or that his disciples
were a new community, different from the community of the
Jews.

Matthew accepts the position of Mark, but wishes to go further Matthew.
and expound his view that the teaching of Jesus had the force
of a new law. Therefore, while making use of the material
already collected by Mark he adds to it from other sources all
that he could find bearing upon the teaching of Jesus, and edits
this so as to prove his point. His interest in Christianity is not
that the disciples form a new community, but that they have
been entrusted with a new law which supplements and takes the
place of the law of Moses.

Luke, like Matthew, accepts the position of Mark and wishes Luke,
to supplement it ; but his supplement is that the Christians are
a divinely instituted Church, and therefore, although it is as
necessary to his plan as it is to that of Matthew to repeat and
expand the Marcan document, it is also necessary for him to
give the evidence justifying his claims not merely for the Christ,
but also for the Church of the Christians. It would not, however,
be fair to say that Luke in this respect necessarily represents

198 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

a position chronologically more advanced than Matthew ; the
truth is rather that he and Matthew stand for two different
lines of development, probably in different places. Both of
them are clearly later than Mark, but we cannot say that either
is necessarily the later of the two, for neither seems derived from
the other.

Paul. More striking still is the fact that the theology of Acts and
the theology of Paul seem in the same way to represent separate
lines of development. Even the most radical critics have been
so much under the influence of the tradition that Luke was a
pupil of Paul that they have been anxious, sometimes perhaps
unconsciously, to find traces of Paulinism in Acts. But an
unprejudiced inquiry rather goes to show that Acts and Paul are
singularly independent of each other, for sometimes one and
sometimes the other seems to be the more advanced, and there
is no satisfactory evidence that either borrows from the other.

Three sets of facts are especially cogent in this connection.
As we study the use of the word Christ in Acts and in the
Pauline epistles, Paul represents a greater divergence from what
must have been the original usage of the word than Acts. In
the Pauline epistles Christ is almost always used as a name,
but in Acts, except in certain formulae of belief, Christ is
nearly always used as a title, and not as a name. There can
be no doubt that the Acts stands in this respect nearer to primi
tive custom than Paul.

In the same way in the Pauline epistles the soteriological
explanation of the death of the Christ represents a more advanced
type of thought than anything which is found in Acts. In most
of the speeches in Acts, in which the crucifixion is alluded to,
there is little or no suggestion of any soteriological doctrine,
and it is regarded primarily as the wicked act of the Jews. Here
again Luke seems to be less advanced than Paul, though, unless
one is prepared to maintain that they both belonged from the
beginning to the same circle, less advanced is not necessarily
the same as earlier.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 199

Against these two points, which go to show that the Pauline
theology is in some respects more advanced than the Lucan,
must be set the fact that the interpretation of the figure of the
Servant of the Lord in Isaiah as a reference to the Messiah is
markedly characteristic of Luke and is not found in Paul, although
one would have supposed that, had he known it, Paul would
certainly have made use of it to support his soteriological argu
ments. It seems, therefore, to be clear that, just as Matthew
and Luke represent two lines of development in Christian thought
though closely related rather than two points on the same
line of development, so also do Paul and Acts.

But the most striking comparison with Acts is not offered The
by any book in the new Testament, but rather by the Apostles
Creed. If the foregoing analysis of Acts and Luke were
summarised the objects of belief could be stated as follows :

(1) God, as

(a) the Creator of the World, and

(6) the Father of the Lord and of his People.

(2) Jesus, the Christ, as

(a) the Son of God, born of the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary ;

(6) the Lord,

who suffered under Pontius Pilate and Herod, 1
died, was buried, rose again on the third day,
ascended into Heaven, sits at God s right hand,
and is coming to judge the world.

(3) The Holy Spirit.

(4) The Church.

(5) Baptism, and the Apostolic Laying on of hands.

(6) The Forgiveness of Sins.

(7) The Resurrection of the Dead.

It is scarcely necessary to print the Apostles Creed to draw
attention to its extraordinary similarity to this summary. The

1 Once more the comparison with Aristides is suggestive.

200 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

resemblance is illustrated by the remarks of K. Holl to the
Berlin Academy in January 1919. 1 In this he deals with the
interpretation of the second article of the Apostles Creed in a
manner which was immediately accepted by Harnack and others
as convincing though new. He points out that the second
article of the Creed begins with a double description of Jesus
Christ as (1) TOV vlov avrov rov /jLovojevij, (2) TOP /cvpiov f]fji&lt;av,
and that this double description is then explained by two para
graphs each enclosed, as it were, by the repetition of the article,
TON yevvrjOevTa e/c Trvev/jLaros ayiov real Mayota? TT}? TrapBevov,
TON eVl IlovTiov EUXaTov a-ravpcoOevra KCLI rcHpevra. As Holl
points out, there is no other document than Luke which treats
the divine sonship of Jesus as beginning with his birth of the
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Luke certainly does so, and
an unprejudiced reading of the Apostles Creed gives the same
explanation. There is also no other document in the New Testa
ment which treats the Ascension as an event separate from the
Resurrection. The combination is very striking, and shows that
the Apostles Creed is more closely associated with Lucan docu
ments than with any others. The fact has scarcely received
sufficient attention from the investigators of Christian doctrine,
partly because, at least since the fourth century, the Synoptic
Gospels have always been interpreted in the light of the Fourth
Gospel, and the Apostles Creed in the light of the Council of
Nicea. The problem which is opened up for the Church historian
is to distinguish, so far as possible, the traces of that type of
Christianity which is represented by the Synoptic Gospels, Acts,
and the Apostles Creed, from that other great line of thought,
ultimately triumphant, which is represented by the later epistles
of St. Paul, by the Fourth Gospel, and by the Alexandrian School
of theology, and found final expression in the Nicene Creed.

The pro- Where was Acts compiled 1 The oldest tradition, which

venance of

1 Sitzungsberichte der preussiscken Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1919, pp.
2ft

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 201

cannot be traced back beyond the third century, 1 connects Luke
with Antioch. This may be a true tradition of the birthplace
of Luke, the companion of Paul, or an inference from the emphasis
laid on Antioch in the Acts, or a real tradition as to the place
where the Third Gospel and Acts were first used. There can be
no certainty on the point, but even assuming that the tradition
is merely an inference, it is one which the modern investigator
is tempted to repeat. Antioch is certainly a Church which was
well known to the editor ; if the foregoing analysis of sources
be in any degree correct, he was in possession of good Antiochian
traditions, and a very significant fact knows nothing of the
details of Paul s missionary work until he came to join Barnabas
in Antioch. The Western text of Acts in Acts xi. 28 which
introduces a we clause 2 is probably not original. Still
less acceptable is the variant in Acts xiii. 1, which introduces
into the list of the prophets at Antioch " Lucius of Cyrene, who
still survives." But both passages probably represent the belief
that Luke was the I implied by the we-clauses, that he was the
editor of the book, and that he came from Antioch, so that the
we-clauses ought to begin in that city, not in Troas. It is prob
ably far the oldest testimony which we possess as to early opinion
about the place to which the writer of Acts belonged ; it is based
on an intelligent interpretation of the facts, but it is not con
clusive.

To have survived at all, the Gospel and Acts must have
belonged to some large and important Church. The places which
challenge Antioch for consideration are Jerusalem, Ephesus,
and Rome.

There is least to be said in favour of Jerusalem. Nothing Jerusalem.
in Acts suggests that the writer was a member of the Church in
that city, except that he used documents which probably came
from it, and the fact that Acts is a Greek, not an Aramaic, book

1 It is first found in Eusebius, but may be taken from Julius Africanus.
See pp. 232 and 247.

2 avvfcrTpafjijji.V(ji3v 8e rjfj.&v ^&lt;f&gt;7] els 4% avruv 6v6fj.arL "AyafBos /crX.

202 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

Ephesus. almost suffices to exclude Jerusalem. Ephesus seems similarly
excluded by two facts. In the first place, Acts is noticeably
lacking in full or accurate information as to Paul s career in
Ephesus. The Epistles to the Corinthians show that much
happened in Corinth and Ephesus, of which Acts says not one
word. In the second place, the Johannine, not the Lucan,
tradition and theology are typically Ephesian. These two points
are, however, not conclusive : it will probably prove that the
form of Synoptic tradition * which is behind the Fourth Gospel is
precisely that of Luke, and if so, the case for Ephesus as the
original home of Acts would have to be reconsidered.

Rome. Rome is supported by two facts, of which one at least is

certain. Acts ends with the diarist in Rome. There is
therefore a slight very slight probability that the diary was
found and used there. 2 So far as it goes, this is certain. The
other point is more doubtful, though very important. It has
been pointed out above that Luke and Acts would serve, as no
other documents would, as pieces justificative^ for the Apostles
Creed. If it were certain that this creed was really Roman in
origin, it would be strong evidence in favour of Rome as the place
of origin for the Lucan writings. But is it certain ? The early
history of the Apostles Creed has not yet been fully written.
It was doubtless used in Rome at a very early time in almost
exactly the form in which we know it. 3 But there are traces of
earlier forms elsewhere, for instance, the fivefold creed in the
Epistola Apostolorum* and the only slightly divergent form in
the Der-Balyzeh papyrus, 5 of which the latter comes from Egypt
and the former probably from Ephesus. Lietzmann is, no doubt,

1 See especially on this point Holtzmann, "Die schriftstellerische Ver-
haltnis des Johannes zu dem Synoptik," Z.W.Th., 1869, pp. 62 ff., and
Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, pp. 157 ff.

2 This is Jerome s view (see pp. 236 ff.). But it is merely his guess, he does
not refer to tradition.

3 For this Marcellus of Ancyra and Rufinus are the chief witnesses, and
Hippolytus may perhaps be added.

4 C. Schmidt, "Gespriiche Jesu," T.U. xliii. p. 32.

6 Revue benedictine, xxvi. p. 34 ff. Of. Th. Schermann in T. U. xxxvi. 1 b,
and H. Lietzmann in the Berlin Sitzungsberichte for March 27, 1919.

v THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ACTS 203

right in thinking that these simple creeds are more primitive than
the fuller forms. There are also intermediate variations ; for
instance, the baptismal service of the Verona fragments contain
the following baptismal service, unhappily imperfect at the
beginning : " . . . manum habens in caput inpositam baptizet
semel. Et postea dicat : Credis in Christum lesum, filium
Dei, qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria uirgine et crucifixus
sub Pontio Pilato et mortuus est et sepultus et resurrexit die
tertia uiuus a mortuis et ascendit in caelis et sedit ad dexteram
patris uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos ? Et cum ille dixerit :
Credo, iterum baptizetur. Et iterum dicat : Credis in spiritu
sancto et sanctam ecclesiam et carnis resurrectionem ? Dicat
ergo, qui baptizatur : * Credo. Et sic tertia uice baptizetur."
If, as E. Schwartz and R. H. Connolly have rendered all but
certain, this text comes from the lost Traditio apostolica of Hip-
polytus, 1 we have here a Roman creed of the beginning of the
third century. But we still do not know whether it originated
in Rome, and it is therefore valueless as evidence for the origin
of Acts. The problem may be stated thus : we have in Luke
and Acts the justification, in the form of a history, of a definite
type of Christian doctrine, formulated in the Apostles Creed.
That creed is a development of simpler forms, possibly at first
merely the baptismal formula, possibly some such simple five
fold statement as is found in the Epistola Apostolorum or in the
papyrus of Der-Balyzeh. It developed mainly by the growth
of the statements about the life of Jesus, and these statements
are all of them justifiable out of Luke and Acts, but not out of
any other single book in the New Testament. It is therefore
not unlikely that the development took place in some Church
which was especially Lucan. Find this Church, and you have
reason to say that the development of the creed is likely to have
taken place there ; or identify the place where the creed developed,

1 Ed. Schwartz, in Uber die pseudo-apostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Strass-
burg, 1910, was the first to make this suggestion, which was independently
reached by Dom R. H. Connolly in his magistral "The So-called Egyptian
Church Order," in Texts and Studies, viii. 4, in 1916.

204 THE COMPOSITION AND PURPOSE OF ACTS i

and you have a right to say that Luke and Acts are likely to
have been cherished by the Church in that place. Unfortunately
neither end of the problem has yet been solved. It is legitimate
to think that, here at least, Home holds the keys ; but who can
prove it ?

THE IDENTITY OF THE EDITOE OF LUKE
AND ACTS

205

INTRODUCTION

THE tradition of early Christian writers ascribes the Third
Gospel and Acts to Luke the Physician, the companion of Paul.
Whether this be correct or not has been widely discussed.

On one point there is practical agreement the author of
the two works is the same. This seems to be proved by the
common address to Theophilus, by the description in Acts i.
of a book corresponding to the Third Gospel, and by the identity
of the two books in style and language, even in subtle details
and mannerisms.

The two points which at first sight seem decisively in favour
of the tradition prove susceptible of interpretation in such diver
gent manners that they are not likely to provide convincing
proofs for or against Lucan authorship. The * we in certain
sections of Acts may be interpreted either as due to the use of
an autobiographical source embodied in the text, or to personal
reminiscences of the author. The first alternative would exclude,
as the second would prove, Lucan authorship. But neither
interpretation of the we passages is so easy as to be certain.
Each involves literary awkwardness, for the unexplained and
abrupt appearances and disappearances of the we are dim-
cult, whether due to the author s own presence on certain
occasions, or to a source which has been otherwise adapted in
style to the rest of the book. When all possible parallels to
either method of procedure have been collected, it will still be
doubtful which interpretation is in this case the less unlikely.

The other ambiguous factor in the problem is the relation
of the author to Paul. On the one hand, he reveals an intimate

207

208 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

knowledge of Paul s movements, whether derived from his own
experience, or from his sources, and a general similarity of
religious view ; on the other hand, he frequently varies from the
statements in the Pauline Epistles both in matters of minor
detail and in general attitude. If his knowledge be emphasised,
authorship by a companion of Paul will seem a possibility or
even a probability ; if stress be laid on his ignorance, such
authorship will appear unlikely. But on neither side is the
evidence overwhelmingly convincing. It is as hazardous to
define what a companion of Paul could not have written as to
determine what one who was not his companion could not have
known.

In the following sections will be discussed :

(1) The Tradition.

(2) The case for the Tradition from internal evidence.

(3) The case against the Tradition from internal evidence.

(4) Subsidiary points.

THE TRADITION

By HENRY J. CADBURY

i. THE EARLIEST TESTIMONIA

THE tradition of Christian writers since the second century
has been that the Third Gospel and the Acts were written by
Luke the Physician who is mentioned by Paul in Colossians,
Philemon, and 2 Timothy.

The external evidence which constitutes this tradition is
given in the following catena of testimonia, which includes
the principal references in early patristic literature to the tradi
tion of Luke s authorship of the gospel and Acts. They are
typical, though not exhaustive.

The text of the difficult and obscure Canon of Muratori is
given in unemended form according to the readings of the single
Milan MS. in which it is preserved. For the other selections a
modern critical text has been used so far as possible, usually
that of the two standard editions, Corpus Scriptorum Eccle-
siasticorum Latino-rum (Vienna) and Die griechischen christlichen
Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Berlin).

The translations have been made directly from the text
employed, but have been compared and corrected by comparison
with other versions in modern languages. But in quotations
from scripture the English of the Revised Version has been
generally used where the same original text occurs in, or
appears to underlie, the patristic text.

VOL. II 209 P

210 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

The Canon of Muratori.
Lines 1-8 : *

quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit.
tertio euangelii librum secando lucan
lucas iste medicus post acensum ^77
cum eo paulus quasi ut iuris studiosum
secundum adsumsisset numeni suo
ex opinione concriset dnrn tamen nee ipse
duidit in came et idem pro asequi potuit.
ita et ad natiuitate iohannis incipet dicere.

Lines 34-39 :

Acta autem omnium apostolorum
sub unu libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofi
le conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula
gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri
euidenter declarat sed profectionem pauli au vr
bes ad spaniam proficescentis.

1 This text is that given by E. S. Buchanan in the Journal of Theological
Studies, 1907, pp. 540 ff. So many corrections are necessary that it is easier
to print as a whole the emended text, translated above, than to indicate changes
in separate notes.
Lines 1-8:

quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. tertium euangelii librum secundum
lucam, lucas iste medicus post ascensum christi, cum eum paulus itineris sui
socium secum adsumsisset, nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit. dominum tamen
nee ipse uidit in came, et ideo prout adsequi potuit. ita posuit et ad natiuitatem
iohannis incipit dicere.
Lines 34-39 :

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. lucas optimo
theofilo comprendit quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur ; sicuti et
semota passione petri euidenter declarat sed et profectione pauli ab urbe ad
spaniam proficiscentis.

It is obvious that many of these emendations are extremely doubtful, and
many others have been suggested by editors of the fragment.

THE TRADITION 211

The Canon of Muratori.
Lines 1-8 :

... at which, however, he was present and so he set
them down.

The third book of the Gospel, according to Luke, Luke that
physician, who after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had
taken him with him as companion of his journey, composed
in his own name on the basis of report. However, he did not
himself see the Lord in the flesh and therefore as he could
" trace the course of events " he set them down. So also
he began his story with the birth of John.

Lines 34-39 :

But the Acts of all the apostles were written in one volume.
Luke compiled for " most excellent Theophilus " what things
were done in detail in his presence, as he plainly shows by
omitting both the death of Peter and also the departure of
Paul from the city, when he departed for Spain.

212 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Irenaeus.

Adv. haer. iii. 1 (Ed. Harvey, ii. p. 6) :

Et Lucas autem sectator Pauli, quod ab illo praedicabatur
Evangelium, in libro condidit. 1

Adv. haer. iii. 14 (Ed. Harvey, ii. pp. 74 ff.) :

Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo, et co-
operarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse facit manifestum, non glorians,
sed ab ipsa productus veritate. Separatis enim, inquit, a Paulo,
et Barnaba et Johanne, qui vocabatur Marcus, et cum navigassent
Cyprum, nos venimus in Troadem : et cum vidisset Paulus per
somnium virum Macedonem dicentem : Veniens in Macedonian!
opitulare nobis, Paule ; statim, ait, quaesivimus proficisci in
Macedonian!, intelligentes quoniam provocavit nos Dominus
evangelisare eis. Navigantes igitur a Troade, direximus na-
vigium in Samothracen : et deinceps reliquum omnem ipsorum
usque ad Philippos adventum diligenter significat, et quemad-
modum primum sermonem locuti sunt : Sedentes enim, inquit,
locuti sumus mulieribus quae convenerant ; et quinam credi-
derunt, et quam multi. Et iterum ait : Nos autem navigavimus
post dies azymorum a Philippis, et venimus Troadem, ubi et
commorati sumus diebus septem. Et reliqua omnia ex ordine
cum Paulo refert, omni diligentia demonstrans et loca et civitates
et quantitatem dierum, quoadusque Hierosolymam ascenderent :
et quae illic contigerint Paulo, quemadmodum vinctus Romam
missus est ; et nomen centurionis qui suscepit eum, et parasema
navium, et quemadmodum naufragium fecerunt, et in qua liberati

1 This statement is repeated in Adv. haer. iii. 10 : " Lucas autem sectator
et discipulus apostolorum."

i THE TRADITION 213

Irenaeus.

Adv. haer. iii. 1 :

And Luke the follower of Paul recorded in a book the
gospel that was preached by him.

Adv. haer. iii. 14. 1 :

But l that this Luke was inseparable from Paul and was
his fellow-worker in the gospel he himself makes clear, not
boasting of it, but compelled to do so by truth itself. For
after Barnabas and John who was called Mark had parted
from Paul and when they had sailed to Cyprus, he says,
" We came to Troas " ; and when Paul had seen in a dream
a man of Macedonia, saying, " Come into Macedonia and
help us, Paul," " straightway," he says, " we sought to go
forth into Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called
us to preach the gospel unto them. Setting sail therefore
from Troas we steered our course to Samothrace " ; and there
after he carefully relates all the rest of their journey as far as
Philippi and how they made their first address ; " For," says
he, " we sat down and spake unto the women that were come
together " ; and he tells who believed and how many. And
again he says, " And we sailed away from Philippi after the
days of unleavened bread and came to Troas, where also we
tarried seven days." And he relates everything else while with
Paul in order, carefully indicating both the places and cities and
number of days until they went up to Jerusalem ; and what
things befell Paul there, how he was sent bound to Rome, and
the name of the centurion that took him, and the sign of the
ships, and how they were shipwrecked, and in what island they

1 The purpose of this passage is to meet the argument of those who claim
that Paul alone knew the truth. Irenaeus argues that, if that were the case,
Luke would have known and recorded Paul s secrets, since he was inseparable
from Paul and as it is he has recorded much that is not in other gospels. The
heretics who claim to follow Paul have no right to claim more or less than
Luke records. Certainly they are not justified in accepting part of Luke s
gospel and rejecting the rest.

214 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

sunt insula ; et quemadmodum humanitatem ibi perceperunt,
Paulo curante principem ipsius insulae ; et quemadmodum inde
Puteolos navigaverunt, et inde Romam pervenerunt, et quanto
tempore Romae commorati sunt. Omnibus Ms cum adesset
Lucas, diligenter conscripsit ea, uti neque mendax, neque elatus
deprehendi possit, eo quod omnia haec constarent, et seniorem
eum esse omnibus qui mine aliud decent, neque ignorare veri-
tatem. Quoniam non solum prosecutor, sed et cooperarius
fuerit Apostolorum, maxime autem Pauli, et ipse autem Paulus
manifestavit in epistolis, dicens : Demas me dereliquit, et abiit
in Thessalonicam, Crescens in Galatiam, Titus in Dalmatian! :
Lucas est mecum solus. Unde ostendit quod semper junctus ei
et inseparabilis fuerit ab eo. Et iterum in ea epistola quae
est ad Colossenses, ait : Salutat vos Lucas medicus dilectus.
Si autem Lucas quidem, qui semper cum Paulo praedicavit, et
dilectus ab eo est dictus, et cum eo evangelisavit, et creditus
est referre nobis Evangelium, nihil aliud ab eo didicit, sicut
ex verbis ejus ostensum est, quemadmodum Li qui nunquam
Paulo adjuncti fuerunt, gloriantur abscondita et inenarrabilia
didicisse sacramenta ?

2. Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter quae sciebat, haec et
docuit, non solum eos qui cum eo erant, verum omnes audientes
se, ipse facit manifestum. In Mileto enim convocatis episcopis
et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civita-
tibus, quoniam ipse festinaret Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere,
multa testincans eis, et dicens quae oporteret ei Hierosolymis
evenire, adjecit : Scio quoniam jam non videbitis faciem meam :
testificor igitur vobis hac die, quoniam mundus sum a sanguine
omnium. Non enim subtraxi uti non annuntiarem vobis omnem
sententiam Dei. Attendite igitur et vobis, et omni gregi, in

i THE TRADITION 215

were set free, and how they received kindness there, when
Paul healed the chief man of that island, and how they
sailed thence to Puteoli, and thence they came to Rome,
and for what length of time they remained in Rome. Since
Luke had been present at all these events, he carefully wrote
them down, so that he can be convicted of neither lying nor
boasting, because all these things prove both that he was
earlier than all those who now teach otherwise, and that he
was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not only a follower,
but also a fellow- worker of the apostles, especially of Paul,
Paul himself made clear in his letters, saying, " Demas forsook
me and went away to Thessalonica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus
to Dalmatia ; only Luke is with me." By this he shows that
he was always joined to him, and was inseparable from him.
And again in that letter which is to the Colossians he says,
" Luke, the beloved physician, saluteth you." Now if this
Luke, who always preached with Paul and was called by him
" beloved," and preached the gospel with him, and was entrusted
with handing on the gospel to us, 1 learned from him nothing
else, as has been shown from his words, how do they, who
were never associated with Paul, boast that they have learned
hidden and unspeakable mysteries ? 2

2. But that Paul taught plainly what he knew not only
to those who were with him but also to all who heard him,
he himself makes clear. For when the bishops and elders
who were from Ephesus and from other nearby cities had been
called together in Miletus, since he himself was hastening to
keep Pentecost at Jerusalem, he testified to them of many
things and told what must befall him in Jerusalem, adding,
" I know that ye shall see my face no more ; therefore I testify
unto you this day that I am pure from the blood of all men.
For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel
of God. Take heed, therefore, both unto yourselves and unto

1 Or " is believed to have recorded the gospel for us."

2 Assuming that here, as often, sacramenta is for fj-vvrripia.

216 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

quo vos Spiritus sanctus praeposuit episcopos, regere ecclesiam
Domini, quam sibi constituit per sanguinem suum. Deinde
significans futures malos doctores, dixit : Ego scio quoniam
advenient post discessum meum lupi graves ad vos, non par-
centes gregi. Et ex vobisipsis exsurgent viri loquentes perversa,
uti convertant discipulos post se. Non subtraxi, inquit, uti non
annuntiarem omnem sententiam Dei vobis. Sic Apostoli sim-
pliciter, et nemini invidentes, quae didicerant ipsi a Domino,
haec omnibus tradebant. Sic igitur et Lucas nemini invidens,
ea quae ab eis didicerat, tradidit nobis, sicut ipse testificatur
dicens : Quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contem-
platores et ministri fuerunt Verbi.

3. Si autem quis refutet Lucam, quasi non cognoverit veri-
tatem, manifestus erit projiciens Evangelium, cujus dignatur
esse discipulus. Plurima enim et magis necessaria Evangelii
per hunc cognovimus, sicut Johannis generationem, et de
Zacharia historiam, et adventum angeli ad Mariam, et exclama-
tionem Elizabeth, et angelorum ad pastores descensum, et ea
quae ab illis dicta sunt, et Annae et Simeonis de Christo testi-
monium, et quod duodecim annorum in Hierusalem relictus sit et
baptismum Johannis et quot annorum Dominus baptisatus sit, et
quia in quintodecimo anno Tiberii Caesaris. Et in magisterio
illud quod ad divites dictum est : Vae vobis divites, quoniam
percipitis consolationem vestram. Et, vae vobis qui satiati
estis, quoniam esurietis : et qui ridetis nunc, quia plorabitis.
Et, vae vobis cum benedixerint vos homines omnes. Secundum
haec enim faciebant et pseudoprophetis patres vestri. Et omnia

i THE TRADITION 217

all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops
to rule the church of the Lord, which he hath established for
himself through his own blood." Then pointing out that there will
be evil teachers he said, " I know that after my departure grievous
wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock ; and
from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away the disciples after them." " I shrank
not," he says, " from declaring unto you the whole counsel
of God." So the apostles, plainly and grudging no man, 1
delivered to all those things which they themselves had learned
from the Lord. So therefore Luke also grudging no man
delivered to us those things which he had learned from them,
as he himself testifies, saying, " Even as they delivered unto
us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers
of the word."

3. But if any should reject Luke, on the ground that he
did not know the truth, he plainly throws over the gospel of
which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have
learned very many quite important parts of the gospel, as
the birth of John and the story about Zacharias, and the
coming of the angel to Mary, and the cry of Elisabeth, 2 and
the coming down of the angels to the shepherds, and the things
that were spoken by them, and the testimony of Anna and Simeon
concerning the Christ, and how when twelve years old he was
left behind in Jerusalem, and the baptism of John and at what
age the Lord was baptized, and that it was in the fifteenth
year of Tiberius Caesar. And in his instruction, that which
was said to the rich, " Woe unto you, ye rich, for ye receive
your consolation," and " Woe unto you that are filled, for ye
shall hunger ; and who laugh now, since ye shall mourn," and,
: Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, for in this
manner did your fathers also to the false prophets." And

1 That is, there was no secret teaching.

2 Possibly the Magnificat, which in iv. 7. 1 is assigned by Irenaeus to
Elisabeth ; but the loud cry of Luke i. 42-45 may be intended here.

218 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

hujusmodi per solum Lucam cognovimus, et plurimos actus
Domini per hunc didicimus, quibus et omnes utuntur : lit et
multitudinem piscium, quam concluserunt hi qui cum Petro
erant, jubente Domino ut mitterent retia : et ilia quae per octo-
decim annos passa, curata fuerat mulier die sabbatorum : et
de hydropico, quern curavit Dominus die sabbatorum, et quemad-
modum disputavit quod curavit in hac die : et quemadmodum
docuit discipulos primes discubitus non appetere : et quoniam
pauperes et debilis vocare oportet, qui non habent retribuere :
et qui pulsavit nocte sumere panes, et propter instantiam
importunitatis sumit : et quoniam apud Pharisaeum recumbente
eo, peccatrix mulier osculabatur pedes ejus et unguento ungebat,
et quaecunque propter earn dixit ad Simonem Dominus de
duobus debitoribus : et de parabola divitis illius qui reclusit
quae ei nata fuerant, cui et dictum est, In hac nocte expostula-
bunt animam tuam a te : Quae autem praeparasti, cujus erunt ?
similiter autem et divitis qui vestiebatur purpura, et jocunda-
batur nitide, et egenum Lazarum : et earn quam ad discentes
suos dixit responsionem, quando dixerunt ei : Adjice nobis
fidem : et earn quae ad Zacchaeum publicanum facta est con-
fabulationem : et de Pharisaeo et publicano, qui simul adora-
bant in templo : et de decem leprosis, quos simul emundavit
in via : et quoniam de vicis et plateis claudos et luscos l jussit
colligi ad nuptias ; et parabolam judicis qui Deum non timebat,
quern instantia viduae fecit ut vindicaret earn : et de arbore

1 The Arundel MS. reads caecos, which is possibly a correct gloss, for it is
doubtful whether luscos meant more than this to the translator of Irenaeus.
But it may represent an original /uofo00dAyUoi s in the Greek of Irenaeus, due
to confusion between Luke xiv. 13 and Mark ix, 47 or Matt, xviii. 9.

i THE TRADITION 219

everything of this kind we know through Luke alone, and very
many of the Lord s deeds we have learned through him, which
all use, 1 as the multitude of fishes, which Peter and they that
were with him inclosed, when the Lord commanded to let down
the nets ; and what the woman had suffered for eighteen
years and then was cured on the sabbath day, and about the
man with the dropsy whom the Lord cured on the sabbath day,
and how he reasoned because he cured on that day, and how he
taught his disciples not to seek the chief seats at feasts ; and that
we should invite the poor and the sick who cannot recompense ;
and of him who knocked at night to get bread and on account
of the perseverance of his importunity got it ; and how while
he lay at meat in a Pharisee s house, a woman that was a sinner
kissed his feet and anointed them with ointment, and what
the Lord said to Simon on account of her about two debtors ;
and about the parable of that rich man who stored his produce, 2
to whom also it was said, " This night shall thy soul be required
of thee ; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall
they be ? " Likewise also of the rich man who was clothed
in purple and fared sumptuously, and the beggar Lazarus ;
and that reply which he made to his disciples when they said
to him, " Increase our faith " ; and that conversation which he
had with Zacchaeus the publican ; and about the Pharisee
and the publican who prayed at the same time in the temple ;
and about the ten lepers whom he cleansed at the same
time on the way ; and that he commanded the lame and those
with one eye to be gathered to the marriage from the lanes
and streets ; and the parable of the judge who feared not
God, but the perseverance of a widow led him to do her justice,

1 Many editors put these words in brackets and understand all of the
evangelists as if Irenaeus were here noting that there is beside Luke s peculiar
matter other matter which he shares with the other evangelists. Probably
the reference is to Luke s peculiar matter throughout and the all is meant to
show, as below, that the heretics use Luke.

2 Translating ra yevrj/j-ara (not yevv-f]iJ.ara., see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabu
lary of ihe Greek Testament, pp. 123 f.), which lies behind the Latin.

220 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

fici quae erat in vinea, quae non faciebat fructum. Et alia
multa sunt quae inveniri possunt a solo Luca dicta esse, quibus
et Marcion et Valentinus utuntur. Et super haec omnia post
resurrectionem in via ad discipulos suos quae locutus est, et
quemadmodum cognoverunt eum in fractione panis.

4. Necesse est igitur et reliqua quae ab eo dicta sunt, recipere
eos, aut et his renuntiare. Non enini conceditur eis ab Ms qui
sensum habent, quaedam quidem recipere ex his quae a Luca
dicta sunt, quasi sint veritatis ; quaedam vero refutare, quasi
non cognovisset veritatem. Et si quidem refutaverint hi qui a
Marcione sunt, non habebunt Evangelium : hoc enim quod est
secundum Lucam quemadmodum praediximus, decurtantes,
gloriantur se habere Evangelium ; hi vero qui a Valentino sunt,
cessabunt a plurimo vaniloquio suo : ex hoc enim multas occa-
siones subtililoquii sui acceperunt, interpretari audentes male,
quae ab hoc bene sunt dicta : si autem et reliqua suscipere
cogentur, intendentes perfecto Evangelio, et Apostolorum
doctrinae, oportet eos poenitentiam agere, ut salvari a periculo
possint. (See also Adv. haer. iii. 15. 1.)

Clement of Alexandria.

Strom, v. 12 (G.C.S. xv. p. 381) :

8?) 6eia ^dpun /cal JJLOVW TO) Trap avrov \6&lt;yq) TO
voelv, /caOb /cal 6 Acutfa? ev rat? Tlpd^ecrL ra)V

dTTOjjbvriiJiovevei, rbv Tlav\oi&gt; \e&lt;yovra
Kara iravra &&amp;gt;?

Adumbr. in 1 Petr. (G.C.S. xvii. p. 206) :

Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro evangelium palam
Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa Christi
testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent quae dicebantur

i THE TRADITION 221

and about the fig tree which was in a vineyard which bore no
fruit. And there are many other things that can be found to
have been told by Luke alone, which both Marcion and Valen-
tinus use. And beside all these what he said to his disciples
on the way after the resurrection and how they knew him in
the breaking of bread.

4. It is necessary, therefore, that they should accept also
the other things that were said by Luke or that they should
give up these as well. For it is not permitted to them
by those who have sense, to accept as being true some of
the things that were said by Luke, but to reject certain others,
as if he had not known the truth. And if those who are of
Marcion s party reject them, they will not have the gospel
(for mutilating, as we have said before, this gospel which is
according to Luke, they boast that they have the gospel) ;
while those who are of the party of Valentinus will cease from
their copious nonsense ; for from this gospel they draw many
of their occasions for quibbling, presuming to interpret badly
what he had said well. But if they are compelled also to
accept the whole, paying heed to the entire 1 gospel and to
the teaching of the apostles, they must repent, in order to be
saved from danger.

Clement of Alexandria.
Strom, v. 12 :

It follows then that it is by God s grace and only by the
Logos that comes from him that we perceive the unknown, as
also Luke in the Acts of the Apostles records that Paul said,
* Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are very
religious, etc."

Adumbr. in 1 Petr. :

While Peter was preaching openly at Rome in the pre
sence of certain knights of Caesar and putting forward much

1 As compared to the mutilated Luke of Marcion.

222 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt
evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur ; sicut Lucas
quoque Actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli
ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.

Tertullian.

Adv. Marc. iv. 2 (C.S.E. xlvii. 426 fT.) :

Habes hanc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem.
Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non ludaici sed Pontici, interim
adulterati, demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem, quern ad-
gredimur. Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum
apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promul-
gandi ab ipso domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non
tamen solos, sed cum apostolis [et postapostolicos], quoniam prae-
dicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non
adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, quae magis-
tros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis loannes
et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus in-
staurant, isdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum deum attinet
creatorem et Christum eius, natum ex virgine, subplementum
legis et prophetarum. Viderit enim si narrationum dispositio
variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Mar-
cione non convenit. Contra Marcion evangelic, scilicet suo,
nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque
adfingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Et possem
hie iam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus, quod
non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam praeferat, nullam
fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita

i THE TRADITION 223

evidence to Christ, Mark, the follower of Peter, wrote at their
request the Gospel which is called " according to Mark," out of
those things which were said by Peter, in order that they
might be able to commit to memory what was told, just as
Luke also is recognised to have described with his pen the Acts
of the Apostles and to have translated Paul s letter to the
Hebrews.

Tertullian.

Adv. Marc. iv. 2 :

Here then is the answer which we give to the Antitheses.
I now pass to the exposition of his gospel, which is not
of Judaea but of Pontus and corrupted into the bargain ;
this will provide the scaffolding for the argument we are under
taking. In the first place we assert that the gospel documents
have apostles for their authors, for to them did the Lord
himself commit the office of making known the gospel. And
even if they were merely followers of the apostles, they did
not work alone, but with the apostles, for as disciples their
preaching might have been suspected of vain glory, had it not
been supported by the authority of their masters, yea and of
Christ ; for it was his which made their masters apostles. In
fine our faith is based on John and Matthew, it is built up on
Luke and Mark, followers of the apostles. They start from the
same principles, namely that God the Creator is one, and that
his Christ born of a Virgin is the fulfilling of the Law and the
prophets. It matters little if the arrangement of the accounts
is different, provided it agrees with the fundamentals of our
faith, and here disagrees with Marcion. He, unlike us, ascribes
his gospel to no author at all, as though he felt himself prohibited
from setting a superscription over the body which he had not
scrupled to destroy. And here I might make a stand and
maintain that a book is not worthy of recognition which does
not hold up its head and come boldly forward, and give no reason
for our confidence by supplying us with a title and the declaration

224 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

auctoris. Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nee dissimulamus
quod ex nostro intellegi potest. Nam ex his comment at oribus,
quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quern caederet.
Porro Lucas non apostolus, sed apostolicus, non magister, sed
discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto
posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio, ut et etsi sub ipsius
Pauli nomine evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad
fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum.
Exigeretur enim id quoque evangelium, quod Paulus invenit,
cui fidem dedidit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit, siquidem
propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos apostolos et
consultandos, ne forte in vacuum cucurrisset, id est ne non
secundum illos credidisset et non secundum illos evangelizaret.
Denique ut cum auctoribus contulit et convenit de regula fidei,
dextras miscuerunt, et exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt, ut
illi in ludaeos, Paulus in ludaeos et in nationes. Igitur si ipse
inluminator Lucae auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et prae-
dicationi suae optavit, quanto magis earn evangelic Lucae ex-
postulem, quae evangelio magistri eius fuit necessaria ? (See
also De ieiunio, 10 (C.S.E. xx. 1, 286), where the book of Acts
is referred to as Commentarius Lucae.}

Origen.
Apud Eus. H.E. vi. 25 (G.C.S. ix. 576) :

o&gt;9 ev Trapaboa-ei fj,a0Gi)v Trepl TWV Teo-adpwv evayyeXicov, a real
fjbova dvavTipprjTa ECTTLV ev rfj VTTO TOV ovpavov eKK\7jcria TOV
Oeov, OTI Trpwrov fjuev &gt;yeypa7rTcu TO Kara TOV TTOTC T\(*)V7)V,
vcrTepov Be diTO(TTO\ov Iijcrov Xpio-Tov M.aT0alov, e/
avTo rot? aTTo lov&alfffJVOV TricrTevaaa-iv,

i THE TRADITION 225

of its authors which is our due. But we prefer to join issue on
every point and do not conceal what can be understood from
our text. For from the gospel writers whom we have Marcion
is seen to have selected Luke for mutilation. Luke, not an
apostle, but a follower of the apostles, not a master but a disciple,
at any rate inferior to a master and so far later than the others
as he was the follower of a later apostle, of course of Paul. So
that even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under Paul s
own name, a canon containing only one gospel, one document
alone unsupported by his predecessors, would not be sufficient
proof. For what would still be required is the gospel which
Paul found and gave adherence to, and was anxious that his own
should agree with it ; since on this account he went up to
Jerusalem to become acquainted with the Apostles and to
consult them lest haply he had run in vain, meaning lest he
might have not believed as they did or preached the gospel as
they did. Accordingly after he had conferred with the original
leaders and had come to an agreement as to the rule of faith,
they joined hands, and henceforward distinguished between
their spheres of evangelisation, that they should go to the Jews,
and Paul to the Jews and Gentiles. Therefore if the man who
brought the light to Luke himself desired the authority of those
who were before him alike for his faith and his message, how
much more right have I to demand for the gospel of Luke the
support which was necessary for the gospel of his master.

Origen.

Apud Eus. H.E. vi. 25 :

... as having learned by tradition concerning the four
Gospels, which alone are undisputed in the church of God
throughout the world, that the Gospel according to Matthew,
who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of
Jesus Christ, was written first. He published it for those
who had become converts from Judaism, and composed it

VOL. II Q

226 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Sevrepov 8e TO Kara M.dpKov, GO?
v&lt;f&gt;r)&lt;yr)o-aTO avra), iroirjcravTa, ov teal vlov ev rfj tcaOo\L/cfj
eTTLCTToXfj oia TOVTWV G)/jLO\6&lt;yr]o-6V (j)da/ca)V " ao-Trd^erai uyLta?

77 6V Ba/3v\0)Vl (TVV6K\KTr} KOI MaptfO? O V 09 P OV " KOi

TpiTov TO /caTOL Aou/caz/ 1 , TO V7TO Hav\ov eiraivov^vov evay-
ye\iov rot? airo T&V eOvwv TreTroirjKOTa, eVl TTCLGIV TO KCLTO,
Icodvwrjv.

Horn, in Luc., Jerome s translation (Migne, P.L. xxvi. 231 fL) :
Sicut olim in populo Judaeorum multi prophetiam pollice-
bantur, et quidam erant pseudoprophetae, e quibus unus
fuit Ananias films Agot : alii vero prophetae et erat gratia
in populo discernendorum spirituum, per quern alii inter
prophetas recipiebantur, nonnulli quasi ab exercitatissimis
trapezitis reprobabantur : ita et nunc in novo testamento
multi conati sunt scribere evangelia, sed non omnes recepti.
Et ut sciatis, non solum quatuor evangelia, sed plurima
esse conscripta, e quibus haec, quae habemus, electa sunt, et
tradita ecclesiis, ex ipso prooemio Lucae, quod ita contexitur,
cognoscamus : Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare
narrationem. Hoc quod ait, conati sunt, latentem habet accusa-
tionem eorum, qui absque gratia spiritus sancti ad scribenda
Evangelia prosilierunt. Matthaeus quippe, et Marcus, et Joannes,
et Lucas non sunt conati scribere ; sed Spiritu sancto pleni
scripserunt Evangelia. Multi igitur conati sunt ordinare narra
tionem de his rebus, quae manifestissime cognitae sunt in nobis.
Ecclesia quatuor habet Evangelia, haereses plurima : e quibus
quoddam scribitur secundum Aegyptios, aliud juxta duodecim
apostolos. Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo
illud nomine titulare. Multi conati sunt scribere : sed et multi

1 See also Eus. H.E. vi. 25. 14, where Eusebius quotes Origen as referring
in his homilies on Hebrews to the Lucan authorship of Acts.

i THE TRADITION 227

in Hebrew ; second came that according to Mark, who wrote
it as Peter directed him. And in his general epistle Peter
acknowledges him as a son in these words, declaring, " She
that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you ; and
so doth Mark my son ; " and third came that according to Luke,
who had made for converts from the Gentiles the gospel praised
by Paul ; last of all came that according to John.

Horn, in IMC. :

Just as formerly among the people of the Jews when
many professed themselves prophets, some were false pro
phets, one of whom was Hananiah the son of Azzur, 1 but
others were true prophets, and there was the gift of the dis
cerning of spirits in the people, whereby some were accepted
as among the prophets, others were rejected as though by
skilled money-changers ; so also now under the new covenant
many have tried to write Gospels, but not all have been accepted.
And that you may know that not only four Gospels but many
have been written, from among which those which we have
have been selected and delivered to the Churches, let us learn
directly from the preface of Luke which is constructed thus ;
" Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narra
tive." The expression " have taken in hand " contains a hidden
accusation of those who leapt forward without the grace of
the Holy Spirit to write Gospels. Now Matthew and Mark
and John and Luke did not " take in hand " to write, but
filled with the Holy Spirit wrote Gospels. " Many " therefore
" have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those
things which have been clearly known among us." The Church
has four Gospels, the heretical sects many. Of these one is
described as " according to the Egyptians," another " according
to the twelve apostles." Basilides also dared to write a Gospel
and to put his own name in the title. " Many have taken in
hand " to write, rather, " many have taken in hand " to draw
1 Lat. Azot, Gk. (LXX.) Afcfy, Jer. xxviii. 1.

228 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

conati sunt ordinare. Quatuor tantum Evangelia sunt probata,
e quibus sub persona Domini et Salvatoris nostri proferenda
sunt dogmata. Scio quoddam Evangelium, quod appellatur
secundum Thomam, et juxta Mathiam, et alia plura legimus,
ne quid ignorare videremur, propter eos qui se putant aliquid
scire, si ista cognoverint. Sed in his omnibus nihil aliud pro-
bamus, nisi quod Ecclesia, id est quatuor tantum Evangelia
recipienda.

Haec idcirco, quia in principio lectum est : Multi conati
sunt ordinare narrationem de his rebus quae confirmatae sunt
in nobis. Illi tentaverunt atque conati sunt de his rebus
scribere, quae in nobis manifestissime sunt compertae. Effec-
tum suum Lucas indicat ex sermone, quo ait : In nobis mani
festissime sunt ostensae, id est, TreTr^po^opTj/jLevcov quod uno
verbo Latinus sermo non explicat. Certa enim fide et ratione
cognoverat, neque in aliquo fluctuabat, utrum ita esset, an
aliter. Hoc autem illis evenit, qui fidelissime crediderunt, et
id quod Propheta obsecrat, consecuti sunt, et dicunt : Con-
firma me in sermonibus tuis ; unde et Apostolus de his qui
erant firmi, atque robusti, ait : Ut sitis radicati et fundati in
fide. Si quis enim radicatus in fide est atque fundatus, licet
tempestas fuerit exorta, licet venti flaverint, licet se imber
effuderit, non convelletur, nee corruet, quia super petram aedi-
ficium solida mole fundatum est. Nee putemus oculis istis
carnalibus firmitatem fidei dari, quam mens et ratio tribuit.
Infideles quique credant signis atque portentis, quae humana
acies contuetur. Fidelis vero magis prudens atque robustus
rationem sequatur et verbum, et sic dijudicet quid verum,
quidve falsum sit.

" Sicut tradiderunt nobis, qui ab initio ipsi viderunt, et
ministri fuerunt sermonis."

i THE TRADITION 229

up. Only four gospels are approved from which doctrines are
to be set forth with the authority l of our Lord and Saviour.
I know a certain Gospel which is called " according to Thomas,"
and one " according to Matthias," and several others we have
read, that we may not seem to be ignorant, for the sake of
those who think they know something if they know those
Gospels. But among all these we approve of none except what
the Church does, that is, only four accepted Gospels.

These four because in the beginning it reads : " Many have
taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those things
which have been confirmed among us." They have essayed
and taken in hand to write about those things which have
been clearly ascertained among us. The result in his own
case Luke indicates by his language, in which he says, " Among
us have been clearly shown," that is 7re7r\7jpo(f)op7]fjLeva)v,
which the Latin language does not express in a single word.
For he had learned with sure faith and reason, nor did he
hesitate in any matter as to whether it was this way or the
other. But this was the outcome in those who faithfully believed,
and they obtained that for which the prophet prays, and they
say, " Confirm thou me in thy words." Wherefore the apostle
also says of those who were fixed and firm, " That ye may
be rooted and grounded in faith." For if any one is rooted and
grounded in faith, though the storm arise, though the winds
blow, though the rain pour down, he will not be torn loose,
he will not fall, because the building is founded with solid
strength upon a rock. And let us not suppose that those
physical eyes give the firmness in faith which mind and reason
supply. Faithless are such as believe in the signs and portents
which human sight beholds. But let the faithful man of more
judgment and strength follow reason and the word, and so let
him distinguish what is true and what is false.

" Even as they delivered to us who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." In Exodus it

1 Sub persona seems to be best so rendered.

230 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

In Exodo scriptum est : Populus videbat vocem Dei. Et certe
vox auditur prius quam videtur ; sed propterea scriptum est,
ut ostenderetur nobis aliis oculis videre vocem Dei, quibus illam
aspiciunt qui merentur. Porro in Evangelio non vox cernitur, sed
sermo, qui voce praestantior est. Unde nunc dicitur : Sicut ab
initio tradiderunt nobis, qui a principio ipsi viderunt, et ministri
fuerunt sermonis. Igitur apostoli ipsi viderunt sermonem : non
quia aspexerant corpus Domini Salvatoris, sed quia verbum
viderunt. Si enim juxta corpus vidissent Jesum, hoc est, Dei
vidissent sermonem, ergo et Pilatus qui condemnavit, sermonem
Dei vidit, et Judas proditor, et omnes qui clamaverunt : Cruci-
fige, crucifige eum, tolle de terra talem, Dei viderunt sermonem.
Sed absit ut quisquam incredulus sermonem Dei viderit. Videre
sermonem Dei, tale est quale Salvator ait : Qui videt me, videt et
Patrem qui misit me. Sicut tradiderunt nobis qui a principio
ipsi viderunt, et ministri fuerunt sermonis. Clam Lucae ser-
monibus edocemur, quod cujusdam doctrinae finis sit ipsa
doctrina, alterius vero doctrinae finis in opere computetur.
Verbi gratia : Scientia geometriae finem habet ipsam tantum
scientiam atque doctrinam. Alia vero scientia est, cujus
finis opus exigit : velut in medicina oportet me rationem et
dogmata scire medicinae, non ut tantummodo noverim quid
debeam facere, sed ut faciam, id est, ut secern vulnera, victum
moderatum castigatumque disponam, aestus febrium in pulsum
venarum sentiam, ut curationibus cyclicis humorum abundan-
tiam siccem, temper em atque restringam. Quae si quis tantum
scierit et non opere fuerit subsecutus, cassa erit ejus scientia.
Simile quid scientiae medicinae et operi, etiam in notitia minis-

i THE TRADITION 231

is written, " The people saw the voice of God." Well, surely
a voice is heard rather than seen ; but for this reason it
is written, to show us how to see the voice of God with
those other eyes with which they have sight to whom he
grants it. Nay more, in the Gospel it is not the voice that
is seen but the word, which is more excellent than the voice.
Wherefore it is now said, " Even as they delivered to us who
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word." So the apostles themselves were eyewitnesses of the
word, not because they had looked at the body of the Lord and
Saviour, but because they saw the word. For if they had seen
Jesus, that is, had seen the word of God, in bodily wise, then
Pilate who condemned him saw the word of God, and Judas the
betrayer, and all who cried " Crucify him, crucify him," " away
with such a fellow from the earth," 1 saw the word of God.
But God forbid that any unbeliever saw the word of God. To
see the word of God is such a thing as the Saviour says, " He
that seeth me, seeth also the Father that sent me." " Even
as they delivered to us who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
and ministers of the word." We are secretly taught by Luke s
words that of one teaching the end is the teaching itself, but of
another teaching the ultimate value is in practice. For example,
the science of geometry has as its end only the science itself and
the teaching. But there is another kind of science whose pur
pose requires practice, just as in medicine I must know the reason
and the rules of medicine, that I should not merely know what
I ought to do, but that I should do it, that is that I should operate
on wounds, that I should arrange for a moderate and strict
diet, that I should feel the heat of fevers in the pulse of veins,
that I should by routine treatments remove, temper, and curtail
excess of humours. For if one only knows these things, and
does not follow them out in practice, his knowledge is futile.
Something like the knowledge of medicine and the practice of
it is also in the knowledge and the ministry of the word : " Even

1 Including talem in the quotation and supposing it to represent Acts xxii. 22.

232 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

terioque sermonis est : Sicut tradiderunt nobis qui a principio
ipsi viderunt, et minis tri fuerunt sermonis. Ut ex eo quod dixit,
ipsi viderunt, doctrinam et scientiam significari, et ex eo quod
dixit, ministri fuerunt sermonis, demonstrari opera cognos-
camus. Assecuto a principio : Visum est et mihi assecuto ab
initio : inculcat ac replicat, quoniam ea quae scripturus est,
non rumore cognoverit, sed ab initio ipse fuerit consecutus.
Unde et ab Apostolo merito collaudatur, dicente : Cujus laus
in Evangelic est per omnes Ecclesias. Hoc enim de nullo alio
dicitur, et nisi de Luca dictum traditur.

Visum est et mihi assecuto a principio omnia diligenter
ex ordine tibi scribere, optime Theophile. Putat aliquis, quod
ad Theophilum quempiam Evangelium scripserit : omnes qui
nos auditis loquentes, si tales fueritis ut diligamini a Deo et
vos Theophili estis, et ad vos Evangelium scribitur. Si quis
Theophilus est, iste optimus et fortissimus est (hoc quippe
significantius Graeco sermone dicitur KpdncrTos). 1 Nemo
Theophilus infirmus est.

Eusebius.
Historia ecclesiastica, iii. 4 (G.C.S. ix. 192 ff.) :

Aou/ca? 8e TO /JLCV 76^09 &v TWV CLTT Az/rto^eta?, rrjv 67TL-
Se larpos, ra TrXetcrra (rwyyeyovciDS TCO Tlav\w, KOI
Be ov Trapepyax; rwv aTrocrroKwv a)^L\rjKO)^, ?}?
TOVTCOV Trpoa-eKTrjcraTO "^rv^av OepaTrevrL/cj)^ Iv Svcrlv rj/jLlv VTTO-
^eiyfjLara OeoTrvevcrrois KareXnrev fti(3\lois, rcS re vayye\iw, o
teal ^apd^ai fjiaprvperai /ca9 a nrape^oaav avrw ol air a/3%^9
avroTrrai KCU vTrrjperaL yevo/jievoi, TOV \oyov, ot9 KCLI ^rfaiv e
7rapijKO\ov@iiKevai, KOL rat? rwv c

1 This parenthesis is of course added by Rufinus, and it is probable that
the double phrase " optimus et fortissimus " is also due to his difficulty in
rendering Kpa.ri.aTos.

i THE TRADITION 233

as they delivered to us who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
and ministers of the word." So that we learn that by the ex
pression " were eyewitnesses," is meant the teaching and know
ledge, and by the expression " were ministers of the word,"
their practice is indicated.

" Having traced from the beginning " ; "it seemed good
to me also having traced the course from the first." He em
phasises and repeats, since he has not learned by vague report the
things that he is about to write, but from the first has followed
them himself. Wherefore also he is justly praised by the apostle
who says, " Whose praise in the Gospel is in all the Churches."
For this is said about no one else, nor accepted as said, except
about Luke.

" It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of
all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus." One imagines that he wrote the
Gospel to a definite Theophilus. You all, who hear us speaking,
if you are such as to be loved by God, 1 you too are Theophiluses,
and to you the Gospel is written. If any one is a Theophilus
he is best and strongest (this indeed is more clearly expressed
in the Greek word /cpdrio-ros). No Theophilus is weak.

Eusebius.
Historia ecclesiastica, iii. 4 :

Luke, being by birth one of the people of Antioch, by
profession a physician, having been with Paul a good deal,
and having associated intimately with the rest of the
apostles, has left us examples of the art of curing souls that
he obtained from them in two divinely inspired books, the
Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote out even as they
delivered to him who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word, all of whom 2 he says he had followed even

1 In reference to the etymology of Theophilus " loved by God."

2 Possibly, " all of which facts," but Eusebius appears to give the ambiguous

in Luke i. 3 the personal force.

234 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

a-vverd^aro. tyaalv S &&amp;gt;9 dpa rov Kar avrov evayye\iov
/jLvrj/jioveveiv o Tlav\o&lt;; elwOev, oTrijvi/ca &&amp;gt;9 rrepl ISiov nvbs
evay&lt;y\[ov ypd(f)0)v e\eyev Kara TO va&lt;y&lt;ye\iov fiov. TWV Be
a)v aico\ov6wv rov Hav\ov Kpr)o-/cr)&lt;; fieis 7rl r
UTT avrov /jLaprvpelrat, AtVo9 Se, ov
eirl Pco/jirj^ avrq) Kara rrjv Sevrepav TTpos
e7ri&lt;TTo\r}v, 7T^coT09 pera Herpov r?J9 Pco/jiaicov eKKXtjaia^ rrjv
rrporepov K\7]pco0el&lt;&gt; SeSfawrai d\\a Kal o

Karacrrds, Tlav\ov crvvepyos Kal o-vvaOXrjrrj^ &lt;ye&gt;yovevai
avrov

Historia Ecclesiastica, iii. 24. 15 (G.C.S. ix. 250) :

o Se Aou/ca9 dp^ofjuevo^ Kal avrbs rov Kar avrov
fiaros rr)V alriav rrpovO^Kev 8t rjv rrerroLr^rai, rrjv avvra^iv,
&&amp;gt;9 dpa TroXXw^ Kal aXkcov Trporrerearepov eTrire

rroir)o-aa-6ai wv avros 7T67r\rjpo(f)6p7jro \6ya)v, dvay-
7/^0.9 r^9 rcepl rov&lt;$ d\Xov&lt;&gt; d^(^)riplo~rov
, rov do-&lt;pa\rj \6yov wv avros iKav&s ryv d\r)6eiav
e /c r^9 afia Hav\w crvvovaias re Kal oiarpipijs
Kal r?}9 rwv XotTra)^ drroaroKwv o^i\ia^ a)(j)e\7)/jLevo^, bid rov
Ibiov TrapeScoKev evayye\iov.

Jerome.

Comment, in Esaiam (Migne, P.L. xxiv. 98) :

Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres Ecclesiae tractatores
medicinae artis fuisse scientissimum, et magis Graecas litteras
scisse quam Hebraeas. 1 Unde et sermo ejus tarn in Evangelic,
quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est, in utroque volumine

1 Cf. Jerome, ibid. p. 331 (on Is. xxviii. 13) and Quaest. hebr. in Gen.
(Migne, P.L. xxiii. 1053).

i THE TRADITION 235

from the beginning, and the Acts of the Apostles, which he com
posed, receiving his information with his own eyes, no longer
by hearsay. And they say that it was actually the Gospel
according to him that Paul used to mention whenever, as though
writing about some Gospel of his own, he used the expression
" according to my Gospel." But of the other followers of Paul
Crescens is recorded by him to have gone to the Gallic pro
vinces, 1 and Linus, whom he mentions as with him at Rome,
according to the second letter to Timothy, we have shown
above to have been the first after Peter to inherit the bishopric
of the church of the Romans. Moreover Clement also (he too
was appointed as the Roman church s third bishop) is recorded
by Paul to have been his fellow- worker and fellow-contestant.

Historia Ecclesiastica, iii. 24, 15 :

And Luke himself also in beginning the work that bears
his name set forth the reason why he made the composition,
showing that while many others had somewhat too rashly
engaged in making an account of the things of which he him
self was fully assured, thus expressly freeing us from doubtful
suspicion about the others, he had delivered to us through his
own gospel a sure and certain record of what he was convinced
to be true, aided by his continued and intimate fellowship with
Paul and by his intercourse with the rest of the apostles.

Jerome.
Comment, on Isaiah, iii. 6 :

The ancient writers of the church say that the evangelist
Luke was very learned in the art of medicine, and that he
knew Greek better than Hebrew. And therefore, too, his
language in the Gospel, as well as in the Acts of the Apostles,

1 The reference is to 2 Tim. iv. 10. Where some of the best manuscripts
read Ta\\iav, though some read FaXariaf. Similarly the Syriac version of
Euscbius reads * Galatia.

236 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

comptior est, et saecularem redolet eloquentiam, magisque
testimoniis Graecis utitur quam Hebraeis.

Epistula, xx., ad Damasum (C.S.E. liv. 108) :

De verbo vero " osianna," quia in Graecum non poterant
transferre sermonem, sicut et in " alleluia," et in " amen," et in
plerisque factum videmus, ipsum Hebraeum posuerunt, dicentes,
" osianna." Lucas igitur, qui inter omnes evangelistas Graeci
sermonis eruditissimus fuit, quippe ut medicus et qui in Graecis
Evangelium scripserit, quia se vidit proprietatem sermonis trans
ferre non posse, melius arbitratus est tacere, quam id ponere,
quod legenti faceret quaestionem.

Epistula, liii., ad Paulinum (C.S.E. liv. 463) :

Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare videntur Listoriam,
et nascentis ecclesiae infantiam texere : sed si noverimus scrip-
torem eorum Lucam esse medicum, cujus laus est in Evangelic,
animadvertimus pariter omnia verba illius languentis animae
esse medicamina.

De viris illustrious (Richardson, Texte und Untersuchungen,
xiv. 1. Ill):

Lucas medicus Antiochensis, ut eius scripta indicant,
Graeci sermonis non ignarus fuit, sectator apostoli Pauli,
et omnis eius peregrinationis comes, scripsit Evangelium, de
quo idem Paulus : Misimus, inquit, cum illo fratrem, cuius
laus est in evangelic per omnes ecclesias, et ad Colossenses :
Salutat vos Lucas medicus carissimus, et ad Timotheum : Lucas
est mecum solus. Aliud quoque edidit volumen egregium, quod
titulo Apostolicorum Trpdgewv praenotatur, cuius nistoria usque
ad biennium Romae commorantis Pauli pervenit, id est, usque ad
quartum Neronis annum. Ex quo intelligimus, in eadem urbe

THE TRADITION 237

that is, in both volumes is more elegant, and smacks of secular
eloquence, and he uses Greek quotations rather than Hebrew.

Epistle xx. 4 :

With regard to the word, hosanna, because they could
not translate it into the Greek language, just as we see was
done also in the case of hallelujah, and of amen and in
most other words, they put down the Hebrew itself, saying,
hosanna. Luke therefore, who was the most learned in the
Greek language among all the evangelists, since he was a doctor
and wrote his gospel among the Greeks, because he saw that
he could not translate the proper meaning of the word, thought
it better to omit it, than to put down what would raise a question
in the reader s mind.

Epistle liii. 9 :

The Acts of the Apostles, it is true, seems to present
bare history, and to weave the story of the new - born
church s infancy ; but if we realise that the author of this
book is Luke the physician " whose praise is in the Gospel "
we observe that all his words alike are medicine for the sick
soul.

De viris illustribus, vii. :

Luke the physician, an Antiochian, as his writings show,
was not ignorant of the Greek language. The follower of
the apostle Paul and comrade of all his travels, he wrote
the Gospel, of which the same Paul says, " We have sent
together with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel
through all the churches ; " and to the Colossians, " Luke the
beloved physician greeteth you," and to Timothy, " Only
Luke is with me." He also published another excellent
volume, which is designated by the title apostolic Tr/safet?, the
narrative of which extends up to the two-year period of Paul s
stay in Rome, that is, to the fourth year of Nero. From this
also we learn that the book was written in the same city. There-

238 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

librum esse conpositum. Igitur Tre/noSou? Pauli et Theclae et
totam baptizati leonis fabulam inter apocryphas scripturas con-
putemus. Quale enim est, ut individuus comes apostoli, inter
ceteras ems res hoc solum ignoraverit ? Sed et Tertullianus,
vicinus illorum temporum, refert presbyterum quemdam in Asia
o-Trov&aa-rrjv apostoli Pauli, convictum apud Johannem quod
auctor esset libri, et confessum se hoc Pauli amore fecisse, loco
excidisse. Quidam suspicantur, quotiescumque Paulus in epistulis
suis dicat, iuxta evangelium meum, de Lucae significare volumine
et Lucam non solum ab apostolo Paulo didicisse evangelium, qui
cum Domino in carne non fuerat, sed et a ceteris apostolis. Quod
ipse quoque in principio voluminis sui declarat dicens : Sicut
tradiderunt nobis, qui a principio ipsi viderunt et ministri fuerunt
sermonis. Igitur Evangelium, sicut audierat, scripsit ; Acta vero
apostolorum, sicut viderat ipse, conposuit. Sepultus est Con-
stantinopolim, ad quam urbem, vicesimo Constantii anno, ossa
eius cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli translata sunt.

Praefatio in Commentaries in Matthaeum (Migne, P.L. xxvi. 18) :

Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis, cuius
laus in Evangelio, qui et ipse discipulus apostoli Pauli, in
Achaiae Boeotiaeque partibus volumen condidit, quaedam altius
repetens, et ut ipse in prooemio confitetur, audita magis, quam
visa describens.

i THE TRADITION 239

fore we reckon the Trepfo&oi 1 of Paul and Thecla, and the
whole tale of the baptized lion, among the apocryphal writings.
For how strange it would be if the inseparable companion of
the apostle should be ignorant of this alone among all his affairs.
Moreover Tertullian, who lived near those times, reports that
a certain elder in Asia, a o-TrovSao-rrfs 2 of the apostle Paul,
was convicted in the presence of John of being the author
of the book, and, having confessed that he had made it out
of affection for Paul, lost his rank. Some men suspect that
whenever Paul says in his letters " according to my gospel "
he means the volume of Luke, and that Luke had learned the
gospel not only from the apostle Paul, who had not been with
the Lord in the flesh, but also from the rest of the apostles.
And this he also declares himself in the beginning of his volume
saying, " Even as they delivered to us who from the beginning
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." The Gospel,
therefore, he wrote as he had heard ; but the Acts of the
Apostles he composed as he had seen. His tomb is at Con
stantinople, to which city his bones, together with the remains
of the apostle Andrew, were transferred in the twentieth year
of Const antius.

Preface to the Commentary on Matthew :

The third, 3 Luke the physician, by birth a Syrian of Antioch,
" whose praise is in the gospel," and himself a disciple of the
apostle Paul, composed his book in the districts of Achaia and
Boeotia, 4 investigating some things from an earlier time, and,
as he himself confesses in his preface, describing what he had
heard rather than what he had seen.

1 Journeyings. 2 An admirer. 3 I.e. of the Evangelists.

4 Some MSS. read Bithynia (see Monarchian prologue), but elsewhere
Jerome suggests that Luke died in Thebes. An earlier reference to Luke s
activity in Aohaia is in Greg. Naz. Or. xxxiii. 11.

240 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Adamantius.
Dialogus De recta in deum fide, v. (G.C.S. iv. 8 ff.) :

MEFEIOS. . . . etVe Se rrpwrov ra ovo/nara rwv
ypa-^ravrwv ra evayye\ia.

AAAMANTIOS. Ol /juaQrjral rov Xpiarov
Iwdvvrjs /cal M.ar6aio&lt;;, M.ap/cos /cal Aov/cd$.

MEF. M.dp/cov /cal Aov/cav ov/c ea^e fjLaBijras
evrevOev e\,e r y%cr0e (f)d\(ra iroiovvres. $ia ri yap ol
a&gt;v ryeypaTTTai ra ovo/juara ev TOJ evay&lt;y\iw, OVK e
aX)C ol fir) ovres fia07jral ; rt? ovv earl Aov/cas r)

7rl rovrm bvofjiara &lt;ov&gt; ye^pa/m^va ev rrj ypafaj

ETTPOIIIOS. "E^co^ jjbaO rjras o Xpto-ro? ov /Jia\\ov rovrois
rj rot? fjbrj oven, fjLaOrjral^ ; fyaiverai /AOL rovr ov
ebei, yap rovs /jLa0rjra$ avrovs e

AA. MaOrjrai elcri /cal ovroi, rov XptcrroO.

MEF. in.oir)(Toi&gt; avayvtocrOrjvai rb evayye\iov /cal
on ov yeypawrai ra ovofjiara ravra.

ETTP. A.vayva)a-6ijra).

A A. Twv &c*)$e/ca arrocrro\wv aveyvtoaOi] ra ovo/iara,
teal rcov oft .

ETTP. IIocroL 9 evyev o X^tcrro? arroaroKovs ;

AA. Tlpwrovs arreareiXte t/3 /cal jjLera ravra oft evay-
ye\l(ra(T0ai. M.apico$ ovv /cal Aoivca?, e/c rwv oft
YLav\(*y rc5 arroo ro\w crvvvr)yy6\io~avro.

MEF. ASu^aro^ on TTOT elSov ovroi T\.av\ov.

AA. AeiKWfJU, avrbv rov arrocrro\ov [Jiaprvpovvra
teal A.ov/ca.

MEF. To3 crco (f)a\cr(p ov mo~rev& arroo~ro\iKu&gt;.

AA. Tlpoevey/ce rb arro&lt;jro\iKQV crov, el /cal ra

i THE TRADITION 241

Adamantius.

Dialogue on the True Faith :

Megethius. . . . Tell me first the names of those who wrote
the Gospels.

Adamantius. The disciples of Christ wrote them, John and
Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Meg. Christ had no disciples Mark and Luke ; so you are
convicted of forgery. For why did the disciples whose names
are written in the gospel not write them, rather than those who
were not disciples ? Who then is Luke, or Mark ? This convicts
you of bringing forward names not written in Scripture.

Eutropius. Was not Christ, since he had disciples, more likely
to entrust the task to them than to those who were not dis
ciples ? This does not seem to me to be right, for the disciples
themselves ought to be trusted more.

Ad. These too are disciples of Christ.

Meg. Have the Gospel read and thou wilt find that these
names are not written in it.

Eutr. Let it be read.

Ad. The names of the twelve apostles have been read, but
not of the seventy-two. 1

Eutr. How many apostles had Christ ?

Ad. First he sent out twelve and after that seventy-two
to preach the gospel. So Mark and Luke, being from the number
of the seventy-two, preached the gospel together with Paul the
apostle.

Meg. It is impossible that these men ever saw Paul.

Ad. I can show the apostle himself testifying to Mark and
Luke.

Meg. I do not believe in thy forged apostolicon. 2

Ad. Bring thy own apostolicon, even though it is mutilated

1 Some MSS. of Luke x. 1 read 72 instead of 70.

2 Apostolicon, that is, the group of letters of Paul accepted into a canon of
scripture.

VOL. II E

242 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

7repLKKo/jiju,evov ecrri, Kal Sei/cvvfJLi, on M.dpKos teal Aovtcas
crvvrj pyrja-av Hav\a).
MEF. Ae?foi/.

AA. Avayivooo-fca) ev TO? reXefra/ot? r?}? TT^O? KoXo&lt;r-
II&lt;zz;XoLr AcrTraferat ty/,a9, (fnjo-iv, Ap/crra^o?, 6
09 /JLOV, Kal Ma^tfo?, o dve-fyios Iftapvdfia, irepl
ov eXa/^ere eVroXa? tW eX#7; Trpo? tyxa9* Be^acrde ovv avrov
Kal I^croO? 6 \6yofjivo&lt;&gt; Io{)&lt;JTO9, &lt;n oVre? eV TrepiTO/jirjs.
OVTOL fjuovoi fjiov elcri avvepyol et? rr/i/ ftaaCk.eiav rov 6eov,

eyevtfOrjcrdv /AOI Traprjyopia, Kal ra ef%. a
Aou/ca? /cal A^yita?. Trapecr^ov ras a

ETTP. A^X?? 77 Trepl TOVTWV

Priscillian. 1
Argumentum in Lucam :

Incipit argumentum euangelii secundum Lucam. Lucas
Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus aposto-
lorum, postea Paulum secutus usque ad confessionem eius,
seruiens deo sine crimine. Nam neque uxorem umquam
habens neque filios Ixxiiii annorum obiit in Bithynia plenus
spiritu sancto. Qui cum iam descripta essent euangelia per
Mattheum quidem in ludaea, per Marcum autem in Italia,
sancto instigante spiritu in Achaiae partibus hoc scripsit
euangelium, significans etiam ipse in principio ante alia esse
descripta. Cui extra ea quae ordo euangelicae dispositionis
exposcit, ea maxime necessitas fuit laboris, ut primum Graecis

1 The origin of these Prologues is not certain, but the most popular theory,
advocated especially by Dom Chapman, attributes them to Priscillian. Zahn,
however, now (Kommentar zum N.T. iii. 738 ff. ; cf. 13 ff.) prefers G. Morin s
guess of the Priscillianist Instantius. But what is more important revers
ing the usual theories of their relation, he believes that the shorter Latin
version is earlier than the Monarchian, and that the Greek version is the
original of the short Latin one. This would carry the principal elements of
the tradition about Luke (as distinct from the Priscillianist theology) back
to at least 330-350 A.D. It is fortunately not necessary for the present

i THE TRADITION 243

very extensively, and I can show that Mark and Luke worked
together with Paul.

M eg. Show me.

Ad. I am reading in the closing part of Paul s letter to
the Colossians ; " Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner," he says,
" saluteth you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom
ye received commandments that he should come to you ; there
fore receive him), and Jesus that is called Justus, who are of
the circumcision : these only are my fellow-workers unto the
Kingdom of God, men that have been a comfort unto me," and
so forth. " Luke and Demas salute you." I have supplied
the proofs of the epistle. Thou seest that the apostle himself
testifies to them.

Eutr. The proof in their case is clear.

Priscillian.

Monarchian Prologue to Luke.

Luke, a Syrian of Antioch by nation, by profession a
physician, a disciple of the Apostles, later followed Paul until
his confession, serving God without blame. For he never had
wife or children, and died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia,
full of the Holy Ghost. When Gospels had already been written,
by Matthew in Judaea and by Mark in Italy, at the instigation
of the Holy Spirit he wrote this Gospel in the parts of Achaia,
and he also signified in the commencement that others had
previously been written. Apart from the demand made by the
order of the disposition of the Gospels [which made his Gospel
necessary] the principal object of his toil was that he should
labour that the Greek faithful might, by the manifestation of

purpose to discuss the exact meaning of the Prologue to Luke, which is hard
to understand and even harder to translate. After rejecting several attempts
of their own the editors and Dr. Cadbury have thought it best to reproduce
Dom Chapman s text and rendering, but those interested in the translation or
interpretation should read Corssen, Texte und Unlersuchungen, xv. 1., and Dom
Chapman s discussion in his Early History of the Vulgate Gospels,

244 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

fidelibus omni perfectione venturi in carnem dei manifestata, ne
ludaicis fabulis intenti in solo legis desiderio tenerentur vel ne
hereticis fabulis et stultis sollicitationibus seducti excederent
a veritate, elaboraret ; dehinc ut in principio euangelii lohannis
natiuitate praesumpta, cui euangelium scriberet et in quo electus
scriberet, indicaret, contestificans in se completa esse quae essent
ab aliis inchoata. Cui ideo post baptismum filii Dei a perfec
tione generations in Christo impletae et repetendae a principio
nativitatis humanae potestas permissa est, ut requirentibus
demonstraret, in quo adprehendens erat, per Nathan filium
introitu recurrentis in deum generationis admisso indispartibilis
deus ut, praedicans in hominibus Christum suum perfecti opus
hominis redire in se per filium faceret, qui per Dauid patrem
venientibus iter praebebat in Christo. Cui Lucae non inmerito
etiam scribendorum apostolicorum actuum potestas in mini-
sterio datur, ut deo in deum pleno ac filio proditionis extincto
oratione ab apostolis facta sorte domini electionis numerus com-
pleretur, sicque Paulus consummationem apostolicis actibus
daret, quern diu contra stimulos recalcitrantem dominus elegisset.
Quod legentibus ac requirentibus deum etsi per singula expediri
a nobis utile fuerat, scientes tamen, quod operantem agricolam
oporteat de fructibus suis edere, vitamus publicam curiositatem,
ne non tarn demonstrare volentibus deum videremur quam
fastidientibus prodidisse. Explicit argumentum evangelii
secundum Lucam.

i THE TRADITION 245

all the perfection of God coming in the flesh, be prevented from
giving themselves to the study of Jewish fables, and from being
held by the desire of the law only, and that they might not be
seduced by heretical fables and foolish questions, and so depart
from the truth. And further, that in the beginning of his Gospel,
having first given the birth of John, he might point out for whom
[viz., for Theophilus] he wrote his Gospel, and the purpose of
his election to write it, attesting that what was begun by the
others was finished in him. To him power was granted after
the baptism of the Son of God [Luke iii.] to reckon back the
human birth from its beginning, starting from the perfection of
the generation fulfilled in Christ, in order that he might show
forth to seekers (in that he had himself apprehended), by admit
ting into the list the entrance of a genealogy running back to
God through the son Nathan, how the indivisible God, pro
claiming His Christ among men, has made the work of the
perfect man return to Himself by the son of David He who by
David the father offered in Christ a way to those who came to
Him. To this Luke ministerial power was deservedly given of
also writing the Acts of the Apostles, that God being full in God,
and the son of perdition being dead, after prayer had been made
by the Apostles, the number of election (twelve apostles) might
be made complete by the lot of the Lord, and that thus Paul
might supply the consummation of the Acts of the Apostles, 1
whom the Lord chose after he had long kicked against the pricks.
And though it had been useful for us to explain this in detail
for readers and seekers after God, yet knowing that the working
husbandman ought to eat the fruits of his own labour, we avoid
the curiosity of the public, lest we should appear less to be re-
revealing God to the desirous, than to have betrayed Him to

1 Or, reading Paulum, " that he might give Paul as the consummation (the
thirteenth Apostle) to the Acts of the Apostles." That this is the true reading
is attested by the Prologue to Acts. See Chapman, ch. xiv. p. 255.

246 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

II. LUKE IN LATER TRADITION

Many accounts of Luke, later than the testimonies given above,
occur in church histories, commentaries, church calendars, lists
of apostles, saints, or martyrs, and in New Testament manu
scripts. One of the earlier is given in " The Doctrine of
the Apostles," from Ancient Syriac Documents, edited by W.
Cureton (1864), pp. 34 fT. " Byzantium, and all the country
of Thrace, and its environs, even to the great river, the
border which separates between the Barbarians, received the
Apostles Hand of Priesthood from Luke the Apostle, who built a
Church there, and ministered there in his office of Ruler and Guide
there. . . . But Luke the Evangelist had this diligence, and wrote
the Triumphs of the Acts of the Apostles, and the Ordinances
and Laws of the ministry of their Priesthood, and whither each
one of them went. By his diligence, therefore, Luke wrote
these things, and more than these, and he placed them in the
hand of Priscus and Acquilas, his disciples ; and they accom
panied him even up to the day of his death : like as Timothy
and Erastus, of Lystra and Menaus, the first disciples of the
Apostles, accompanied Paul until he went up to the city of
Rome, because he had withstood the orator Tertullus. And
Nero the Emperor slew him with the sword, and Simon
Cephas, in the city of Rome." This heterogeneous material is
conveniently summarised in R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen
Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, II. ii. (1884), pp. 354-371,
and T. Schermann, "Propheten- und Apostellegenden," in Texte
und Untersuchungen, xxxi. 3 (1907), pp. 288-289. The numerous
Greek texts are published by T. Schermann in the Teubner text
series under the title Prophetarum vitae fabulosae, etc., 1907.
For some of the material in New Testament manuscripts see von
Soden, Die Schriften des N.T. I. i. (1902), pp. 305-333. 1

1 Much bibliographical material on the traditions about Luke, together with
brief quotations, will be found in Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T. 3 , 58 notes, and in

THE TRADITION 247

In this literature the statements of the earlier writers are
repeated with additions. Some of the commonest are as
follows :

Luke, the physician, the companion of Paul and author of
the two \6yoi, to Theophilus, is identified with the unnamed
companion of Cleopas on the walk to Emmaus in Luke
xxiv.

Moreover, the suggestion made in the passage of Adamantius
given above that he was one of the seventy of Luke x., and the
statement of Jerome following a suggestion of Origen that he
was the anonymous brother of 2 Corinthians viii. 18, whose praise
is in the gospel, recur as unqualified assertions. The view that
Luke is the Lucius of Romans xvi. 21 is mentioned but not
asserted by Origen. 1

That Luke was from Antioch is plainly stated by Eusebius,
H.E. III. iv. 7 Aof/ms Se TO fjuev 76^09 a&gt;z&gt; rwv air Az/-
no^eLa^, rrjv eVtcrrr; fjurjv Be larpos KT\. (For the manner
of expression compare 4 Mace. v. 4 EXeafo^o?, TO 76^0?
iepevs, rrjv eVto-T^yu/^ VOJJUKOS.) Earlier in this chapter
Eusebius has referred to the letter of Julius Africanus to
Aristides about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and it
is possible that the statement here about the latter is derived
from that source also, for in sections of that letter not quoted
by Eusebius but preserved in MSS. purporting to quote it
through a catena of Nicetas (Spitta, Brief des Africanus an
Aristides, p. Ill), we read : 6 &e Aovicds TO /jiev 761/05 airo

his Kommentar zum N.T. vol. iii. pp. 1-19, 738-745. The acts of Luke will be
found in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, vol. Ivi. (1868), pp. 282-313.

1 Zahn, Introduction to the N.T. iii. 5, n. 4. Deissmann has recently
accepted this identification in Festgabe A. von Harnack dargebracht, Tubingen,
1921, pp. 117ff. There seems to be no early example of identification of
Luke with the Lucius of Gyrene of Acts xiii. 1, unless the clause qui manet
usque adhuc added to his name in the Codex Sangallensis of the Prophetiae
ex omnibus libris collectae be thought to assume such an identification of Lucius
with the author. On this treatise see A. Amelli, Miscellanea Cassinese, 1897,
part 6 ; Geschichtliche Studien Albert Hauck zum 70 Oebeurtstag, 1916, pp. 52 ff.,
and Th. Zahn, Forschungen, ix. p. 21.

248 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

T^? J3owp,evr]s Avn,o%6Las rjv /crX. 1 The statement reappears
in Jerome (see the three passages given elsewhere) and in the
Priscillianist Latin prologue to Luke (see p. 242, and cf. the
Latin prologue to Acts). Modern scholars have attempted to
confirm the tradition in various ways, (a) Thus Zahn (Intro
duction to the New Testament, 59, n. 5, and elsewhere) notes the
early tradition about a Theophilus of Antioch, later identified
with Luke s Theophilus and even with the bishop of Antioch of
the same name of about 180 A.D. (b) Bacon (Expositor, Oct.
1920, p. 291) notes that Basilides and Cerdo both came from
Antioch and, like Cerdo s famous pupil Marcion, both used only
Luke s gospel. It should be remembered, however, that with
the possible exception of Ephrem Syrus none of the various
Fathers who suggest a place of writing for Luke s gospel name
Antioch. (c) Harnack (Luke the Physician, Eng. trans., pp.
20-24) very forcibly argues from internal evidence in Acts the
author s interest in Antioch.

But here as in other similar traditions the real question is
whether there was any independent knowledge on the subject
still current in the Church or whether the assertion of Luke s
Antiochian origin is a conjecture from the text. For the so-called
Western text of Acts xi. 28, as found not only in Codex Bezae
but also in Augustine and several other Latin authorities, intro
duces a we in an incident at Antioch. This reading is cer
tainly as early as the tradition of Luke s Antiochian provenance
some would say it is the original text of Acts and it is more
likely to be the cause than the effect of that tradition. Readers
of such a text could naturally infer from this, the first occurrence
of the we, that the writer must himself have been an Antiochian,
just as readers of the other text have assumed from the first

1 It seems more likely, however, as Reichardt (Texte und
xxxiv. 3 (1909), pp. 48-50) has more recently argued, and as even Zahn now
agrees, that this passage in the catena of Nicetas on Luke, although it occurs
between quotations from Africanus, is really the work of Eusebius and is taken
bodily along with the quotations from Africanus from the lost Quaestiones
Evangelicae of Eusebius.

i THE TRADITION 249

occurrence of the we in their text at xvi. 10, and its dis
appearance and reappearance at Philippi, that the writer was
* a man of Macedonia. Granted that the we indicated
the presence of the ultimate author, the fertile and clever
inference of scholars in an age when all possible information and
conjecture about the four evangelists was carefully compiled and
compared could be trusted to determine both the name and home
of the diarist. With the Western text Antioch was quite as
easily settled on for the latter as Luke the physician was for the
former.

The scene of his literary labours is given by Jerome as in the
parts of Achaia and Boeotia. 1 Gregory of Nazianzus confines
his activity to Achaia. According to Epiphanius Luke preached
in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia. Dalmatia and
Gallia are evidently due to their close association with the name of
Luke, in 2 Timothy iv. 10 f. The other place names 2 are appar
ently inferences from the we -passages (including the we -
passage at Antioch in the Western text of Acts xi. 28).

In the earlier forms of tradition no mention is made of Luke s
martyrdom, and later it is explicitly denied. But it is inevitable
that he should be ranked by some as a martyr. The transla
tion of his relics to Constantinople in 357 A.D., along with those
of Andrew, appears to have suggested both the fact of his
martyrdom, and the method (crucified on an olive tree). The
translation is mentioned and dated by Jerome. The day of Luke s
death appears with some exceptions as October 18, as in the most
modern church calendars. His age is usually given as between

1 Some Peshitta MSS. give Alexandria, the traditional scene of Mark s work ;
but this is perhaps due to confusion such as is frequent between the evangelists.
One Peshitta MS. assigns Luke s gospel to Ephesus (instead of John s).
Similarly, Ephraem Syrus at signs John s gospel to Antioch (instead of Luke s).
Note further how in some of the pseudo- Epiphanius lists Luke s gospel is written
at the instigation of Peter (instead of Mark s) and his death is placed at Ephesus
(instead of John s).

2 Neither Boeotia nor Thebes (where Luke s martyrdom is usually placed)
is mentioned in the N.T. But Boeotia has as variants the Biblical names
Bithynia and Bethania, and it is hard to determine the original. 2 Cor. xi. 10
may be suspected as the source of the phrase " in the parts of Achaia."

250 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

seventy and ninety often as eighty-four, the years assigned to
the widow Anna in Luke ii. 37. l Thebes is often given as
the place of his death. Arabic and Coptic sources, how
ever, locate his martyrdom at Rome under Nero and give a
full and independent account of the marvellous circumstances
attending it. 2

The tradition that Luke was a painter and the first to make
a picture of the Virgin is widespread in the later Greek Church,
but its origin and antiquity are not known. Except for a claim
of Nicephorus Callistus that he is quoting from Theodorus Lector,
this tradition has not been definitely traced earlier than the
tenth century.

III. THE VALUE OF THE TRADITION

The foregoing passages indicate how early and undisputed
is the attribution of the two books to Luke, the companion of
Paul. Such evidence is usually explained as due to an accurate
memory of the actual facts of authorship handed down from
generation to generation. Its value is enhanced by its early
date and unanimity, and according to ordinary standards, Luke
and Acts have an almost unexcelled attestation among those
books of the New Testament which do not plainly declare their
real or professed authorship. It is often called external tradi
tion. But external tradition ought to mean the preservation
of facts concerning a book, which could not have been guessed
at by a study of its contents and are thus external. The
question is whether much of the tradition concerning the New
Testament is really external in this sense, 3 or ought to be

1 It is also usually said that he had neither wife nor children, which may also
be connected with the same passage. But Zahn, Kommentar, iii. 16, thinks
these statements genuine tradition since they are not derived from any New
Testament suggestion.

2 Syriac sources for the same legend have also been found. An English
translation of a document of this type will be found in E. A. W. Budge, The
Contendings of the Apostles, vol. ii. (1901), 137-145.

8 A deep, though often unconscious, difference of attitude on this point

i THE TRADITION 251

regarded as the earliest inference from the contents of the
documents.

To estimate its value, it is necessary to consider the general
character of the allusions in the literature of the early Church
to the origin of the canonical books.

There is much obscurity about the growth of the New Testa
ment canon. The books of the New Testament and other cognate
literature were written separately, often anonymously, between
A.D. 50 and 150. By the end of the fourth century the number
of canonical books was definitely fixed and they were declared
to be the inspired writings of apostles or their companions. It
is their treatment during the intervening period that requires
attention.

To a considerable extent the development is that of the atti- Requisites
tude of the readers of the New Testament, for the canonisation
of books merely registers the feeling entertained towards them ;
and one may say that a theory of canonicity existed in the Church
almost from the first. Briefly stated, the requirements for the
acceptance of a book as authoritative were popularity, orthodoxy,
and apostolicity. It is obvious that the popularity of any book
was a matter of fact it either was or was not generally known
and read in churches. It is equally obvious that orthodoxy
was a matter of personal and collective opinion. The book itself
sometimes stated its authorship, and thus established or refuted
a claim to canonicity. 1 But in the case of an anonymous book
its authorship could be inferred by conjecture from its contents
or by comparison with other books, and repetition soon added
authority to conjecture. Nevertheless, such inference, how
ever justifiable, is based on judgment, not on knowledge,

has usually characteristically divided English from continental scholars. The
English attitude has been to accept without sufficient inquiry the earliest
evidence as necessarily external, the continental to be unduly suspicious of
it, and to treat it almost as if it were necessarily untrue. Harnack represents
a reaction against this attitude.

1 2 Peter and Hermas, for instance, were respectively accepted and rejected
on this ground.

252 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

and is identical with what is commonly known as internal
evidence.

Even when actual apostolic authorship seemed impossible,
there would be a tendency in the case of books otherwise
acceptable or actually accepted in the canon to assign
them apostolic authority. Numerous instances can be col
lected where apostolic connection was inferred from the
contents. Hebrews was evidently not written in Paul s own
style, but the thought was regarded as Paul s and so the book
was assigned indirectly to him through Luke or some other
amanuensis or translator. 1

Tertullian plainly represents the feeling of the orthodox
Church concerning the necessity of knowing the authorship of
the Gospels when he argues that, unlike Marcion s gospel, they
are not anonymous, for "a work ought not to be recognised
which holds not its head erect, which shows no boldness, which
does not assure of its trustworthiness by fullness of title and the
fitting declaration of its author." " We lay it down as our
first position that the evangelical instrument has apostles for
its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord himself this office
of publishing the gospel. Even if they were apostolic " (apostolici,
that is, belonging to the next generation, as we speak of the
Apostolic fathers ), " they do not stand alone but are with
apostles and after apostles." 2

" That which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter s,
whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke s form of the
gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that
the works which disciples publish belong to their masters." 3
..." But Luke is not an apostle, but an apostolic man : not
a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master at least as

1 Clem. Alex, apud Eus. H.E. vi. 14 ; Origen, ibid. vi. 25 ; Eusebius, ibid.
iii. 38 ; Jerome, De vir. ill. 5.

2 Adv. Marc. iv. 2. Tertullian alludes to the African order of the Gospels,
John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, which he seems in this treatise to regard as repre
senting chronological order.

3 Adv. Marc. iv. 5.

THE TRADITION 253

far behind him as the apostle whom he follows (and that no doubt
was Paul) was behind the others : so that, had Marcion even
published his Gospel in the name of Paul himself, the single
authority of the document, destitute of all support from pre
ceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith.
There would still be wanted that Gospel which Paul found in
existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so
earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that
account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles,
lest he should run, or had been running in vain ; in other
words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which
he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then,
at last, having conferred with the authors, and having agreed
with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands
in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office
of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and
Paul to the Jews and Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the
enlightener of Luke himself desired the authority of his pre
decessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more
may not I require for Luke s gospel that which was necessary
for the gospel of his master." 1

It is clear from this that Tertullian possessed a tradition which
was not an inference so far as he was concerned, but that the
argument which weighed with him was apostolic propriety rather
than anything which we should regard as facts. It is, moreover,
noticeable how much emphasis he lays on the impropriety of an
anonymous gospel : Marcion did not share this view and pre
sented the gospel without giving the name of the writer. Did
he know it ? It is strange how many inquiries in early Christian
tradition take us back to the period of the Marcionite controversy,
but no further.

That that tradition was not really fixed but grew can be seen
clearly in the connection of Peter with Mark s Gospel. Papias
and Irenaeus in the second century speak of it as written by Mark,
1 Adv. Marc. iv. 2.

254 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

apparently on the basis of Peter s preaching after Peter s death. 1
Clement goes further and dates it before Peter s death, though
he says that Peter " neither directly forbade nor encouraged it " ; 2
but Eusebius says that the Gospel " received the sanction of
Peter s authority for reading in the churches," 3 while even
earlier Origen, followed later on by Jerome, had already gone
still further, and implied that Peter dictated it to Mark. 4

Similarly, in the case of Luke and Acts, though actual apostolic
authorship is excluded by the preface (Luke i. 2), the early
Church interpreted the reference to " eyewitnesses and ministers
of the word " as showing that Luke was " not merely a follower
but also a fellow -worker of the disciples, especially of Paul." 5
His intimate Pauline connection was proved by explaining
the we passages as a mark of the author s own presence, 6
and by identifying his book with the gospel preached by Paul, 7
and the writer himself with the unnamed " brother whose praise
in the gospel is in all the churches." 8

Furthermore, a survey of the earliest literature shows that in
the second century there were already growing many artificial
theories about the origin, number, relation, and authority of
New Testament books. These persisted through the following
century, and became the commonplaces of the Fathers. In

illo

1 Eus. H.E. iii. 39 ; Iren. iii. 1. The text of Irenaeus is ^erd 5e TTJV TOUTWV

It is just possible to interpret this as meaning " after Peter and Paul had
left Rome" the time referred to in the previous sentence. But o5os is an
almost technical term for death. It is therefore hard to accept this view which
is stated best by Dom Chapman in the J.T.S., 1905, 563 f.

2 Eus. H.E. vi. 14.

Ibid. ii. 15 ; cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. 8.

Origen, apud Eus. H.E. vi. 25 ; Jerome, Ad Hedib. ii. " Petro narrante et
scribente."

Iren. iii. 14; Eus. iii. 4 and 24.

Iren. iii. 14.

Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8; cf. also Gal. i. 11 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1, et al. ;
Iren. iii. 1 ; Tertull. Adv. Marc. iv. 58 ; Eusebius, H.E. iii. 4 ; Jerome, De vir.
ill. 7, Ep. II., ad Paulinum.

8 2 Cor. viii. 18 ; Origen, apud Eus. H.E. vi. 25. 6 ; Jerome, loc. cit. See
also the Collect for St. Luke s Day. In all these cases Paul s gospel * has
been understood to mean a written gospel, an interpretation which is altogether
unlikely.

i THE TRADITION 255

the construction of such theories exactly the same use of general
propriety and what we should call internal evidence was made
as is employed by Tertullian in proving the Pauline authority
of the Third Gospel and Acts.

It is unnecessary to deal with the whole mass of this evidence : canon of
it is all of the same nature, and represents a single catena of
statement. There is no serious difference between the Canon
of Muratori, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, or Origen. They
all say the same things, and none has any reason for his state
ments beyond what is common to all. Under these circum
stances, then, the value of the whole can be tested by an exami
nation of the Canon of Muratori, the earliest witness to the
Lucan tradition. Is its evidence certainly based on knowledge,
or may it be due to inference ?

It was published in 1740 by Muratori from an eighth ("?)
century Latin MS. and appears to come from Rome, about the
year 170. 1 Though it is broken at the beginning and end and
often is almost unintelligible either from faulty grammar and
spelling or from conciseness of phraseology, its general character
is plain. It is not only a list of accepted and rejected books,
but also a condensed and laconic essay on the origin, contents,
relation, and number of books, or, as we should say, a " New
Testament Introduction."

The first point to be noticed is that the precise number of
books of Scripture was at this time a matter of serious interest.
Thus the Old Testament had to consist of exactly twenty-two

1 This date is derived from lines 73 ff., which say that the Shepherd of Hernias
was written " very recently in our own times while Pius his brother the bishop
was sitting on the chair of the church of the city of Rome." Pius appears
to belong about A.D. 139-154. "Very recently" is of course a relative and
indefinite term as Irenaeus reminds us when he speaks (about A.D. 185) of the end
of Domitian s reign (A.D. 96) as being " not long ago, but almost in our own
generation " (v. 30. 3). But any natural interpretation of the Canon of
Muratori certainly implies a date within the second century. Few scholars
have suggested a later origin. The arguments here drawn from it are largely
independent of its early date, though they tend to confirm it, for illustrations
of the same characteristics can be quoted from the successive Fathers of the
Church back into the second century.

256 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

books in order to correspond with the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet. In the same way Irenaeus advances ingenious
arguments to show that there can only be four Gospels. 1

With a similar object the Canon of Muratori comments on
the number of Paul s letters ; Paul, " the blessed apostle himself,
following the order of his predecessor John, writes by name only to
seven churches " " for John in his apocalypse though he writes
to seven churches nevertheless speaks to all," for " the church
which is scattered throughout the whole world is nevertheless
recognised to be one." This is the secret of the number. Seven
is symbolic of unity and universality. 2 The Canon of Muratori

1 " It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number
than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live,
and four catholic spirits (i.e. four principal winds), while the church is scattered
throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the church is the gospel
and the spirit of life ; it is fitting that she should have four pillars . . . the
gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one spirit " (Iren. Adv. Haer.
iii. 11. 11).

Irenaeus s explanation of the four faces of the living creatures of Ezekiel
as applied to the evangelists illustrates another artificial treatment of the
quadriga of the gospels. It is repeated and varied in later Fathers, and played
an important part in Christian art. See Th. Zahn, Forschungen zu Kanon-
geschichte, vol. ii. pp. 257 ff.

2 This view is not confined to this author. Cf. Victorinus Petavius in
Apoc. i. 20 : " Those seven stars are the seven churches, which he names in
his addresses by name, and calls them to whom he wrote epistles. Not that
they are themselves the only, or even the principal churches ; but what he
says to one, he says to all. For they are in no respect different, that on that
ground any one should prefer them to the larger number of similar small ones.
In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens,
that they are called seven, and that the catholic church is one. And first of
all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches
he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the
Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the
Philippians, to the Colossians ; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so
as not to exceed the number of seven churches. And abridging in a short
space his announcement, he thus says to Timothy : That thou mayest know
how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the church of the living God. We
read also that this typical number is announced by the Holy Spirit by the
mouth of Isaiah : Of seven women which took hold of one man. The one
man is Christ, not born of seed ; but the seven women are seven churches,
receiving his bread and clothed with his apparel, who ask that their reproach
should be taken away, only that his name should be called upon them. The
bread is the Holy Spirit, which nourishes to eternal life, promised to them,
that is, by faith. And his garments wherewith they desire to be clothed are

i THE TRADITION 257

gets its number by counting only churches, and the additional
letters need explanation. " To the Corinthians and Thessa-
lonians he writes a second time for correction," " To Titus he
writes one letter and to Timothy two out of love and affection.
Yet they are sanctified in the honour of the catholic church for
the ordaining of ecclesiastical discipline."

It is also noticeable that the differences of the four Gospels
were observed from the first and demanded explanation. Their
different beginnings or principia were compared and allegorically
explained, 1 and various lines of primitive thought in gospel
harmonisation appear somewhat cryptically and briefly presented
in the Canon of Muratori.

In the fragment as we have it the starting-point of Luke is
the only one mentioned. " He began to narrate from the birth
of John," but later he says, " and therefore though the several

the glory of immortality, of which Paul the apostle says : For this corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. " So also
Cyprian, inverting the order of John and Paul, refers twice to their common
use of seven : in the De exhort, martyr. 11 he says : " And the apostle Paul, who
remembered this regular and fixed number, writes to seven churches. And in
the Apocalypse the Lord writes his divine commands and heavenly precepts
to seven churches " ; and in the Testim. adv. Jud. i. 20 he says : " Likewise in
the first book of Kings (1 Sam. ii. 5) : The barren has born seven and she
who had very many sons is weakened. Now the seven sons are seven churches.
Wherefore also Paul wrote to seven churches, and the Apocalypse puts seven
churches, that the sevenfold number might be preserved, etc." Jerome
says : " Paul the apostle writes to seven churches (for the eighth (letter)
to the Hebrews is put outside the number by most) ; he gives instruc
tions to Timothy and Titus, and intreats Philemon in behalf of a fugitive
slave " (Epist. II. ad Paulinum). On the unity of the scattered Church
similar thoughts are expressed by Irenaeus : " For the church preaches the
truth everywhere, and she is the seven-branched candlestick which bears the
light of Christ " (Adv. Haer. v. 20. 2).

Later collections of letters number seven, as the letters of Ignatius. Eusebius
mentions seven letters of Dionysius of Corinth to special churches, but calls
them catholic or universal letters (H.E. iv. 23). So our own seven catholic
epistles perhaps should be connected both in name and in number with the
symbolic principle implicit in the Canon of Muratori.

It is worth noting that the later canon of Paul had fourteen (2x7) letters
which could still be used symbolically. Cf. Origen, Horn, on Josh. 7.

1 E. A. Abbott, The Four -fold Gospel, Introduction, p. 82 ff., explains Papias
famous criticism of Mark as being " not in order " as an allusion to the starting-
point of Mark.

VOL. II S

258 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

books of the gospel are shown to have different beginnings,
nevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of the believers,
since by the one and principal spirit are declared in all of them
all things concerning his birth, death, resurrection, intercourse
with his disciples, and his twofold coming, the first in humility,
despised, which has been, the second in royal power, illustrious,
which is to be." The fragment seems to refer, in the first lines
now extant, to the presence or absence of Mark or Peter at events
recorded in the Second Gospel, 1 and it goes on to say that Luke
wrote ex opinione (perhaps, from hearsay ), but had not
seen the Lord in the flesh and so he wrote as best he could " trace
the course of events " (asequi (sic)). But in Acts " he wrote
in detail the things that had occurred in his presence, as his
omission of the passion of Peter and of the departure of
Paul, when he departed from the city (Rome) to Spain shows
clearly." 2

" John, however, expressly mentions in his epistle the several
relations he had to evangelic material, saying of himself, What
we have seen with our eyes and have heard with our ears and our
hands have handled, that we write to you. For thus he professes
to have been successively not merely a seer and hearer, but also
a writer of all the wonderful deeds of the Lord."

The fragment says that Luke and John wrote " in their own
name " (lines 5, 15). This means that though they were the
authors, they were not the only authority for their works. In
the case of Luke, presumably Paul or the sources of his preface
are meant to be understood as his authorities. With regard to
John, the double authorisation of his gospel, divine and human,
is distinctly noted divine revelation and the approval of his

1 " . . . quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit."

2 This seems to be the general meaning of the sentence, though it would
be difficult to restore with certainty its spelling and construction. The dis
tinction between Luke and Acts is concisely expressed by Eusebius and Jerome.
The former says of Acts (H.E. iii. 4) : " He composed it, no longer from hear
say, but perceiving with his eyes." The latter (De vir. ill. 7) : " So he wrote
the gospel as he had heard, but he composed the Acts of the Apostles as he
himself had seen."

i THE TRADITION 259

fellow -disciples and bishops. " John, one of the disciples, 1
when his fellow-disciples and bishops urged him (to write a gospel)
said : * Fast with me to-day for three days, and whatever is
revealed to each let us tell one another. The same night it
was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should
write everything in his own name, while all revised and certified
it (recognoscentibus)."

This story, no doubt based on the mysterious { we in John
xxi. 24, recurs in Jerome, 2 thus : "He was urged by nearly all
the bishops of Asia at that time and by delegations of many
churches to write, etc. . . . And ecclesiastical history relates
that when he was urged by the brethren to write he replied that
he would do so if all should declare a fast and pray God in common.
When this was done, filled with revelation, he burst forth with
that prologue, etc." Clement of Alexandria 3 says he wrote
it at the instigation of his acquaintances (irporpaTrevra VTTO
rcov ryvwpljjLwv \ Rufinus deprecatum a discipulis). Irenaeus seems
to identify the witnesses of John xxi. 24 with " all the elders
who met John the disciple of the Lord in Asia." 4

Similar stories of composition by request occur about Mark
in Clement (apud Eus. H.E. vi. 14) and Eusebius (ibid. ii. 15).
In the latter it is said that Peter learned of what Mark had done
by a revelation of the Spirit. Of course all the Gospels are
naturally assumed to be inspired.

The bearing of these characteristics of the Canon of Muratori Conoiu-
and other early Christian literature on the tradition of Lucan
authorship is evident. They show that speculation on the
origin of the New Testament books was already abundant in the
second century. Whether authentic external evidence was

1 This use of disciple is striking, as Andrew is called an apostle just
below. So Irenaeus (iii. 11. 7, et al. ; cf. also Epideixis, xliii.) calls John disciple.
But the term does not aim to exclude him from the apostles, but is due rather
to the use of disciple in John xxi. 24, and other passages which refer to
the " disciple whom Jesus loved," and include him in the number of the twelve.

2 Comm. in Matt. Praef.

3 Eus. H.E. vi. 14.

4 Ibid. iii. 23 ; Iren. ii. 22.

260 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

available or not, the inner characteristics of the books gave rise
to more or less fanciful theories about the occasion, date, purpose,
authority, and even the authorship of individual books, and
about the relation of the several books to each other. These
theories became gradually the uniform tradition of the Church.
The earlier the date of the Canon of Muratori the less assuring
appears to be its witness to the tradition of Lucan authorship.
For it shows that from the beginning the assertion of Lucan
authorship was inextricably bound up with reasoning which is
obviously derived from fiction, allegory, and conjecture devised
to explain obscure phenomena in the books of the New Testament
and to satisfy curiosity in regard to gaps in knowledge where no
real information was available. Nor does the consistency of
this tradition, as it continues through the times of Origen,
Eusebius, and Jerome, give it any special value, for the more
fanciful theories are similarly repeated in later writers.

Whether any actual knowledge about the author of the Third
Gospel and Acts was handed down from early times or not, the
first statements made about it can be largely explained as infer
ences from the text. Thus the statement that the author had
not seen Jesus, but knew men who had seen him, clearly states
nothing which cannot be inferred from Luke s preface. The
omission from Acts of Peter s martyrdom and Paul s departure
to Spain are obvious to any reader ; but they seemed to need
explanation to Romans of the second century, and the explanation
is suggested by the we passages. In them and indeed in the
whole book the author " wrote what was done in his presence,"
omitting other contemporary events. Under any explanation
the we passages are a most striking phenomenon and demand
explanation. 1 Any modern scholar who believes that they are
most naturally explained as showing that the author of both
books was a companion of Paul, must admit that the same
explanation might suggest itself in the second century. And

1 It is instructive to notice how much attention and conjecture was called
forth by the single we passage in John xxi. 24. See above, pp. 258 f .

i THE TRADITION 261

then at once the question presses for solution, What companion ?
Why the early church answered Luke we can only guess.
That it knew is of course not impossible ; but our study has
led us to believe that whether it knew or not it would be sure
in time to answer such a question. The New Testament books
themselves would be scanned for a reply with a critical zeal
and imagination scarcely surpassed in modern times. The
we continues to Paul s two years in prison at Rome. From
prison Paul writes several letters and mentions several companions
Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke (Philemon 23,
24), Jesus Justus (Col. iv. 11). Perhaps Luke s selection was
due to a process of elimination, for Aristarchus is excluded by
Acts xxvii. 2, " Aristarchus being with us." He as well as Jesus
Justus and Mark are called, in Col. iv. 10, 11, "of the
circumcision." Epaphras is a Colossian (Col. iv. 12). Accord
ing to 2 Tim. iv. 9-12, neither Demas nor Mark is with
him, nor, of other frequent companions, either Crescens,
Titus, or Timothy himself. Possibly, therefore, opinion was
influenced by the statement of 2 Tim. iv. 11, " Only Luke is
with me." 1

It is not necessary to determine exactly what passages were
used, nor what inferences and conjectures were drawn from them
in order to assign the Third Gospel and Acts to Luke. Some
time before A.D. 180 the assignment was made, and before that

1 To the author of the fragment, believing as he did both in the genuineness
of the pastoral epistles and in the tradition of Paul s journey to Spain, practi
cally no other date was possible for this passage than the two years in Rome.
Furthermore, the author of Acts must have been present those two years since
" he mentions only what was done in his presence." Eusebius, applying the
same method of inference to this same passage and to the statement in a sub
sequent verse, " At my first defence no one took my part, but all forsook me,"
draws the following somewhat opposite conclusions : Paul was twice im
prisoned and tried at Rome, but preached in the interval, since he says God
rescued him at the first trial that he might preach to the Gentiles. " At this
second defence only Luke was with him, at his first not even he. Wherefore,
probably Luke composed the Acts of the Apostles about that time, telling the
story as far as he was in Paul s company. This we have said is evidence that
Paul s martyrdom was not accomplished during his sojourn at Rome which
Luke records." See the whole passage in H.E. ii. 22.

262 IDENTITY OF EDITOE OF LUKE AND ACTS n

date we have no records dealing with the authorship of the books. 1
Evidences of their use may exist thirty years before, perhaps
still earlier, but evidence of use is not evidence as to authorship.
The origin of the assignment of the gospel and Acts to Luke
is therefore uncertain. But even in the earliest Christian records
the treatment of authorship and kindred topics is evidently
based primarily on various words and phrases of Scripture
selected, combined, interpreted, allegorised, elaborated and
repeated until the very interpretation of them became a fixed
tradition. And it is not unfair to suppose that the methods of
the writers of Alexandria, Asia, Home, and Gaul at the end of
the second century were also the methods of their predecessors,
from whom the tradition of Lucan authorship was derived. It
is therefore possible that this tradition is merely the earliest
conjecture without any independent value.

Whether the conjecture was correct is quite a different
question. Much of the earliest criticism seems to us fanciful
and crude and altogether lacking in scientific and historical
method, or in any sense of literary or psychological probabilities.
Two tendencies especially biased their theories of authorship
the desire to identify the author with some definite name, and
the desire to give him apostolic authority. And it was these
tendencies also that made conjecture inevitable. Origen s
confession that no one knew the authorship of the epistle to the
Hebrews 2 is a surprising example of the modernity of his criticism.
Even when much shrewdness is displayed by the Fathers in
dealing with internal evidence the argument is often more clever
than convincing. It is striking how obvious evidence is passed

1 It may perhaps be inferred from the silence of Eusebius that Papias did
not discuss the authorship of Luke or Acts or John. It is difficult to say how
early should be dated the evidence for Lucan authorship implied in the title
" According to Luke " found in the earliest MSS. It certainly records the
general opinion of the fourth century. The transliteration cata Lucan in
the Old Latin MS. e hardly proves, as some have said, that the Greek original
of the translator read so.

2 " But as to who wrote the letter, God alone knows the truth " (Eus. H.E.
vi. 25).

i THE TRADITION 263

over in silence ; it is the obscure and the unknown that arouse
the curiosity and call .forth the ingenuity of early patristic
scholarship. Their answers prove the existence of very little
really external tradition, even only a few generations after the
New Testament books were written. As the quotations given
above prove, the solution is generally found by symbols, alle
gories, numbers, and the forcing of words and texts. Certainly
in modern times we shall read with interest all these suggestions,
but in trying to discover how the canonical Gospels really came
to number four, or the churches of Paul s letters seven, under
what circumstances the Fourth Gospel was written, and how the
gospels were to be harmonised in their various differences, we
shall give little weight to the tradition of the Fathers. It is
neither possible nor right to prevent this fact from influencing
our judgment on the ascription of authorship in early tradition.
If these writers had merely stated that, for instance, Luke
wrote Acts we should have reason to say that presumably
this was what their predecessors had said, and when their
evidence is thus summarised and repeated, it is not strange that
many students accept it at once, and regard any hesitation to
do so as hypercritical. It is only when we read the tradition
as a whole that the reason for scepticism is apparent. No one
who has done this can deny that the witnesses are remarkable
for an inability to distinguish fancy from fact, and betray their
ignorance by their statements rather than by their silence.

It must be admitted as possible that the whole tradition of
Apostolic authorship may in such cases represent the tendency
to assign to Apostolic persons documents possessing the neces
sary qualifications for inclusion in the canon on the ground of
their contents, rather than the fact that in the second century
men remembered who the author really was. If so, much which is
called external tradition may be neither external nor tradition,
but the earliest statement of the internal evidence interpreted
in the light of a canonicity which had been already conceded.

Thus we may consider it safer to draw our conclusions as to

264 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

the authorship of Luke- Acts directly from the books as we have
them. If the internal evidence unmistakably proves or dis
proves Lucan authorship, its testimony is worth more than tradi
tion ; if it is inconclusive, the tradition may be right, but is not
adequate proof, and we must be content, as in the case of many
other of the greatest books, to be ignorant of the author.

THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION

THE PAUL OF ACTS AND THE PAUL OF THE EPISTLES

By C. W. EMMET

IT is perhaps not quite so superfluous as might at first appear
to emphasise the fact that we can no longer approach such a
subject as this on the old basis of a belief in verbal inspiration.
For neither those whose main interest is the defence of the
accuracy of the New Testament writings, nor those whose ideal
is that of the impartial historian, always realise what is implied
in the changed point of view. Both still show at times the
subconscious influence of presuppositions which in theory have
been long abandoned, and look for an unreasonable amount of
agreement in the New Testament writings. The result is that
the one class sometimes forces this agreement by the use of the
methods associated with the Harmonisers of an earlier period,
while the other is tempted to draw from the discrepancies which
it finds damning conclusions which it would hardly draw in the
case of writings outside the Canon.

We have no right to expect a complete agreement between
the Acts and Paul ; the real questions we have to ask are
whether the differences between the two are so great that one
or the other presumably Acts must be regarded as a late and
unreliable witness, and whether the general presentation of the
facts in Acts is such as we might ascribe to a companion of Paul.

265

266 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

It will be convenient to group the material under the follow
ing heads :

I. Accounts in which Acts and the Pauline Epistles seem to
overlap.

II. Indirect coincidences or discrepancies.

III. The general presentation in Acts of Paul as compared
with the impression given in his own writings.

I. ACCOUNTS IN WHICH ACTS AND THE PAULINE EPISTLES

OVERLAP

i The life ^ ur ^ wo authorities agree as to the strict Pharisaism and
of Paul fanatical enthusiasm of Paul s early days, 1 but we may note

before his .

conversion, that Acts is our only authority for his connection with Tarsus.
Further, there is agreement as to his attitude towards
Christianity ; 2 but a question arises as to his early activity as
a persecutor in Jerusalem.

The evidence for this is derived wholly from Acts, and it
has been urged that it is inconsistent with the statements in
the Epistles. In Gal. i. 13 fL Paul says that he had been
persecuting the Church of God, that after his conversion he
* returned to Damascus, and that he remained unknown
by face to the churches of Judaea. Only they heard that " he
who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith of which
he once made havoc." The most natural interpretation of this
passage would be that Paul had persecuted Christians in
Damascus, that he went back to Damascus after his conversion,
and never went near Jerusalem until the time, three years later,
when he went up to see Peter. The us, in the phrase " he
who persecuted us," is on this view taken to refer to the brethren
in Damascus, as a prominent persecuting official cannot well
be unknown by sight to his victims.

1 Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 6, xxvi. 5 ; Gal. i. 14 ; 2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Phil. iii. 5.

2 Acts vii. 58, ix. 2 ff., etc. ; Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Phil. iii. 6 ; 1 Tim.
i. 13. It is worth noting that iropdeiv occurs in N.T. only in this connection,
i.e. in Acts ix. 21 ; Gal. i. 13, 23.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 267

It is therefore held that the connection between Paul and
Stephen in Acts is imaginary, and that the letters to
Damascus are an artificial link forged in order to bring him
to Damascus for his conversion. It has also been argued that
Paul s Judaism was not the contemporary Rabbinic Judaism
of Jerusalem, and therefore suspicion falls on the statement of
Acts that he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. 1

The answer to these objections is :

(1) There is nothing intrinsically improbable in the account
given in Acts ; 2 the conversion becomes in fact harder to explain,
if we abandon the connection of Paul with Stephen.

(2) Even if the view that Paul was a Hellenist be accepted,
it does not exclude a period of training at Jerusalem ; young
men are not always chameleons, and Gamaliel himself is credited
with liberal tendencies.

(3) It is possible that the churches of Judaea, in Gal. i. 22,
is to be taken as excluding rather than including Jerusalem,
since Paul has just mentioned a visit to Jerusalem. It has,
however, to be admitted that this is not the most obvious mean
ing of the words. Paul seems to be saying merely that, though
he did go up to Jerusalem, he made no public appearance there
or elsewhere in Judaea.

(4) In Rom. xv. 19 Paul says he preached the gospel " from
Jerusalem ... to Illyricum." If this be taken to include
Jerusalem it may refer to the preaching described in Acts ix. 28 f .

(5) * Persecuted us in Gal. i. 23 has clearly more force
if it refers to the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem rather
than Damascus, and unknown by face may mean that after
his conversion the Judaean Christians never caught a glimpse
of Paul not that they would not have recognised him had
they seen him. The prima facie impression of Galatians is
unfavourable to the account of Acts, but it does not seem

1 Montefiore, Judaism and Paul, p. 90 ; see also Bousset, Kyrios Christos,
p. 92; Loisy, Les M ysteres paiens, p. 317.

2 See Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, pp. 40, 237 ff., for the activities
of Jewish apostles, and the light thrown on the mission of Paul to Damascus.

268 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

altogether to exclude it, if we postulate a certain exaggeration
and looseness of expression on Paul s part.

Paul regards his conversion as the turning-point in his life
and connects it with Damascus (Gal. i. 15-17), but he emphasises
the fact that no human intermediary had a share in it. Accord
ing to Acts, however, he was instructed and baptized by Ananias. 1

The divergence of these statements is obvious, but there
is a fair case in favour of the substantial truth of Acts. It is
extremely probable that in Galatians Paul somewhat exaggerates
his independence of all human instruction. He writes as a
Trvevfjuarifcos 2 who relies on his own inspiration and is independ
ent of teaching from flesh and blood. What he is really
concerned to show is, that his gospel, with its special mission
to the heathen world, is his own. This is scarcely contradicted
even by the words put into the mouth of Ananias, and elsewhere
Paul admits that he had received some information about the
life of Jesus (cf. the irape\a^ov of 1 Cor. xv. 3 and perhaps of
1 Cor. xi. 23) ; moreover, his language about baptism certainly
suggests that he had himself been baptized.

Further difficulties arise with regard to Paul s movements
after the conversion, as narrated in Acts and Gal. i. Galatians
mentions a visit to Arabia following immediately on the con
version, of which Luke says nothing. He does, however, mention
a period of preaching at Damascus omitted by Paul. Paul
tells us he returned thither (Gal. i. 17), and there is no inherent
improbability in supposing that he at once began to preach.
According to Acts ix. 23, his stay at Damascus was cut short
by a plot of the Jews against his life. An allusion to this may
reasonably be found in the reference to the attempt of Aretas
(2 Cor. xi. 32), though this differs in an important point from the
account in Acts ix. This must be placed either here or in the
visit to Syria implied in Gal. i. 21 ; but it is more natural

1 Acts ix. and xxii., but not Acts xxvi.

2 See Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, pp. 48, 198 f. ;
Watkins, Der Kampf des Paulus um Galatien, pp. 47, 70 (Eng. trans. St. Paul s
Fight for Galatia, pp. 104, 158).

THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION

269

to refer the latter to Antioch rather than to Damascus, and the
coincidences of the language of 2 Cor. xi. with Acts are too
close to justify the rejection of the traditional interpretation
without good reason. It has indeed been argued from the
evidence of coins that Aretas could not have had control over
Damascus before A.D. 37, and that therefore the incident cannot
on any dating be connected with the conversion. This conclu
sion, however, does not hold good. For the term Ethnarch
does not imply that Damascus formed part of the dominions of
Aretas, but simply that he had a representative there (a consul
in the modern sense). It has been suggested that Paul may
have roused the hostility of Aretas by his preaching in Arabia,
while even if we regard it as improbable that the visit to Arabia
was undertaken for this purpose, there is no difficulty in ascribing
the action of Aretas to a desire to win the favour of the Jews of
Damascus.

A far more complicated problem turns mainly on the relation 3. Visits to
between Acts and Gal. i. and ii. Jerusalem.

Both these authorities narrate a visit placed soon after the (a) The first
conversion ; the accounts may be placed in parallel columns :

visit.

Acts ix. 26-29.

And when he was come to
Jerusalem, he assayed to join him
self to the disciples : and they were
all afraid of him, not believing that
he was a disciple. But Barnabas
took him, and brought him to the
apostles, and declared unto them
how he had seen the Lord in the
way, and that he had spoken to
him, and how at Damascus he had
preached boldly in the name of
Jesus. And he was with them
going in and out at Jerusalem
preaching boldly in the name of
the Lord : and he spake and dis
puted against the Greek-speaking
Jews ; but they went about to kill
him.

Gal. i. 18-24.

After three years I went up to
Jerusalem to become acquainted
with Cephas, and tarried with him
fifteen days. But other of the
apostles saw I none, save James
the Lord s brother. Now touching
the things which I write unto you,
before God, I lie not. Then I came
into the districts of Syria and
Cilicia. And I was unknown by
face unto the churches of Judaea
which were in Christ : but they
only heard say, He that persecuted
us once now preacheth the faith of
which he made havoc ; and they
glorified God in me.

270 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

There are obvious differences between these two accounts,
Luke giving the impression that this visit took place sooner,
lasted longer, and was of a more public character than is suggested
in Galatians. The notes of time in Acts are : "he was certain
days with the disciples which were at Damascus " (ix. 19), and
" when many days were fulfilled " (co? Be eir^povvro rifjuepai
i/cavai, ix. 23). In view of Luke s vague use of i/cavos, these
are not necessarily inconsistent with Paul s after three years,
which may mean only one year and two fractions, the inference
being that Luke had no definite data for the chronology of this
period. It is, however, argued that the character of Paul s
reception at Jerusalem implies that the conversion was so recent
that news of it had not yet reached that city. A possible
explanation is that Paul had disappeared for some time to Arabia
before his conversion had become generally known in Damascus.
It was only when he returned and preached that the fact became
public, and therefore no report of it may have reached Jerusalem
before his visit.

With regard to the events of the visit, since Luke does not
call James (the brother of the Lord) an apostle, the plural
of ix. 27 (" brought him to the apostles ") is inconsistent
with Gal. i. 19, " other of the apostles " (i.e. than Cephas) " saw I
none, save James," while Paul s account, even if it be supposed
to leave room for preaching during a short period ( fifteen
days ), gives an entirely different impression from that left
by Acts ix. 27 ff. The phrase " unknown by face to the churches
of Judaea," even if it be understood as not including Jerusalem,
must exclude the public ministry implied in Acts, and certainly
contradicts Acts xxvi. 20 (" declared both to them of Damascus
first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judaea,
and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent "), since it
is difficult to find room for any preaching in Judaea at an
altogether later period. These discrepancies, however, need
not imply that the whole account of the visit as given in Acts
ix. is an invention ; they rather suggest that Luke had no

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 271

detailed knowledge of the events of this period and filled in
the picture in general terms. Gal. i. 20 seems to hint that
erroneous accounts of that visit were already current.

As to Paul s subsequent movements, he himself says that he
went to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21), while Luke takes him
to Tarsus (Acts ix. 30) and then to Antioch (xi. 26), thus revers
ing the order. It is possible that Syria is mentioned first by
Paul as being the more important, as Cilicia was constantly
little better than an appendage of Syria.

The crux of the problem is the second visit to Jerusalem. (6) The
The common assumption that Gal. ii. and Acts xv. are accounts ^J^
of the same events give rise to a double difficulty : Jerusalem.

(1) Paul s omission of any reference to the events of Acts xi.

(2) The considerable divergence between the two accounts
of the negotiations at Jerusalem. On the natural ground that
Paul s account is first-hand, conclusions are drawn in both cases
unfavourable to Acts. On the one hand, it is maintained that
the visit of Acts xi. never took place, or is a duplicate of Acts xv. ;
on the other hand, Acts xv. is pronounced unhistorical, as a
literary attempt to amplify the private negotiations alluded
to in Galatians. Naturally these views make it difficult to
regard Acts as a reliable historical document. The Council
clearly occupies a central place in Luke s scheme, and is intended
to mark a critical point in the history of the Church ; l the
narrative refers to well-known public and official events. If
Acts is not here in substance accurate, the author must deliber
ately have invented facts, or relied on traditions obscured by
time and unsupported, at any rate at this point, by first-hand
authorities.

The difficulties which arise if Acts xv. and Gal. ii. refer to The
the same events call for detailed consideration, (a) In the first

place, if the visit of Acts xi. is historical why is it omitted by T"* 1 * f

1 Cf. J. Weiss, Uber die Absicht u. lit. Char, der Apg., p. 25 : " Die Erzahlung
vom Apostel-Conzil bildet nicht nur ausserlich ziemlich genau die Mitte des
Buches, sondern stellt sich auch sachlich als Mittelstiick und eine Art Wasser-
scheide dar."

272 IDENTITY OF EDITOK OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Paul ? To argue that Paul may have passed it over in his
survey, because he does not claim to be giving an exhaustive
list of his visits to Jerusalem, fails to meet the difficulties ; for
the implication of Galatians is not merely that Paul had not
received his gospel from men, in other words, been a pupil of
the Apostles or of the Jerusalem Church (both come into con
sideration), but that lie had had no opportunity of doing so ; the
nature of his movements after the conversion made it impossible.
For this reason we have the successive notes of time : im
mediately (i. 16), then after three years (v. 18), then
(v. 21), then after the space of fourteen years (ii. 1). It is
therefore very difficult to believe that between these two * thens,
and during the very interval covered by w. 21-24, Paul had
paid an official visit to Jerusalem as a delegate from Antioch.
Whether he saw the apostles in the course of it, or whether
the business was purely restricted to the question of relief, is
not for the moment important. The point is that here was in
fact an opportunity for intercourse with the Jerusalem Church.
If the opportunity was not actually used and the visit had no
further bearing on the questions at issue, it would have been
all the easier for Paul to dispose of it in a sentence or parenthesis
(and Paul is not afraid of parentheses !), instead of giving an
obvious handle to his opponents to accuse him of disingenuous-
ness at the very moment when he was appealing to God in
token of his accuracy.

This point, indeed, is admitted by most critics. Those who
can find no mention of the Famine visit in Galatians often
feel themselves compelled to get rid of it altogether by rejecting
it as unhistorical l or by regarding it as a doublet of Acts xv.
from a different source (so e.g. Pfleiderer and McGiffert).

With respect to all such solutions, it should be clearly under
stood that there is nothing suspicious in the story of Acts xi.

1 See Moffatt, Intr. to the Lit. of the N.T., for a list of critics who take this
view. Wendt regards the whole story of the famine and its sequel as a mistake
arising from a literal interpretation of a prophecy of a famine which was intended
figuratively, referring to a " famine of the word of the Lord " (cf. Amos viii. 11).

THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 273

as it stands ; the objections arise solely from the supposed
difficulty of finding room for it in Galatians.

(6) Secondly, even if Acts xv. stood in Luke s account as Acts xv.
the second visit of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion,
instead of the third, there would still be grave objections to
identifying it with the visit in Gal. ii. Why does not Paul so
much as refer in Galatians to the decree of the Council not
merely the restrictive clauses, but even the main decision to
the effect that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised ?
We are told of the recognition by the pillars of the mission
to the Gentiles, but this falls far short of what we should expect.
For, according to Acts, what the Council gave to Paul was
an authoritative decision that Gentile Christians were exempt
from circumcision and from the keeping of, at any rate, the
great mass of the Jewish Law. Paul was bound to bring this
forward in his controversy with the Judaisers who had appealed
to the authority of Jerusalem. No doubt he might have gone
on to support it by arguments derived from the Old Testament
and by other considerations, but this must of necessity have
been his starting-point. To say that it was so familiar to the
Galatians that it could be taken for granted is not ad rem.
For if the decree existed when Paul wrote, both they and the
Judaisers were ignoring it, and the first thing was to remind
them of it in the clearest and most emphatic manner possible. 1

A word must be said as to the omission of any reference
to the restrictive clauses of the decree. Are they compatible
with St. Paul s statement that the only restriction was " that

1 The difficulty is not greatly eased by the view of Wendt that the decrees
were really only local, addressed solely to Syria and Cilicia, their scope being
wrongly extended by Luke in Acts xvi. 4, xxi. 25. It is argued in support that
the Jewish -Gentile difficulty was probably most acute in the countries nearer
to the centre. But even if this be true with regard to the purpose of the decrees,
they were clearly relevant to the Galatian controversy, and St. Paul had every
reason to assume that a liberal solution adopted for Syria and Cilicia would not
be refused for Galatia. He had only to say, " In churches where this question
has arisen the Jerusalem Church has removed the burden, so that the question
is practically settled for you too."

VOL. II T

274 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

we should remember the poor " ? On the ordinary view that
they are ceremonial restrictions their omission does not seem to
be honest, and certainly adds to the difficulty of the identification.
On the other hand, if the Western or B text be adopted they
are not ceremonial restrictions.

The Western text describes the restriction as abstinence from
elbwKodvrwv ai/AaTos and Tropveias, omitting TTVLKTOV. Two
interpretations of this text are possible : (1) the three offences
indicated are idolatry, murder, and fornication ; (2) they are
three characteristic forms of heathen sacrificial practice. In
neither case are they ceremonial restrictions in the same way
as a food law. 1

Still, even if this text be accepted, the omission of all mention
of the Decree by Paul remains very hard to explain. It was
obviously in Paul s interest to quote the whole Decree, since,
on this view, it marked the most complete victory for his
principles.

There is a similar difficulty in regard to 1 Corinthians which
was certainly written after the Council. But in discussing the
question of eating things offered to idols the Apostle had no
need to introduce the main decision of the Council. There was
no controversy as to circumcision at Corinth. With regard to
the restrictive clauses, the regulation about eiS&lt;t&gt;\60vra is not
really relevant, since the point at issue was the relation between
Gentile Christians and their heathen neighbours, not the relation
between Gentiles and Jews within the Church. This part of the
decree was in fact only local and temporary, and did not apply to
a predominantly Gentile Church such as Corinth, being intended
to regulate social intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Chris
tians. 2 It is true we have rejected this argument as explaining
why the decision abolishing the requirement of circumcision is
ignored in Galatians, but the case here is quite different. The
exemption of Gentile converts from the burden of the Law was

1 See pp. 324 ff., and in the commentary on this passage.
2 So Wendt, p. 236 ; Sanday, The Apostolic Decree.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 275

a fundamental principle which if adopted for mixed Churches
in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem applied a fortiori to all other
Churches ; the conditions, if they did in fact constitute a food-
law, took the form of restrictions which might well be only local
and temporary in their operation. As a fact of history this is
what happened ; the main decree was applied universally in the
Christian world ; the restrictions dropped into oblivion, and
little is heard of them subsequently. If we accept the Western
text, the difficulty is even less, for the question of elSw^oOvra
at Corinth was not one of morality or of deliberate participation
in idolatrous worship.

Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jeru
salem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up by
revelation ; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among
the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by
any means I should be running, or had run, in vain. But not even
Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circum
cised : and that because of the false brethren privily brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage ; to whom we gave
place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour ; * that the truth
of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who were
reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter
to me ; God accepteth not man s person) they, I say, who were
of repute imparted nothing to me : but contrariwise, when they saw
that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision,
even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he that wrought
for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me
also unto the Gentiles) : and when they perceived the grace that
was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were
reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of
fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the
circumcision ; only they would that we should remember the poor ;
which very thing I was also zealous to do.

1 The text is doubtful, but it is in any case ambiguous ; see Zahn s Kom-
mentar zum Neue Testament, ix. 1905 ; and Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul,
pp. 275 ff.

276 IDENTITY OF EDITOK OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Public or Here we have a private discussion between Paul and Barnabas

cuslion ? 1S on the one hand, and James, Cephas, and John on the other,
leading to a recognition of the fact that Paul has been entrusted
with the duty of preaching to the Gentiles, with a consequent
division of the spheres of labour ; the terms on which Gentiles
were to be admitted may have been understood, but it is not
stated that they were explicitly settled. Acts xv., on the other
hand, describes a formal and public discussion, in which Peter
takes the lead and by speaking of his own admission of Gentiles
in the past, brings about a decision, embodied in writing, with
regard to circumcision and the Law. No doubt this public
debate may have been, and indeed probably was, preceded by
private conferences, and it is perfectly natural that Luke should
say nothing of them. But it is an altogether different thing
when Paul speaks of the private conference as though it were
the only thing which happened, and ignores the formal and public
decision altogether. Paul s language, indeed, excludes any such
public discussion ; but privately cannot mean " privately
in the first place and then publicly before the Church," and it
would seem impossible to accept the view of Lightfoot and others
that while Luke writes from the official and public point of view,
Paul confines himself to the history of the private negotiations. 1
If we suppose a missionary sent home to discuss an important
point of Church policy, and invited to address Convocation on
the subject, with the result that that body came to a formal
decision in his favour, it would be inconceivable that he should
write back, " I went to London, and discussed the matter, but
privately, with three or four leading bishops," simply because
he had had a private conference at Lambeth before the public
debate, passing over the latter in complete silence.
Suggested It is indeed suggested, 2 partly on the ground of supposed

solutions. *

traces of differences of sources, that the real decision in Acts xv.

1 Cf. C. W. Emmet, " The Epistle to the Galatians " in The Reader s
Commentary.

2 Watkins, op. cit. p. 94 (Eng. trans, p. 222).

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 277

is taken by the Apostles, while the rank and file play no part.
No doubt these may have been little more than listeners, but
Luke s story must be very drastically edited and cut down before
it can represent merely a private conference between half a dozen
leading men ; and even then this hypothesis does not solve the
problem why the terms of the decision are not more definitely
reproduced in Galatians.

Once more the reality of these difficulties is very generally
recognised, only to be solved, as before, at the expense of Acts.
Acts xv. is either rejected as unhistorical, or else it is regarded
as the antedating of a decree which only came into existence at
a later period in the history of the Church and after the writing
of Galatians and 1 Corinthians. 1 A somewhat favourite form
of this theory is that supported by J. Weiss, who argues that the
original account of the Council made no mention of Paul and
Barnabas, their presence being due entirely to a secondary source.
Support for this view is found in Acts xxi. 25, where Luke repre
sents James as informing Paul of the restrictive decrees of the
Council, as though he had never heard of them. The verse,
however, may either be a gloss (its removal improves the con
nection between verses 24 and 26), or else, more probably, it is
a not very necessary note on the part of Luke, put into the mouth
of James but really intended for the benefit of the reader, not
representing information given to Paul. 2 It is a tour de force
of criticism to exclude the Apostle of the Gentiles from any
share in the decision which was the charter of their liberty.

It remains then to consider whether there is any alternative identifies-
to the hypothesis that Gal. ii. and Acts xv. refer to the same yStsof
events. Why should not the second visit mentioned by Paul ^f i f and
be the same as the second recorded in Acts, i.e. the Famine

1 For details see Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 307 f.

2 A modern writer would have simply added a footnote, " See above for
the arrangement already made with respect to Gentiles." But footnotes not
being known the remark has to be put into the mouth of James, somewhat
to the confusion of the critic. It might be well worth while to trace in ancient
literature the results of the non-use of this great stand-by of the modem writer,
and the methods by which the gap was filled.

278 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

visit of Acts xi. ? This visit was undertaken by Barnabas
and Paul in order to bring contributions from the Christians
of Antioch for the relief of the Jewish Church. Barnabas had
been sent to Antioch as a representative of the Mother Church
to superintend the growth of the new community, with special
reference to the preaching to Gentiles, and Paul had been already
preaching and teaching actively for some time in the Gentile
world (Acts xi. 26 ; Gal. i. 22 f.). Hence, even if we had been
told nothing about it, we should have been bound to assume
that Barnabas made some sort of report to those by whom he
had been sent, and that the Gentile question came under dis
cussion. The idea that this question could not have been
raised at so early a period is contradicted by the notices in Acts
xi. of the missionary activity of the Antiochean church 1 as well
as by all a priori probabilities.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is a mistake to regard
Paul as the founder of Hellenistic or even of Hellenic Christianity.
There were Christians in Damascus before the conversion of
Paul ; the Greek Christianity at Antioch had its origin apart
from his efforts ; even the Church at Rome certainly consisting
of Greek as well as Jewish Christians was in existence before
Paul came to Italy. 2 The problem of the recognition of these
communities and their missionary activity must have soon
attracted notice. The kind of discussion implied in Gal. ii. is
precisely what we should expect at this stage. It is private
and informal, dealing with the general principle of a mission
to the Gentile world. If details as to the conditions on which
the new converts were to be accepted were raised at all, they

1 In Acts xi. 20, "EXX TJVO.S ( Greeks, i.e. Gentiles), not
(Greek -speaking Jews), is probably the right reading ; see commentary.

2 Bousset has a remarkable paragraph on this point in his Kyrios Christos,
p. 92. " Between Paul and the Palestinian primitive church stand the Hellen
istic churches in Antioch, Damascus, Tarsus. ... In any case the develop
ment of the Apostle s life took place in the foundation of the Hellenistic
churches." See also Heitmiiller s article " Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus," in
the Zeitschrift f. neutestamentl. Wiss. xiii. (1912), pp. 320 ff., and Loisy, Le
My stir es paiens, pp. 318 ff.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 279

clearly remained unsettled. There is therefore ample room for
the public and formal Council of Acts xv., where outstanding
questions were debated and more or less settled, and we need
not be seriously disturbed by the suggestion that we are making
history repeat itself.

There are one or two minor points which go to confirm this
view, (a) Went up by revelation in Gal. ii. 1 corresponds
excellently to the prophecy of Agabus in Acts xi. (b) There
is no difficulty in placing the dispute at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 fL)
in its proper place before the Council, perhaps during the events
of Acts xv. 1 fL On the ordinary view we have either to place
this episode after the Council or else to suppose that St. Paul
introduces it entirely out of its proper order ; each of these
alternatives is attended by serious objections. 1 (c) In Gal. ii. 10
we read that the apostles laid down the condition " only they
would that we should remember the poor, which very thing I
was also zealous to do." The aorist ecnrovSaaa fits in well with
the fact that Paul had actually just brought alms to Jerusalem :
it is almost a pluperfect. 2 On the other hand, if we transfer the
whole scene to a later date and see in the remark an anticipation
of the great collection for the Saints, the tense is quite wrong.
We should expect either r?//,eXXoz/ irouelv was about to do,
from the point of view of the interview, or else am eager to do
from the point of view of the period at which the Epistle was
written, since, on the ordinary dating, Galatians belongs to
the group in which this collection plays a prominent part.

It is, however, objected that there were no apostles in Jeru- Apostles in
salem at the time of the Famine ; presbyters alone are mentioned Jerusalem -
in Acts xi. 30, and it is suggested that all the Twelve had left
Jerusalem on account of Herod s persecution. The fact, however,

1 See p. 326.

2 " The pluperfect was never very robust in Greek. . . . The conception
of relative time never troubled the Greeks ; and the aorist which simply states
that the event happened is generally quite enough to describe what we should
like to define more exactly as preceding the time of the main verb" (Moulton,
Grammar of N.T. Greek, i. p. 148).

280 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

that the alms were handed over to the presbyters does not
necessarily imply that there were no apostles to receive them,
but merely carries out the principle of Acts vi. that it was not
their business to serve tables. Further, if we regard the
narrative of Acts as arranged in strict chronological order, Paul
and Barnabas reached Jerusalem before the outbreak of Herod s
persecution, in which case there is no reason to assume the
absence of the Apostles. The probability, however, is that this
order is not closely observed. Luke is passing backwards and
forwards from Jerusalem to Antioch. Having brought the
story of Antioch up to the famine (circa A.D. 46), he resumes the
thread of events at Jerusalem with chapter xii., leading up to
the death of Herod in A.D. 44. But Acts xii. does not suggest
that all the apostles or even Peter I fled from Jerusalem to escape
persecution. And even if we do assume that he and others left
the city there is no reason whatever why they should not have
returned by A.D. 46-47, since the persecution ceased with the
death of Herod.

Chronology. A more serious difficulty arises in connection with the
chronology. In Gal. i. 18 we read, " Then after three years
(fiTa rpia err/) I went up to Jerusalem " ; and in ii. 1. " Then
after the space of fourteen years (Sia SeKarecro-dpcov erwv) I went
up again to Jerusalem." The question is whether the fourteen
years are to be reckoned from the conversion, or from the
former visit. The two expressions are clearly parallel ; in the
first the after three years seems to be reckoned from the
conversion, and not from the return from Arabia to Damascus,
which is the last-mentioned movement. It is therefore quite
possible that the after fourteen years is to be calculated on
the same principle ; and that Paul throughout is dating his
movements from his conversion, which he takes as his starting-
point. In this case we only require fourteen years from the

1 The theory that Peter left Jerusalem depends entirely on the interpreta
tion of ere/sos T6?ro5 in Acts xii. 17, as meaning another city. It may mean
another house, cf. Acts iv. 31.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 281

conversion to the famine visit, and the chronological difficulty
disappears. We have, however, to reckon with the possibility
that the fourteen years are to be reckoned from the three
years. Even so, it is still open to us to date Gal. ii. at the time
of the famine. We must remember that according to the old
method of reckoning time, fractions of a day or year were often
spoken of as wholes ; e.g. after three days might mean from
late on Friday afternoon till early on Sunday morning. 1 Accord
ingly, we have no right to add the three years and the fourteen
together, and to speak of an interval of seventeen years, as is
usually done. The true state of the case may be best repre
sented as follows :

After three years =# + 1 + y ;

After fourteen years = (!?/) + 12 + z ;

where x, y, z are unknown numbers of months. The total
period is therefore fourteen years + (x + z) months, where x and z
may be quite small. To put it in another way, December 1909
to March 1911 might be the first period, and March 1911 to
January 1924 the second, the whole period from December
1909 to January 1924 being just over fourteen years. Since
the famine visit probably took place in A.D. 47, the resultant
date for Paul s conversion is about A.D. 32, which is by no means
impossible. 2

Assuming, then, the identity of the visits of Acts xi.and Gal. ii. Date of
we remove the difficulty which arises on account of the supposed
omission of the former by Paul. We have still, however, to
explain why he does not continue his story up to the time of
the Council, and clinch his argument by quoting its decision.
The obvious answer is that the Council had not yet taken place ;
in other words, Galatians was written at the close of the first

1 Cf. Ramsay, Hastings s Diet, of the Bible, v. p. 474.

2 A different solution may be found in the suggestion, based on quite
other grounds, of a primitive corruption in the text of Gal. ii. 1, whereby, by
the addition of a single iota, fourteen has been substituted for four. See
Lake, "The Date of Herod s Marriage with Herodias" (Expositor, November
1912).

282 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Missionary Journey, and not, as is usually assumed, during
the course of the third. A full discussion of this view obviously
belongs primarily to a commentary on that Epistle, 1 but at
the same time it has a direct bearing on Acts, since, as has
been pointed out, the omission in Galatians of any real reference
to the decrees of the Council makes it almost impossible to accept
Luke s account, except on the assumption that it lay still in
the future. It must here be taken for granted that the Epistle
was in fact addressed to the Churches of South Galatia, evangelised
on the First Journey ; 2 on the rival view the hypothesis of the
early date becomes of course impossible. On his return from
this journey Paul remained at Antioch no little time (Acts
xiv. 28) ; and we have no right to assume that events summarised
in a few verses all happened in a few days. During this period
Judaisers from Jerusalem came to Antioch ; and there is nothing
improbable in supposing that they also extended their pro
paganda to the Churches just founded by Paul, in which the
strong Jewish element described in Acts xiii., xiv. guaranteed
a favourable soil. St. Paul, while occupied in the controversy
at Antioch, hears of the defection of the Galatian Churches
which has been brought about with an unexpected ease and
celerity (Gal. i. 6). He cannot visit the scene himself (iv. 20),
perhaps because he knows he must go to Jerusalem, or is even
already on the way there. Accordingly he writes this urgent
appeal in order to stop the mischief at once ; and on the first
opportunity he follows it up by a personal visit, in which he
explains the decisions of the Council (Acts xvi. 1-6). On this
reconstruction of the course of events Acts and Galatians dove
tail into one another quite naturally without any forcing of
language or adroit manipulation.

1 See Emmet, Commentary on Galatians, quoted above, and Lake, The
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 297 ff. A similar conclusion as to the date of
Galatians has now been reached by Ramsay, though on somewhat different
lines ; see The Teaching of Paul, pp. 372 ff. Cf. also Douglass Round, The
Date of Galatians.

2 See note on xvi. 6.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 283

The possible objections are slight. It is urged that TO
Trporepov in Gal. iv. 13, implies that Paul had visited Galatia
twice at the time of his writing, whereas the theory advanced
implies that the Epistle was sent after his first visit and before
the second. But, even assuming that TO Trporepov in Gal. iv. 13
means the first time and not merely * formerly, the reference
may quite well be to the double journey mentioned in Acts.
Each town, except Derbe, was visited twice, and on the return
visit Paul stayed long enough to instruct his converts and
appoint Elders.

It is also argued that Romans, Galatians, and the two epistles Romans
to the Corinthians are so closely connected that they must all
belong to the same period, that is to the time of Paul s Corinthian-
Ephesian mission. But the close connection in language, subject,
and style between Galatians and Romans, and to a lesser degree
1 and 2 Corinthians, does not compel us to suppose them all
to have been written at the same period. Galatians is clearly
the hasty sketch, thrown out on the spur of the moment, under
the pressure of an urgent crisis, while Romans represents the
carefully matured, almost philosophical development of the
same theme, written at a time when the most pressing danger
had passed away. 1 Nor need we be greatly troubled by sugges
tions that Paul s theology could not have reached the stage of
development shown in Galatians at so early a period. He had
been a convert and a preacher for many years, and by the time

1 To argue from similarity of style to identity of date is one of those critical
rules of thumb which, except where it is confirmed by other indications, only
simplifies at the cost of misleading. There are literary parallels in plenty,
where a writer produces works marked by the same style, separated by others
in which a quite different style is found. We may instance Tennyson and
The Idylls of the King. " Morte d Arthur " was written in 1842, " Balin "
thirty years later, the rest being produced at varying intervals. The fact that
the student of Tennyson may be able to detect differences between the earlier
and later parts, does not affect the general homogeneity of language and style
in works published at very different times and separated from one another by
poems in which quite other styles were adopted.

With regard to the admitted priority of Galatians see Turner, H.D.B. i.
p. 423 ; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p xxxviii.

284 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

of the Council he must certainly have thought out the general
lines on which he was to defend the inclusion of Gentiles. The
question is not referred to in the subsequent epistles to
Thessalonica, simply because it had not arisen in that Church ;
a missionary and less argumentative type of letter is all that
is needed.

A minor objection has been found in the language of Acts
xv. 3, 1 " They [sc. Paul and Barnabas] . . . passed through
both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the
Gentiles ; and they caused great joy unto all the brethren."
It is argued that this excludes the supposition that there was
at this very time a grave danger of defection in the Galatian
Church. But all that is implied in the words is that the Apostles
told the story of their successes, and that the news was welcomed.
The fact of the conversion of the Gentiles still remained, even
if at the moment there was cause for anxiety. Luke, it is true,
omits to mention the troubles with the Galatians a far less
significant fact than his silence about those at Corinth but
this makes no difference to the argument as to whether the
Galatian difficulty arose early or late.

Luke s With regard to Luke s silence itself we must remember that

he wrote at a time when these temporary disagreements had
been settled. They loom large to us because we happen to
have letters written at a time when they were acute. But to
the historian, writing after a lapse of years, they may well
have appeared comparatively unimportant. The fact that he
mentions the differences of opinion which led to the Council,
and such things as the deceit of Ananias and Sapphira, and the
quarrel between Paul and Barnabas, may be enough to absolve
him from the charge of deliberately glossing over the troubles
of the early Church. There was, however, no reason why he
should mention them all, nor did he write with the view of
enabling future generations to illustrate the letters of his friend.

1 See Maurice Jones, The New Testament in the Twentieth Century, pp.
249 ff.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 285

It may be said again that if the Council were already in
prospect when Paul wrote the Epistle, we should still expect
him to refer to it ; and thus the old difficulty recurs in a new
though less serious form. The answer, however, is not hard
to find. Paul s position at the time of the Council must
have been that if the decision was fairly favourable to him he
would accept it, but not otherwise ; we cannot conceive of
the writer of Galatians as ready to acquiesce if the Apostles
had taken the side of the Judaisers. 1 Hence while the Epistle
seems to be a sketch of the arguments he was using in the con
troversy, he could not tie his hands by telling his converts to
wait patiently for the result of a conference which he might
find himself obliged to throw over. It is further quite pos
sible to escape the difficulty altogether by supposing that the
Epistle was written before the decision to go to Jerusalem was
arrived at.

A last objection is found in the circumcision of Timothy,
which, it is urged, is inconceivable after the writing of Galatians.
This, however, can hardly hold good in view of the special
circumstances attending the case ; see further p. 293 below.

To sum up ; it has been necessary to treat with some fulness
the difficulties connected with the relation of Acts and Galatians,
since their solution is crucial to the position of the former as a
historical document. It has been suggested that these difficulties
disappear almost entirely if the three points for which we have
argued can be made good : (1) That Acts xi. and Gal. ii. refer
to the same events ; (2) that Galatians was written to the
Churches of South Galatia ; (3) that it was written before the
Council of Acts xv. It may be maintained with some con
fidence that the objections are in no case serious ; the positive
arguments are derived from the prima facie evidence of both

" Lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain," cannot
be understood as implying that Paul was ready to confess that he had been
wrong if the decision went against him. What the words mean is that such a
decision might involve the practical failure of his work and the ruin of Gentile
Christianity.

286 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

books, if only we approach, that evidence without presuppositions
which have held the field too long unchallenged.

II. INDIRECT COINCIDENCES AND DISCREPANCIES

The coincidences between Acts and the Pauline Epistles are
as follows : (1) Jerusalem, not Galilee, as we should have expected
from Mark and Matthew, became the centre of the primitive
church. (2) Believers are called disciples, saints, brethren,
but Luke, though he knows the name, agrees with. Paul in not
calling them Christians. (3) The Twelve are the rulers of the
community ; and Luke and Paul both specifically mention
Peter and John by name. (4) Side by side with them are other
apostles, Barnabas (Acts xiv. 14) being mentioned. (5) James
and the other brethren of the Lord take a prominent place.
(6) Baptism is connected with the forgiveness of sins, and is
administered by the Apostles and others in the name of Jesus
(Acts viii. 16, xix. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 14 ft .). (7) Thanksgiving
(ev^apiaria) and the Breaking of Bread are closely connected
(Acts xx. 7, xxvii. 35 ; 1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 23, xiv. 16). (8) The
death and resurrection of Jesus hold the central place, though
we must admit that Luke does not interpret them in the
characteristically Pauline way. (9) The expectation of the
Parousia is prominent both in the early chapters of Acts and
in the earlier Pauline Epistles. Some of these coincidences
may seem obvious and commonplace but they are significant
collectively.

References On the North Galatian theory we of course learn nothing
pauiine from Acts beyond the mere fact of the founding of the Church,
Churches. ^ u t on the South Galatian theory we find several coincidences

(a) Galatia. J

between Galatians and Acts xiv., e.g. in the mention of Barnabas
as well known (Gal. ii. 1), miracles (iii. 5), persecutions (iii. 4,
v. 11, vi. 12 ; cf. 2 Tim. iii. II), 1 and possibly the reception

1 Even if the Pastorals are not Pauline, this may well be one of the Pauline
notes embodied in them.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 287

of Paul as " an angel of God," iv. 14 ff. ; cf. Acts xiv.
11, where Paul is Hermes, the messenger, or angelos, of the
gods. 1

Acts and the Epistles to the Thessalonians confirm one (&)
another in the following points : the presence of a large Gentile i oni c a .
element in the Church (Acts xvii. 4 ; 1 Thess. i. 9, ii. 14), the
hostility of the Jews (Acts xvii. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 14), the close
association of Silas and Timothy, and the stress laid by Paul
on the kingdom (Acts xvii. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. i. 5),
with the consequent special interest in the Parousia.

There is sometimes supposed to be a contradiction between
Acts and these Epistles with regard to the length of Paul s stay
in Thessalonica. The Epistles seem to imply that this lasted
for some time while Acts only mentions three Sabbaths (xvii. 2).
The latter, however, may refer only to the period of preaching
to the Jews, and it may be reasonably argued that Luke s
narrative as a whole suggests a longer stay.

A somewhat complicated, though not really important,
question arises with regard to the movements of Timothy and
Silas. According to Acts xvii. 14, they are left in Beroea and
rejoin Paul at Corinth (xviii. 5). But 1 Thess. iii. 1 ff. 2 seems
to imply that they were at one time with Paul at Athens, and
that Timothy was sent from there to Thessalonica. It is possible
to combine the two accounts by supposing that Timothy and
Silas did in fact rejoin Paul at Athens, and that Timothy was
sent away again to Thessalonica, and Silas on some other
mission, perhaps to Philippi, both meeting Paul again at
Corinth. If this be the explanation, we admit that Luke was
either not accurately informed of the movements of Paul s
companions, or else expressed himself badly. This point is
of so little importance to the historian that he may well be

1 This need not imply that Paul would have acknowledged Hermes as an
angel of God.

2 " Wherefore when we could no longer forbear we thought it good to be
left behind at Athens alone ; and sent Timothy our brother ... to establish
you. . . . But when Timothy came even now unto us from you . . ."

288 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

forgiven if lie did not consider meticulous accuracy to be
required. 1

(c) Corinth. Paul s work at Corinth, coincided with a period of weakness
and depression (1 Cor. ii. 3, " And I came to you,"), which is
readily explained by his experiences in Europe and his failure
at Athens as narrated in Acts ; he needed a special vision to
encourage him (Acts xviii. 9 ., fear not ). Special references
are made to his practice of continuing to work at his trade
(xviii. 3 ; 1 Cor. ix. 15 ff. ; for other references see Acts xx. 34 ;

1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 7). Crispus is a prominent convert
(Acts xviii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 14) ; Aquila and Priscilla are known
at Corinth (xviii. 3 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), and have moved to Ephesus
Acts xviii. 18 if.). 2 The presence of Apollos in Corinth (1 Cor.
i. 12, etc.), though only for a short time, since xvi. 12 mentions
him at Ephesus, is attested by Acts xviii. 27, and Luke s mention
of his visit to Achaia may indicate that he was aware that it
had had important consequences. Apollos was evidently in a
sense responsible for the divisions referred to in 1 Corinthians,
and Luke may be hinting at these in this passage, though he
makes no further reference to them. 3 A final visit to Corinth
by way of Macedonia is attested both by Acts xx. 1, and 2 Cor.
ii. 12, 4 while Acts xx. 3 fL explains why Paul returned the same
way and did not carry out his intention of going direct from
Corinth to Jerusalem (2 Cor. i. 16).

The reference in 1 Cor. xv. 32 is hardly to the affair of

1 E. von Dobschiitz holds that Timothy and Silas were stopped from coming
to Athens by a message from Paul sending them elsewhere, and that they did
not actually rejoin him till he was at Corinth ; but 1 Thess. iii. implies that
Paul had not previously been alone.

2 The Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1, is probably not identical with the Sosthenes
of Acts xviii. 17, who is a Jew, and hostile to Paul, unless it be supposed
that he afterwards became a convert and migrated to Ephesus. " The name
Sosthenes was not rare among the Greeks " (Wendt).

3 In the same way we hear nothing in Acts of the trouble dealt with in

2 Corinthians and of the implied journeys and missions between Ephesus and
Corinth.

4 1 Cor. xvi. 5 may refer to an earlier visit or to a plan which was not
carried out ; see 2 Cor. i. 15 ff.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 289

Demetrius, in Acts xix., since Paul did not figure directly in it.
It may refer to some danger or imprisonment about which Acts is
silent ; cf. 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 23. For the relation of 1 Corinthians
to the Council, see above, pp. 274 f.

Romans and Acts agree in implying that at the time the (d) Rome.
Epistle was written Paul wished to visit Rome, but had been
unable to do so (Acts xix. 21 ; Rom. i. 13, xv. 23) ; the passage
in Acts emphasises precisely the point he mentions himself,
that he must first visit Jerusalem. 1 A somewhat perplexing
difficulty arises from the language of Acts xxviii. 21 fL, 2 where
the Jews in Rome are represented as knowing nothing of Paul
or even of Christianity except that "it is everywhere spoken
against." It is argued that this is inconsistent with the epistle,
which implies the existence of a Christian Church in Rome,
comprising a Jewish as well as a Greek element, and interested
in the relation between Christianity and the Law : in view of
1 his, it is hard to believe that there had been no collisions between
Jews and Christians in Rome, 3 or that the former could have
been entirely ignorant of the new religion. The explanation
of Luke s language may be that the Jews in Rome were in fact
less hostile than elsewhere, while for reasons of their own they
disavowed acquaintance with Christianity. At any rate, the
statement is not one which a writer least of all a late writer
with Romans before him would be likely to invent, though he
may, of course have misunderstood the position of the Roman
Jews. Acts ii. 10 and xxviii. 15 show that Luke did in fact
recognise the existence of Christianity in Rome before Paul s
visit.

There are somewhat remarkable coincidences in the names Minor

points of

1 " If we closely compare Acts xix. 21 with Rom. xv. 23-25, we are astonished cont ct -
at the completeness of coincidence in the two passages " (Harnack, Neue
Untersuchungen zur Apg. p. 49, n. 1 (Eng. trans., Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels, p. 69, n. 2)).

2 See on this passage Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, p. 92, n. 3 (Eng. trans.,
Luke the Physician, pp. 130 ff. n.).

3 The words of Suetonius (Claud. 25), " ludaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma expulit," certainly suggest such collisions.

VOL. II U

290 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

of minor characters in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles. Apollos,
Aquila and Priscilla, and Timothy have already been referred
to. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the Silas of Acts
with the Silvanus * of 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 19.
In the list in Acts xx. 4 f., Sopater is probably the Sosipater of
Rom. xvi. 21 ; Aristarchus (cf. xix. 29, xxvii. 2) is mentioned
in Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24 ; Tychicus occurs in Col. iv. 7, Eph. vi.
21, 2 Tim. iv. 12, Titus iii. 12 ; Trophimus (cf. xxi. 29) in 2 Tim.
iv. 20, while Gaius of Derbe might be identical with the Gaius
of Rom. xvi. 23, though the name is common. 2 On the other
hand, the Secundus of Acts xx. is not elsewhere mentioned,
a fact which suggests that the list is not made up of names taken
at random from the Pauline Epistles. A similar conclusion may
be drawn from the omission in Acts of the names of Titus and
Luke.

The references in Acts and in the Epistles to the collection
for the Saints afford an example of undesigned coincidence,
in the language of psychical research a cross-correspondence,
being quite incidental and yet supplementing one another in
a very remarkable manner. Luke says nothing about the
bringing of alms as the main reason of Paul s last journey to
Jerusalem until xxiv. 17, where it appears clearly. 3 On the
other hand, in the Epistles of this period there are frequent
references showing the importance Paul attached to the collection
and the trouble he took in securing contributions from all his
Churches (Rom. xv. 25 f?. ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 2 Cor. viii. ix.). The
charge and promise of Gal. ii. 10 explain why Paul felt himself

1 The view of Weizsacker is that a Jerusalem Silas has been substituted
for the Pauline Silvanus as a companion of Paul in order to emphasise his close
connection with the Jerusalem Church. But if they were really different
persons, the natural thing would have been for the writer of Acts to complete
the identification by using the name Silvanus instead of the ambiguous Silas.

2 But not with the Gaius of Acts xix. 29, who is a Macedonian, or the
Corinthian of 1 Cor. i. 14 ; the Gaius of Kom. xvi. 23 is generally identified
with the latter. The point depends on the provenance of Romans xvi.

3 Wendt suggests that the diaKovia of xx. 24 may have originally (i.e. in
the supposed source) referred to this.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 291

especially bound to this work, a point which Acts does not
mention. In the light of these references, it becomes clear that
the companions of Paul (Acts xx. 4) whose presence is not ex
plained, are, in fact, the delegates chosen by the Churches (1 Cor.
xvi. 3 ; 2 Cor. viii. 18 ff.). There is no serious difficulty in the
fact that Paul in Acts xxiv. 17 speaks of the collection as a gift
to the Jewish nation ; it was intended specifically for Jewish
Christians, and the Church was regarded as the true representa
tive of the nation.

III. THE GENERAL PRESENTATION OF PAUL IN ACTS

Is the description in Acts of Paul s conduct inconsistent with Paul and
the Epistles ? x Before entering into detail the right point of *
view must be sought. If we confine our attention to Galatians,
an Epistle written in the heat of controversy, we obtain a very
one-sided impression of Paul s attitude. Both Corinthians and
Romans contain indications of a more moderate standpoint,
particularly when it comes to practical matters (see especially
1 Cor. ix. 20), while even Galatians itself shows that Paul s
own conduct was open to the charge of inconsistency. The fact
was that he never forgot that he was a Jew, nor did he throw
off altogether the effects of his early training. The wider the
breach between his nation and Christianity, the more burning
was his patriotic love, and the stronger the stress laid on the
real privileges of the Jew (Rom. ix., x.). His behaviour did
not arise from a desire for accommodation so much as from a
certain illogicality inherent in his position. He never drew the
conclusion that the Jewish Christian should cease to be a Jew or

1 For a very full treatment of the question see Harnack, Neue Unter-
suichungen zur AG, etc. (Eng. trans., Date of the Acts, etc.), chap. ii. ; Pfleiderer,
Paulinism, ii. pp. 242 ff., both of whom defend the general presentation as
given in Acts. For a statement of the case on the other side, see Jiilicher,
Neue Linien i. d. Kritik d. evangel. Uberlief. pp. 59 f. (quoted by Harnack,
pp. 25 f. (Eng. trans, p. 36)).

292 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

hold himself exempt from the Law. 1 This conclusion was
drawn by a later generation and was no doubt implied in Paul s
own teaching, especially in Galatians, but in a time of transition
few men are entirely consistent or prepared to work out their
principles to their logical issue when they run counter to long-
established modes of thought. What Paul opposed in the Law
was mainly its exclusiveness. The essential things for which
he contended were the liberty of the Gentiles and the duty of
the Jewish Christians to accept them as brethren. Here Acts
suggests no tendency to compromise. It remains to examine
the details of the objection.

It is suggested that the view of Acts according to which Paul
made it his practice to appeal first to Jews on his missionary
journeys, and to preach in the synagogues as long as he was
allowed to do so, is inconsistent with the arrangement made
in Gal. ii. that he should go to the Gentiles and Peter to the
Jews. But in any case, as the evidence of the Epistles shows,
the separation of spheres spoken of here cannot be taken as more
than a vague working agreement. It cannot have implied that
Peter was never to preach to Gentiles or Paul to Jews. We find
the former in the Gentile Churches of Antioch and, probably,
Corinth. For though there must always be some doubt on the
point, the mention in 1 Corinthians of a party of Cephas raises a
presumption that Peter had been in Corinth, though it does not
of course follow that he at once preached to the heathen. Simi
larly at Antioch Peter clearly mixed at first with all the Christians,
though he afterwards had scruples (cf. Gal. ii. 11 f.). Once more
this does not necessarily mean that he immediately preached to
unconverted heathen, but the influence of Gentile Christians

1 See to the contrary Gal. v. 3 ; 1 Cor. vii. 18. An interesting parallel may
be found in the position of Luther. He began with a moderate position, and
it was only force of circumstances which compelled him to go further. " Only
gradually did he reach the position that a man can be saved apart from the
Pope ; and he ended by saying that a man cannot be saved unless he opposes
the Pope " (A. Plummer, The Continental Reformation, p. 102). Paul was less
logical.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 293

would inevitably bring him into contact with their unconverted
friends. Paul, on his side, includes Jews in his letters, and is
obviously concerned with them ; the arrangement was clearly
understood as admitting of some overlapping. It was in fact
inevitable that Paul should begin by preaching in the synagogues
when he reached a fresh city, since it was there that he would
find the * God-fearers who formed the nucleus of each new
Church.

The acceptance of the Conciliar decrees has been implicitly
dealt with already (see above, pp. 273 ff.). If the Western text be
adopted, there is, of course, no difficulty. But with the ordinary
reading the restrictive clauses are not to be interpreted as though
they laid down a minimum of law necessary to salvation ; this,
indeed, Paul could never have acknowledged. They are
rather the practical recognition of certain usages, very possibly
usages which already existed, intended to facilitate intercourse
between the two sections of the Church ; to them the Paul of
the Galatian Epistle might readily agree.

The circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3) laid Paul open to
a charge of inconsistency. This is naturally bound up with
the vexed question whether Titus 1 was circumcised or not.
However, in neither case had he yielded to the prejudices of the
Judaisers in the Church. In view of what has been said above
with regard to the peculiar, if we will the inconsistent, position
Paul was bound to adopt at a time of transition, it is impossible
to maintain that he could never have circumcised a half Jew,
whether before or after the writing of Galatians.

With regard to Paul s vow at Corinth (Acts xviii. 18), there Paul at
is some doubt as to its nature, and also whether it was, in
fact, taken by Paul or Aquila. Assuming the former, whatever
the reason of the fact and of its mention by Luke, it must be
considered in connection with Paul s similar action at Jerusalem.
It is here that the objections as to the behaviour attributed to

1 The text of Gal. ii. 3 ff. is very doubtful.

294 IDENTITY OF EDITOK OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Paul in Acts are at their strongest, 1 and it may at once be
admitted that there is much obscurity in the narrative of Acts
xxi. 17 ff. But, as we have seen, it is clear from the Epistles
that Paul lived as a Jew among Jews, and never urged them
to abandon their nationality. Hence Luke s object was not so
much to show that Paul was a strict Jew, but that he was still
so far in sympathy with Judaism as to be able to take his part
in a religious rite which did not compromise his principles. The
false report of v. 21 which is thus to be refuted concerns his
attitude towards Jews, not Gentile Christians. Paul s action
does not necessarily imply that he himself had taken a vow, still
less that he recognised the ceremonial law as a means of securing
salvation ; it is precisely the role that could be played by any
liberal sympathiser with Judaism like Agrippa. 2 The action
was performed at a period when Paul was anxious to avoid any
formal breach with the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and if
possible to win his nation (cf. Romans). Further, as both
Pfleiderer and Harnack 3 point out, Luke s silence as to any
further help or support of Paul on the part of the Jewish
Christians is strongly against the view that the whole incident
is an invention due to a tendency to over-emphasise the
friendly relations between the two. The difficulty is psycho
logical rather than historical.

With respect to Paul s attendance at feasts, if this seems to be
inconsistent with -Gal. iv. 10, so is 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (cf . Rom. xiv.
5 if.). Paul s object in visiting Jerusalem at the festal seasons
may have been to meet friends from all quarters of the world, 4
though he had also the idea of proving publicly that he had not
broken entirely with Judaism.

1 Cf. pp. 320 f.

2 See Josephus, Ant. XIX. 6. 1, where Agrippa " ordered that many of the
Nazirites should have their heads shorn," i.e. paid for their sacrifices. Was
Paul s action, as Harnack suggests, a way of expending part of the contribu
tion he had brought ?

3 Paulinism, ii. p. 245 ; Date of the Acts, pp. 51, 81.

4 The fact that a man may desire to spend Easter in Rome does not imply
a complete sympathy with the teaching and practice of Roman Catholicism.

n THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 295

It has often been assumed that if Acts is by a companion Paul s
of Paul, not only must his teaching as represented therein be J^Actaf
clearly and exclusively Pauline, but the teaching of Acts as a
whole must fit in with the same scheme. The fallacy is obvious ;
Luke may have admired the Apostle without really understand
ing him or accepting his full system, and there is certainly no
reason to expect the whole of Acts, or the Third Gospel, to be
impregnated with more than a mild solution of Paulinism.
The controversial Epistles do not represent Paul s normal
missionary preaching ; of this the Epistles to the Thessalonians
are a far better type. And with regard to the representation
in Acts of the teaching of Paul himself it must be borne in
mind that a companion of Paul might well have composed
speeches for his hero, though indeed many have seen traces of
Pauline thought in these. In the speech in the synagogue at
Pisidian Antioch the first part is obviously a repetition of the
sort of arguments put into the mouth of Stephen in Acts vii.
Yet in the second part there are clear affinities with Galatians
and Romans. 1

The speech at Athens is more important, especially in regard
to the theory of Norden propounded in his Agnostos Theos,
that it is based on a conventional type of preaching. But this
is discussed elsewhere. 2 The speech, moreover, has a parallel
in Rom. ii. when Paul appeals to the natural religious conscious
ness of the Gentile world.

With regard to the later speeches the main difficulty is con- Paul and
nected with the line of defence adopted by Paul in Acts xxiii. Pharisees.
6, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 5 fT., where he tries to enlist the sympathy of

1 Cf., for instance, the allusions to the Promise in Acts xiii. 23, 32, with
Galatians, the phrase " the fullness of time " in Acts xiii. 27, 33, with Gal. iv. 4,
and the tree (used of the Cross) in xiii. 29 with Gal. iii. 13. The words
in xiii. 38, " By him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," can be interpreted as
meaning that the gospel is complementary to the Law. But this is not certain,
and even if this be the meaning, it might be a contemporary s misconception
of Paul s difficult and subtle doctrine.

3 See pp. 330 ff . and commentary ad loc.

296 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

the Pharisees by suggesting that the only question at issue is
the Resurrection of the dead. It is argued that this is disin
genuous and unworthy of Paul, and that we cannot conceive
him thus minimising his divergence from the Pharisees. But
such a touch, if not authentic, must come from a period and
author interested in suggesting a rapprochement between Chris
tianity and Pharisaism. There are, however, in later times, few, if
any traces of such tendency ; on the contrary, each decade shows
an increasing desire on both sides to emphasise the gulf between
the Christian and the Jew. It is therefore probable that this line
of defence was that actually adopted by Paul. We know
from Romans that this was just the period when he was especially
eager and hopeful with regard to the conversion of his nation.
It was quite natural that he should over-emphasise the position
that Christianity was after all only the logical and historical
development of Judaism, and argue that all turned on the
resurrection, a belief which he shared with some of his opponents. 1
Just as the Church is the true Israel, so is he himself the true
Pharisee. 2 And if there was any disingenuousness in the
argument the difficulty is moral, not historical.
The Jiilicher 3 finds in the Paul of Acts " a colourless rhetorical

character . ,...,,,.

of St. Paul, representative of average Christianity ; his portraiture is
" woefully deficient and poor, just because it preserves absolutely
nothing of the peculiar characteristics of the man " ; the writer
has not been able to " introduce into his portrait even one of
the grand and noble characteristics of the Apostle," the conclu
sion of course being that Acts cannot be regarded as a historical
work by a companion of Paul. It is evident that we are
here on ground where subjective considerations play a very large

1 In the same way a Christian Scientist might, and in fact often does, try to
conciliate Church opinion by arguing that he is only insisting on the reality of
prayer and the supremacy of spirit over matter.

2 It is possible that this is suggested in the phrase of Gal. i. 15 : " Separated
me from my mother s womb."

3 As quoted by Harnack (see above, p. 291) : for Harnack s brief reply on
this point, see op. cit. p. 89.

ii THE CASE FOR THE TRADITION 297

part. It will probably be agreed that Luke s forte is not char
acter-drawing ; he is interested rather in facts. But, none the
less, the portrait of Paul is correct so far as it goes. We have
tried to show that there is nothing in Acts which is really un
worthy of the Paul of the Epistles ; nor can the hero of the ship
wreck narrative be described as a purely conventional or colourless
figure. In the farewell at Ephesus we have a good example of
the Apostle s love of his Churches, a characteristic which is very
prominent in the Epistles, while the Barnabas episode (Acts xv.
37 ff.) illustrates his stern insistence on his own point of view.
And throughout the story there runs that combination of the
mystical and practical elements in Paul which is generally
recognised as his peculiar characteristic. We have no right to
demand more than this from a companion of the Apostle.

To sum up : we have devoted considerable space to the details Summary.
of the relationship between Acts and the Pauline Epistles since
apart from them it is easy to paint an impressive picture in
general terms, either of agreement or contrast ; the real test
can only be found in the details. One result at least stands out ;
Acts is independent of the Epistles. 1 It neither uses them nor
corrects them in such a way as to suggest that they are before
the writer. On the other hand, there is a sufficiently remarkable
general agreement in the picture of early Christianity, in the
doings of Paul and his companions, and in the conception of
his work and teaching. It is true that there are also apparent
contradictions, but these are mainly on minor points ; if the
cautions suggested above (p. 265) be borne in mind they do not
affect the general credibility of Acts, or destroy the possibility
of its coming from a companion of the Apostle. The most
critical point is the story of Acts xv., and even here, as we have
tried to show, there is a fair and reasonable solution of the diffi
culty, a solution not forced by any apologetic necessity, but
suggested by Galatians itself.

1 En. Bib., s.v. Acts, col. 42. Moffatt, Intr. Lit. N.T. p. 300, argues that
there is no special resemblance in vocabulary between the two.

Ill

THE CASE AGAINST THE TEADITION
By H. WINDISCH

The THE tradition that Luke, the pupil of Paul, wrote the third

oJtheprob- Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles was thoroughly first dis-
ItT restnt P u ^ e( ^ ^7 ^he Tubingen School, who fortified their position with
status. a mass of evidence and incisive criticism. 1

Preparatory work had been done by M. Schneckenburger in
his Vber den Zweck der Apostelgeschiclite (1841). For although
he held fast to the trustworthiness and traditional authorship
of Acts, he nevertheless attempted to prove that it is an historical
work with the special purpose of defending Paul against his
Judaistic opponents. He argued that only this special purpose
will account for the peculiar selection of incidents, for the
theological colouring which appears in the attribution to Peter
of distinctly Pauline characteristics, and to Paul of Judaistic
tendencies, and in general for the assimilation of the two chief
Apostles to each other and for the frequency, in the last chapters,
of Paul s speeches in his own defence. 2

1 Chief works : F. Ch. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845, English
translation by Menzies, 1873, 1875 ; Ed. Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem
Inhalt und Ursprung untersucht, 1854- ; cf. ii. p. 72 ff., English translation
by J. Dare, 1875, together with a translation of F. Overbeck s valuable
essay (1870) in De Wette s Handbuch, in Williams and Norgate s Theological
Translation Fund Library; Schwegler, Geschichte des nach-apostolischen
Zeitalters, 1846.

2 In his Paulus (1845), p. 5 ff., Baur refers directly to Schneckenburger. He
acknowledges the reasonableness of Schneckenburger s fundamental methods
of approach, but would carry them on further, alleging that Luke s authorship
is inconsistent with his results. Cf. also Schwegler, N acliaposl. Zeitalter, ii.

298

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 299

Following out these ideas consistently, Baur and his school The School
subjected the Acts of the Apostles to their investigations, which Tubingen,
included all early Christian literature, and tested it everywhere
for such special purposes (Tendenzen). What D. F. Strauss had
done for the Gospels with his destructive criticism of their
narratives, Baur and Zeller accomplished for Acts. But they
did not limit themselves, as Strauss had done, to the narratives,
but strove especially to make clear the untrustworthiness of the
speeches. The element of greatness in the Tubingen criticism
is to be found in the unity of the fundamental ideas by which
it is dominated. We have to deal not with a rationalistic
criticism of details, but with a brilliantly chosen point of view
from which to examine and interpret the whole of the apostolic
and post-apostolic age. In accordance with the Hegelian watch
word that all which happens is determined by the sequence,
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, the Tubingen School constructed
two periods ; the first was one of embittered conflict between Paul
and the Judaisers, who were at one with the original Apostles ;
and the second was a period of conciliation, which gradually made
itself effective and marked the transition from primitive Chris
tianity to Catholicism. Acts was classed under the documents
of a conciliatory character. The Tubingen School argued that
by a falsification of all the transmitted data, it painted a picture
of complete harmony in thought and deed. From the beginning
the original Apostles plan missions to the Gentiles ; Peter per
forms the first baptism of a Gentile, and justifies it with success
before the original congregation ; in common with James he
brings about the complete recognition of Paul s missionary work
among the Gentiles, except that a measure of ritualistic observ
ance is imposed upon the Gentiles, to which Paul obediently
submits. On the other hand, Paul appears as a true Jewish

p. 75. Still greater agreement with Baur is to be seen in K. Schrader, Der
Apostel Paulus, vol. v., 1836, and Aug. Gfrorer, Geschichte des Urchristentums,
ii., "Die heilige Sage," 1838, (1) pp. 383-452; (2) pp. 244-47. Both scholars
have disputed the trustworthiness of the Acts and the authorship of Luke, but
they have had no influence upon the evolution of the criticism.

300 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

Christian, unshakably faithful to the hopes and customs of his
people ; as the reward of this conservatism he is recognised by
all as the co-equal of the other Apostles. For this assertion
evidence is to be found in the fact that in Acts miracles of the
same value are ascribed to him as to Peter. If this is a fair
picture of the special purposes (Tendenzen) to be found in Acts,
then a comparison of this delineation with the four Pauline
Epistles accepted as genuine by the Tubingen School (Rom.,
1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal.) shows clearly that throughout the whole
document the facts have been tampered with. The historical
Paul was an irreconcilable anti-Judaist. The original Apostles
had to take him exactly as he was without dictating anything
to him whatsoever ; the mission to the Gentiles was rejected by
the primitive congregation and assigned to Paul alone ; all his
life long Paul had to suffer under the attacks of the Judaisers.
The obvious conclusion was that it is not possible to consider
Luke the author of Acts ; only a later comer could have produced
such a document. No pupil of Paul could have falsified his
own memories of Paul and his doctrines, corrected the import
of his letters, invented miracles for his glorification, and on the
other hand denied his autonomy, liberty, and independence.
Antagonism The dispute which grew out of the position taken by the
Tubingen Tubingen School was long carried on. The opponents of the
theory. Tubingen School held their criticism of Acts to be exaggerated,
endeavoured to harmonise the narrative of Acts with the testi
mony of the Pauline Epistles, and attributed to the sources which
Luke used or to the inaccuracy of his memory anything which
might be found incredible. The assumption that there were dis
tortions of fact for special purposes was most vigorously rejected.
Present The notion that Biblical criticism has constantly to be on

guard against the influence of special purposes in the documents
which it investigates (TendenzJcritik) has been given up more and
more in the course of years even among the friends of courageous
criticism. We no longer talk about the policy of union, or
about the deliberate assimilation of the pictures of the two

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 301

apostles. Nevertheless, Luke s authorship of Acts is denied.
The chief positions maintained to-day are : (1) The separation
of the we source, which was the work of a companion of
Paul, probably Luke, from the other material which the actual
author of Acts has combined with it. (2) The demonstration
that the author of Acts was unfamiliar with the general trend
of primitive Christianity ; that, for example, he does not under
stand the gift of tongues hence his presentation of the miracle
of Pentecost and represents, contrary to the historical facts,
the original Apostles as initiating the missions to the Gentiles.
(3) The demonstration that the author of Acts is ignorant
of the peculiar character of Paul, obliterates his anti- Judaism,
leaves unnoticed or reproduces in a completely distorted form
the experiences that were decisive for him, especially his con
flicts, and does all this not so much because he has some special
purpose in mind as because he is naively of the opinion that
complete harmony prevailed between Paul and the original
Apostles. 1

A new phase in the conflict about the author of Acts was Hamack s
recently introduced by A. von Harnack. 2 He believes that, Lu^T
once the critical point of view of the Tubingen School has been author8hi P-
given up, the retention of their denial of the authorship to Luke
is inconsistent and can only be founded on prejudice or an in
ability to think psychologically. Harnack is far from defending

1 Cf. A. Julicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1906, p. 391 ff. ; P. W.
Schmiedel, "Acts of the Apostles" in Encyd. Bibl. pp. 37-57 ; P. W. Schmidt,
Die Aposielgeschichte bei De Wette, Overbeck und bei Adolf Harnack, 1910; P.
Wendland, "Die Literaturformen des Neuen Testaments " (Lietzmann s Handb.
zum X.T. i. (2) p. 314 ff.) ; H. H. Wendt, "Die Apostelgeschichte" (Meyer s
Commentar, iii. 9th ed.), 1913; W. Bruckner, Prot. Monatshefte, 1911, pp.
139 ff., 179 ff., 219 ff., 270 ff., etc.; G. Hoennicke, Die ApostelgescJiichte, 1913,
p. 18 ff.

2 Lukas der Arzt, 1906 ; Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908 ; Neue Untersuchungen
zur Apostelgeschichte und zur A bfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien, 1911. Cf .
concerning these, Schurer, Theol. Liter aturzeit. 1906, p. 405 ff . ; C. Clemen, Theol.
Rundschau, 1907, p. 97 ff. ; Hibbert Journal, viii. pp. 780-799 ; W. Bruckner,
Prot. Monatshefte, 1911, I.e. ; P. W. Schmidt I.e. ; W. Bousset, Theol. Rundschau,
1908, p. 185 ff. ; A. Julicher, " Die judischen Schranken des Harnackschen
Paulus," Prot. Monatshefte, 1913, pp. 1-20; M. Jones, The N.T. in the 20th
Century, 1914, p. 227 ff.

302 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

the credibility of the whole book when he defends its authen
ticity. He thinks that Luke was a credulous practitioner of
medicine who was delighted to propagate the stories of miracles
which were told him. But the representation of Paul seems to
him on the whole to be correct. His chief arguments are the
following : (1) The so-called we source comes from the
author of the whole Lucan historical work, as is shown by the
linguistic and stylistic unity. 1 (2) The Jewish-Christian char
acter of the narratives and speeches, the importance attached
to the original apostles, etc., are to be explained by the fact that
Luke, the converted Gentile, held the Old Testament and the
revealed Jewish religion in high respect. 2 (3) The Jewish-
Christian garb in which Paul appears in word and deed corre
sponds on the whole to the historical truth. Critics are inclined
to exaggerate the freedom and the anti-Judaism of Paul. On
the basis of the Epistles it can be demonstrated that Paul as far
as he personally was concerned and in his hopes continued to be
a genuine Jewish-Christian. 3 To the contention that the Paul
of Acts is not really the true Paul, it can be answered that Luke,
though a friend of Paul, was no Paulinist, 4 and was hardly
able to conceive sympathetically and to the full the true nature
of the great apostle.

Harnack set Biblical criticism new tasks to accomplish.
Every new investigator of the problem of the authorship must
learn from him, and must meet his arguments.

Dutch While the authenticity and integrity of the most important

TfibbTen* ^ ^ Q e pi s ^ es ^ ^ au l are "taken for granted by the scholars

hypothesis. w ho are under the influence of the Tubingen School, and are

used by them as a basis for discussing the credibility and

authenticity of Acts, there have been scholars, notably among

the Dutch, who have exactly reversed the presuppositions of the

problem. They deny the authenticity of all the epistles and

maintain that the representation of Paul as found in Acts is

1 Cf. Lukas der Arzt, p. 28 ff . ; Neue Untersuchungen, p. 1 ff.

2 Cf. Lukas der Arzt, p. 91.

3 Cf. Neue Untersuch. pp. 21-62. 4 Cf. Lukas der Arzt, p. 99 ff.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 303

nearer the actual historical truth than the one in the Epistles. 1
The reasons for this opinion are very various ; the following
are probably the essential ones : (1) The Paul of the Epistles is
so superior in his christology to the synoptic tradition and so
radical in his antinomism that he cannot possibly have been a
younger contemporary of the Apostles. Decades were necessary
before the evolution of the original Jewish- Christian Gospel had
reached the point where Judaism could be done away with.
The historical Paul cannot at best have advocated more advanced
ideas than the doctrines and principles of the Paul of Acts.
But these very doctrines and principles cannot be harmonised
with those of the Epistles except in so far as they already represent
a post-Pauline standpoint.

In the place of the Hegel-Baur watchwords thesis, antithesis,
synthesis the Dutch radicals have put the principle of Slow
Evolution from Conservatism to Radicalism. The same phen
omena which the Tubingen School interpreted as indicative of a
desire for union and conciliation, are held by the Radicals to
be intermediate stages of the evolutionary process.

(2) They hold that the form no less than the content forbids Pauline
the belief that the Epistles are authentic Pauline productions, of Epistles
They are not unified, but patched and interpolated, as general denied -
quite incomprehensible and impossible as letters. How could
the Christians of Galatia have understood the dialectics of the
Epistle bearing their name ? When would anybody ever have
sent as a letter such a dogmatic disquisition as the Epistle to
the Romans ? Every effort to discover the conditions out of
which the Epistles might have arisen, the circumstances of the
persons to whom they are addressed, the relation of the writer
to them, has been quite fruitless.

1 Main works : Bauer, Kritik der paulinischen Brief e, 1852 ; Loman,
Quaestiones Paulinae Theol Tijdschr., 1882 S. ; A. Pierson and S. A. Naber,
Verisimilia, 1886 ; van Manen, Paulus, i. 1890, ii. 1891, iii. 1896 ; R.
Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, 1888. Cf. the paragraphs
by van Manen, in " Paul," Encycl Bibl. pp. 3620-3638 ; G. A. van den Bergh
van Eysinga, Die holldndische radikale Kritik des neuen Testaments, 1912. The
same author s Radical Views about the New Testament, 1912.

304 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

The entrance of the school of radical criticism into the dis
cussion of the credibility and authenticity of Acts lends a new
aspect to the whole situation, which, while it complicated the
problem, increases its interest. To be sure, the Radicals do not
dream of ascribing Acts to Luke, but they compel us to recon
sider ever anew the question of the relation of the Pauline
Paul and the Lucan Paul.

The Considerations of space render it impossible to treat in detail

on wh?ch nS a ^ the critical questions of importance for the problem of
mustiest 00 au "khorship, but as an y opinion about the author depends entirely
on the other problems of literary criticism connected with Acts,
a brief consideration of the following propositions is essential :
(i) The (1) First comes confidence in the reliability of the we in

sections. the so-called we sections (xvi. 10-17, xx. 4-16, xxi. 1-18,
xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16). 1 The effort has been made indeed to explain
the * we as a literary fiction on the part of the author, 2 but
the simplicity and the comprehensibility of the c we narra
tives in contradistinction to all the others is, in my opinion, a
sufficient proof of their genuineness.

The question of the extent of the we narrative must be
left undecided. There are three possible assumptions : (a) While
only the above-mentioned sections are to be ascribed with con
fidence to the we narrative, they are to be conceived of as
fragments of an originally more extended itinerary. 3 (6) To the
6 we narrative belong still more extensive parts of the other
reports about Paul, perhaps also parts of the narratives the scene

1 The we in the /3-text xi. 28 I do not believe to be genuine. Cf .
Harnack, Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1899, pp. 316-327, though
many scholars are of a different opinion. Cf., for example, Zahn, Einl. in das
N.T. ii. p. 338 ; Die Apostelg. p. 377 ff.

2 Thus B. Bauer, Die Apostelg., 1850, R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische
Wundererzdhlungen, p. 54, and in Ilberg s Neue Jahrbiicher f. d. klass. Altertum,
1913, i. p. 417 f.) has recently expressed critical doubts and gives analogous
cases of fictitious I and we, but he is unwilling to deny that the we
in Acts has reference to actual personal experiences.

3 Cf. Jiilicher, Einl in d. N.T. p. 405 ff.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 305

of whose action is in Antioch and Jerusalem. 1 (c) By the * we
is to be understood the author of the whole book, who therefore
must have made use of his diary or was narrating from memory
his own personal experiences. 2 Since it is generally assumed
that the I who is concealed behind the we sections, is
Luke, the acknowledgment of the validity of the third point
of view would solve our problem in advance in agreement with
the traditional belief. The decision of this question must be
reserved.

(2) With apparent leaning toward the traditional view, (2) Unity
attention must be called to the pervasive lexical, stylistic, and
redactional unity of Acts as it has been demonstrated by the
representatives of the most varied points of view, and, what is
especially important, with the inclusion of the we sections. 3

This assumption is far from settling the main problem in advance
in favour of the tradition. The actual state of affairs permits
here again two possibilities : the first, that the eye-witness who
is speaking in the we sections did actually write the whole
book ; and the second, that the we sections represent one
of the sources which an author, not the I of the narrative,
combined with other sources, and in the process created a literary
unity out of the whole by revising all the sources to conform to
his own style and language. Our decision and the reasons for
it must again be withheld.

(3) Closely involved with the question of the (relative) unity (3) Acts
of Acts is the question of its homogeneity with the Third Third* 6
Gospel, which has been disputed frequently without adequate Gos P el -

1 Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, 1891 (Source A) ; J. Weiss, Vber Absicht
und lit. Charakter der Apg. pp. 34-51 ; H. Wendt, Die Apg. pp. 15-40 ; Ed.
Norden, Agnostos Theos, p. 313 ft.

2 This is the traditional conservative opinion recently defended by Harnack
(cf. above). Cf. also Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the N.T. 2nd ed
pp. 294-296.

8 Cf. Ed. Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 387-413 ; van Manen, Paulus,
i. 1-17 ; Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N.T. 3rd ed. ii. pp. 415-425, 442-446,
498 ff. ; Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, p. 29 ff. ; Moffatt, Introduction, p. 297 ff. ;
Sir John Hawkins, Home Synopticae, 2nd ed. pp. 182-189 the first edition
of this work appeared in 1899.

VOL. II x

306 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

1 But lexical, stylistic, and material points of contact
the two prove that both documents derive from the

reason.

between

same author, so that Acts i. 1 is not a fiction. 2 In this case

again we do not anticipate the decision of the question whether

Luke was this author or whether it was some unknown person

who only used a writing of Luke s.

(4) Acts, which in this also is similar to the Third Gospel,
contains both accounts of events developed in legendary form
or even legendary inventions, and freely composed speeches.
Harnack especially has correctly pointed out that Luke himself
was quite capable of taking over legends and of putting speeches
of his own composition into the mouths of others, even of Paul.
And the same scholar has laid especial emphasis on the fact
that the miracles in the report of Paul s doings are much
less marvellous and much less numerous than those of the
first part of Acts. 3 The question therefore reduces itself to
this : Do the miracles and other distortions of history which
we perceive in Acts, and the liberties which the author has
allowed himself in the composition of the speeches, exceed the
limit which we should naturally expect a man like Luke to
observe ?

(5) A further important assumption is the authenticity of the
Pauline Epistles, with the exception of the Pastoral Epistles and
perhaps also of the Epistle to the Ephesians. For the criticism
of Acts the decision about the portrayal of Paul is of crucial
importance. The following discussion is based only on the
undoubtedly genuine Epistles. We can still put the question in
the same form as the Tubingen School : Does the Paul of Acts
harmonise with the Paul of the authentic Epistles, and are the

1 Cf. J. H. Scholten, Is de derde evangelist de sckrijver van het boek der
Handelingen? 1873. Also A. Gercke, Hermes, 1894, p. 373 ff. has expressed
doubts whether the author of the Lucan Gospel wrote Acts as well, especially
the first part. Further discussion in C. Clemen, Paulus, i. p. 165.

2 Cf. Ed. Zeller, op. cit. pp. 414-452 ; H. J. Holtzmann, Lchrbuch der Einl.
in das N.T. 3rd ed. p. 391 ff. ; Th. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. p. 387 if.

3 Die Apostelg. p. Ill ff.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 307

differences of such a sort that the delineation of Paul as found
in Acts is only comprehensible on the assumption that it is the
work of one who had not personally known Paul ? We differ
from the old Tubingen scholars only in not limiting the number
of the authentic Epistles to four, 1 and in not demanding from
a pupil of Paul in every respect a fully spiritual understanding
and completely accurate presentation of Paul s activity and
teachings.

It is here that there is a real difference between our method
of procedure and that of the radical critics of Holland. The
arguments against them are principally the following : (1) The
doctrine concerning Christ as it appears in the Epistles of Paul
is quite comprehensible in the apostolic age, if we take into
consideration the fact that where it is concerned the union of
an already completely developed Christology with the figure of
Jesus as the Messiah is an essential presumption. 2 The antino-
mianism of the Epistles is explained by the special circumstances
accompanying the conversion of Paul, the former Pharisee and
enemy of Christ, and by the demands of a broadly inclusive plan
for the conversion of the heathen ; perhaps also by assuming
that Paul s pre-Christian religion was not mere rabbinic Judaism,
but a religion less satisfying and more pessimistic (as, for instance,
the religion of the Ezra-apocalypse). 3 And furthermore the anti-
nomianism found in the Pauline Epistles is still very moderate
compared with its later forms in Barnabas, the Gnosis, and in
Marcion, since it still clings to the belief that the Old Testament
is the enduring word of God s revelation and that the Jewish
folk is still God s chosen people, or shall again become so.
(2) However great is the difficulty which the Epistles offer us,

1 By limiting themselves to the four Epistles the Tubingen School gave up
a very important piece of evidence, and one which is still important the
great anti-Jewish or anti-Judaistic polemic of Paul in Phil. iii.

2 Cf. M. Bruckner, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie, 1903 ; H.
Windisch, "Die gottliche Weisheit der Juden und die paulinische Christologie "
(Neutestamentliche Studien far Heinrici), 1914, pp. 220-234.

3 Cf. C. Montefiore, St. Paul and Judaism, 1914.

308 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

they are nevertheless much more incomprehensible from a
psychological point of view, if we take them to be pseudepigrapha
or compilations. The radical criticism of Holland transfers the
riddle from the first to the second century, but this transference
is attended with the disadvantage that what is enigmatic in the
first century becomes incomprehensible in the second.

Our refusal to accept the results of this radical criticism,
therefore, receives the support of excellent witnesses whose
testimony is of decisive importance in the discussion of the
authorship of Acts by a pupil of Paul.

(6) Epistles (6) It is equally important to make clear that the Epistles
Acts? 86 n f P au l cannot have been used by the author of Acts. The
Tubingen School, consistently with their critical principle that
Acts was written in defence of a special thesis, assume not only
the use of the Pauline Epistles but the distortion of the historical
data and the doctrine contained in them. When we have broken
away from this principle we can assent to neither proposition.
In fact very few of the similarities which some scholars still
point out from time to time and wish to explain on the basis
of the use of the Epistles, 1 are at all impressive, and they cannot
be used to support the hypothesis of such use, since Acts is on
the whole independent of the Epistles, and its narrative is only
intelligible if its author did not know them. 2

(?) Date of (7) The determination of the date, which we must note as
the last of our assumptions, is closely connected with our assump
tion that the Pauline Epistles were not used by the author of
Acts. Acts must have been written at a time when, as yet, no
collections of Paul s letters had been spread abroad, and so could

1 Cf. 0. Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, 2nd ed. i. p. 532 ; H. J. Holtzmann,
Handkomm. zum N.T. i. 2, Die Apg. 3rd ed., 1901, p. 10 ; H. Schulze, Theol.
Stud, und Kritiken, 1900, pp. 119 fif. ; W. Soltau, Zeitschr. fur neut. Wiss., 1903,
p. 133 ; van Manen, Paulus, i. pp. 58-74 ; W. Briickner, Prot. Monatsh., 1911,
p. 284 ; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 385.

2 Cf. against the theory of utilisation Sabatier, VAuteur du lime, des
Actes des Apotres a-t-il connu et utilise dans sonrecit les epitres de St Paul ? 1889 ;
R. Steck, Theolog. Zeitschr. aus der Schweiz, 1890, p. 153 ff. ; Th. Zahn, EM. ii.
pp. 414-418, 429 ; Wendt, Die Apg. pp. 40-42.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 309

not have been at the disposal of the author as an easily accessible
source of information and one to be consulted as a matter of
course. Nor could he have taken for granted that they would
be in the hands of his readers. So that the preparation of an
historical commentary to these letters cannot be taken as a
motive for the composition of Acts. Now the first testimony to
an acquaintance with one of Paul s Epistles outside the place for
which it was originally intended is the first letter of Clement
where a knowledge at least of 1 Cor. and Rom. is manifest. A
second witness is probably Ignatius, a third, Polycarp, etc. 1 We
may conclude therefrom that the dissemination of some of Paul s
letters was beginning to be general from about 90 to 120 A.D., and
it does not seem advisable to set the date of the composition of
Acts later than about the close of the first century ; the 90 s
or the 80 s would have much to recommend them in this respect.
This terminus ad quern is commendable on other grounds like
wise. General persecutions of the Christians, furthered by the
Roman government, seem to lie outside the author s field of
vision 2 or he would hardly else have emphasised so industriously
the moderation of the Roman officials. The gnostic danger was,
to be sure, already threatening (cf. xx. 29 f.), but as yet
the author did not consider a detailed refutation necessary.
Finally, the hope of a parousia appears in Acts in a very
weakened form. These three considerations recommend the
period of the 8 s or 90 s of the first century, although they
do not exclude the assignment of Acts to the first decade of the
second century.

At the same time they fix the correct terminus a quo. I feel
compelled to reject the assumption which has recently become

1 Cf. The N.T. in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905. The date of composition
of 2 Peter (cf. iii. 15 f.) is uncertain, so that his testimony cannot be used
here.

2 The avrovs i]va.yKa.$ov /SXcKr^Tj/xetj which, in xxvi. 11, is put in the mouth
of Paul, the Jewish persecutor of the Christians, cannot possibly be an imitation
of the maledicere Christo demanded by Pliny (Epist. x. 96). Cf. Hausrath, Jesus
und die neut. Schriftsteller, 1909, ii. p. 194.

310 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

very popular and which is recommended even by Harnack, 1
that the author of Acts on this supposition naturally Luke
continued the narrative down to the date of composition,
that is to say, he wrote it in Rome during Paul s imprisonment
and completed it at the end of the first two years of his stay
in that city. To be sure, this assumption is very enticing in
that it is apparently the only one which really explains the
enigmatic conclusion of Acts, which, from our point of view, is
really no conclusion at all. 2

But the hypothesis is rendered untenable by the considera
tion that the Third Gospel must, beyond dispute, have been
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the further
consideration that Acts as a whole, with all its defectiveness and
legendary character and other literary mannerisms, is a product
of post-apostolic times. It seems strange at first, it must be
confessed, that no reference is made 3 in Acts to the destruction
of Jerusalem and the attendant humiliation of the Jews, 4 but
the judgment which actually took place in the year 70 is ade
quately characterised in the Gospels and the disaster of the year
70 by no means resulted in breaking the pride and self-confidence
of the Jews, least of all in the Diaspora. Attention need only
be called to the defence of Josephus Contra Apionem, written

1 Cf. Apostelg. p. 217 fl. ; Neue Untersuchungen, p. 65 ff. ; Belser, Einl.
in das N.T. 2nd ed. p. 125 ff. For further representatives of this opinion, cf.
Schafer-Meinertz, Einl in das N.T. 2nd ed., 1913, p. 385.

2 The hypothesis seems particularly attractive in the form which D. Plooij
has recently given it. He assumes that Theophilus was not by any means a
catechumen, but stood in close relations with the council with which Nero had
to discuss Paul s lawsuit, and that Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts to serve in
Paul s defence, and that he handed both books over to Theophilus and the
stratopedarch mentioned in the Bezan text of xxviii. 16, that is, to Burrhus,
so that they might convince themselves of the political innocuousness of Paul
and the teachings he brought forward. Expositor, ser. 8, viii. pp. 511-523, xiii.
pp. 108-124; cf. M. Jones, Exp. ser. 8, ix. pp. 217-234. A similar effort was
made earlier by Aberle, Tub. theol Quartalsch., 1855, 1863. Cf. also Hilgen-
feld, Ztsch. fur wiss. Theol., 1864, pp. 441-448; J. Weiss, Urchr. p. 106 f. ; de
Zwaan, Handelingen der Apost., .1920, p. 7 f.

3 Harnack calls attention to this, loc. cit.

4 Cf. H. Windisch, "Der Untergang Jerusalerns anno 70 irn Urteil der
Christen und Juden," Theol. Tijdschr., 1914, pp. 519-550.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 311

after A.D. 93. It is hardly to be supposed that the Jews in Asia
Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia were more active against the
Christians in the 80 s and 90 s than in Paul s time. A particu
larly good proof for Asia Minor is to be found in Rev. ii. 9,
iii. 9. This attractive explanation for the conclusion of Acts
must therefore be abandoned. The hypothesis which Ramsay,
Zahn, and others favour, that Luke intended to write a third
volume, though possible, seems to me to be precarious. 1

More plausible are the suggestions that the author felt that
he had done enough when he had brought the account of Paul s
testimony to Christ down to the visit to Rome (cf. xix. 21,
xxiii. 11, xxviii. 14), and that he kept silence about the un
fortunate outcome of the trial, in order not to cloud the favourable
picture of the Roman government which he paints elsewhere. 2
Even better seems the assumption that the Lucan source brought
the record only as far as Rome, and that the author could not
procure any very reliable information about the later events. 3
Whoever is unwilling to accept the validity of the latter explana
tion, has no choice but to put the close of Acts among the many
things in the New Testament which, with all our knowledge, we
are unable to explain. Under all circumstances the year 80 is
to be maintained as the terminus a quo. 4

In going no further than to set the years 80 and 110 A.D. as Did Acts
the extreme limits for the date of composition, no use is made
of the possibility, which is, nevertheless, well worth taking into

1 Cf. Zahn, "Das dritte Buch des Lukas" (Neue kirchl Zeitsch., 1917,
pp. 373-395).

2 Cf. J. Weiss, Uber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelg.,
1897, pp. 52-54 ; van Manen, Paulus, i. pp. 9, 13 ; v. d. Bergh v. Eysinga,
Nieuw Theol. Tijdschr. 1919, p. 366 f. ; Ed. Schwartz, Nachricht. d. Gottingen
Gesellsch. d. Wiss., phil.-histor. Kl., 1907, p. 298 f.

3 Cf. Bousset, Theol Rundschau, 1908, p. 202 ; J.Weiss, Das Urchristentum,
i. p. 106 f.

4 Th. Zahn likewise combats the too early dating. Cf. Einl. in d. N.T. i.
pp. 439-441 ; Das Evangelium d. Lukas, pp. 32-37. He was the first to call
attention to the addendum to Actsxiii. 1, offered by Cod. Sangall. 133 : Lucius
Cyrensis qui manet usque adhuc. The text is probably not genuine. If it
were genuine, it would in fact be positive evidence of the later composition
of Acts.

312 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

consideration, that the author of the Lucan history made use
of the writings of Josephus. There are beyond all doubt several
passages in the writings of Josephus which are much clarified
by passages in Luke s writings, in respect both to subject-matter
and to expression. From this point of view the diligent book
by M. Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, 1894, is of permanent
value. It is more difficult to decide definitely the question
whether or not Luke had access to Josephus writings. One is
most tempted to give an assenting answer in the case of the
speech of Gamaliel. This speech is surely a composition of the
author, and the peculiar arrangement Theudas- Judas (v. 36 f.)
is best explained as a rather inaccurate reminiscence of Josephus,
Antiq. xx. 5. 1 f. Further confirmation is to be had in certain
coincidences in expression, and in the fact that in the context in
Josephus the same famine is mentioned which is also reported
in Acts xi. 27-30.

If literary contact is assumed here, there will be many other
parallel passages in the two authors about which we shall have
to hold that the influence has been in the same direction, and
the inevitable result of such a decision will be a new terminus
a quo for the genesis of Luke s writings, namely the year 93 A.D.
We should have won thereby a sure date on which to base our
opposition to the traditional point of view. But since I cannot
persuade myself that Luke s dependence on Josephus is a proved
fact, I prefer to make no use of this hypothesis, in spite of the
fact that it would materially simplify the work of criticism and
make surer the results. 1

1 Compare in reference to the problem, H. Wendt, Die Apostelgeschichte,
pp. 42-45 ; P. W. Schmiedel, " Acts of the Apostles," in Encyd. Biblica, i. p. 37 ff. ;
Hausrath, Jesus und die neut. Schriftsteller, ii. pp. 167 ff. ; van Manen, Paulus, i.
pp. 133-139 ; Moffatt, Introduction, 2nd ed. pp. 29-31 ; K. Lake, Diet, of the Apost.
Age, i. 20 f . ; v. d. Bergh v. Eysinga, Nieuw TheoL Tijdschr., 1917, pp. 141 ff. My
reserve finds its justification in the circumstance that in the above-mentioned
important parallels, as in the case of many others, there are noteworthy
differences besides the points of similarity, which after all permit the possibility
that Luke is independent of Josephus. Cf. Zalm, Einl. ii. pp. 400-403, 423-425,
Die Apg. d. Lucas, i. p. 214 ff. Stahlin confesses to similar doubts in Christ s
Geschichte der griech. Lit. 5th ed., 1913, ii. 2. pp. 967-71.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 313

I find it equally impossible to agree to Ed. Norden s 1 Alleged
hypothesis, that the author, or final editor of Acts, borrowed an ApoUon
idea for the speech on Mars Hill out of the lost book of ApoUonius,
7Tpl 6u&lt;Ti&v. If this theory were accepted, the date of composi
tion cannot be put earlier than the end of the first century, but
Harnack s investigations have shown clearly that the effort to
prove that a note in Philostratus s Vita Apollonii (vi. 3) had its
source in the above-mentioned writing of ApoUonius, is & failure. 2
I have no greater inclination to adopt the variant hypothesis
of P. Corssen, 3 that the piece was taken from Damis s novel
Philostratus, and that this novel is the model for Acts. I think
it extremely probable that the author of Acts had literary
models for the speech on Mars Hill, but I prefer, in this con
nection, not to give assent to any special hypothesis which
creates a prejudice for or against a particular date of com
position.

All these propositions leave an open question the possibility
that the tradition (concerning Luke as author of Acts) is correct,
but do not bar the way to critical enquiry.

If we attempt a critical solution of the much-debated problem, The
we cannot assume that the result we favour is the most natural
and the only conceivable one. The traditional opinion has the traditional

opinion.

right to be taken seriously and demands that we weigh con
scientiously the reasons for and against it. 4 And to the following
extent the assumptions just made favour the retention of the
traditional view.

1 Agnostos Theos, 1913. Cf. in reference to this, R. Reitzenstein in Ilberg s
Neue Jahrbucher, 1913, i. pp. 146-155, 393-422 ; W. Jager in the Gottinger Gel.
Anz., 1913, p. 569 E. ; Burkitt, J. Th. S. xv., 1914, pp. 455-464.

2 "1st die Rede des Paulus in Athen ein urspriingl. Bestandteil der Apg. ?"
(Texte und Unlersuch. xxxix. 1, pp. 1-46). In reference to this R. Reitzenstein,
op. cit. pp. 393-422 ; W. Jager, op. cit. pp. 601-610. Cf. aLo Th. Birt, Rliein.
Museum fur Phil, 1914, pp. 342-392.

3 " Der Altar des uiibekannten Gottes," Ztsch. f. neut. Wiss., 1913, pp.
309-323. Cf. Hempel, Apollonius v. Tyana, 1920, p. 3 ff., 81 f.

4 Cf. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, pp. 9-18; K. Lake, I.e. 17.

314 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

(1) Argu- (1) If the we is genuine, and if Acts and the Third Gospel
&lt; we &gt; form a unit, what is more natural than that we should explain
sections. ^e &lt; j o f the we narrative, which surely refers to a com
panion of Paul, as the autor ad Theophilum, thus confirming a
tradition which goes at least as far back as the second century ? x
Is it to be assumed that the books dedicated to Theophilus
circulated at one time anonymously or under some other name ?
And more particularly, who are we to suppose had falsely
attached Luke s name to the Third Gospel ? If some unknown
person had actually taken up the we narrative and worked
it over, the retention of the we would be either incom
prehensible negligence or a rather dangerous attempt to claim
the credit himself as an eye-witness and so deceive the reader.
When a * we without further explanation appears and
vanishes again in a document dedicated personally to Theo
philus, the natural interpretation is that the author is modestly
pointing out the experiences and deeds of Paul in which he
personally had a share.

(2) Non-use (2) If Paul s letters were not used (cf . p. 308) this fact speaks
Epistles. f r Luke. A later comer, who, since he was not an eye-witness,

would certainly have sought diligently for sources of information,
and who would have made especial use of his sources when he
was, as the critical scholars assume, freely composing his reports
and speeches, would probably have discovered the Epistles and
would have made every effort to profit by them to the greatest
possible extent. Luke was not looking for written sources,
because he felt he had all the material he needed in his own
recollections and the verbal accounts of other eye-witnesses.

(3) Luke (3) It seems more advisable to put the date of composition
aSvf ^ ^ the Lucan histories in the first century, and if the year
A.D. so. go can s ^[\i fog reasonably set as a terminus a quo, we can further

assume with great probability that Luke was still alive at this

1 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. iii. 14 ; 15, 1, ed. Harvey ; Canon Muratori, 1. 34 ff.
Concerning Marcion cf. Zahn, Einl. in das N.T. 3rd ed. ii. p. 178 f. and Das
Evang. des Lukas, 1913, p. 1 ff. About earlier traces see Moffatt, Introduction,
pp. 313 f.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 315

time. 1 If the works were written during his lifetime, then
Luke himself must be the author.

(4) It appears further that everything we know about the (4) Person-
personality of Luke confirms the tradition. Luke

(a) Luke was a personal pupil of Paul. Paul, however,
mentions him only in his later letters (Col. iv. 14 ; Philemon 24 ;
2 Tim. iv. 11). As a matter of fact the author of Acts is
especially interested in Paul and has the most accurate informa
tion about him. The main idea of Acts, the right of a missionary
activity among the Gentiles unhampered by law, is an achieve
ment for which the Church has chiefly Paul to thank. This
idea is illustrated almost exclusively by examples taken from
Paul s activity. According to the testimony of the we
narrative, Luke accompanied Paul on his first European journey
from Troas to Philippi and again on the journey, undertaken to
collect money, from Philippi to Jerusalem, and finally on the
journey from Jerusalem to Rome. The fact that Paul does not
mention Luke until the letters written during his captivity, is in
excellent agreement with this. When he was writing the earlier
epistles Luke was not present.

(6) Luke was a physician (Col. iv. 14). It is said that a
careful examination of the Lucan history, including the Third
Gospel as well, has made clear that the author was familiar
with medical terminology, was interested in medical phenomena,
and had perhaps even read medical works. 2 Luke is the only
physician whom we meet in the primitive Christian community. 3
We cannot demand unconditionally that the medical calling of
an author should appear in an evangelic and apostolic history.

1 An old tradition has it that Luke died at the age of 84. Cf. Zahn, Ev.
des Lukas, pp. 13 ff., 740 ff.

2 Cf. Hobart; The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882 ; Campbell, Critical
Studies in St. Luke s Gospel, etc., 1891 ; Th. Zahn, Einl. in das N.T. 3rd ed.
ii. 433 f., 442 f. ; Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, pp. 9 ff., 122 ff. ; Moffatt, Introduction
to the Lit. of the N.T. 2nd ed. p. 298 f.

3 Not until the second century do Christians with a medical training meet
us again. Cf. Harnack, " Medicinisches aus der altesten Kirchengeschichte "
(Texte und Untersuchungen, viii. 4, p. 40 ff.).

316 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

If, however, we do find traces of such a professional education,
we appear to have an unexpectedly brilliant confirmation of the
tradition. It is further worth calling attention to the fact that
the author of the prologue to the Gospel (Luke i. 1-4) and the
author of Acts each has at his disposal no small skill in expression
and general literary training. People of culture were rare in
the first century in the Christian community (cf. 1 Cor. i. 26 fL).
We should gladly seize upon the tradition which gives us the
name of a physician.

(c) Luke was, according to Eusebius, a native of Antioch
(Hist. eccl. iii. 4. 6). 1 Even though we deny the authenticity
of the first we passage of the Western text (xi. 28) which
leads us to Antioch (see above, p. 304), there are still sufficient
indications that the author of Acts stood in especially close
relations with Antioch (cf. vi. 5, xi. 19 fL, xiii. 1 fL, xv. 2,
23, 35, xviii. 23). This would be most easily explained if we
could believe a native of Antioch to be the author.

(d) Luke was personally acquainted with Mark (Col. iv. 10, 14 ;
Philemon 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11). In excellent agreement with this is
the fact that the author makes use of the Gospel of this Mark and
that the author of Acts is also well informed about him (xii. 25,
xiii. 13, xv. 37 f.) and narrates an event which happened in the
house of Mark s mother, in the course of which he even mentions
the name of the maid-servant (xii. 12 fL).

All these comparisons and considerations are strong argu
ments in favour of the correctness of the tradition. If we are
to put them aside, we must have counter-arguments of excep
tional weight.

The critical examination to which the Tubingen School had
subjected the Acts of the Apostles had been carried on with
more than usually close and accurate reasoning. But since, on
the one hand, the view on which they based their whole argu
ment has become untenable, and on the other hand, all the
1 Cf. Zahn, Das Evang. den Lukas, pp. 10 ff. 738 ff.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 317

circumstances and reasons which speak in favour of the tradition
have been studied until they seem stronger than ever, it
seems scientifically impossible to cast serious doubt upon the
tradition.

Let us see, however, whether or not this prospect is deceptive.
The chief argument of the Tubingen School was as follows : t*^
The Lucan Paul is not consistent with the Paul of the authentic
epistles. Nor is the Lucan Peter consistent with the Peter of
the Epistle to the Galatians. In other words, they deemed it
impossible that Luke would be responsible for such an un-
historical attribution to Paul of Judaistic leanings and for such
a similar remodelling of Peter s character to resemble more
closely Paul s as we find in Acts.

When we proceed to test the correctness of this thesis, we
must first of all fix definitely the method we are to employ in
respect to two points which were not as yet clearly perceived
and taken into account by the Tubingen School.

(1) When they noticed differences between the presentation (i) Acts
of various events in Acts and Paul s own account, the Tubingen letters
School declared immediately and without further consideration confllct&lt;
that the Lucan account was false. They did so with some
plausibility, for the genuine epistles of Paul are in comparison

with Acts historical documents of the first rank. To-day,
more correct emphasis is laid on the consideration that Paul
himself in these very letters, especially in the Epistle to the
Galatians, is a party-man, engaged in combat ; and, as a partisan,
naturally one-sided. 1 There is therefore a possibility that the
account may be correct as it appears in Acts, even if it conflicts
with Paul s, or even if he is silent on the subject.

(2) Whether Acts is historical and whether it is to be attri- (2) Question
buted to Luke are two different questions (cf. p. 306). Even when probability.
a report about Paul or Peter appears unhistorical, it does not

follow that Luke would have been able to recognise it as such,
and would therefore have been incapable of accepting it as true.

1 Watkins, Der Kampf des Paulus um Galatien, 1911.

318 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

The question can rather be put in this form : Does the account
diverge from the actual historical events so markedly that only
a writer who had not known Paul personally could have
accepted it as true, or could have invented it ?

Some In view of these and of other considerations, some of the

arguments conflicting points in the various documents, upon which the
answered: Tubingen g cnO ol founded their arguments, can be eliminated.

(1) Regard- (1) Paul emphasises in Galatians the fact that no human
rooveMkm. intervention had had a share in his conversion, whereas

Acts relates that a man by the name of Ananias had received
the temporarily blinded Saul, and had been enabled by a vision
to explain his recent experience and to predict his future work
(ix. 10 fL, xxii. 12 ff.). Many scholars of the Tubingen School
declared Ananias to be a pure invention. 1 But he could have
hardly been erroneously introduced in this connection ; and,
even if the presentation of him is legendary, or has been given
a conventional literary form by the narrator, we may admit that,
while Acts may have attributed too much importance to him
in the conversion of Paul, Paul, on the other hand, was probably
wrong in entirely disavowing him. In the ardour of his self-
defence and to maintain so fundamentally important a point as
his independence he may have forgotten, or underestimated,
the possibly limited influence and assistance of another, though
without it his conversion and call to be the apostle to the
Gentiles might never have taken place. There is no reason,
therefore, why the account in Acts may not be attributed
to Luke.

(2) Paul s (2) There is a considerable discrepancy between the accounts
Jerusalem. of Paul s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion as they

appear in Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians. The very
date is suspicious : some days after the conversion (Acts ix.
23) in contrast to the three years of Galatians i. 18. Acts goes
on to say that when, after some initial difficulties, Paul was finally
brought to the i Apostles by Barnabas, he began to preach

1 Cf. Overbeck in De Wette, ErUdr. der Apg. 4th ed. (1870), p. 136.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 319

publicly to the Jews and even to dispute with the Greek-speaking
Jews (ix. 26 ff.). Paul, on the contrary, assures us solemnly that
he tarried incognito only fifteen days in Jerusalem, that he talked
only with Cephas and James, and so remained unknown by
face to the Christian congregations of Judaea (Gal. i. 18 if.). 1
In some points (the matter of Barnabas and the attendant
circumstances) Acts may be a correct supplement to the Epistle
to the Galatians : about the others the author is evidently poorly
or wrongly informed. It is probable that the circumstances of
a later visit to Jerusalem are incorrectly assigned to the first.
It is strange that Luke was ignorant of these matters ; never
theless, it is not impossible that he might have given an incorrect
version of the matter.

(3) In the accounts in Acts Paul is obviously described as (3) Paul s
following the principle of first searching out the Jews in a the jews,
strange city, and of transferring his efforts to the Gentiles
only when the Jews rejected his word or gave other evidences
of hostility (xiii. 46, xviii. 6, xxviii. 25-28). We should be
inclined to conclude from this that Paul (Gal. i. 16, ii. 7 ff. to the
contrary notwithstanding) regarded himself first of all as a
missionary to the Jews, and that only when his efforts among
them had failed did he feel forced to turn to the Gentiles.
While the Tubingen School declared that this was invented for
a particular purpose and therefore not to be attributed to
Luke, 2 one is now compelled rather to acknowledge that Paul
could have hardly found a wiser method of conducting his
campaign than to seek out the synagogue first, in order to be
sure of an audience and to gain proselytes from among the
Gentiles. That Luke makes this Paul s invariable custom, and
regularly makes him follow up failure with the Jews by
turning to the Gentiles, is probably unhistorical. It seems,
indeed, strange that a converted Gentile, like Luke, should have

1 Cf. Overbeck in De Wette, p. 145 ff.

2 Cf., for example, Overbeck in De Wette, op. cit. p. 207 ff. H. J. Holtz-
mann, "Die Apostelgeschichte " (Handkomm. i. 2), p. 14 f.

320 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

made Paul s desire to convert the Gentiles depend on repeated
failures to convert the Jews ; but it may be explained as the
counter-effect of a definite theological idea : the author wished
to defend Paul s behaviour toward the Jews and the Old
Testament, and to show that Paul separated from the Jewish
Church only under the pressure of necessity.

(4) Circum- (4) There is a much debated point in connection with the
Timoth* question of circumcision. According to Acts xvi. l-3 ; Paul
and Titus. O ut of consideration for the Jews circumcised Timothy, whose

mother was a Jewess. According to Gal. ii. 3 he had a short
time before, at the Council of Jerusalem, successfully opposed
the demand that the Gentile Titus, who likewise was his travelling
companion, should be circumcised. 1 If the report about Timothy
is held to be false, then the question of the authorship of Acts
is decided. Luke could not fail to know whether his travelling
companion Timothy had been circumcised or not. In fact the
substance of the report and the reason given for it are curious.
According to 2 Tim. i. 5, Timothy had a pious Jewish mother
and grandmother. It is hard to believe that Paul would have
undertaken and accomplished what these two women did not
feel necessary, and that out of consideration for the Jews ! And
yet it is not safe to reject the report summarily. It may have
been unskilfully written, or there may have been circumstances
in the case which made the circumcision seem to Paul really
advisable.

(5) Paul s (5) The most palpable error seems even now to be the
with James allegation that Paul on his last visit to Jerusalem was willing
Eiders 6 ^ en ^ er m ^ ^ ne bargain, which James and the elders proposed,

and, in order to give a spectacular example of his fidelity to the
Law, consented to join the four men who wished to fulfil their
vow with due legal ceremony. Such behaviour, it may be

1 This seems the most natural meaning of Gal. ii. 3, or, if the text and
exegesis be adopted which imply that Titus was circumcised but not under
compulsion it at least suggests that Paul would not immediately afterwards
have considered circumcision as the proper treatment of a semi - Jewish
convert like Timothy.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 321

thought, would be hypocrisy in a man who outside of Jerusalem
strongly opposed the compulsory observance of the Law, and
preached everywhere that it had been done away in Christ.
Again, the report of Acts seems incredible, and hardly conceiv
able as coming from Luke. But the following considerations
forbid its summary rejection. (1) It is not impossible that Paul,
following the principle enunciated in 1 Cor. ix. 20 (cf. also x. 23,
viii. 1 fL ; Rom. xiv.), made a point of observing the ceremonial
Law when he lived among the Jews and, especially, when he
was at a festival in Jerusalem. 1 (2) Paul may have felt that
circumstances, of which we are unaware, justified his concession
to Jewish legal scruples on this occasion. (3) Luke may even
have related the incident with the special purpose of showing
how grievously the Jews had sinned against one so scrupulous to
obey the Law as Paul.

So much can be conceded ; though it is impossible to feel
perfectly at ease as to the last three points. The very fre
quency of the reports, which seem strange if they be held to be
from Luke s pen, militates against a ready acceptance of the
efforts to explain away the inconsistencies psychologically. But
if to those already considered other important pieces of evidence
can be added, which cannot be brought into consonance with
what is known about the facts of Luke s existence, then the
final results of the criticism of the old Tubingen School must
be accepted, even though the arguments on which they were
based are faulty from the standpoint of modern exegesis and
psychology.

For the critical investigator the decisive point must always The
be the Lucan presentation of the Council of Jerusalem. 2 Jerusalem.

We must first block the clever and convenient exit which is

1 Cf. 0. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, 2nd ed. i. p. 523 ; J. Wellhausen,
Abh. d. Gott. Ges. d. Wiss. N.F. xv. 2, p. 45.

2 Cf. resume and literature in H. Holtzmann, " Die Apostelgeschichte," Hand-
komm. i. 2, pp. 100-103 ; K. Schmidt, Art. " Apostelconvent " in Hauck s
EealencyJcl /. protest. Theol u. Kirche, i. pp. 703-711 ; P. W. Schmiedel, Art.
" Council of Jerusalem " in Encycl. Bibl. i. col. 916 ff. ; W. Bruckner, Prol.
Monatshefte, 1911, p. 278 ff. ; J. Weiss, Urchristentum, p. 192 ff.

VOL. II Y

322 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

offered by the refusal to admit the comparison of Gal. ii. with
Acts xv. on the ground that Paul s story refers to the second visit
to Jerusalem which Luke mentions in xi. 30, xii. 25. 1 But there
is a real difficulty here. If the negotiations to which Paul refers
did not take place till the third visit, why is he silent about
the second ? However, this question stands by itself. Either
Paul passed over this journey in silence, because it was unim
portant, 2 or the journey never took place at all. Barnabas went
without Paul, and Luke erred, or what is more probable the
one journey has been doubled by an erroneous interpolation of
chapters xiii. and xiv., so that Gal. ii. = Acts xv. = Acts xi. 30. 3
However that may be, Acts xi. 30 cannot be legitimately identified
with Paul s report of what was done at Jerusalem to the exclu
sion of Acts xv. In the first place, it creates unnecessary
difficulties. Why, for example, does Luke say nothing about
those agreements which were so decisive for the question of
the mission to the Gentiles ? And if Gal. ii. = Acts xi. how
came it that fresh negotiations had to be entered upon at the
formal meeting of Acts xv. ? Again, the reports (Gal. ii. ; Acts
xv.) show so much similarity in their main points cause,
subject of contention, parties to the negotiation, principles of
the leaders that they must be two different accounts of the
same event. Thus, though it is possible that Acts xi. 30 really
refers to the same visit as Acts xv., we must rely on Acts xv.
as the Lucan account of the events described in Gal. ii.
Conflicting Turning to the comparison of Acts xv. and Gal. ii., certain
L Aote and of the smaller differences can be easily eliminated. When

1 Ramsay, Si. Paul the Traveller, p. 55 ff. ; C. H. Turner, Art. " Chronology "
in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, i. p. 415 ff. ; Douglass Round, The Date of
St. Paul s Epistle to the Galatians, 1906 ; K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St.
Paul, p. 279 ff. ; C. W. Emmet, St. Paul s Epistle to the Galatians, 1912, p. xvi. ff.

2 Thus, for example, Watkins, Der Kampf des Paulus urn Galatien, p. 73,

103 ff.

3 Thus Ed. Schwartz and J. Wellhausen, Nachr. d. Gott. Ges. d. Wiss., phil.-
hist. KL, 1907, p. 269 ff. and p. 7 f. Acts xiii. f. is an independent account which
the author interpolated on his own responsibility. The Apostolic Decree
mentions only congregations in Syria and Cilicia. Cf. also A. Mentz in the
Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss. xviii. p. 177 ff.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 323

Paul, according to Gal. ii. 2, went from Antioch to Jerusalem
because of a revelation, but according to Acts xv. 2 as an
ambassador of the Church of Antioch ; when in Acts xv. 6 a
public transaction is described while in Gal. ii. 2 the private
nature of the negotiations is emphasised, the one version can
be taken as supplementary to the other. But there are three
conflicting statements in the account in Acts xv. which remain,
and no skill can explain these away.

(1) The speech of Peter, xv. 7-11. In this passage Peter (i) Peter s
speaks of himself as the first to be called to be a missionary to ^^
the Gentiles. This title is contrary to the facts as told by Paul Gentlles -
in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 6), when he says expressly

that Peter, James, and John had no influence on his policy
(TrpoaaveQevro), but, on the contrary, they were convinced by
him that the Gentiles ought to be evangelised. Could a man
who had known Paul have allowed Peter to claim that God
had long before made him the apostle of the Gentiles ? 1 And
further, no one even partially conversant with the facts could
have made Peter condemn the Law as an intolerable yoke, and
use the sort of language that we find later in the furiously
anti- legalistic polemic of the Epistle of Barnabas (cf. Barn,
iv. 6 ; etc.).

(2) The speech of James in Acts xv. 14-21 makes use of (2) Speech
Amos ix. 11, 12 in such a way as to prove that it must have J
been composed by the author of Acts. James says that God

" will raise up the fallen tabernacle of David that the rest of
men may seek the Lord," whereas in the Hebrew the last clause
is " that they possess the remnant of Edom," which would be
quite fruitless in this context. The quotation from Amos is a free
rendering of the LXX. It is improbable that any one who knew
from Paul s account what position James took (cf . Gal. ii. 1 1 f .),

1 Acts xv. 7, Peter is made to allude to the conversion of Cornelius, which
can hardly be regarded as other than a legend. In Galatians, Peter was clearly,
up to the time of his meeting with Paul, confining his work to Jews, and he and
his companions, James and John, were convinced by what they had seen and
heard that Paul was justified in going to the Gentiles.

324 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

could have fabricated for him such an interpretation of
Scripture.

(3) The (3) In dealing with the Apostolic Decree, xv. 20, 28 f.,

decree. xx i* 25, 1 it is first necessary to establish the original text.
Harnack rightly saw that the text (the ritualistic form : ab
stinence from the flesh of sacrifices, from blood, from the flesh
of strangled creatures and from corruption in the broader Jewish
sense of the word) is inconsistent with the assumption that Luke
is the author. He has therefore been lately pleading the cause
of the * Western text as a moral catechism, prohibiting idolatry,
murder, and fornication, and adding the Golden Rule. 2 Th. Zahn
also thinks he can maintain the genuineness of Acts and still retain
the text. 3 Yet I am persuaded by the following reasons that the
common text alone can be the original. (1) The Golden Rule is
certainly an interpolation. (2) H.VLKTOV is probably original,
since its elimination is more comprehensible than its addition. 4
Then aTre^ea dat has reference naturally to food and not to
murder, an exegesis which would present linguistic difficulties. 5

(3) The whole situation demands that certain legal requirements,
representing the minimum amount of conformity to the Mosaic
Law,shouldbeprescribed absolutely for Gentile converts (cf . xv. 28).
It is purposed to do away with the most objectionable of the
unclean practices of the Gentiles, so that a mutual intercourse
between Jewish and Gentile Christians may be possible, without
the ever-recurring feeling of pollution on the part of the Jews.

(4) If the Apostolic Decree were intended to be put forth as
a sort of moral catechism, it would be noticeably incomplete.
What mention is made of theft, avarice, litigiousness, lying,
prominent vices among the Gentiles which are combated

1 Cf. Baur, Paulus, p. 131 ff. ; Ed. Zeller, Die Apostelg. p. 241 ff. ; Overbeck
in De Wette, p. 229 ff. ; P. W. Schmidt, Die Apostelg. bei De Wette-Overbeck und
bfii A. Harnack, pp. 20-27.

2 Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 188 ff. A detailed defence of the Western text
in G. Resch, Das Aposteldecret (Texte und Untersuch. 28. 3, 1905).

3 Einl. in das Neue Testament, ii. pp. 358 f., 438 f.

4 Cf. Schiirer, Theol lit. Ztg., 1908, col. 175; Bousset, Theol. Rundschau,
1908, p. 193 f. 6 Cf. F. Blass, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1900, p. 18.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 325

everywhere else (cf. 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Gal. v. 20 ; 1 Cor. v. 11 ;
2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Eph. iv. 28 and passim) \

The reading which makes the Decree a food law must, there- A food law.
fore, be held to be the genuine one. 1 The following conclusions
are to be drawn from this :

(1) Paul declares (Gal. ii. 6 fL) in no ambiguous terms that (i) if so
no obligations touching the Law were imposed upon him for his pauiTor y
work of converting the Gentiles (cf. ii. 6). If the Lucan report hls

opponents.

were correct, he would necessarily have mentioned the Decree, 2
which contains precepts taken from the Law (cf. Lev. xvii. 11, the
life of the flesh is in the blood ), and has as its purpose to make
possible the reception of Gentiles into Christian congregations
which up till then had consisted of Jews. But the main subject
of discussion of the Epistle to the Galatians is whether for any
reason whatsoever Gentiles should be compelled to accept the
obligations of the Law. Even if the originators of the Decree
did not consider the fulfilment of the four commands as directly
necessary for salvation, nevertheless the stricter Judaists would
assuredly have tried to insist that it was so ; and Paul,
foreseeing this, could therefore not have failed to discuss the
Decree and its correct interpretation. And even if the Decree,
corresponding to the address of the letter, was adopted at first
only for Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, nevertheless it is the natural
assumption at any rate it is the assumption of Luke -
that it should also apply to all future Christian congregations ;
in fact, Luke himself states (Acts xvi. 4) that Paul published
the Decree in the South Galatian communities. In this case,
Paul must have bound those whom he had already converted
to observe the Decree ; or, if the North Galatian theory be

1 Cf. H. Oort, " Het besluit der Apostelsynodo "(Theol. Tijdschr. 40, p. 97 ff.) ;
Sanday, Expos, viii. 6, pp. 289-305 ; K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul,
1911, pp. 48-60; H. H. Wendt, Die Apostelg. pp. 232-237; P. Wendland, Die
urchr. Liter aturformen, p. 320; H. Diehl, Ztschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1909, pp. 277-
296 ; J. Wellhausen, " Kritische Analyse der Apostelg." (Abh. d. Gott. Ges. d.
Wiss. N.F. xv. 2, 1914, p. 28).

2 The validity of this conclusion has been incorrectly denied, for example,
Watkins, Der Kampf des Paulus um Galatien, p. 80.

326 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

( 2) Conflicts
with the
dispute of
Antioch.

(3) Paul
and "idol
meats."

adopted, he may have done the same thing to people who had
not yet heard the Gospel from him. Anyhow he could not
have failed to mention the Decree, if for no other purpose than
that its publication should be correctly interpreted, and not
be used against him by his opponents. If he fails to mention
it, it is because neither he, nor the Galatians, nor the Judaists
knew anything about an Apostolic Decree.

(2) The report of the conflict between Peter and Paul in
Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 ff.) likewise discredits the Lucan account
of the issue of an Apostolic Decree. It must be assumed that
in point of time this conflict followed the Apostolic Conference
described in Galatians. Paul narrates his story from Gal. i. 13
and onwards in historical sequence ; and the point of the
narrative would be lost if Paul had had his controversy with
Peter before a discussion of principles had taken place. Had
the Apostolic Decree been issued in advance, then the conflict
could hardly have arisen. The least the Gentiles could obtain
by observing the Decree was the privilege of breaking bread
with the Jews. If the conflict between Peter and Paul had arisen
in spite of the Decree, Paul had no alternative but to produce
it in support of his position, both at Antioch and in his subse
quent Epistle to the Galatians. It would have been a crushing
retort to the Judaisers. In fact the conflict itself and the silence
of Paul prove that the Decree did not exist at the time, and
therefore also that it was not adopted at the Apostolic Council.

(3) As is well known, Paul discusses one of the points men
tioned in the Decree, the position toward the elSa)\60vra in
1 Cor. viii.-x. His involved, and not entirely consistent language
proves that neither he nor the Corinthians knew about any
custom confirmed by a decree. If Luke were correct, Paul
would certainly have imposed the Decree from the very beginning
upon his Corinthian congregation ; and no confusion could ever
have arisen. If, however, for some incomprehensible reason,
Paul had failed to communicate the Decree in the beginning,
then it was high time to repair his negligence and so avoid

ra THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 327

further disunion. If therefore Paul is not to appear both
neglectful of his duty and foolish, we have a proof of the ficti
tious character of the Lucan narrative in Acts xv.

The unhistorical character of the Lucan narrative in chapter if Acts xv.
xv. having been thus clearly shown, the possibility must be con- toricai can
sidered whether such an error can be attributed to the historical
Luke. This, too, is impossible. Luke must have known what
was required of Gentile Christians in Antioch, Asia Minor, Mace
donia, and Greece. He must have known that the Pauline con
gregations at Derbe and Lystra as well as at Philippi and Corinth
were not acquainted with the Decree. To a companion of Paul
it must have been on the face of it too palpable an invention
to include it in his narrative. Even if * Luke was not at Paul s
side during the Galatian conflict, he must have had opportunities
for obtaining information about the matters under discussion,
and Paul s attitude toward them. If the Decree was discussed
on the occasion of Paul s last visit to Jerusalem, as appears by
its being cited in Acts xxi. 25, Luke must certainly have learned
when and under what circumstances it was issued, since he was
with Paul at this time and later had ample opportunity of learning
from Paul how the matter stood. 1

We may call attention to another special point of view.
According to xvi. 11 ff., it is certain that the writer of the we
sections, let us say Luke, was present at the founding of the
congregation in Philippi, and perhaps even had a hand in winning
over its first members. According to xx. 4 it is probable that he
visited them again some years later, if only for a short time in
passing ; and it is even possible that he was constantly in
Philippi or in the neighbourhood during the period between
Acts xvi. and Acts xx. May we not assume from Paul s warning
against the concision (Phil. iii. 2), that the congregation at
Philippi never received from Paul a decree so Jewish in tone
as that in Acts xv. ? How could the Luke who knew the
congregation at Philippi so well, have believed that the Paul,

1 A. Gercke, Her met, 1894, p. 376.

328 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

who founded the Philippian Church had accepted in Jerusalem
a decree imposing so much legalism on Gentile Christians, and
had delivered it to the congregations in Antioch and Asia Minor ?
Is it possible that the Philippians could have been ignorant that
the apostle had accepted a decree entirely incompatible with the
teachings they had previously received from Paul ?

How then can we account for the rise of the report in Acts xv ?
The author of Acts may have had before him an account of
negotiations in Jerusalem which were concluded by an agreement
between Paul, Peter, and James, and also the text of a decree
which was issued, some time later, by the authorities of Jerusalem
without the participation of Paul (cf. xxi. 25). Since the author
did not know precisely when the publication of the Decree
took place, he combined it with the account of the conference
between Paul, Peter, and James. Thus he portrays a state of
affairs in accordance with which the Apostles to the Jews and
the Apostle to the Gentiles meet to take common council and
are so far agreed as to put the results of their conference into
documentary form, which then in the guise of an official letter
is communicated to the congregations. Only a later comer,
ignorant of Paul s attitude towards the Law, who had no certain
information regarding the publication of the Decree could have
undertaken such a combination as we have before us in Acts xv.

The preceding investigations have shown us that the author
of Acts has given us unreliable accounts of important events,
which he further elaborates as seems good to him. This leads to
the question of his sources and especially to the problem of the
we source.

This is a decisive criterion for the correct point of view
toward Acts. In accordance with the assumptions which we
made and with the conclusions which we drew from them (p. 314 f.)
our criticism seems to be undermined by the we sections,
however many and however cogent the other reasons may be
which it can advance.
First in In answer to these objections, those who reject the tradition

Act* xvi.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 329

may submit the following considerations. It is a rather aston
ishing characteristic of the ( we sections that the we begins
suddenly to appear in Acts xvi. and vanishes just as suddenly,
and equally without any explanation by the author. According
to xvi. 1 fL, Paul had only Silas with him, on his journey from
Antioch to Lystra. In Lystra he found Timothy. If the first
person plural which appears suddenly in xvi. 10, implies neither
Silas nor Timothy, it is strange that the author gives us no infor
mation how he came into Paul s company. It is very hazardous
to assume as an explanation that it was unnecessary to inform
Theophilus ; nor is it certain that the book is intended for him
alone. Even if this assumption were correct, it would be aston
ishing that the author should make no effort to explain the
presence of this we section in its new context. It is much
easier to explain the facts as we have them, if we assume that
the author of Acts on this occasion took over Luke s diary and
copied a passage out of it ; and perhaps for literary reasons
or, possibly, through mere carelessness, failed to mention the
name of the travelling companion who appeared here for the
first time.

The we leads us only to the beginnings of the work in
Philippi. After the healing of the prophetess Luke vanishes ;
and, even when Paul and Silas are welcomed by the brethren
after their imprisonment, he does not reappear. If Luke himself
were the narrator, he would most certainly have told us, if only
briefly, what became of him. The truth is that the author
used only a fragment of the diary, and after a fashion general in
antiquity, omitted any mention of his change of sources.

The same is true of the second and third * we sections, Second and
xx. 5-16, xxi. 1-18. Here also Theophilus could reasonably Acts xx.
expect his friend Luke to tell him how he again came among and XXK
the companions of Paul, and what had happened to him in
the meantime, possibly in Macedonia. Luke would certainly
have indicated for the benefit of those who knew him, as well as
for those who did not, why he vanishes again at the time of the

330 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

negotiations with James, if he did not wish to give the appearance
of abandoning his teacher at the most difficult moment. But
everything is clear, if we assume that we have to reckon with
the literary peculiarities of a later comer who used a diary which
lay before him ; and, as seemed best to him, worked it over or
left it out of consideration, without giving any account of his
procedure.

b^Acts Finally, at the beginning of the fourth and last we section

xxvii. f. (xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16), 1 Luke would most certainly have specified
how it came about that he now suddenly appeared in Caesarea
and had the privilege of accompanying Paul on the ship. It
is much easier to understand how an adapter of Luke s diary
did not feel an explanation to be necessary here.

The matters narrated within the we sections are in general
credible, especially when we take into consideration that the
Luke the physician, as a Christian and as an admirer of Paul,
was a believer in miracles, and so could have had miraculous
experiences. Our judgment about the history of the l we
sections is confirmed by the observation that much of what is
found in chapters xvi.-xxviii. outside the we sections cannot
have been narrated by an eye-witness. The story of the imprison
ment of Paul and Silas at Philippi (xvi. 19 fE.) is not consistent,
nor is it credible in some details, and must therefore have been
adapted by the author or appended to the fragment of Luke s
diary from some other source. The account of the journeys of
Paul and Silas (xvii. 14 fL, xviii. 5) is incorrect, as appears from
1 Thess. ii. 14, iii. 1 if. ; and it is difficult to suppose that Luke
here had been wrongly informed.

Greek Since the researches of Ed. Norden the speech at Athens

Adaxrii? nas claimed especial interest. The speech must be considered
a free composition even if the hypothesis is not adequately
proved that the author of Acts worked on the model of a
writing of Apollonius himself or of Damis. Some of the ideas
are not Pauline, as for example the apology for heathen idol-

1 Perhaps with interpolations by the author; cf. xxvii. 9-11, 21-26.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 331

worship, xvii. 30, 1 and the pantheistic quotation in xvii. 28.
The whole method of entering into competition with Greek
wisdom is quite unlike Paul, who plainly declares that he
refused to satisfy the demand of the Greeks at Corinth to preach
wisdom. Indeed he affirms that he had determined to
know nothing but Christ crucified ; and, if we assume that
he abandoned the attempt to adapt himself to Greek methods
of teaching, because he had so singularly failed at Athens, we
should have to admit that the apostle was guilty of equivoca
tion. Now it is not impossible that Luke had not read
1 Corinthians, and therefore could attribute such a speech
to Paul ; but he must have known that Paul determined to
avoid teaching Greek wisdom. It is surely more probable
that the author of the speech had not known Paul.

It is difficult to determine whether the account of Paul s Farewell
farewell at Miletus belongs to the we source or not. In Miletus*
spite of the Pauline sound of the speech (xx. 18 if.) it seems
improbable. The prophecy of future teachers of false doctrine
(v. 29) is out of place, since as a matter of fact such wolves
had long been disturbing the quiet of Paul s congregations,
though Luke is consistently silent about this. 2 The words
of Jesus also in Acts xx. 35 are perplexing. Why was not so
fine a saying inserted in the Gospel ? Surely it would have
been, if Luke the physician were the auctor ad Theophilum.
But it is conceivable that an author, who had never met Paul,
might, after he had finished the Gospel, have come across this
saying in a source whilst at work on Acts.

In the parts of Acts dealing with Jerusalem there may have
been other fragments of Luke s diary used than those marked
by the occurrence of the we. But we have to reckon again
with embellishments and elaborations. Yet here, too, it can
be shown that the adapter and completer cannot possibly have
known Paul.

1 See Rom. i. 18 ff. for the expression of the contrary view.
2 Cf. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, i. p. 519.

332 IDENTITY OF EDITOK OF LUKE AND ACTS n

The eollec- This appears first from the account of the motive for Paul s
Church at last journey to Jerusalem. According to 1 Cor. xvi. 1-4, 2 Cor.
erusaiem. yj^.j^ R onL xv&gt; 25-28, the chief reason and the chief desire
of Paul was the delivery of the moneys collected. The histori
cal * Luke must often have heard from Paul himself how sig
nificant it was to him, and must have seen the delivery with
full consciousness of its import. When Acts mentions this
chief factor only as an afterthought and incidentally (xxiv. 17),
the hearsay character of the evidence is manifest. Though
the witness knows what happened he is no longer able to
appreciate it.

Paul s It is extremely important to discuss the account of Paul s

in MS conversion in his speeches in his own defence. The author
aes has made Paul tell the story on two separate occasions (xxii.
3-21 and xxvi. 9-20. Cf. ix. 1-21). Even though a nucleus of
historical truth were guaranteed by the utterances of Paul
(1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), the whole story is probably legendary.
Now it is quite possible that a pupil of Paul should have embodied
the story of his teacher s conversion in a legendary form ; the
only question is, how it happened. Two things especially urge
us to caution. In the first place, one of the decisive factors
in Paul s conversion is an occurrence which Paul alone mentions,
but which is, in his estimation, the most important : "I have
seen the Lord " (1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8). But this vision of the Lord
is completely ignored in the description in Acts, and even its
possibility is excluded. Paul saw only light, he only heard
the Lord. And this corresponds to the style of such visions
(cf. Mark ix. 2-7). Luke would have most certainly men
tioned the seeing of the Lord, upon which Paul founded
his apostleship. 1 In the second place, Acts gives a threefold
version of the manner in which Paul was called to be an
Apostle to the Gentiles. According to ix. 15, the call came
through Ananias ; according to xxii. 17-21, the Lord himself
sent Paul to the Gentiles, in a special vision granted later
1 Cf. Wellhausen, Abh. d. Golt. Ges. d. Wise. N.F. xv. 2, p. 17.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 333

in Jerusalem ; x and according to xxvi. 16-18, the summons was
given by the Lord at the time of the vision in Damascus. The
three accounts show that the author had no certain information
or found different accounts already existing, and rewrote them as
he saw fit. Luke would undoubtedly have known what Paul
was accustomed to tell about his call to be an Apostle to the
Gentiles and can scarcely have written such varying accounts.

More decisive are the doubts caused by Paul s manner of Paul s
defence before the Council (xxiii. 1-9). Little importance need beforT
be attached to the fact that Paul, according to the account Jews%
in Acts, first reviles the High Priest (v. 3) and then excuses
himself by a statement which, moreover, it is hard to
believe true (v. 5). The essential consideration is that Paul
announces himself before the Council to be a Pharisee, and
with this confession immediately wins over to his side several
members of that party. The whole picture can hardly be
considered historical ; for it implies hypocrisy on the part of
Paul. The whole of the second epistle to the Corinthians
contradicts Acts (cf. iii. 3-iv. 6 ; v. 17 ; xi. 22 ff.). If Paul
could have behaved as Acts represents him here, and then write
the sharp invective (Phil. iii. 2) against Pharisaism, he would
have been a hypocrite. For he tells the Philippians that
though he had been a zealous Pharisee he had given up
all his privileges of birth and race for the sake of Christ
(Phil. iii. 2), and he denounces the Jewish religion. An
effort to harmonise these two passages is an insult to Paul !
That Paul, since his conversion, had broken with Pharisaism
could never have been forgotten by a personal friend and
pupil, nor could such a one have failed to record it. Only a
later comer, who knew Paul only by tradition, and not as
yet through his letters, could have represented Paul s theology
as that of a Pharisee believing in Jesus as the Messiah. A
personal friend could not possibly have represented Paul as
denying his convictions in order to save his life.

1 The scene is probably invented by analogy with Isaiah vi.

334 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

Paul and Not dissimilar are the statements which the author attributes

to Paul in his defence before Felix, but they do not leave
quite so black a stain on his character. Paul is represented
as denning his position thus (Acts xxiv. 14 ff.) : " Believing all
things which are according to the law, and which are written
in the prophets, having hope towards God which these also
themselves look for, that there shall be a Resurrection both of
the just and unjust." Here the real point at issue is carefully
suppressed ; for Paul had declared the Law a thing of the
past (Gal. iii. 15-25 ; Rom. vii., x. 4), and according to his
conviction, the whole belief in the Resurrection was based on
the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which the Jews denied (1 Cor.
xv.). In this case, Luke, a converted Gentile, would have been
quite clear about Paul s ideas of the Law and the Resurrection.
The hand of the stranger betrays itself again when Paul is
portrayed as a Jewish Christian, faithful to the Law and cling
ing to his Pharisaism.

Paul and In the description of Paul s negotiations with the Jews in

at e Rome. Rome, at which, according to the traditional view, Luke was
himself present, one has a right to expect a thoroughly clear
and unexceptional account. But the following points show that
it was compiled by a writer who, though he had traditional
material at his disposal, did not know much that was im
portant, or else did not give heed to it because he was seeking
an effective conclusion which should make perfectly clear one
of the main ideas of his book.

(i) Conflict (1) Paul, before he started for Jerusalem, hoping that he
Romans would be free to come from thence to Rome, had sent a most
important letter to the Roman congregation. It was probably
his intention to convey some knowledge of himself in advance,
and irrespective of the division into Jewish and Gentile Chris
tians, and of the threatened danger from the Judaisers, to come
to an understanding with the congregation about the chief
points of his teaching, its freedom from the constraint of the
Law, its opposition to the Jewish religion but not to the Jewish

THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 335

people. It must have been of predominant interest to an
actual companion of Paul to learn and to recount afterwards
how Paul was received by the Christian congregation in Rome.
The author of Acts has preserved only a brief note on the
subject (xxviii. 15) : the brethren in Rome came to meet
us. About the chief point of interest, about the real reception
in Rome, the attitude of the Roman congregation toward Paul
the preacher and theologian, he is silent. * Luke would
certainly have given us something analogous to the narrative
in Acts xxi. 17 ff.

(2) Instead of relating Paul s reception by the Christians, (2) Answer
Luke gives us an account of the meeting with the Jews.

This is not strange in itself, for much might depend upon the composition
attitude of the Jews. But Paul s words (Acts xxviii. 17-20) companion.
disappoint us. They are an excerpt of the preceding narrative,
which itself has been written up by the author. The sus
picious statement already mentioned, that Paul was a prisoner
because of the hope of Israel (xxvi. 6 f.) appears again
(xxviii. 20). And the second half of the answer of the Jews
is incredible (xxviii. 22). They profess that the Christian
faith was known to them only by unfavourable reports, and
therefore they welcomed the opportunity of obtaining informa
tion about it. This statement ignores the fact that a Christian
congregation had long since been in existence in Rome, so that
the Jews of that city had had ample opportunity to familiarise
themselves with Christianity. 1 From Suetonius (Claudius, xxv.)
we may conclude that discussions about the Christus had taken
place, and had been the cause of the separation of the church
from the synagogue. Luke has himself to admit, an undisputed

1 There is an additional argument for the early presence of Christianity
in Rome. Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2) came to Corinth in consequence
of Claudius edict. Now it is nowhere said that they were subsequently con
verted or baptized, so presumably they were Christians. This would confirm
Suetonius statement that the Jews had been expelled from Rome on account
of a riot impulsore Chresto. If this is the case, Acts xxviii. 22 implicitly con
tradicts xviii. 2, probably because the author did not notice that his sources
were at variance.

336 IDENTITY OF EDITOK OF LUKE AND ACTS n

we section, that there were brethren (i.e. Christians) who welcomed
Paul on his way to Home (Acts xxviii. 15). Paul, through his
Epistle, had already provided the Koman Jews with an oppor
tunity of learning what he thought about the matter ; for his
letter to the Komans is in parts (cf. ii. 1 fL), if only for rhetorical
purposes, addressed to the Jews. It is probable that, when
Paul actually arrived in Rome, he reaped the benefit of his
letter both among the Christians and the Jews, and the Epistles
must have formed at any rate the basis of any discussion between
Paul and the Roman Jews. But the report of Paul s conversa
tion with the Jews is so conventional and betrays such ignorance
of what he had written to the Romans and of the situation
implied by the Epistle, that though we may concede that, from
the author s point of view the conclusion of Acts is grandly
conceived, we can never believe that it is the reminiscence of
an eye-witness about the most important days in the history of
the most successful and greatest Apostle of Jesus Christ,
why Thus the evidence has accumulated that the elaboration of

authorship the reports of an eye-witness (sc. the author of the we
Sbte. 1 * sections) cannot possibly originate in the pupil of Paul, but
must be ascribed to some post-apostolic author. We were
justified in making rather greater demands on these parts of
the narrative than on the others, since the eye-witness, whom
tradition has caused to be currently accepted as the author,
was a companion of Paul from Troas to Philippi, and again
from Macedonia to Rome, and so had opportunity to inform
himself from the best sources, viz., from Paul himself, about
the events which he did not personally witness. The verdict l un-
historical is here nearly equivalent to the verdict not Lucan.
Fatal dis- The case is not much different with the stories about Paul
which are narrated in Acts before the commencement of the
* we sections and the account of the Council of Jerusalem.
Here again suspicious deviations from historical truth confirm
our judgment. The conversion of Paul in chapter ix. has
already been discussed. The presentation of the South Galatian

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 337

mission (c. xiii. f.) is suspicious. The speech of Paul at Pisidian
Antioch (Acts xiii. 15-41) is very un-Pauline, and obviously
the product of the author, for the following reasons. (1) It
borrows from the Gospel of Luke (compare xiii. 25 with Luke
iii. 16, xiii. 28 with Luke xxiii. 13 .). (2) It implies that the
Lord appeared after the Resurrection only to those who had
gone up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem (cf. ii. 32), thereby
excluding Paul and implying that, contrary to his own repeated
assertions, he was only a second-hand witness that Jesus had
risen. 1 (3) It is dependent on the Pentecostal speech of Peter for
its proof of the resurrection (xiii. 34-37 ; compare ii. 25-32, 38).
When the author later introduces a sentence recalling Paul s
doctrine of justification (xiii. 38 f.), which is the only one of
its kind in Acts, it is obviously an endeavour to put into his
mouth a phrase with a genuinely Pauline ring about it. But
even this seems to be a misunderstanding of Paul s teaching.
Faith seems to be a supplement of strict observance of the Law.
For these reasons the composition of the speech cannot be by
a companion of Paul.

According to Acts xv. 23, the apostolic letter was sent to the
Syrian Antioch, and to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. But
according to Acts South Galatia had already been converted,
and Galatians shows (on the South Galatian theory) that the
Judaistic controversy raged there. Would all mention of Galatia
have been omitted by the apostles in their letter ? Is it not
more likely that the editor of Acts has combined his sources
in a wrong chronological order ? But is such a mistake con
ceivable if the author of Acts was * Luke the companion of
Paul and possibly a native of Syrian Antioch ?

In the chapters dealing with Paul, the adapter, who stands The author
at a distance from the Apostolic age, betrays himself, as we adapter!
have seen, by his treatment of his sources. He mingles reliable
testimony of eye-witnesses with material obviously legendary,
and with theological dissertations designed to present his own

1 Cf. the apocryphal 3 Cor. 3.
VOL. II Z

338 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

point of view. The author of Acts was a professional writer,
a collector, adapter, and supplementer of sources. Even the
second part of his book, which is distinguished by more exact
information and greater historical fidelity, reveals the points of
view which determine his selection, and these and the unaccount
able lacunae in the narrative prove that it cannot be the work
of an eye-witness.

Selection of The author gives incidents taken from the missionary
journeys of Paul and from the history of the congregations
founded by him. But what incidents does he select ? What
is he interested in ? He presents samples of Paul s missionary
sermons and anecdotes which characterise the founding of a
congregation, the cessation of Paul s activity, or his reasons
for removing elsewhere. He presents the purely external
characteristics of Paul s activity, his first, and, in general, his
superficial successes. About the subsequent administrative
and pastoral work, which, nevertheless, to judge by the very
abundant testimony of the Epistles, produced much that was
great and significant, we rarely learn anything really tangible
(xix. 8-20, xx. 17-38). The author gives no examples illustra
tive of the fruitful points of view which Paul s Epistles abound
in, of the manifold experiences and conflicts which the young
Pauline congregations must have had after the period of their
first enthusiasm. He is not interested in such things. But the
hints which Paul himself gives us (2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) show clearly
how insufficient is the narrative of Acts.

Two chief reasons may be advanced to explain the peculiarity
that so little is reported in Acts of all Paul s many activities
which the Epistles describe. Both provide arguments against
the traditional view of the authorship of Acts.

ignorance In the first place, we may explain the silence as ignorance
on ^ e P art ^ ^ e autnor - But Luke, who was with Paul
before and after the composition of the Epistles to the Thes-
salonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, must have
known something about the circumstances which resulted in

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 339

the writing of these letters. We can account for such ignorance
as meets us in Acts only by assuming that the author was a
later comer, who had to collect traditions about Paul from
others, but was unacquainted with the Epistles or incapable
of estimating their importance.

Besides the author s ignorance, we have to take into con
sideration his intentional suppression or rejection of reports
which gave an historically correct, but not altogether agreeable,
picture of the Apostolic age. This is especially pertinent in
regard to the conflicts which Paul had constantly to wage
against Judaistic tendencies (e.g. with Peter and Barnabas in
Antioch) or Judaistic agitations ; (cf. Gal. ; 1 Cor. i.-iv. ; 2 Cor.
x.-xiii. ; Rom. xv. 30-32 ; Phil. iii. 2 ff.). To judge by what
Acts tells us in chapter xv., and does not tell us in xvi.-xxviii.,
the controversy in Jerusalem before Paul s first great journey
was concluded once for all by an excellent compromise. Paul
has nothing more to say about disturbers of the peace and
teachers of false doctrine until his prophecy about them at his
leave-taking from the representatives of the congregation at
Ephesus (xx. 29 f.). The author s conception of the struggles
of the apostolic age is therefore a definite one, but thoroughly
wrong. The compromise is no less fictitious than the end of
the conflict. Paul s Epistles teach us that nothing occurred
least of all in Jerusalem to assure permanent understanding
and concord, that not even the simplest questions were settled
between Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, that agitations emanating
from Jerusalem threatened to discredit Paul s whole work and
person in Asia Minor and Greece. The historical Paul had no
need to prophesy the coming of false teachers. He had already
had personal experience with their wolfish nature and had made
war upon them with all the energy at his disposal. Luke, the
converted Gentile, must have known the actual state of affairs
and appreciated its importance. Only a post-apostolic writer
could have falsified history so unhappily with his inventions
and suppressions, because he had not himself experienced the

340 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

conflicts and did not understand their importance, or because
he was not acquainted with the Epistles or did not know
much about them, and, in order to idealise his story, refused
to attribute much importance to them.

Non- There remain the non - Pauline traditions in Acts i.-xii.

traditions Obstacles which hinder the acceptance of the traditional view
m Acts. Q ^ Q au thorship are not here so easy to find. * Luke, who
was himself a believer in miracles, had in these cases less reliable
sources, and was more prone to accept legendary material.
A companion of Paul might easily be guilty of the obviously
improbable anachronism about Theudas in the speech of
Gamaliel, nor is there any reason why he should not, if he
wrote after A.D. 70, have incorporated into his narrative the
mythical elaboration of the legend of the ascension (Acts i.
2 ff.). We can only reject Luke s authorship in these cases
if we come upon reports which are obviously in contradiction
to what a pupil of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, must have
known. But in the first part of Acts there are two narratives
which cannot be reconciled with the traditional view, namely,
the story of Pentecost and that of Cornelius.

The A companion of Paul must have known what the gift of

at tongues meant ; for it must have frequently fallen within his

ost&lt; experience, and speaking with tongues is referred to with
apparent understanding of its real meaning in x. 46 and xix. 6 ;
behind the account of the Pentecostal gift the real state of
affairs can be dimly perceived. But the occurrence described as
the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost is a linguistic marvel
presenting a miracle greater than any which the early Christian
history records, not an outbreak of, as the text stands, speak
ing with tongues. l

What must we suppose to be the background of ideas out of
which such a picture arose ? Probably ignorance of the true

1 Cf. Mosiman, Das Zungenreden geschichtl. und psychol. untersucht, 1911.
P. W. Schmiedel, Pfingsterzahlung u. Pfingstereignis (Prot. Monatsh. xxiv.
p. 73 ft.).

n THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 341

nature of the gift of tongues. Any one who was familiar with
this must have considered it sufficiently wonderful ; and only
one who had come in contact with it rarely, if at all, would think
of making the gift a basis for the fabrication of a story of a more
impressive miracle.

Again, the legend shows a desire to glorify the original
apostles beyond the measure of historical truth. The legend
of the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost presupposes that in
accordance with Acts i. 8, the disciples were from the first
intended to go forth on a world-embracing mission. The fact
is that it was only when circumstances drove them to it, that
they set foot outside Judaea. The author obviously under
stood that the apostles from the very beginning contemplated
the conversion of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Thus Peter
and the other original apostles are * Paulinised, and in like
manner judaising tendencies are attributed to Paul. 1 Such a
perversion of the actual historical facts can certainly have
been accomplished only by one who was as unfamiliar with the
history of the primitive congregations as he was with the
conflicts which Paul had to wage. It is inconceivable that
Luke should have constructed a legend like that of Pentecost,
and equally inconceivable that he should have incorporated it
into his history.

These same suspicions are still more justified in reference to Conversion
the story of Cornelius (x. 1-xi. 18 ; cf. xv. 7-9). It is not the
legendary character in itself, the frequency of visions and
angelic appearances which is inconsistent with Luke s author
ship, but the whole significance which the author attributes to
the event.

In the first place, by a revelation that could not be mis
understood, Peter would have been enlightened about the
absence of distinction between clean and unclean food. This is
flatly contradicted by his hesitation in Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-13).

In the second place, this vision, if it were consistently

1 Jiilicher, Einl. in das Neue Testament, p. 398-402.

342 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

thought out or interpreted symbolically and taken in com
bination with that of Cornelius and the pouring out of the gift
of the Holy Ghost in which the Gentiles shared and which
impelled Peter to baptize them, would have given Peter not
only the right to convert the Gentiles, but would have made
it his duty. Peter would have to be considered as the first
chosen instrument for the conversion of the Gentiles, as the
pioneer by the grace of God, who opened the way through all
of the old prejudices to the great work.

Thirdly, the reference to the baptism of Cornelius (xv. 7-9),
which is certainly the work of the author of Acts, shows us
clearly why the author introduced the story into his scheme.
He considered it important to show that it was not Paul, but
Peter, who was the first to receive the call to convert the
Gentiles ; and that it was not Paul, but Peter, who was the
first pioneer in the work. It is difficult to attribute such a
depreciation of Paul s position to a personal pupil. 1

Thus the first part of Acts strengthens the arguments which
make Luke s authorship incredible. For the whole work we
may maintain the thesis that the author had never come into
personal contact with Paul, and for this reason alone was able
to present the history of the Apostolic age calmly and consist
ently, and to date back to the earliest times the compromise
between Jerusalem and the Diaspora, which was not attained
until post-apostolic times.

There remains for us only the further task of presenting
briefly our opinion of the origin of Acts.
The author The author was not Luke ; but he used as a source a diary
^ Luke s, and this circumstance is sufficient to explain his interest
in Paul. He probably collected further traditions about Paul
and likewise sought for informants about the acts of the original
apostles. He probably learned many things in Antioch and
Caesar ea. But he must have been able to discover much less
about the original apostles than about Paul. He himself, or

1 Cf. Bousset, Theolog. Rundschau, 1908, p. 190 f.

in THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 343

his informants, were interested in the early history only in so
far as it made clear the harmony between the original apostles,
the first preachers, and Paul, and prepared the way for his work.
The author was already so far removed from the conflicts and
successes of Paul that he no longer thought it derogatory to
his hero to credit the original apostles with having been the first
labourers in the work of converting the Gentiles. Nor did he
feel that he was perverting history when he reduced the long
story of the conflicts between Paul and the Judaisers to a
formal agreement made after a single discussion at a council of
apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

That the author employed the first person plural in some use of the
places without giving any explanation seems strange to us (cf . pp. fi
304 f., and 329), but can be accounted for by the literary methods
of antiquity, which was less careful of such details than our age
demands, and by analogy with Ezra vii. 27-viii. 34 ; Neh. i. 1-vii.
5, xii. 31, xiii. 6-31. The dedication to Theophilus is not to be
understood as though the work were adapted entirely to the
personal circumstances of Theophilus. It was from the very
beginning destined for the public, for the Christian Church, and
probably also for non-Christian readers, hence the apologetic
tendency. The method corresponds to the habits of antiquity,
which were different from those of the twentieth century. What
we condemn as deception to-day is in antiquity to be ascribed
to a certain ingenuousness. The same naivete which impels
the author of Acts to leave the * we of another s diary which
he incorporates into his history appears elsewhere, when he
attributes speeches which he himself invented or elaborated to
Peter, Gamaliel, Stephen, or Paul. Particularly crass examples
are to be found in i. 18 f. and v. 36. We must assume that the
name of the author was lost when the whole work was published.
Tradition, which felt the need of a name from Apostolic times
for such an important work, found in the we sections the way
pointed to a companion of Paul. Perhaps it was still known
that Luke had written a diary, or else the fact was correctly

344 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

surmised from recollections still current in Jerusalem or in Rome
concerning the travelling companions with whom Paul appeared
in Macedonia or on the journey he undertook to raise moneys.
Third When we have disproved the truth of the tradition con-

Lucan. nC cerning the authorship of Acts, we have of course done the same
for the Third Gospel. It has often been emphatically stated that
the Gospel itself gives criticism no hold. As a matter of fact, the
result of a critical examination points the way to a consideration,
important though seldom noted. It would be very strange one
can of course not say more if the fullest of the synoptic Gospels
had been written by a pupil of Paul, while the Pauline Epistles
rather ignore the synoptic tradition. What is strange in this
identification, which criticism has now dissolved, has usually
been concealed by talk of the Paulinism of Luke. 1 This Paulinism
is a fiction. The comforting announcement of forgiveness and
grace, as we read it in Luke (xviii. 9-17, xv., xxiii. 41-43) is far
from being Paulinism. If we decide on the shorter text in Luke s
account of the Lord s Supper, then Luke appears as the Gospel
farthest removed from Paulinism, since no account is taken in
any way of the death of Christ as a means of salvation. The
real author of the Lucan history was acquainted with some
phrases of Pauline theology (cf. Acts xiii. 38 fL ; xv. 11), but
was far from enriching the primitive Gospel with Pauline dogmas
and formulas.

Linguistic The extensive linguistic similarities between the we
istic8 sections and the rest of Acts do not stand in the way of this
similar conclusion. In the first place, the so-called lower criticism

throughout

Acts. i s never able to solve such complicated problems or even maintain
itself against c higher criticism. 2 Further, it is possible to

1 Cf. Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. p. 41 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Einl. in das
N.T., pp. 571-574 ; II. J. Holtzmann, Lehrb. der Einl in das N.T., 3rd ed.,
p. 388 ff. ; Jiilicher, Einl. in das N.T., p. 291 f. ; Van de Sande-Bakhuijzen,
Het dogmalisch karakter van Lc, 1888 ; Meyboom, Theolog. Tijdschr., 1889,
pp. 366-406; Rud. Steck, Der Oalaterbr., 1888, pp. 191-211.

2 P. Wendland, Literaturformen, p. 335 ; R. Reitzenstein in Ilberg s Neut
Jahrbilcher fur das klass. AUertum, 1913, i. pp. 410-422. (Noteworthy criticism
of Harnack s method.)

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 345

point out linguistic differences between the * we sections and
the rest of the document. 1 We must assume, therefore, that the
author of Acts extensively revised his sources, even the we
source ; the Third Gospel is one excellent illustration of this
method, 2 the Antiquities of Josephus is another. Perhaps, too,
the historic Luke and the author of Acts may have been
members of the same language group. 3

It is further possible that the we sections were originally
an independent document, the original Trpafet? of Luke ; that
therefore the Gospel is genuine and Acts only an unhistorical
revision and elaboration of this Trpdgeis of Luke. 4 There is a
good deal in favour of this hypothesis, among other things,
the circumstance that the introduction to Acts (including the
dedication) has manifestly been revised. But the attempt to
separate the two elements by assigning to the original TT page is
all that seems credible to the modern critic, and to the reviser
all that seems unthinkable in the mouth of a pupil of Paul,
depends altogether too much upon the subjective and arbitrary
decisions on individual points. It is probably impossible to
avoid the assumption that the last editor of Acts must have
revised the Gospel again as well. It seems to me, therefore, more
simple to conclude that the reviser of the Lucan history, the
one who is responsible for the composition and style of both
documents and who cannot have been a pupil of Paul, is identical
with the auctor ad Theophilum.

The date assigned to the composition of Acts is not really
opposed to the conclusion that Luke is not the author. Whether
he actually lived to be eighty-four years old or not need
not here be discussed. In any event, if Luke is the author

1 Cf. W. Bruckner, Protest. Monatshefte, 1911, p. 147 ff. Overbeck-De
Wctte, Erkl. der Apg. p. xxxix ff.

2 Cf. Wendt, Die Apg. p. 22 ff.

3 Cf. P. W. Schmidt, Die Apg. bei De Wette-Overbeck, p. 46 ff. ; E. Schiirer,
Theolog. Lit.-ztg., 1906, col. 405.

4 Thus, with variations, F. Spitta, Die Apg., 1891 (Source A.) ; A. Cercke,
" Der Seurepos \6yos des Lukas," Hermes, 1894, p. 373 ff. Ed. Norden, Agnostos
Theos, p. 314 ff. ; W. Soltau, Protest. Monatsch., 1903, p. 296 ff.

346 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

of Acts, he must have written his histories at a considerable
age. But we find no traces of senility in the skill displayed in
the arrangement and composition of the book. If, however,
Acts is as late as the beginning of the second century, Luke s
authorship is of course impossible. 1

Answer to The assumption that the Pauline Epistles were not utilised
* n ^e composition of Acts is consistent with our result.

wou , ld _ no * When conservative criticism declares that a man like Luke

need Paul s

letters. would not have needed to consult the Epistles, since his
own experiences and the verbal reports of many eye-witnesses
offered him sufficient material for the story of Paul s missionary
work, while a later comer could not do without the Epistles, and
would surely have known of their existence, we may answer that
Luke, to be sure, did not need to have recourse to the Epistles,
but he had no right to suppress in his story all the things that we
fortunately know from the letters, and that he could not diverge
so much from the historical facts which Paul himself gives us
in his Epistles. What we know from the letters, Luke must
certainly have known as an eye-witness and an acquaintance of
eye-witnesses ; and with his knowledge he would surely have
considered it worth using it to make his narrative fuller and more
correct than he did. But one cannot correctly maintain that
Luke had no reason to consult the Epistles. He must have known
that Paul had written letters he was himself present when Paul
wrote the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon he there
fore certainly knew that Paul s letters contained much informa
tion relative to the history of his missionary work. If a friend
of Paul s composed Acts with the same care that, according to
the prologue (Lk. i. 1-4), he expended on the Gospel, then he
certainly would have consulted the letters in so far as they were
accessible to him. It is much easier to believe that a later comer,
who utilised predominantly documentary sources, did not have

1 If we are no longer confined to the eighties, the hypothesis that Luke
utilised Josephus becomes, not sure, but more probable ; and the assumption
that he utilised a document by or about Apollonius of Tyana gains the conditio
sine qua non.

m THE CASE AGAINST THE TRADITION 347

recourse to the letters. Perhaps he was not acquainted with
the most important Epistles, such as those to the Corinthians,
Galatians, and Romans, or they were not at hand when he wrote
his book. Such of Paul s Epistles as were accessible to him
offered him no material that he could use. Thus we can explain
also why the spirit of the Epistles of Paul remained alien to him
and why he did not mention the fact that Paul had written any
letters.

The preceding considerations eliminate those points which Luke the
seem to controvert the critical view and support the traditional p y8 "
one. We have only a little to add. No one has as yet proved
that the Lucan histories must have been written by a physi
cian (cf. p. 315 f.). When criticism forbids the view that Luke the
physician composed the documents, it is not refuted by the indi
cation of interest in medicine and of technical terms. These
are even more compatible with the assumption that the author
probably was not a physician at all, since they may also be
explained by the assumption that the author possessed a certain
amount of medical knowledge the majority of the authors of
antiquity must have belonged to the medical profession accord
ing to the demonstrations of Hobart, Harnack, and Zahn
to say nothing of the fact that, as a last solution, it would be
possible to assume that both Luke and the author of Acts were
physicians. 1

If the more important arguments in favour of the traditional
view turn out to be fallacious, the less important ones become
less cogent than ever. The frequent references to Antioch (p. 316)
can be adequately explained by the importance of the city, and
perhaps by the utilisation of traditions originating from it. 2
It is not necessary to assume that the tradition that Luke was

1 Cf. C. Clemen, Theolog. Rundschau, 1907, pp. 99-103; P. W. Schmidt, Die
Apg. pp. 6-18; Wendland, Literaturformen, p. 335; H. J. Cadbury, Style and
Literary Method of Luke, p. 39 ff., and see below p. 349 ff .

2 It is just as legitimate to speak of Antiochian traditions as it is to speak
of Jerusalem traditions. Cf. Harnack, Die Apg. p. 134 ff. The origin of the
tradition has no bearing on the origin of the author.

348 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

born in Antioch is correct. Its first appearance in Eusebius is
suspicious. 1

Author of The relations between Luke and Mark are quickly disposed

books and ^ The author of the Lucan histories knew and utilised

Mark. Mark s Gospel just as did the author of Matthew, and he

obtained information from Jerusalem or elsewhere about the

household of Mark s mother. In view of the other facts, it is

not permissible to draw any definite conclusions from these two

data.

Conclusion. This much of the Tubingen criticism remains firmly established :
Acts cannot have been written by Luke, the contemporary of
the apostles and the companion of Paul, because above all the
author had no longer a correct idea of the events before and
during Paul s missionary activity, of what Paul accomplished,
or of the fundamental ideas of Pauline theology. The other part
of their theory is untenable, that a special purpose, of furthering
the plans of a definite party, controlled the pen of the author,
and led him to revise what he knew to be a reliable tradition.
We may find traces of a special purpose in the circumstance that
the author has suppressed all sorts of unpleasant matter
only it is now no longer possible to prove what he knew but
kept silent about. He was, for the rest, more unconsciously
than consciously controlled by the conviction that in the Apostolic
age all was harmonious, and that the work of converting the
Gentiles was from the very beginning a part of the plan of the
original apostles. Such a view may well have been held in good
faith by a man living in post-apostolic times (A.D. 80-110).
The historic Luke would have uttered it knowing its untruth.
Thus the critical attitude, without making the special attempt,
has in the end an apologetic result. It re-establishes the
honesty of Paul and of the author of Acts.

1 Cf. also the enticing idea of Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 200 ff.), that Luke was
a Macedonian and was himself the man who appeared to Paul in the dream,
Acts xvi. 9. Since the we first appears in connection with this vision, and
since the narrator employing the first person actually has relations with Philippi
(cf. Acts xvi., xx. 5 f.), it is possible to entertain this idea. But the hypothesis
is far from sure. Cf. Wendt, Die Apg. p. 244.

IV
SUBSIDIARY POINTS

By H. J. CADBURY and the EDITORS

IT remains to discuss three points which are subsidiary in im
portance chiefly because they lead to no clear result. (1) The
possibility that the presence of medical language in Acts confirms
the tradition that the writer was a physician. (2) The possibility
that Acts shows a knowledge of Josephus. (3) The general
question of the chronological limits within which the writing of
the Gospel and Acts must be placed.

The tradition of the Church identifies the writer of Acts with Medical
the Luke the physician mentioned in Col. iv. 14. Starting Ian ua 8 e -
with the assumption that this is true, early commentators
illustrated it by drawing attention to medical phrases in Acts.
Wettstein collected most of these illustrations into his commentary.
But a new turn was given to the matter in 1882 by W. K. Hobart
in a treatise entitled The Medical Language of St. Luke. This
book collected parallels to Luke and Acts from medical writers.
Many of these had been noted before, but always as illustration of
the fact that Luke was a physician regarded as a known truth
not to prove that he must have been so. The special feature
of Hobart was that he converted illustration into argument. He
went too far, and his argument was for some time discredited ;
but it was revived by Harnack in 1906 in his Beitrdge with such
skill that his readers were in many cases swept off their feet.
Finally, in 1 920, the subject was again taken up by Henry Cadbury,

349

350 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

who in his Style and Literary Method of Luke l submitted
Harnack s arguments to fresh criticism, and reached the result
that they fail to establish the conclusions put forward.

Referring to Hobart, Harnack says that " those who have
studied it carefully will find it impossible to escape the con
clusion that the question is not one of merely accidental colouring,
but that this great historical work was composed by a writer
who either was a physician or was quite intimately acquainted
with medical language and science " (p. 14). He accordingly
collects in an appendix to his book the most telling examples.
His arguments may be summarised in his own language as
follows :

(1) " In those passages where the author speaks as an eye
witness medical traits are especially and prominently apparent."

(2) " Nearly all of the alterations and additions which the
third evangelist has made in the Marcan text are most simply and
surely explained from the professional interest of a physician."

(3) In " the stories of diseases and subjects of allied chaxacter
peculiar to St. Luke . . . traits appear which declare the interest
or the sharp eyes or the language of the physician."

(4) " The representation of our Lord given in the third Gospel
is dominated by the conception of Him as a wondrous Healer
and Saviour of the sick."

(5) " The language of St. Luke elsewhere is coloured by
medical phraseology."

The fallacy of Harnack s evidence could be shown completely
only by a refutation as lengthy as his own proof. Many of his
proofs are highly subjective, based on assumptions as to what a
physician in antiquity would or would not have been likely to
say. Others, especially (4), are drawn from the prominence of
medical subjects and details in the narrative, an emphasis which,
as Harnack himself agrees, might be due to the subject-matter,
or to an entirely unprofessional interest of the writer. The real
weight of his arguments rests upon the alleged technical medical

1 Harvard Theological Studies, vi.

iv SUBSIDIARY POINTS 351

character of Greek words and phrases occurring in these writings.
Here we must content ourselves by reviewing in order these
verbal arguments only. 1

(1) In the we passages Harnack notes the following
(pp. 176-181): Actsxxviii. 1-7 Oep^, /ca0d7TTiv = infect, Orjpiov
IgiSyo, TTL/.iTrpdaOai,, KaraTriTTTeiv, fiySev aronrov. Acts xvi.
16 fT. TTvOwv. Acts xx. 9 /carafe po/jbevos VTTVW ftaOel and
dwo rov VTTVOV. Acts xxvii. 3, 17 eTTijjieXeia (cf.
i, eTn,fi\&s, Luke x. 34, 35, xv. 8), fforjOeia,
. But Oep/jLtj, of which Harnack says " this word,
rare, I believe, in ordinary use, and only found here in the New
Testament, is among physicians the general term for 6epiioTr]&lt;$"
occurs apparently more frequently in Hellenistic Greek than
depjjLOTijs, while the latter, as a matter of fact, is not at all in
frequent in medical writings. The meaning which Harnack assigns
to KaBdirreiv is very doubtful ; in the sense to fasten on, as it
is usually here translated, it is a very common word in all kinds
of writing. rjpiov is also used of reptiles, especially poisonous
ones, by lay writers, as Plutarch and Lucian. 2 Tli^Trpao-dai and
KaraTTLTTTeiv in the sense applied by Acts occur in Greek writers
from the time of Homer. 3 "ATOTTO? is especially frequent in
litotes in all grades of Greek literature from Thucydides to the
papyri. TlvOcov does not appear to occur in medical writings
(Hobart does not mention it) ; it is Plutarch who tells us that
it meant ventriloquist. 4 And even though " Passow gives
only medical authorities for /cara^epeaOai, and /carac^opd in the
sense of sleep" (Harnack, p. 180), yet Wettstein s examples from
Aristotle, Josephus, Diodorus, Plutarch, Lucian, and other non-
medical writers show that the expressions in Acts xx. 9 are not
technical terms. Of course eV^eXeta and its cognates are not rare,
and even in the special sense of medical attention which Harnack
assumes for Acts xxvii. 3 they occur in ordinary writers. What-

1 See Style and Literary Method of Luke for a fuller discussion of the details.

2 It is the common word for snake in modern Greek.

3 For examples from the Greek Bible see Num. v. 21-27 ; 4 Mace. iv. 11.

4 De defectu oracul ix. (414 E).

352 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

ever may be the meaning of the words poijOeta and vTro^wvvvvai
as applied to the manoeuvres of the sailors in the storm, it must
be confessed that their use is as likely due to nautical as to
medical terminology. ~Borj0eia " is applied to all conceivable
objects " (Harnack, p. 181) by others than the doctors. In fact,
both words have a wide range of usage.

(2) In Luke s revision of Mark s stories of miracles, Harnack
finds significance in the following (pp. 182-188) :

(a) Ptyav (Luke iv. 35) for airapagav (Mark i. 26).
(6) ^vve^o/jievtj irvperM /jieyaXtp (Luke iv. 38) for KareKetro
TTvpea-crova-a (Mark i. 30).

(d) Tlapa\e\v[jL6vos (Luke v. 18) for TrapaXvTiicos (Mark ii. 3).
(g) "Ea-T?; TI pvcns (Luke viii. 44) for e^jpdvOrj 77 Trrjyij

(Mark v. 29).

( ) E7r*XetyM (Luke ix. 38).

Of these words, frtnrretv and 7rapa\\v/jivos are, according
even to Harnack, improvements in style, ^vvfyeoticu means to
be afflicted in good classical Greek. It would be unsafe to put
much stress on the adjectives yue^a? and 7r\ijprjs ; they are
not very rare in any Greek writers, and are favourite words
with the author in many other connections. Pvcris is taken by
Luke from the Marcan context (v. 25), while ecrrrj, to judge
from the examples given, was used by the doctors transitively
in the sense to staunch and not intransitively as in Luke. 1
Granting that eV^XeTre^ may be " used technically for a phy
sician s examination of the patient," eXe^cro^ in the parallel in
Matthew (xvii. 15) suggests that here Luke uses it as he does
elsewhere (i. 48) in the sense common in the LXX. of pity.

(3) The examples in Harnack s third class of passages are

1 Perhaps I may here correct the oversight through which all reference
to the intransitive use of IO-TT^I in the LXX. was omitted in my earlier dis
cussion, Style and Literary Method of Luke, both on p. 44 and on p. 57 note 43.
In the sense cease flowing the verb is used, as in Plutarch, of a river
(Joshua iii. 13, 16), of oil (2 Kg. iv. 6 /cat ftm; rb ZXcuov, " And the oil stayed "),
and even, as in Luke, I.e., of blood (Exod. iv. 25, 26 LXX., not Heb. or Eng. :
earrj TO cu/za r^s Trepiro/x^s rov Tratdiov fjiov). H. J. C.

iv SUBSIDIARY POINTS 353

(pp. 188-194) : Lukevii. 15 avaicaOi^eiv ; xiii. 11-13 a
dvopdovv, diro\veiv , xiv. 2 vSpcoTriKos ; x. 30
xvi. 21-26 eXtfO?, ekicovaOaL, Kara-^v^etv, obwacrOai,
&lt;TTr)pi^eiv ; Acts iii. 8 a&lt;f)vSpov ; ix. 18 dTTOTTLTTTeiv, Xevu? ;
xiii. 11 a^Xv?, OVCOTO? ; xiv. 8 dSvvaros ; v. 5-10 itc^vyciv,
(TV(TTeX\6W , x. 10 eiccnaa-is.

Of these words, o-QvSpov and rjpiOavi s are both quite rare.
Hobart gives no example of either from the doctors, though
Harnack has emended one of his quotations from Galen (Medicus,
10) to read o-(f&gt;vSpa with Luke. The synonymous forms o-fyvpa
and rjiJLidvrjs which are cited by Hobart from the doctors are
neither of them unusual among lay writers. Of dva/caOi^eiv
Harnack says : " This word in the intransitive sense seems to
be met with only in medical writers, who use it to signify to
sit up again in bed. But Plutarch uses it in exactly the same
way (Philopoem. 368 A, Alex. 671 D). Of eVo/n^e^ Harnack says
that it " seems to be confined to medical literature. Before
Luke (loc. cit. and Acts xii. 23) instances of its use are found only
in Hippocrates, and then in Aretaeus and Galen." But not only
is the word used by the doctors in a different sense, to cool of?,
but its occurrence in Ezek. xxi. 7, Herondas iv. 29, Babrius 115,
11, in the sense to expire shows that Luke is using a popular
expression. Similarly o-uo-reXXe^ used in Acts of wrapping a
corpse, though it is quite unusual, is better illustrated by such
passages as Euripides, Troades, 378, or Lucian, Imagines, 7, than
by medical passages on the bandaging of limbs or contraction
of organs. The remaining words are none of them rare in ordinary
Greek ; each can be paralleled in the sense in which Luke uses
it from at least two or three lay writings in Hellenistic Greek,
such as the Greek Old Testament, the papyri, or the works of
writers like Josephus, Philo, Polybius, Lucian, and Plutarch.

(5) Omitting for the moment Harnack s fourth point, for it
contains no arguments from vocabulary, we come to his last list
of " medical terms " (pp. 196-198). Excluding repetitions, these
are 7rapaxpf)/j,a, irpoo-So/cdv, dvaireipo^, o\o/c\r]pia, d

VOL. II 2 A

354 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS

vd^rv t9, TTVOTJ, evirveeiv, eKTrveeiv^ faoyoveiv, et?

, /cpai7ra\rj, %/o&&amp;gt;5, OVK aarj/jLos TroXt?, fteKovr], rprj/ma,

These examples are in general of the same character as those
already considered. None of them is confined in use to the
medical writers. Many of them are of frequent occurrence in
Greek literature, as any Greek scholar will know at sight or can
prove by consulting a lexicon. Several of the parallels are far
from happy. Thus ^cooyovecv is used by Luke in a sense common
in the LXX. but never found in the Greek doctors. Hobart
himself confesses that TrepirpeTreiv does not occur in the medical
writings in the same sense as in Acts (p. 268), and that 6\o/c\r)pia
is not used at all (p. 193) ; but he calls remarkable a parallel to
Luke s OVK darj/jios TroXt? in the obscure, probably late and
spurious Letters of Hippocrates, though the litotes, and even
the identical expression, can be abundantly paralleled from
other writers.

The verbal arguments in Harnack s evidence are uncon
vincing. In confining his attention to the medical and the
Lucan writings and their resemblances, he has failed to observe
the differences between them or their agreements with other
Greek writers. Some of his examples are not found in the
medical writers at all, others are used by them in a sense different
from that in which they are employed in Luke and Acts. Even
those which really do occur in the same sense in the medical and
Lucan writings are not confined to them. This use of " medical
terms " by laymen allows of only two alternative explanations :
(a) either technical medical language was the common property
of unprofessional writers, or (b) the words cited are not really
technical terms at all. Whichever explanation be accepted, the
use of such words in any book does not prove that its author was
a physician. For if medical terms are so loosely defined it is
possible to find them in great quantity in many a writer never
suspected of medical knowledge. 1

1 E.g. Lucian or Josephus. The short letter of Aristeas uses 80 of Hobart s
words in nearly 200 places in all.

iv SUBSIDIARY POINTS 355

Even Matthew and Mark do not fall so far behind Luke in
medical interest as Harnack would have us believe. Many
terms quite as well attested in the doctors occur in their writings
though not in Luke s. Even in the stories of miracles they con
tain details which Luke omits, including the diagnosis of the
centurion s boy as suffering from paralysis (Matt. viii. 6, con
trast Luke vii. 2), many significant symptoms in the epileptic
(Mark ix. 14-27, cf . Luke ix. 37-43), and at least two entire stories
of cures told with much detail (Mark vii. 31-37, viii. 22-26). And
also in the summaries of the activity of Jesus and the disciples
and this is Harnack s fourth point (pp. 195, 196) Matthew no
less than Luke emphasises healing and distinguishes different
kinds of cases. Thus he even substitutes healing for teaching in
his source (Matt. xiv. 14 = Mark vi. 34, Matt. xix. 2 = Mark x. 1,
Matt. xxi. 14 = Mark xi. 18), and enumerates much more fully
than the parallel passages various diseases (Matt. iv. 23-24 =
Mark i. 32-34, 39 ; Matt. x. 8 = Luke x. 9 ; Matt. xv. 29-31).

One can but be attracted in the study of Acts by Harnack s
argument, especially as to medical language. It is only slowly
that a study of the facts convinces the scholar that the whole of
the contention as to the medical language of Luke is an immense
fallacy. Neither Harnack nor Hobart sufficiently considered
the use of the phrases which they call medical. The fact that a
word is found in a medical book proves nothing as to the profes
sion of another writer who uses it, if it be also used elsewhere. 1

The material for a discussion of the relation of Josephus to Luke s in -
the Lucan writings was given in the eighteenth century by J. B.
Ott, Spicilegium sive excerpta ex Flavio Josepho ad Novi Testa-

1 Of course the real solution of the problem is that neither the doctors nor
the laymen used a technical vocabulary in antiquity, and the whole assumption
of medical language in any ancient writer is a mare s nest. See G. F.
Moore in Cudbury, Style and Literary Method of Luke, pp. 53 f., and the statement
of Galen in his treatise On the Natural Faculties that he used ordinary language.
Galen makes a similar claim for Hippocrates, Comm. Hipp, de epidemiis, iii. 32
(Kuhn xvii. A. 678) 6 ydp rot rov Hpa/c\e5ou uios ITTTTOK/OCITTJS . . . (f&gt;aiverat
ffvvT)de(TTdTois re Kal 5ta TOVTO (ra&lt;f&gt;&lt;ri rots 6v6/j.a(Tt /cexpTj/weVos, & Ka\eiv Zdos eyrl

TOIS

356 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

menti illustrationem, 1741, and by J. P. Krebs s Observations in
Novum Testamentum e Flavio Josepho, 1755. This material
was worked over in the nineteenth century, and the theory
evolved that Luke was dependent on Josephus. Keim 1 and
others adopted this view, but it was most fully stated by Krenkel
in his Josephus und Lucas, 1894. In some ways, indeed, it was
even too fully stated, and a far better impression of the weight of
the argument can be gained from F. C. Burkitt s Gospel History
and its Transmission, pp. 105 ff.

The case will always rest on three passages, and it is safe to
say that they can never be completely explained away, yet will
never convince every one. They are given here in the order of
importance.

Theudas. (1) In Acts v. 36 f., Gamaliel is represented as referring to the

rebellion of Theudas which took place several years after the time
when he was speaking. Moreover, he is made to say that
Theudas rebelled before Judas of Galilee. No attempt to discover
some other Theudas has succeeded, and it is possible that Luke
was misled by an inaccurate memory of Josephus, Ant. xx. 5. 1 f .
In this passage Josephus describes the insurrection of Theudas in
the procuratorship of Fadus, and goes on to tell how the sons of
Judas of Galilee, who had raised a rebellion in the time of
Quirinius, were executed by Alexander, the successor of Fadus.

It will be seen that here Theudas comes before the mention
of Judas, and if any one overlooked the fact that it was the children
of Judas, not himself, that were executed, he might easily pro
duce Luke s erroneous combination.

Lysanias. (2) In Luke iii. 1, Lysanias is represented as the Tetrarch

of Abilene about 28 A.D. But the only Lysanias known to
history as ruling in Abila died in 36 B.C. Attempts have been
made to show that there was another Lysanias at the time
mentioned by Luke, but they have not been successful, 2 and it

1 Aus dem Urchristentum, 1878, i. 1-27. See also H. Holtzmann s notable
articles in the Z.W.Th. in 1873, 1877, and 1880.

2 The most ingenious are those of E. Schiirer, G.J. V.

iv SUBSIDIARY POINTS 357

is hardly too much to say that no one would have dreamt of a
second Lysanias as ruler of Abila had it not been for this isolated
passage in Luke. 1 It is therefore worth noting that when
Josephus relates how in 53 A.D., Agrippa II. obtained Abila he
adds that this had been (yeyovei) the tetrarchy of Lysanias. The
whole evidence is most conveniently to be found in the article
on Lysanias in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. It is clear that an
inaccurate knowledge of Josephus would adequately account for
the error in Luke.

(3) The question of the Tribune to Paul in Acts xxi. 38, The
" Art thou not the Egyptian who before these days revolted E
and led out in the desert four thousand men of the Sicarii ? " seems
a curious combination of three passages in Josephus. In B.J.
ii. 13. 3, he describes the Sicarii ; in the next paragraph the
false prophets who led men into the desert, and were destroyed
by the cavalry of Felix ; finally in the next paragraph comes the
story of the Egyptian who led 30,000 men out of (not into) the
desert, and the destruction of many by the Roman soldiers.

These three examples of Lucan errors explained by Josephus are
certainly very persuasive. But they fall just short of demonstra
tion. The case of Theudas is the strongest, but even here there
is always the possibility that Luke and Josephus were using a
common source, in which the events were arranged in the order
given by Josephus. 2 The case of Lysanias is adequately met by
the probability that the district was always known as the
Tetrarchy (or kingdom) of Lysanias long after his death, and
that Luke, influenced by this, merely made an error in chrono
logy. Finally, the case for dependence on Josephus in the
reference to the Egyptian is weakened by the fact that Josephus
says that he led 30,000, while Luke says only 4000. The number
of rebels grows in tradition more often than it decreases, and
Luke s figure is surely the more probable.

Thus the argument that Luke used Josephus is not quite

1 There were no doubt other persona named Lysanias belonging to the
family of Lysanias the Tetrarch ; cf. C.I.O. 4521 and 4523.

2 See, however, the warning of F. C. Burkitt, Gospel Transmission, p. 108.

358 IDENTITY OF EDITOR OF LUKE AND ACTS n

conclusive. If it were, it would fix the date of Luke and Acts
as at the earliest the very end of the first century, for the Anti
quities of Josephus are not earlier than 93 A.D.

The date Is there any other method by which the date of the Gospel

of Acts. Probably not. At least none has yet

been discovered. The extreme limits within which the com
position of the two books must fall are c. 60 A.D. or a little
earlier, when Paul reached Rome, and c. 150 A.D. , when Marcion
made use of the Gospel. The two extremes are improbable ;
but just as there is no decisive proof that Luke was not written
before the fall of Jerusalem, there is also none that it was used by
any writer before Marcion. Nevertheless, most students think
that the rewriting of the Marcan eschatological discourse (Mark
xiii.) implies the influence of the last days of Jerusalem. On the
other hand, it seems extremely unlikely that the Gospel would
ever have been canonised had it not been generally known before
the time of Marcion. In other words, Marcion more probably
took the Gospel from the Church than did the Church from
Marcion. These two arguments may be held to make the
probable limits 70-115 rather than 60-150.

Any closer dating depends entirely on the opinion as to the
arguments set out above. If Acts was written by a companion
of Paul, each year after 80 A.D. becomes increasingly improbable.
But if Acts was merely based on a document written by Luke, a
later date is easily acceptable.

There is no direct evidence ; neither authorship nor date is
susceptible of demonstration. No one, however, can study the
Lucan writings without forming some opinion, even while
acknowledging its precariousness, and it seems right for the
Editors of this volume to express their own view. Ten years ago
both of them felt reasonably sure that Acts was actually written
by Luke, the companion of Paul. Slowly, however, they have
come to feel the weight of the argument derived from the com
parison with the Pauline epistles, and at present they incline to

iv SUBSIDIARY POINTS 359

the view that Luke, the companion of Paul, wrote the we-
sections, and probably the narrative adhering to them, but that
the combination of this document with the rest of Acts, and the
composition of the Gospel, were the work of a later writer, who
probably lived in the Flavian period. If they were obliged to
choose a more specific date they would take the last five years of
the first century, thus leaving room for the probability that Luke
was acquainted with Josephus. Nevertheless, they would con
clude by repeating that this view is based on a general balance
of probabilities, on which wide difference of opinion is possible and
even desirable. Its truth cannot be demonstrated ; but neither
can that of any other view ; the only wise course is, whenever
a question is at issue involving the authorship or date of Acts,
to leave a wide margin for possible error.

Ill

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

361

THE HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY
By A. C. McGiFFERT

ACCORDING to the traditional view, generally accepted both The
by Catholics and Protestants, the book of Acts was written in v i ew O f
Rome, while Paul was still a prisoner there, by his companion Acts *
Luke, the beloved physician, who drew his materials partly
from his own personal observation, partly from Paul and other
eye-witnesses of the events recorded. The purpose of the book
was wholly historical, to recount the achievements of the apostles,
or the history of the early Church, as the gospels had recounted
the words and works of Christ, and its trustworthiness was
beyond question.

The traditional view remained unchanged until the close of objections
the eighteenth century, when the Acts began to come under the fe *
same scrutiny that was given to the gospels and other writings
of the New Testament by the awakening historical criticism of
the day. It was evident at once to the critical eye that the book
fulfilled in a very imperfect way the historical purpose which
had been ascribed to it by tradition. Instead of recording the
acts of the apostles it confined itself almost exclusively to Peter
and Paul, and even Peter received but scant attention. More
over, the fragmentary nature of the account, the many omissions
evident to any one acquainted with Paul s Epistles, the frequent
repetitions, the extreme sketchiness of some parts and the minute
detail of others, the marked emphasis upon certain matters,

363

364 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

and the brief and casual reference to others of equal importance
all seemed to demand some explanation. If the author was
familiar with the period he was writing about, as had been com
monly taken for granted, he must have had some other than a
purely historical motive, or if not, then his knowledge of the
period must have been very limited and fragmentary. 1

J. D. Among those who adopted the former alternative and

attempted to find an explanation of the peculiarities of Acts in
the purpose for which it was written was J. D. Michaelis, 2 who
rejected the idea that the Acts was intended to be a history of
the Church or a biography of Paul and maintained that it had
a double purpose : first, " to record in a trustworthy way the
initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit, together with the first
miracles for the confirmation of the truth of the Christian religion" :
and second, " to report those circumstances that proved the right
of the heathen in the Church of Christ, a right opposed by the
Jews especially at the time when Luke wrote. Paul himself,
whose companion Luke was, was at that time a prisoner in Rome
as a consequence of the accusations of the Jews who were hostile
to him on the ground that he admitted heathen to the church." 3

Griesbach Griesbach of Jena, in an essay published in 1798, 4 is said to

and Paulus.

1 Compare the words of Schwanbeck, writing in 1847 : " There were two
ways of explaining the fragmentary character of Acts. Either the author
would not tell more or he could not. In the former case the general historical
purpose of the Acts must be given up or modified ; besides the historical aim
another more particular aim must be assumed, nullifying the former or pushing
it into the background. In the latter case the ignorance of the author con
cerning many matters is accounted for by the limitations of his sources whether
oral or written. The former path was much broader than the latter, and could
be travelled more easily without stopping to prove every step in detail. As a
consequence it was for a long time exclusively followed, and is still the favourite
path " (Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Lukas, p. 74).

2 Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes, third edition, 1777 ;
Th. ii. 154.

3 Op. cit. p. 995.

4 Program de consilio quo scriptor in Actibus Apostolicis concinnandis ductus
fuerit (Jender Osterprogram for 1798). I have not myself seen Griesbach s essay,
which is ascribed by some (e.g. by Lechler in his Apostolisches und nachapos-
tolisches Zeitalter, third edition, p. 7) to Griesbach s colleague Paulus. Compare
the remark of Semler, referring to the silence of Acts touching Peter and Paul s
dispute at Antioch : l Lucas igitur prudenter omisit eas historiae veteris partes,

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 365

have maintained that Acts was written to defend the Apostle
Paul against the attacks of the Judaising Christians of the day.
He was followed the next year by his colleague Paulus. 1 So
far as I am aware neither Griesbach nor Paulus discussed the
authenticity of Acts, but the tendency of their theory was, of
course, to throw discredit upon its trustworthiness.

Luke s many omissions were explained by Eckermann 2 as due Eckermann.
to his purpose to select from the events known to him only
such as showed most clearly the miraculous co-operation of
God in the establishment of his kingdom on earth.

According to Hanlein, 3 the Acts had the aim of showing God s
aid in the spread of Christianity, of promoting the reputation
of the Apostles by recording their miracles, and of indicating
the claim of the Gentiles to equal rights with the Jews in the
blessings of Christianity. 4

Eichhorn 5 held that the aim of Acts was not to give a
history of the Church or of the apostles but of Christian missions.
In his New Testament Introduction ( 148) he discussed at con
siderable length and repudiated the theory that the book was
written to defend Paul s preaching to the Gentiles and his
doctrine of the abrogation of the Jewish law.

On the other hand, S. G. Frisch 6 accepted the defence of s. G.
Paul and his apostleship as one, though not the only purpose
of the Acts. " To me," he says, "as I have proved at
length, it is evident that Luke while he wished to defend
the cause of Paul against adversaries and detractors and to

quae ad continuandarn divisionem et separationem utri usque familiae con
vert! potuissent, isto tempore " (Paraphrasis epistolae ad Galatas, 1779, p. 56).

1 Introductionis in Novum Testamentum capita selectiora, 1799, p. 281 ff.

2 Erkldrung alter dunkeln Stellen des Neuen Testaments (1807), vol. ii. p.
164 ff.

3 Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (second edition, 1809).

4 Th. iii. p. 156 f.

5 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1810, vol. ii. 147.

6 In his dissertation, " Utrumque Lucae commentarium de vita, dictis fac-
tisque Jesu et apostolorum non tarn historicae simplicitatis, quam artificiosae
tractationis indolem habere " (1817).

366

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

vindicate for him among the Christians the highest apostolic
authority, and also to remove the doubts and scruples which
were troubling the Christian communities, had always another
end in mind not only in his second work but also in his first :
this, namely, to persuade the Jews and the Jewish Christians
who were still in doubt whether they should receive or reject,
or whether they should cling to or abandon the Christian
religion, that the dignity of Jesus the Messiah was greater than
Moses enjoyed, that the origin of the new covenant was divine,
and that it was the will of God and of Jesus the Messiah
that all men whatsoever should be partakers of Christian
salvation. Luke therefore strove, though in a different way,
to accomplish the same object as the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews." *

Mayerhoff. According to MayerhofT, 2 the purpose of Acts was to set forth
" first, the extensive as well as intensive spread of the Christian
Church from its origin in Jerusalem, the centre of Judaism,
to Rome, the centre of heathenism ; secondly, the opposition
to it, which became always the means to a wider spread ; and
thirdly, the inner confirmation of it." 3

Oedner. Credner 4 explained the peculiar character of Acts by the

author s Paulinism. " The selection from primitive Christian
history made by the author of Acts is to be explained alone by
the fact that he was a Paulinist. He picks out only what is of
significance for Pauline doctrine, as the entire work is but an
historical commentary on the Pauline sentences : The Gospel
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,
to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Both Jews and Greeks
are all under sin. There is no difference between Jew and
Greek. " 5

Credner concludes also from the silence of the Book of Acts

1 Op. dt. p. 53 f.

2 Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften nebst einer Abliandlung uber den
Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte, 1835.

3 Op. cit. p. 5.

4 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1836. 6 Op. cit. I. 1, p. 269.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 367

concerning Paul s death that the author planned to write a
third work, 1 an opinion that has been adopted by some modern
scholars, e.g. by Spitta 2 and Ramsay. 3

Others, while maintaining the general historical purpose of
the book, explained its peculiar character by appealing to the
needs of Theophilus, which though unknown to us were known
to the author and led him to omit many things already familiar,
and to emphasise others because of particular interest to his
reader. 4

In 1836 a new epoch in the criticism of Acts was opened by Schrader
the revival of the suggestion made nearly forty years before ^ n c Baur
by Griesbach and Paulus that the purpose of the Acts was to
defend Paul and Paulinism against the Judaisers. The sugges
tion was taken up both by Karl Schrader and by Ferdinand
Christian Baur, the great Tubingen critic.

Up to this time, the omissions and repetitions in the book
of Acts were chiefly responsible for the conviction that it was
written with a special purpose ; but Schrader found the principal
difficulty in the difference between the Paul of the Acts and the
Paul of the Epistles, thus putting the question, as Baur did too,
upon a different level altogether.

In his work on the Apostle Paul 5 Schrader gave a translation
of the book of Acts, with brief comments in which he called view
attention not only to the contrast between the Paul of Acts
and the Paul of the Epistles, but also to the author s emphasis
upon Paul s dependence on the older apostles, to the evident
parallelism in the recorded miracles of Peter and Paul, to the
representation of the Roman authorities as uniformly friendly
to the latter, and finally, to the omission of any account of his
death.

" The close of the Acts," Schrader says, " is surprising. Why

1 Op. cit. p. 279. 2 Die Apostelgeschichte, 1891, p. 318.

3 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895, p. 309.

4 Cf. Hug s Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, Amlover,
1836, p. 493.

6 Der Apostel Paulus, 1836, Theil v.

368 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

does it not relate the death of the Apostle for Christ ? The
author could not have been ignorant of the terrible fate of the
Christians in Rome, their cruel execution as incendiaries by
Nero, nor could it have seemed unimportant to him. But
in an ecclesiastical book intended to defend the Christians
against the Jews, the heathen and the government, in a book
which was to be read in public, it was out of place to conclude
the experiences of the Apostle with the horrible persecution of
Nero. This would have been to nullify all that had been said
in Christianity s behalf about the conduct of the government
toward the Christians, and to remind their enemies, who were to
learn from the book how completely the government had every
where recognised the innocence of the Christians (for the book
was written long after the death of the Apostle), that though they
had relied upon the support of the Emperor, they had been put
to death by him as the most abandoned criminals. Moreover,
it would not have been possible to represent the Emperor in
connection with the prosecution as other than a most terrible
monster ; and this again in a book designed for public use in
the Church would have been very dangerous. The Christians
could have been accused of embittering their people against
the government, of despising it in the person of the Emperor,
and of being bad subjects, whereas according to 1 Tim. ii. 1-2
they were to appear as loyal subjects, offering prayers for the
government, that they might have peace. Such considerations
as these might induce the author of Acts, who sought always
to avoid everything offensive, to bring his history to a close
not with the obnoxious Neronian persecution but with the
edifying assurance that Paul in his imprisonment taught for
two whole years free and unhindered." x

F. c.Baur s Schrader concluded that the purpose of the author of Acts
was controllingly apologetic and that the historical trustworthi
ness of the book was seriously affected thereby.

In the same year Baur published an essay in which he main-
1 Op. dt. p. 573 f.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 369

tained 1 that the book of Acts was written by a Paulinist to defend
the Apostle s mission to the Gentiles against the attacks of Jewish
Christians by showing that he had everywhere preached first
to the Jews and had turned to the Gentiles only after the former
had rejected his gospel, so that it was the Jews themselves who
were responsible for the existence of a Gentile Christianity.
Baur was led to discuss the attitude of the author of Acts in this
particular essay on the Epistle to the Romans because of the
account of the situation in Rome given in Acts xxviii. 17 fi.,
which seemed to him a particularly convincing example of the
apologetic course of the author of Acts.

In 1838, in an article on the origin of the Episcopate, 2 which The
also appeared the same year in a separate volume, Baur set forth
the well-known Tubingen construction of early Christian history
and assigned the book of Acts its place in the group of irenic
writings whose purpose was the reconciliation of the two hostile
parties, the Jewish Christians and the Paulinists. In this
article he summed up the aim of Acts in the following words :
" Indeed even the Acts of the Apostles, whatever we may think
of its historical trustworthiness, is in its controlling idea and
innermost character the apologetic attempt of a Paulinist to
initiate and promote the mutual friendliness and union of the
two opposing parties by making Paul appear as Petrine and
Peter as Pauline as possible, by throwing a veil over differences
which, beyond doubt, according to Paul s categorical declaration
in the Epistle to the Galatians actually existed between the two
apostles, and by leading the Gentile Christians to forget their
hostility to Judaism, and the Jewish Christians their hostility
to heathenism, in their common enmity to the unbelieving Jews
who had made Paul the constant object of their implacable
hatred."

1 " t)ber Zweck und Veranlassung ties Romerbriefs und die damit zusam-
menhangenden Verhaltnisse der romischen Gemeinde," Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur
Theologie, 1836, Heft 3, p. 100 ff.

2 " t)ber den Ursprung des Episcopats," Tiibinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie
for 1838, Heft 3, p. 142 ff.

VOL. II 2 B

370 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

Schnecken- Moved by the attacks of Schrader and Baur upon the
trustworthiness of Acts, Schneckenburger of Berne took up
the study of the purpose of the book, and in 1841 pub
lished the first critical and detailed discussion of the matter. 1
Schneckenburger agreed that the purpose of the author of Acts
was primarily apologetic, not historical to defend the Apostle
against the attacks of Judaisers and to remove as far as possible

O -I-

the Jewish Christian prejudice against him, but he maintained
that there had been no serious departure from historic fact.

Following Schrader in recognising the wide difference between
the Paul of the Epistles and the Paul of Acts, he found the
explanation in Luke s desire to make Paul appear in a favourable
light to Christians of Jewish birth. Similarly, so he maintained,
in reply to the Judaisers claim of superiority for Peter, Luke
emphasised Paul s divine call to apostleship, dwelt upon his
heavenly visions, magnified his exploits, minimised the unhappy
incidents of his career, and drew a detailed parallel between his
achievements and Peter s. Still further, Schneckenburger points
out, according to the Acts Paul uniformly keeps the Jewish law
with meticulous care, is scrupulous in observing the Jewish feasts,
circumcises Timothy, works constantly in harmony with the
older apostles upon the occasion of his first visit to Jerusalem,
after his conversion wishes to remain there and preach to the
Jews, but is compelled by divine command to go to the Gentiles,
and throughout his missionary career always addresses the
Jews first and turns to the Gentiles only when the former have
rejected the gospel. His recorded discourses are such as might
have been uttered by any Jewish believer in Jesus Messiahship
and contain no trace of the gospel of freedom from law,
which bulks so large in Paul s Epistles. Titus, his uncircum-
cised Gentile companion, is not mentioned nor is his work in
Galatia, where he deviated from his ordinary custom and
preached only to the Gentiles. The Antiochian quarrel referred
to in Galatians ii. is omitted, as is also all reference to the great

1 Vber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, 1841.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 371

collection, and the book ends with an account of an interview
with the Jews in Rome held in response to Paul s own request.
Indeed the whole work is brought to a climax with the final
rejection of Christianity by the Jews and Paul s declaration,
"Be it known unto you, therefore, that this salvation of God
is sent unto the Gentiles ; they will listen."

The interest that dictated Luke s account of Paul s work
appears also in the first part of Acts when he is dealing with the
Church of Jerusalem and the older apostles. The universalism
of the gospel is based on Christ s own command in i. 8, and is
symbolised at Pentecost. The high standing of Barnabas in
the Christian community at Jerusalem is emphasised because
of his subsequent relation to Paul and his help in forwarding
Paul s missionary work. Peter s agency in the conversion of
Cornelius is given great prominence. He appears as Paul s
predecessor in the apostolate to the heathen. He also speaks
of Jews and Gentiles as equal in God s sight and declares that
the law does not justify, but faith alone. In fact, there is more
Paulinism in the first half of the book than in the second, more
in the mouths of the early disciples than in Paul s own mouth.

As already said, though Schneckenburger held that the
book of Acts was written with an apologetic not an historical
purpose, he maintained its substantial accuracy throughout.
Luke did not invent or falsify his facts as Schrader and Baur
claimed, but simply selected his material in such a way as to
produce the desired impression. Had he been inventing freely,
of course, he could have made a more complete and consistent
defence of Paul, but as it was he felt himself bound by the facts.

Schneckenburger concluded that the work was written by
Paul s companion Luke after the death of the Apostle, but before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and he explained its limited circu
lation by the fact that it was meant primarily not for the Church
at large and not for the Gentile wing of the Church, but for the
Jewish Christians of Rome, who opposed the conversion of the
Gentiles not only because of their national exclusiveness, but also

372 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

because of their fear of the Roman Government which made
Jewish propaganda a crime. 1

F.c.Baur a Schneckenburger made a very telling case for his theory,
Schnecken- an d no one could thenceforth write upon the purpose of the
Acts without taking account of his argument. Baur at once
recognised its importance, and in his review of Schneckenburger s
book 2 he appealed to it in support of his own view of the purpose
of Acts, which differed very materially from Schneckenburger s.
The latter held to the Lucan authorship and trustworthiness of
Acts, but his theory of the book s purpose, as Baur abundantly
shows, made against both. "It is impossible," so Baur says,
" for the author s investigations to stop where he has left them,
and one must either turn back or go beyond the point fixed by
the author to further studies concerning the historical character
of the book as a whole." 3

An admirable summary of Baur s own view is given in his
volume on Paul the Apostle which appeared a few years later. 4
^ The author of Acts, he says, cannot have been identical with

Luke, the friend and companion of the Apostle, "for a writer
so large a part of whose account has so little the character of
historical objectivity, and who sets the events in such a per
spective as to show a definite purpose and tendency, must have
been some distance from the facts he records, and can have
written only under conditions dominated by interests other
than those that can be assumed for the time of the Apostle.
This is a necessary conclusion from our discussion, but on the
other hand, we must have a care not to draw from the particular
aim which controlled the author of a later day too unfavourable
a judgment of the historical trustworthiness of the Acts as a
whole, for the apologetic interest of the author does not wholly

1 Schneckenburger argued further for the trustworthiness of Acts and his
own interpretation of its purpose in certain notes published after his death
in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1855, p. 498 f., under the title " Bei-
trage zur Erklarung und Kritik der Apostelgeschichte."

2 Jahrbiicher fur wissensctiaftliche Kritik, March 1841 (Nos. 46-48).

3 Op. cit. No. 48, p. 381.

4 Der Apostel Paulus, 1845, p. 12 ff.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 373

exclude the truth, but only limits and modifies it. Unhistorical
as its presentation appears at many points where we can test
it by Paul s own testimony, it yet agrees in many respects with
the history of the times as we know it from other trustworthy
witnesses. It therefore remains even though the common
opinion as to its author, its purpose, and its date cannot be
accepted a most important source for the history of the apostolic
age, but at the same time a source from which a genuinely histori
cal picture of the persons and events it describes can be gained
only after strict historical criticism."

According to Baur, while Luke cannot have been the author
of Acts, some of the material may have come from him, and in
any case, as the use of the pronoun we shows, he wished to
be taken for Luke, the well-known friend and companion of the
Apostle. 1

Baur was followed in his interpretation of the purpose of Albert
Acts by Albert Schwegler, another member of the Tubingen
School, 2 but Schwegler s judgment of the historicity of the book
was even more severe than Baur s. The Acts of the Apostles,
he says, " is an apology for the Apostle to the Gentiles and his
apostolic work among the heathen, a proposal of peace and an
attempt at reconciliation in the form of a history in the form
of a history, for even though the first part at any rate, and prob
ably the second as well, are based on older sources and narratives,
when we remove the improbable, the impossible, the demonstrably
unhistorical, or that which is bound up with it, and especially
the freely composed speeches and the countless repetitions,
there is extraordinarily little historical reality left. The complete
historical trustworthiness of the Acts is impugned even by its
numerous purposeful omissions and silences. He who inten
tionally passes over important events in order to give the matter
he deals with another aspect, and intentionally omits character
istic features of a portrait in order to give it a different look,

1 This had been already suggested by Schrader, op. cit. pp. 549, 556, 570.
2 Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1846.

374 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

cannot be regarded as too upright and conscientious to permit
himself positive distortions and unhistorical inventions when
it is to his interest to do so. At any rate, we can say this much
with certainty concerning our author, that in using and shaping
the material given him by tradition, he has proceeded in a most
arbitrary and sovereign way. In this connection we have already
referred to the Clementine Homilies as affording in many respects
a striking parallel. Taking it as a whole, the book of Acts has
the worth of an historical document only for the time, the
circumstances and the situation which gave it birth." x

According to Schwegler, Acts was written in the second
century somewhere between the persecution of Trajan and the
rise of Marcionism. 2 At the time of its composition Jewish
Christianity was still dominant and Jewish Christians were still
in the majority. Gradually with the multiplication of Gentile
Christians, synchronising with the rise of Gnosticism, conditions
changed and the situation which accounted for the book of Acts
was outgrown.

Eduard In 1848, still another member of the Tubingen School, Eduard

Zeller, son-in-law of Baur and later well known as a historian
of philosophy, took a hand in the discussion with an important
series of articles in the Theologische Jahrbucher ( 1848-1851 ), 3
which were revised and published in book form in 1854, under
the title Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung
Jcritisch untersucht* Zeller s book is the most elaborate critique

1 Op. ciL vol. ii. p. 73 ff.

2 Schwegler calls attention to the similarity between the Acts and Justin
Martyr s Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 47, in which the same compromise appears,
the recognition, namely, of a circumcised Jewish Christianity in return for the
recognition of an uncircumcised Gentile Christianity. " Evidently the situation
is essentially the same as in the Acts ; the proposition is still that each party
shall confine its demands to its own members. Nevertheless, Justin s Dialogue
indicates that the Gentile party has in the meantime grown stronger, for it
concedes what the Acts is still asking for " (ii. p. 118).

3 An article entitled " Die alteste tJberlieferung liber die Schriften des
Lukas " in the Jalirbuzher for 1848 was followed in 1849-1851 by a number of
articles under the title " Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Komposition und ihre
Charakter."

4 English translation by Joseph Dare, in two volumes, 1875-6.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 375

of the Acts that has appeared, and his statement of the
purpose of the work, while agreeing essentially with Schwegler s,
is more careful and discriminating and may be taken as the
classic presentation of the Tubingen theory of early Christian
history as applied to Acts. Like Baur and Schwegler, Zeller
commends Schneckenburger for having proved beyond all doubt
the apologetic character of Acts, but criticises him for making
too much of its historic trustworthiness. Zeller himself does not
doubt its accuracy, so he says, because of its apologetic character,
but having discovered its untrustworthiness from a detailed
study of its contents, he seeks an explanation and finds it in
the apologetic purpose which controlled its composition. This
purpose he defines x as the attempt to reconcile Jewish Christians
and Paulinists by justifying the existence of Paulinism and at
the same time sacrificing its extreme claims for the sake of peace.
Two points, he says, the author will not sacrifice the apostolic
authority of Paul and the universalism of the gospel. His
chief aim is to convince Jewish Christians that a free Gentile
Christianity is legitimate. This, of course, implies that its
legitimacy was denied, and the book was meant chiefly for those
who denied it, to convince them by appealing to history and to
conciliate them by conceding the legitimacy of their own Jewish
form of Christianity. The book of Acts was thus a mediating i
work intended not only for Judaisers, but also for Paulinists,
for mediation was vain unless the latter accepted the compromise
as well as the former. To quote Zeller s own summary of his
view : " Accordingly what our author wishes to give is such a
delineation of the Apostle Paul in his relation to the Church of
Jerusalem and to the Jewish Christian apostles as shall not only
justify the person of the Apostle against the accusations and pre
judices of the Judaists, but shall also bring about an understand
ing in reference to Pauline Christianity. With this end, not
only are Paul and his cause commended to the Jewish Christians,
but on the Pauline side an interpretation of Christianity and a

1 Die Apostelgeschichte nack ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht,
pp. 316 ff.

376

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

Followers
of the
Tubingen
critics.

conception of the character and doctrine of Paul are promulgated
of a sort to fit Paulinism for union with Jewish Christianity by
the removal or concealment of its most offensive features. The
work is the peace proposal of a Paulinist who wishes to purchase
the recognition of Gentile Christianity from Jewish Christians
by concessions to Judaism and in this sense desires to influence
both parties." l

In addition to the author s main purpose of reconciling the
Jewish Christian and Pauline parties, Zeller thinks he also
desired to conciliate the Roman Government and prove the
harmlessness of Christianity from a political point of view
by showing that Paul was uniformly acquitted whenever he
appeared before the Roman authorities. 2 This points to a time
when the Roman Government was hostile to Christianity, say
between 110 and 130, and suggests that the work was intended
primarily for the Church at Rome, a suggestion confirmed by
other arguments already urged by Schneckenburger. 3 The Acts,
in fact, according to Zeller, represents Paul as the founder of the
Roman Church and his work in Rome as the climax of his career.

Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller were followed more or less closely
by Hausrath, 4 Samuel Davidson, 5 Hilgenfeld, 6 W. R. Cassels, 7
Scholten, 8 Holtzmann, 9 Ha vet, 10 Volkmar, 11 and many others.

1 Op. dt. p. 363.

2 Cf. Schneckenburger, p. 246. For an extreme statement of the theory
that Acts was written chiefly or exclusively with a political apologetic purpose,
see the articles by the Roman Catholic Aberle in the Theologische Quartalschrift
for 1855, p. 173 ff., and 1863, p. 84 ff. According to Aberle, the book was written
while Paul was still in prison and was intended for use at his trial. Cf. also
B. Schafer s " Studien zur Apostelgeschichte " in the same periodical, 1877,
p. 281 ff., 377 ff. 3 Cf. also Frisch, op, cit. p. 55 ff.

4 Cf. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1868, vol. iv. p. 236 ff.

5 An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1868, vol. ii. p. 275 ff.

6 Cf. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1871-1872, and Eirileitung
in das Neue Testament, 1875, p. 574 ff.

7 Supernatural Religion, 1874, vol. iii. part 1.

8 Das paulinische Evangelium, German translation from the Dutch, 1881,
p. 254 ff.

9 Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1882-1883. In his Hand-
kommentar zum Neuen Testament (1889) Holtzmann s view is considerably
modified. 10 Le Christianisme et ses origines, 1884, vol. iv. chap. 4.

11 Paulus von Damascus bis zum Galaterbrief, 1887, p. 22 ff.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 377

On the other hand, Wittichen 1 maintained that Acts was Wittichen.
written by a Jewish Christian with the aim of defending the
historic rights of Jewish Christianity in the face of the growing
preponderance of Gentiles within the Church. " Thus the Third
Gospel, together with the Acts of the Apostles, exhibits all the
characteristic features of the Jewish Christianity which proceeded
from the original apostles in the later phase of its development
delineated above. It is distinguished, however, from the writings
there described, as for instance from the Gospel of Matthew, by
the fact that the Jewish type is even more marked in it than in
them." 2 This view found, so far as I am aware, no acceptance.

Among those who supported the traditional position and Upholders
defended the trustworthiness of Acts over against the Tubingen traditional
critics and their followers were Neander, 3 Lechler, 4 Thiersch, 5 view -
Baumgarten, 6 Lange, 7 Lekebusch, 8 and many others. All of them
maintained for the most part the traditional theory of Acts,
including the authorship of Luke, and after considering in greater
or less detail the arguments of the Tubingen School dismissed
them as unsound. Lekebusch s discussion is the most careful
and thorough of them all, and may be taken as the best and most
moderate presentation of the conservative position. He devotes
some two hundred pages, or nearly half his book, to the question
of the purpose of Acts, summarising his conclusion in the following
words : " The Acts is not a Tendenzschrift, either apologetic or
conciliatory, still less Judaistic, but a purely historical work,
as it claims to be and as, according to the admission even of the

1 Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1866, "tiber den historischen Charakter
der synoptischen Evangelien," p. 427 ff.

2 Op. cit. p. 480.

3 Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirclie durch die
Apostel, fourth edition, 1847.

4 Das apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1851.

5 Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, 1852. Thiersch recognised the
conciliatory aim of Acts, but denied that it had led to any distortion of
the facts (p. 119 ff).

6 Die Apostelgeschichte, oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem
bis Rom, 1852. 7 Das apostolische Zeitalter, 1853.

8 Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte, 1854.

378 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

newer criticism, it appears to be at first sight. It sets forth
in unbroken continuity and from the Pauline, universalistic,
in a word, Christian point of view, the gradual development
of the Church from its rise in Jerusalem to the moment when the
great apostle reached Rome, the metropolis of heathenism. The
W Acts is not a partisan document." 1 " We are not disposed to
insist that every story and every reference in Acts is historical
because it appears in a canonical book. On the contrary, we
admit the perfect right of criticism to test without prejudice
the trustworthiness of every item and to declare this or that,
as the case may be, unhistorical or mythical. But we cherish
the firm conviction that all the exceptions which might rightly
be taken to the contents of the work are by no means serious
enough to disprove the author s claim to have been a companion
of Paul." 2

Rejection The Tubingen theory of the purpose of Acts was rejected

Tubingen a ^ so on altogether different grounds by Bruno Bauer. 3 Bauer s

wor k has been justly condemned because of its extremely
Bauer; subjective character and its sovereign disregard of historical
facts, but his book on Acts, though it shares the faults of his
other writings, and represents the Acts as a free composition
quite devoid of any historical foundation, is very significant
because it exposes the weakest point in the Tubingen theory, the
notion that the conflict between Judaisers and Paulinists con
tinued long after Paul s death and supplied the occasion for the
composition of the Acts and other irenic writings. According
to Bauer, at the time the Acts was written, the battle between
Judaisers and Paulinists was over and the author knew nothing
about it and had no understanding of it. In the days when the
strife was still going on, a work like the Acts would have been
quite impossible. " When the Acts was written," Bauer says,
" the tension of parties had collapsed, the opposition was veiled,

1 Op. cit. p. 374. 2 Op. cit. p. 376.

3 Die Apostelgeschichte, eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und des Juden-
thums innerhalb der christlichen Kirche, 1850.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 379

the difference was obliterated and peace had already been con
cluded. The Acts is not a proposal of peace, but the expression
and consummation of peace and toleration." x

Bauer s work is also significant because of its interpreta
tion of Catholicism, not as a compromise between Jewish and
Gentile Christianity, but as a development of the conservative
and legal, or as he calls it, the Jewish spirit in the early Church.
" The Acts first brought Judaism to recognition and control
within the Church. It helped to fasten the chains that bound
the Church to the Jewish world, and the Church clung to the
Acts and recognised it as the canonical expression of its own
consciousness because it wished this bond with Judaism and
this Jewish marriage with the past and with heaven. The author
of Acts gave to the Judaism which had neutralised the original
differences and put an end to the conflict between them, form,
flesh, and blood, and the confirmation of history. The Judaism
which was represented in the Acts and was reconciled to Paulin-
ism was naturally not historic Judaism. . . . Nor was it the
Jewish Christianity about which recent scholars have so much to
say. It did not oppose the freedom of the Gentile Christians,
and had no thought of imposing upon them the yoke of the law.
On the contrary, where the Judaism of which we are speaking
prevailed, the freedom of Gentile Christians and the universality
of the Church were taken for indisputable truth, and the earlier
hostility between Gentile and Jewish Christians was vanishing.
The Judaism of which we speak was rather a power that has
asserted its supremacy, even though in changing forms, down
to our own time. . . . We mean by Judaism the conservative,
conciliatory, anti-revolutionary spirit which, at the same time,
conserves the gains of the revolution, and we give it this name
because it has received its classical expression in the Old Testa
ment, in its inability to see historic differences, in the Jewish
transformation of the historical product of a later time into a
divinely given tradition, in brief in Jewish theism which condemns

1 Op. cit. p. 121.

380 THE HISTOEY OF CRITICISM m

the historical creator to impotence and hands over to heaven the
prerogative of revelation. Through the original heritage of the
Old Testament received by the new community this Judaism
retained its influence in the Church and won for itself a still
larger territory." 1

(6) by The French scholar Renan, in his work on The Apostles,

published in 1866, also rejected the Tubingen theory of the
purpose of Acts. At the same time he recognised that the book
was far from trustworthy, and that its author, though a com
panion of Paul, knew very little about the real facts of the period
he was describing and wrote with a religious rather than a
historical purpose. " The Acts, in a word, is a dogmatic history,
written to support the orthodox doctrines of the time or to
inculcate the ideas which most appealed to the piety of the author.
Let us add that it could not have been otherwise. We know
the origin of any religion from the accounts of its believers alone.
It is only the sceptic who writes ad narrandum." 2 " One of
the characteristics of Acts which proves that the author was
less concerned to present the historic facts or to satisfy the
demands of logic than to edify pious readers is this circumstance,
that the question of admitting the uncircumcised is settled over
and over again without ever being settled. First by the baptism
of the eunuch of Candace, then by the baptism of the centurion
Cornelius, both divinely commanded, then by the foundation
of the Church at Antioch, then by the pretended council at
Jerusalem ; in spite of which, in the last pages of the book, the
question remains still unsettled." 3

Overbeck. The theory of the purpose of Acts maintained by Baur,
Schwegler, and Zeller was a part of the Tubingen School s general
theory of the development of early Christianity. With the
breakdown of the latter the interpretation of Acts as a docu
ment of the mediating party in the Church of the second century
also broke down, and was ere long generally abandoned. Already

1 Op. cit. p. 122 f. 2 Les Apotres, p. xxix.

3 Ibid. p. xxxviii.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 381

in 1870, in the fourth edition of De Wette s Acts, Overbeck
rejected the Tubingen view, and with the appearance of his
commentary a new period opened in the criticism of Acts.
Overbeck s work was far and away the most important discussion
of the subject that had appeared since Zeller s, and it still remains
in many respects the best commentary we have. 1 Overbeck
was as drastic in his criticism as either Baur or Zeller, to both
of whom he owed much, and he recognised as they did, that the
purpose of Acts was apologetic rather than historical, but he
interpreted its place and its significance in an entirely different
way. It was not written, he maintained, to conciliate the
Jewish Christians and promote harmony between the two wings
of the Church. When it appeared there was no need of such
an effort, for the conflict between Judaisers and Paulinists was
altogether a thing of the past, and Gentile Christianity was
alone in control.

" From this it is evident that the Acts cannot be understood
as a document standing between the primitive Christian parties,
original apostolic Jewish Christianity, and Pauline Gentile
Christianity. Its Gentile Christianity, to be sure, is not that
of Paul. But still less is its Judaism that of the original apostles
and to be explained so far as it is Jewish from the desire to
put itself at the view-point of the original and genuine Jewish
Christianity. Rather the Jewish element in the Acts must have
been already a component part of the Gentile Christianity which
the book itself represents.

" The book is not to be interpreted as a proposal of peace
between the primitive Christian parties, but the attempt of a
Gentile Christianity already largely influenced by primitive
Christian Judaism to explain its own past, particularly its own
origin and its first founder Paul. It is true that Acts has
abandoned the essential features of Paulinism with the single
exception of universalism. But it has not done this as a

1 An English translation of Overbeck s Introduction is given in the first
volume of the English edition of Zeller s work mentioned on p. 374 above.

382 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

concession to a party outside its own circle, but because it shares
the interpretation of Paul which, as a result of Judaistic
influences at work from the beginning and of the natural in
ability of Gentile Christianity to comprehend and hold fast to
the problems of the original Paulinism, spread among Gentile
Christians and finally controlled the old Catholic Church as a
whole." 1

Overbeck recognised also the political motive already pointed
out by Schneckenburger, Zeller, and others, and contended
that because of it the Book of Acts concluded not with the death
of Paul but with the kindly treatment accorded him and the
large measure of freedom granted him during his two years in
Rome.

Still further, Overbeck agreed with Baur, Schwegler, and
Zeller in regarding the Acts as untrustworthy in considerable
part. " An historical book which subjects its material to so
artificial and arbitrary a scheme as the Acts and modifies it so
strongly in the interest of its special aim and its subjective
point of view, and which treats its sources so freely, is in
general untrustworthy, and must prove its trustworthiness
for each single case." 2 At the same time he judged it more
favourably than the Tubingen critics, and explained its
inaccuracies as due often to mere lack of knowledge rather
than deliberate purpose. 3 The author wrote in the second
century, so long after the events recorded, that he was largely
ignorant of the situation and had lost all sense of the conflicts
and controlling interests of the period which he was describing. 4
Pfleiderer. With Overbeck s work may be compared Pfleiderer s book on

1 Op. cit. p. xxxi f. It is interesting to compare this with the view of Bruno
Bauer described on p. 378 ff. above.

2 Op. cit. p. lix.

3 Similarly Weizsacker accounts for the frequent untrustworthiness of Acts
partly by the author s purpose, partly by his lack of knowledge (Das aposto-
lische Zeitalter, 1886, p. 206 ff.).

4 Cf. Overbeck s article " t)ber das Verhaltniss Justins des Marty re rs zur
Apostelgeschichte," in the Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1872,
p. 305 ff., for a further statement of his views concerning the place of Acts in
the development of Gentile Christian thought.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 383

Paulinism, 1 which is still more favourable to the Acts. " The
analogy of the entire history of Paulinism speaks against rather
than for the interpretation of Acts as a Tendenzschrift, which
aims to purchase the recognition and friendship of the Jewish
Christians by making concessions to them, and which sacrifices
the historical Paul to this object. It is certainly much more
likely that the author, speaking out of the consciousness of his
own time, in which Paulinism was already a changed thing,
interpreted the conditions of the apostolic age in good faith and
understood and used his sources ingenuously on the assumption
that the relation of Jewish and Gentile Christianity could not
have been other in the days of primitive Christianity than it
seemed in his own, a relation, namely, of mutual approximation
and growing understanding and amity on the part of the saner
elements in the two parties over against the extremists in both." 2

As Holtzmann remarks, " Where, according to the Tubingen Hoitzmann.
criticism, the author of Acts would not see, according to the
newer interpretation, for the most part he could not see." 3 This
marks the great difference between the critical school of the
middle of the nineteenth century and that of a more recent
day. While many of the detailed results reached by the earlier
critics remain intact, their general attitude toward the Book
of Acts has been almost universally abandoned.

In this connection mention may be made of the radical Van
Dutch school of Loman and Van Manen. 4 They denied the
genuineness of all the Pauline epistles and, while recognising
the untrustworthiness of the Acts in many respects, they yet
regarded it as a better source for a knowledge of the history of
the primitive Church than the epistles from which the Tubingen
critics had drawn their principal arguments against it. Van
Manen gives a summary of his position in the article on Paul

1 Paulinismus, 1873. English translation in two volumes, 1877.

2 Op. cit. p. 497.

3 Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. i. p. 308.

4 See Loman s " Quaestiones Paulinae" in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1882,
1883, 1886 ; Steck, Der Galaterbrief, 1888 ; Van Manen, Paulus, 1890.

384 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1902). " The book bears in part
a legendary - historical, in part an edifying and apologetic
character. The writer s intention is to instruct Theophilus
concerning the old Christian past as that presented itself to
his own mind after repeated examination, to increase the regard
and affection of his readers for Christianity, and at the same
time to set forth how from the first, although hated by the Jews,
this religion met with encouragement on the part of the Romans.

" Of a tendency in the strict sense of the word, as understood
by the Tubingen School, there is nothing to be seen. The book
does not aim at reconciliation of conflicting parties, Petrinists
and Paulinists, nor yet at the exaltation of Paul or at casting
his Jewish adversaries into the shade, or at placing him on a
level with Peter." " The spirit in which Luke set about his
work is that of budding Catholicism " ( 37).

The prevailing state of critical opinion upon Acts in the last
decade of the nineteenth century is well represented by Julicher. 1
According to him Acts contains an ideal picture of the apostolic
age, drawn in perfect good faith by a Christian who wished to
show the power of God in the apostles, but who was too far
from the period described to understand the situation fully and
with sources too few and fragmentary to enable him to write
a complete and satisfactory history. The book was written not
as a defence of Paul and his apostleship, and not as the programme
of a mediating party, 2 and the author s inaccuracies and mis
representations, which have been attributed to set purpose,
were due chiefly to ignorance. Acts contains both trustworthy
and untrustworthy material, but only the speeches were the
free invention of the author. " In the Acts the Gentile Church
of the beginning of the second century has codified its best
knowledge of the first period of its history." 3

1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1894, p. 259 ff.

2 " Paul is not Judaised and Peter Paulinised, but both are Lucanised,
that is, Catholicised " (p. 263).

3 Op. cit. p. 270. Cf. also Clemen, Die Apostelgeschickte im Lichte der neueren
text-, quellen- und historisch-kritischen Forschungen, 1905, p. 35 f?., and Knopf in
Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, edited by J. Weiss and others, vol. i. p. 529.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 385

Up to this point only the history of opinion touching the Sources of
purpose of Acts has been traced. To the investigation of this K5ni g s-
subject scholars were led by a desire to explain the book s many mann -
omissions, repetitions, and other peculiarities, but there were
some who sought the explanation in the character of its sources.
So far as I am aware, the first to suggest written sources for
Acts was Bernhard Konigsmann, who published in 1798 a
dissertation on the subject. 1 Konigsmann based his assumption
of written sources on the prologue of the Third Gospel and on
the diversity of style (orationis varietas et inconstantia) which
marked the various parts of Acts. The author, he maintains,
is to be distinguished from the writer of the we passages,
for, as shown by the prologue, he was not himself an eye-witness
of the events he records and did not wish to be taken for such.
Beyond this Konigsmann did not attempt to determine the
nature or extent of the sources of Acts. His theory that the
author of Acts made use of written sources was accepted by
Bolten, 2 Ziegler, 3 Heinrichs, 4 Bertholdt, 5 Kuinoel, 6 and others 7 ;
but the investigation of the question was first taken up seriously

1 De fontibus commentariorum sacrorum qui Lucae nomen praeferunt deque
eorum consilio et aetate, Altonae, 1798. Reprinted in Pott s Sylloge Com-
mentationum Theologicarum, vol. iii., 1802, pp. 215-239.

2 In his Geschichte der Apostel von Lukas ubersetzt und mit Anmerkungen
begleitet, 1799, p. viii ff. Bolten thinks that Luke used an Aramaic source or
sources.

3 In an article, " tiber den Zweck, die Quellen und die Interpolationen der
Apostelgeschichte " in Gabler s Neuestes Theologisches Journal, vol. vii., 1801 ,
p. 125 ff. Ziegler suggests the Acts of Peter, or the Preaching of Peter, and
written accounts of the martyrdom of Stephen and the conversion of Paul as
sources for the first part of Acts.

4 In his Acta Apostolorum, i. p. 19 ff. (in Koppe s Novum Testamentum
Graece, vol. iii., 1809), Heinrichs suggests the Acts of Peter and other possible
documents as sources.

5 In his Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften
des Alien und Neuen Testaments, Theil iii., 1813, p. 1331 ff.

6 In his Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos, vol. iv., 1818,
p. xii ff., Kuinoel by an error refers to Konigsmann under the name of Kurz-
mann, and gives the date of his dissertation wrongly as 1794.

7 Eichhorn discussed the question in his Einleitung in das Neue Testament,
1810, ii. 149, but rejected the theory of written sources for Acts on the ground
of unity of style and manner and uniformity in the use of the LXX.

VOL. II 2 C

386 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

by J. C. Riehm of Holland, who published in 1821 a book entitled
De fontibus actuum apostolicorum, in which the subject was
dealt with in considerable detail. According to Riehm in the
second part of Acts the author made but a sparing use of
written sources, being himself an eye-witness of many of the
events and a personal friend of Paul and other actors in the
history, but the first part of the book was largely based on
written sources, many in number, and of a brief and fragmentary
character.

Schieier- Riehm s identification of the author of the * we passages

deoiM the w ^ n the author of the book as a whole (the traditional position)
author of wag (jigp^ed by Schleiermacher in his lectures on New Testa-

tne we

sections ment Introduction, which were not published until 1845, long
after his death, but influenced the course of New Testament
criticism some time earlier. 1

According to Schleiermacher, the author of the we
passages (probably Timothy) is to be distinguished from the
author of Acts, who made use not only of the travel notes of
Timothy but also of other sources in various parts of his book,
as is made evident by the frequent repetitions, inconsistencies,
and contradictions in his narrative.

MayerhoS This opinion was controverted by Mayerhoff, 2 according
supports wnom the identity of style between the we passages

identity of /

authorship, and other parts of Acts, which he shows in detail, makes it
necessary to assume identity of authorship. But instead of
ascribing the work to Luke, MayerhofT ascribed it, together with

1 Already in 1817 Schleiermacher published the first volume of a work on
the writings of Luke (Uber die Schriften des Lukas, ein kritischer Versuch),
dealing with the Third Gospel and its sources, but the volume on Acts never
appeared. Schleiermacher lectured on New Testament Introduction first in
1829-1830, but he must have reached his view about the sources of Acts long
before, probably as early as 1817, and it may have been due to his influence
that his friend De Wette expressed the opinion that Acts was based in part
upon written sources in his introduction to the New Testament, 1826, 115.
In 113 De Wette says that the Acts may be regarded as "an attempt at a
history of the Church which was imperfect and fragmentary, and remained
unfinished for lack of information."

2 Historisch-critische Einleitung in die petrinischen /Schriften ; nebst einer
Abhandlung iiher den Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte, 1835.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 387

the Third Gospel, to Timothy, to whom Schleiermacher had
attributed the we passages alone. This novel conclusion
was disputed both by Bleek and Ulrich, the former in his review
of Mayerhoffs work in the Studien und Kritiken for 1836,
p. 1021 ., the latter in an article in the same periodical
for 1837, p. 369 if., entitled " Kommt Lukas wirklich in der
Apostelgeschichte vor ? " 1

Like Schleiermacher, Bleek distinguished between Timothy,
the author of the we passages, and Luke, the author of the
book as a whole. Ulrich took the same position, referring to
Schleiermacher s lectures of 1826 as furnishing the starting-
point for his own discussion.

With this may be compared the theory of Gfrorer, 2 who
made Luke the author of the we passages, but the author
of the book as a whole an anonymous writer of the latter part
of the first century, an opinion which is still widespread.

The question of the sources was taken up in a still more Schwan.
thorough way by Eugen Schwanbeck, who published in 1847 b
a detailed study of the subject, 3 going beyond all his predecessors
in his discrimination of documents. According to Schwanbeck
the author of Acts made use of biographies of Peter and of
Barnabas, a rhetorical account of the martyrdom of Stephen,
and memoirs of Silas. These memoirs included the we
passages, and underlay the second half of the book from the
beginning of chapter xv. to the close. At the end of his volume
Schwanbeck printed the Greek text of the memoirs of Silas, the
biography of Barnabas, and the account of Stephen s death.

1 Cf. also the same author s article, " Lukas kommt nicht in der Apostel
geschichte vor," in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, p. 1003 ff.

2 In Die keilige Sage (the second part of his Geschichte des Urchristentums,
1838), Abtheilung II. p. 245 ff. In I. pp. 383-452, Gfrorer discusses the com
position of Acts at great length, concluding that the two parts of the book
(i.-xii. and xiii.-xxviii.) come from different hands, and that the first part was
largely legendary and its written sources few and fragmentary, while the second
part was in the main trustworthy, being written by a companion of Paul and
an eye-witness of many of the events recorded. The book of Acts as we have
it was subsequently put together by an unknown author of the late first century.

3 Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Lukas.

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

Jaeobsen.

Johannes
Weiss.

The discussion of the sources, generally neglected after
Schwanbeck s work because of the growing absorption of scholars
in the questions raised by the Tubingen School, 1 was taken
up again in 1885 by Jaeobsen, 2 and in the next ten years there
appeared in rapid succession a number of studies of the subject, 3
which it is not necessary to discuss here, as they will be considered
in the chapter on the sources.

Ever since, all writers dealing with the Acts have felt them
selves compelled to devote a considerable amount of attention
to its sources. So much was made during these years of source
criticism that the question as to the purpose of the Acts was
pushed more or less into the background. From this neglect
it was rescued by Johannes Weiss in his brilliant and illuminating
book on the Acts, 4 the most important discussion of the pur
pose of Acts since Overbeck s. Rejecting the idea that Acts
was written with either an historical or a religious purpose,
Weiss maintained that its controlling aim was to set Chris
tianity right with the Roman Government. 5 " I can understand

1 The question was also discussed at some length by Zeller (op. cit. p. 489 ff.),
but with mainly negative results. Probably the author had some written
documents including the notes or journal of an eye-witness, very likely Luke,
from which he took the we passages. At any rate his work contains many
things unrelated to his purpose, or inconsistent with it, which he must have
taken either from written sources or from tradition. At the same time the
nature and extent of his sources it is impossible to determine. He evidently
re-wrote freely, changed things to suit himself, composed speeches and invented
situations as need required ; and that he allowed the pronoun we to stand
in certain passages was due to his desire to be taken for the eye-witness whose
notes he used. 2 Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte.

3 E.g. among others Wendt in Meyer s Handbuch zur Apostelgeschichte,
sixth edition, 1888, p. 13 ff. ; Van Manen, " Paulus I." (De Handelingen der
Apostelen), 1890, p. 58 ff. ; Sorof, Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte, 1890 ;
Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und der en geschichtlicher Wert, 1891 ;
Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostel-
ge.chichte, 1891 ; Clemen in his Chronologie der paulinischen Brief e, 1893,
p. 53 ff. ; Jiingst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, 1895 ; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift
fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895-96. Cf. also Krenkel s Josephus und
Lucas, 1894, in which Luke s dependence on Josephus, both in the Third Gospel
and in the Acts, is argued at length.

4 Uber die Absicht und den literarischen CharaHer der Apostelgeschichte, 1897.

5 Cf. pp. 177 ff. above. Among others who have seen in Acts a political
apologetic purpose, are Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter, 1886, p. 456 ff. ;

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 389

the Acts," he says, " only as an apology for the Christian religion
addressed to the heathen and directed against the accusations
of the Jews, which shows how it happened that Judaism
had been supplanted in its world-mission by Christianity." 1
These accusations were two that Christians were apostates
from Judaism, and that Christianity was dangerous to the State.
The author undertakes to meet them by giving an historical
account of the way Christianity, though born in Judaism,
broke loose from it and supplanted it in its mission to the Roman
world. Instead of being apostates from Judaism Christians
retained all that was good in the older system and represented
the true Judaism which the Roman Government should take
under its protection. " No Roman official should lend his
support to the Jewish accusations. On the contrary, the State
should give the new religion the protection afforded the old,
whose place it has taken. To those circles among the Romans,
on the other hand, which had hitherto been attracted to Judaism
in the hope of rinding salvation in it, there is now offered a new
and more certain promise of salvation, the teaching, namely, of
the resurrection of the dead, guaranteed in the person of the
risen one." 2

The author of Acts made large use of written sources, including
the we documents, and his account was often limited and
determined thereby, and from them he frequently introduced
matters because of their intrinsic interest which had no special
bearing on his main thesis. He invented little, confining him
self for the most part to the given facts, but interpreting them
as a rule in the light of his own interest.

Weiss s is the last elaborate discussion of the purpose of Hamack.
Acts. More recently the question of date and authorship has
been chiefly to the front. For this Harnack is in large part

Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, 1887, p. 611 ff. ; Ramsay, Paul the Traveller
and the Roman Citizen, 1896, p. 305 ff. ; McGiffert, A History of Christianity
in the Apostolic Age, 1897, p. 345 ff. ; and Knopf in Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments, edited by J. Weiss and others, vol. i., 1907, p. 530.
1 Op. cit. p. 56. 2 Op. cit. p. 59.

390 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

responsible. Practically all historical critics, including Harnack
himself, long ago agreed that the traditional view that Acts
was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, while the latter
was still a prisoner at Rome, was unfounded. But the view
has been revived by Harnack in a series of studies on the New
Testament. 1

Harnack gives his general opinion of the criticism of Acts
in the following words : "No other New Testament book has
had to suffer so much as the Acts, although in spite of its evident
weaknesses it is in more than one respect the weightiest and
best book in the New Testament. All the mistakes that have
been made in New Testament criticism have come to a focus
in the criticism of Acts. The book has had to suffer above all
because Paul and Paulinism have been understood in a one
sided way and at the same time greatly overrated. It has
had to suffer because an incorrect picture has been formed of
the nature and relation of Jewish and Gentile Christianity. It
has had to suffer because (extraordinary survival of an un
justifiable reverence for the apostolic !) the most extreme
demands have been made upon a companion of Paul a sure
understanding of the apostle, congeniality, freedom from every
independent tendency, absolute trustworthiness, and an infallible
memory." 2

Lukas der Arzt is devoted to proving that the Third Gospel
and Acts were written by Luke, the beloved physician, to whom
they are ascribed by tradition. With this in view Harnack
gives a considerable part of the volume to a demonstration
of the identity of the author of the we sections with the
author of the Acts as a whole. In support of it he urges sameness
of interest, as for instance, their common interest in miracles
and in the power and work of the Spirit, similarity in their

1 Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament; vol. i. Lukas der Arzt,
der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte, 1906 ; vol. iii.
Die Apostelgeschichte, 1908 ; vol. iv. Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte,
1911, all translated into English.

2 Lul-as der Arzt, p. 87.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 391

portraits of Paul, and unity of style and vocabulary. The last
point receives the greatest stress, and is regarded as in itself
sufficient to prove identity of authorship. Aiter a long dis
cussion of the author s use of sources in other parts of Acts,
Harnack concludes : " For the question of the we passages
nothing is to be gained from an investigation of the first half
of Acts, for it leads at best to the assumption of one or more
Aramaic sources. But that is quite irrelevant to the problem
of the we sections. As nobody could think of an Aramaic
source in this connection, all the observations concerning
vocabulary, style, and contents remain in force, and make
wholly impossible the separation of the we passages from
the rest of the work." x

Why one may not think of an Aramaic we document
translated by the author, Harnack does not say. There would
seem to be no adequate reason why there might not have been
such a document, and on Harnack s own showing, if there were,
his whole linguistic argument would break down.

Another matter to which considerable attention is given Medical
in this volume is the medical language of the author of the nXrt ge
third gospel and Acts. Following the Englishman, Hobart,
who published a very uncritical book upon the subject in 1882,
Harnack goes over the matter afresh and in considerable detail,
and concludes with the words : " The proofs are more than
sufficient. In my opinion, there can be no doubt that the third
gospel and the Acts were written by a physician." 2

Harnack s Die Apostelgeschichte has in general the same
aim as Lukas der Arzt, to prove the Lucan authorship of Acts.
It contains a careful study of the characteristics of the book and
concludes that, in spite of its many inaccuracies and the author s
frequent carelessness as an historian, it is on the whole a work
of a very high character, and that there is nothing in it to dis
prove Lucan authorship, and much on the contrary to support

1 Op. cit. p. 85.

2 Op. cit. p. 137. Compare the strong language of Zahn to the same effect
(Einleitung in das Neue Testament, vol. ii., 1899, p. 427).

392 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

it. The main purpose of the Acts, Harnack thinks, was to
show the power of the Spirit as exhibited in the work of the
Apostles and in the spread of Christianity. He concedes that
the defence of Paul against Jewish accusations was a secondary
aim, but denies that the author had any political apologetic
motive, though he had admitted such a motive in LtiJcas der Arzt
(p. 96). 1 He also thinks it probable that for the first half of his
book the author had written sources, but not for the second half.
Harnack s last volume (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostel-
geschichte), continues the stylistic argument for the identity
of the author of the * we passages with the author of Acts,
defends Luke s picture of Paul s attitude toward Judaism as
contrasted with that contained in Paul s own epistles, and then
goes on to prove that Acts was written before the apostle s
death while he was still a prisoner in Rome. The argument is
brief and all too hasty. All the reasons for a post-Pauline
date, some of which Harnack himself had reproduced in the
earlier volumes, are dismissed without a word. In favour of
the early date he urges the author s omission of a reference
to Paul s death ; 2 his silence concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem and the events leading up to it ; his failure to make
use of Paul s Epistles ; his quotation in xx. 25 of Paul s prophecy
that the Ephesian elders would not see his face again (a prophecy
falsified, according to Harnack, by Paul s journey to the East
after his release from his first Roman imprisonment !) ; and,
finally, a number of primitive traits exhibited in the Acts, in
reference to which it may be said that, if they prove anything
beyond the use of primitive sources, most of them prove too
much, for they make the author of Acts more primitive than
Paul, and hence, on Harnack s own principles, require a pre-
Pauline date for the book. 3

1 Compare vol. iv. p. 18 note, where he says : " The long and in part identical
speeches of the last quarter of the book must be due to some purpose of the
author which we cannot satisfactorily fathom."

2 Cf. vol. iv. p. 66 ff., with what he says on the other side in vol. iii. p. 48 ff.

3 E.g. a, b, d, e, f, p. 72 ff.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 393

The early date for Acts requires an early date for the Gospel
of Luke and a still earlier date for Mark, and Harnack accord
ingly discusses the origin of these Gospels, reaching the conclusion
with surprising ease, considering the general consensus of opinion
to the contrary, that there is nothing to prevent the opinion
that Luke was written in the early sixties and Mark in the
fifties. In all this discussion of the date of Acts Harnack says
nothing of the difficulties with which his view is beset because
of the inaccuracies of the book and its lack of knowledge of
many things one might expect a disciple of Paul to be familiar
with. These difficulties, which make it impossible, according
to most critics, to think the author a personal companion of
Paul, are met in Harnack s first and second volumes by the
retort that we must not expect too much of a disciple of Paul
writing long after the events described (between 78 and 93,
according to volume i. p. 18; about 80, according to volume r.
p. 108). But when the book is pushed back into the lifetime
of Paul and is supposed to have been written while Luke was
with him in Rome, the difficulties are multiplied many fold.
Of this Harnack takes no account whatever, though it is really
the crux of the whole situation. 1 It can hardly be imagined
that Harnack s treatment of the subject can have any lasting
effect upon the course of thought touching the date of the book
of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels in spite of the great weight
that inevitably attaches to his opinions.

Harnack s volumes have been hailed by many conservative Harnack s
scholars as a confession of defeat on the part of New Testament &&amp;gt; Luk*
criticism and an evidence of the bankruptcy of the critical
method. This, of course, they were not intended to be, and
it must be recognised that in spite of his acceptance of tradi
tional positions touching date and authorship and his rehabilita
tion of the trustworthiness of Acts at many points where its
accuracy has been impugned by the unanimous voice of the
critical school, he is yet far from according it his complete

1 As examples of Harnack s treatment of this matter, cf. pp. 21 if., 23 ff., 28.

394 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

confidence. He ranks it as an historical source higher than
many scholars would venture to do, but he is aware of its limita
tions and does not hesitate to question its facts. One who
can speak of the author in the following terms is still far from
sharing the traditional opinion touching the infallibility of
his work : " Luke is an author who writes smoothly, but as
soon as we examine him more closely we find him as a narrator
more careless than almost any other New Testament writer.
Like a genuine Greek, he pays close attention to his style and
observes all the rules. He must be recognised in fact as a
literary artist, but when it comes to content he proceeds where
he was not himself an eye-witness, in a most negligent fashion,
chapter after chapter, and often confuses things completely.
This is true both of the Gospel and the Acts." x

Supporters Harnack s conclusions have naturally attracted wide atten-
opponents ^ion. He has found supporters for the theses common to his

ofHarnack. fa^ and second volumes in Ramsay, 2 Maurenbrecher, 3 and
others, and for the early date of Acts in Koch 4 and most recently
in Torrey. 5 On the other hand, many have expressed their
sharp dissent, for instance, Schiirer, 6 Hilgenfeld, 7 Jiilicher, 8
Clemen, 9 Bousset, 10 Walter Bauer, 11 P. W. Schmidt, 12 Jean
Reville, 13 Loisy, 14 Bacon, 15 and Maurice Jones, 16 who accepts the
Lucan authorship but not the early date.

Few who did not already believe in the identity of the

1 Lukas der Arzt, p. 80.

2 Expositor, Dec. 1906 and Feb. 1907.

3 Von Jerusalem nach Rom, 1910.

4 Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes, 1911.

5 The Composition and Date of Acts, Harvard Theological Studies, L, 1916.

6 Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1906, No. 14 ; and 1908, No. 6.

7 Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1906, p. 461 ff. ; 1908, p. 176 ff.

8 Neue Linien in der Kritik der evangelischen Uberlieferung, 1906, p. 60 ff.
Theologische Rundschau, 1907, p. 97 ff.

10 Ibid. 1908, p. 185 ff. " Ibid. 1911, p. 277 ff.

12 Die Apostelgeschichte bei De W ette-Overbeck und bei Adolf Harnack, 1910.

13 Revue de I histoire des religions, 1907, vol. Iv. p. 233 ff.

14 Revue d histoire et de litterature religieuses, 1910, p. 390 ff. ; 1911, p. 476 ff.

15 American Journal of Theology, 1909, p. 59 ff.

16 Expositor, Mar. 1914.

i HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF ACTS IN GERMANY 395

author of the " we " passages with the author of Acts have
found Harnack s argument for it convincing, in spite of his
proof of identity of style, nor has his attempted demonstration
that the author was a physician been generally accepted.
Clemen thinks that the evidence makes against rather than for
the medical profession of the author. Wellhausen 1 remarks
that if Luke is to be found in the we passages of Acts xxvii.
he appears to have been by profession a sailor rather than a
physician, and Cadbury, in a careful study of the evidence,
in his recent volume on The Style and Literary Method of
Luke, 2 and G. F. Moore in a pungent note in the same volume, 3
seem finally to have demolished the medical argument altogether. 4
Harnack s discussions have shown that critics are still far
from a consensus of opinion touching Acts. In 1889 Holtzmann
could say that an agreement seemed possible and imminent, 5
but Wellhausen s words, written in 1907, are nearer the truth
There is still much to do in Acts." 6

1 Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Oottingen ;
Philologisch-hifttnrische Klasse, 1907, p. 21.

2 Harvard Theological Studies, vi., 1919. 3 P. 51 ff.

4 Of. also P. W. Schmidt, op. cit. p. 9 ff.

5 Handcommentar, vol. i. p. 309. 6 Op. cit. p. 21.

BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS l
By J. W. HUNKIN

IN this chapter it is proposed to give a short sketch of the British
contribution to the general study of the period covered by the
Acts of the Apostles.

It would be easy to amplify the sketch indefinitely along the
lines suggested by the references which appear in the footnotes.
Books which deal exclusively with textual criticism, and those
which are specifically commentaries, are not treated here.

The first British writer, as far as we know, upon any subject
whatsoever is Peiagius ; and among the earliest of his works is
a commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, published at Rome
about 410 A.D.

The Vulgate text of the epistles had been issued in 383-384
A.D. by St. Jerome, and Peiagius based his commentary upon this
revised text.

The re-discovery of his work is a problem which has occupied
the attention of scholars for some time past. 2 At length Dr.
Souter has found in the Grand Ducal Library at Karlsruhe a
ninth-century MS. (No. CXIX. of the Reichenau collection) which

1 This chapter has been written along a line suggested by Dr. Foakes Jackson.
The writer is greatly indebted to Professor Burkitt for criticism and help.

2 The chief authorities are : S. Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893) and
Les Prefaces jointes aux livres de la Bible dans les MSS. de la Vulg. (Paris, 1902) ;
H. Zimmer, Peiagius in Irland (Berlin, 1901) ; and, latest and most important
of all, A. Souter, " The Commentary of Peiagius on the Epistles of Paul : the
Problem of its Restoration " (Proc. Brit. Acad., 1905-1906), pp. 409 tf. Dr.
Souter is undertaking an edition of the Commentary for the Cambridge Texts
and Studies.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 397

is a transcript of an original not later than the middle of the
sixth, and probably of the fifth century, and appears to be, if not
the sole surviving copy 1 of Pelagius s commentary in its original
form, at any rate nearer to the original than any other. It is
noteworthy that the commentary is anonymous (as Pelagius s
work probably was from the very first), and that its scriptural
text agrees closely with that of Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate. 2
Pelagius s expositions are very brief, as St. Augustine said they
were, 3 and most of the epistles are introduced by a short preface.
In addition to these there is a general introduction to the
epistles, which is also found and again attributed to Pelagius
early in the ninth century in the Book of Armagh.

Pelagius s exposition is, as we should expect, above all things
clear and logical. But his contribution to the serious study of
St. Paul is of the slightest kind. In his general introduction he
argues for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
That epistle makes, with the other epistles of St. Paul to churches,
as distinct from individuals, ten epistles altogether : and this is
as it should be, for under the old dispensation there were ten
commandments. There are some who say that the epistle does not
bear St. Paul s name, and that therefore it cannot be attributed
to him. You might as well say, Pelagius replies, that as it bears
no name it was written by no one ! 4 Oddly enough, however, no
commentary by Pelagius on the Epistle to the Hebrews survives.

The next British scholar whose work in connection with the Bede.
Acts calls for our attention is the Venerable Bede. In the list
of his published works given at the end of his Historia Eccle-
siastica we find the following items :

(1) Extracts from St. Augustine on the Apostle (i.e. St. Paul).

(2) On the Acts, two books.

(3) A book on each of the General Epistles.

1 As Dr. Souter at first seemed to think, but his opinion appears since to have
undergone some modification.

2 And more closely with this codex than with Codex Fuldensis.

3 Aug. De pecc. mer. III. i. 1.

4 The text of Pelagius s introduction is given in Zimmer, op. cit. p. 26.

398 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

(4) Chapters for readings in the New Testament (with the
exception of the Gospels).

Of the first of these four works no genuine copy appears to be
extant. The third 1 is chiefly remarkable for its general preface,
now preserved only in the older manuscripts. 2 Bede argues that
the first place among the apostles belongs to St. James and
not to St. Peter.

The second of the above-mentioned works is of course the
most important for our present purpose.

The first book 3 consists of a short commentary in which Bede
relies a good deal upon St. Augustine and other Latin fathers, and
to some extent makes use of the allegorical method of interpreta
tion. He often quotes from the insipid verses of Arator who had
done the Acts into Latin hexameters in two books about 542 A.D.

In the second book, 4 Liber Retractationis, or corrections,
Bede becomes more critical and gives evidence of having made a
careful study of a Greek MS., which indeed was none other than
the Codex Laudianus (Bodl. Laud. 35), well known to modern
textual critics as E Acts -

There is little British work upon subjects connected with the
Acts to be recorded for six hundred years after Bede s death.

In the first half of the thirteenth century Robert Grosseteste,
equally great as bishop and scholar, is said to have written a
short commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul. 5 In the second
half of the fourteenth century a powerful advocate of the studying
of the Scriptures in general appeared in the person of John
WyclitTe. He maintained that the knowledge of the Scriptures is
Wyciiffe. the essence of all knowledge, 6 and in developing his own theory

1 Migne, Patrologia Latina, 93, col. 9 f . Dr. Giles, Bedae omnia opera, vol.
xii. pp. 157 f., in Patres Ecclesiae Anglicanae.

2 E.g. B.N. 2366, C.V.L. LI. 2. 7, Caius 347 ; see Giles s Preface to vol. xii.,
by which the statement in Diet. Nat. Biog. (Bede) should be corrected.

3 Migne, Patrologia, 92, col. 937 ff. ; Giles, Bedae, vol. xii.

4 Migne, Patrologia, 92, col. 995 ff. ; Giles, op. cit. xii. Bede s Commentary
on St. Luke is given in Giles, op. cit. x. and xi.

5 S. Pegge, The Life of Eobert Grosseteste (1793), p. 275.

6 De civili dominio, i. 44 (ed. R. L. Poole for the Wyclif Soc., 1885), p. 402.

ir BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 399

of property he appealed especially to the example of the Church
as recorded in the first chapters of the Acts. His favourite
passage perhaps was Acts iv. (32-35) ending with the words,
" And distribution was made unto every man according as he
had need " (v. 35). 1

The disciples were called Christiani and not Jesuani (Acts
xi. 26), he says, " quia Christus est racione unctus pre regibus et
prophetis, licet Messie authonomatice conveniat qui omnes unguit
suos discipulos oleo gracie ut habitantes fralres in unum habeant
omnia in commurii, eciam pilos temporalium usque ad esibilia
que sunt barba summi pontificis, ut dicitur Ps. cxxxii. 2. Jesu
autem est proprium nomen abbatis nostri qui nos non salvat, nisi
servemus religionem nostram." 2

In another chapter in the same work he enumerates eight
points in which the early Church is a model of true religion : 3

1. Its members were all of one mind (Acts iv. 32). 2. They
held no property singly. 3. They shared all with others. 4.
They preached the Resurrection of Christ. 5. They acted up to
their teaching. 6. All lived alike ; there were no rich and poor.
7. They sold their possessions and laid the money at the apostles
feet. 8. They divided to each as he had need.

Again he supports his contention that rulers are to be obeyed
by the clergy by quoting Rom. xiii. 1, and reminding his readers
of St. Paul s appeal to Caesar (Acts xxv. 10, 11) ; and he calls
attention to the fact that it was not for himself but for the saints
in Jerusalem that St. Paul collected money (Acts xx. 34 and
Rom. xv. 1-3). 4

But Wycliffe s chief contribution to the study of the New-
Testament is to be found in the interest he aroused through the
translation of the Vulgate into English, which was undertaken by
him and completed by his followers. This translation, although

1 See De civili dominio, i. 14, p. 97 ; see also iii. 12 (ed. Loserth), p. 196.

2 De civili dominio, iii. 2 (ed. Loserth), p. 15.

3 Op. cit. iii. 6 (ed. Loserth), pp. 77 ff.

4 Op. cit. iii. 9 (p. 143). In the Latin works in which Wycliffe expounds his
communistic views we find frequent references to the writings of St. Luke
(e.g. op. cit. ii. 14, 15).

versions.

400 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

it may have had little or no literary effect upon the subsequent
translations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, prepared
the way for them by creating a demand for the Scriptures in
the common language of the people. 1

English The genealogy of the later translations of the New Testament

in general and of the Acts in particular is indicated in the following
table :

Erasmus s Greek Testament
(1516)

Tyndale s New Testament Stephanus s Greek Testament

(1525) 2 (1551)

r i

Matthew s Coverdale s Beza s New Testament

(1537)3 (1535) (1556)

The Great Bible Geneva Bible

(1539) 4 (1560) 5

I I |

Bishop s Bible
(1568) 6

Rheims N.T.

(1582) 7
I

Authorised Version
(1611) 8

1 On earlier English translation of parts of the Bible see the introduction
to Miss A. C. Panes edition of a Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version
(1902). The Acts (i.-xxviii. 28, 30-31, i.e. with the omission of xxviii. 29) is
contained in four MSS., of which the oldest is in the library of Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge (Parker, 434), and the MS. which forms the basis of Miss
Paues edition is at Selwyn College (108, L.I). See also M. Deansley, The
Lollard Bible, and other Medieval Biblical Versions (1920).

2 Tyndale also used Erasmus s Latin translation of his text, the Vulgate, and
Luther s German translation.

3 Matthew s New Testament consisted of Tyndale s last revision (1535)
which was without marginal notes (of his 1534 edition), but contained headings
to the chapters in the Gospels and Acts (though not in the Epistles).

4 The New Testament in the Great Bible is a revision, by Coverdale, of
Matthew s. Coverdale s work shows the influence of the Vulgate and of
Erasmus s Latin Version.

5 The New Testament, 1557 : in 1560 the whole Bible, including the N.T.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 401

published in 1557 thoroughly revised. The N.T. had been largely the work
of W. Whittingham formerly a Fellow of All Souls and Senior Student of
Christ Church. Whittingham had based his text upon Tyndale, and a small
translation committee corrected it with the assistance of the Latin translation
and commentary of Beza (1556 and 1559).

6 Another edition, 1569 and another 1572, all under Archbishop Parker s
direction. The work is uneven, but is better in the New Testament than in
the Old (A General View of the History of the English Bible by B. F. Westcott,
3rd ed., W. A. Wright, 1905, p. 231).

7 Begun at Douai (1568) and finished at Rheims. The translation is made
from the Vulgate, but it appears to contain traces of the influence of the Geneva
version of 1560 (Westcott, op. cit. p. 245 n.).

8 The work was based upon the edition of the Bishops Bible published in
1602, but the revisers made considerable use both of the Genevan and of the
Rhemish version.

It is to William Tyndale more than to any other single William
translator that the characteristics of the Authorised Version are ync
due. 1 "It is of more cleaner English," said Friar Barons. 2 His
translation was the result of a thorough study of the Greek text.
The notes in the margin of his 1534 edition are not only homi-
letical, as e.g. Acts xiv. 23, "Prayer and fastynge go to gether";
but reveal a scholar s interest in the narrative itself. For example :
Acts xii. 12, " This John is the same Marcke, that wryte the
gospel of Marcke": Acts xix. 19, "These syluerlinges which we
now and then call pence the lues call sades, ad are worth a. x.
pece sterlynge."

The Gospels and the Acts in this edition of 1534 were preceded
by a table of contents, the items of which are transferred to the
separate chapters in the edition of 1536, where the notes 3 are
omitted.

1 It has been calculated that 90 per cent of the words in the Authorised
Version come from Tyndale s.

2 Strype s Ecclesiastical Memorials i., App. No. xvii., quoted Westcott, op. cit.
p. 37. Sir Thomas More s famous criticism of Tyndale s translation is found in
his Dyaloge (1529). What Sir Thomas objects to more than anything else is
Tyndale s substitution of seniours for priestes. congregacion for churche. love
for charitye, favour for grace, repentance for penance, and so on (Dyaloge,
iii. 8).

3 The chapter headings in the A.V. are not identical with these, nor were
they composed by the revision committee. They were apparently left to the
various revisers of the various books (see art. by C. Kegan Paul in the
Theological Review, 1869, p, 102).

VOL. II 2 D

402 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

Geneva The next important advance after Tyndale s was made by
ble the editors of the Geneva Bible (1557 and 1560). This Bible, a
moderate quarto in size, printed in Roman letter, with verse
divisions, short marginal notes, and maps and plans, was for
three-quarters of a century the household Bible of the English
people. 1

Its editors made good use of Beza s Latin translation of the
New Testament (1556 and 1559). In several instances, where
the Geneva Bible is the first to give a correct translation of the
Greek, its accuracy is due to Beza. An example 2 may be taken
from Acts xxvii. 9, where Tyndale (followed by the Great Bible)
had translated " because also that we (they, G.B.) had overlonge
fasted " ; and the right rendering, " because also the Fast was now
passed," first appears in the Geneva version. This correction no
doubt is due to Beza, whose translation reads " quod jam etiam
jejunium praeteriisset," and who has a note as follows, " tempus
designat Lucas ex more Judaici populi." The earlier translators
had been led away by Erasmus, who defends his version in his
commentary. 3 Similarly, in Acts xxvii. 13, the Geneva version
gets its nearer, instead of Asson, from Beza, while the
previous versions follow Erasmus in taking Asson as a place and
not as an adverb. Here the Bishops Bible failed to follow the
Geneva correction.

On the other hand, in Acts xxvii. 17, where the older English
versions, following Erasmus, rendered cr/ceOo? by vessel and
Beza had the more correct translation sails, the Geneva
version agrees with the old English versions, and the first sign
of Beza s correction appears in the note in the margin of the
Bishops Bible, " some read the sayles."

1 H. W. Hoare estimates that 160 editions of it were published (Nineteenth
Century, Ap. 1899).

2 See Westcott, op. cit. p. 227. Westcott also quotes Acts xxiii. 27. Both
these examples were originally given by Archbishop Trench (On the Authorised
Version, p. 113 n.).

3 Annotationes, 1522, p. 276. Wycliffe following the Vulgate had not
fallen into this error, " whanne seylyng thanne was not sikir for that fasting
was passid."

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 403

Other notes 1 originate as far as we know with the Geneva
version itself. For instance, on Acts xxvii. 17, where its text
reads " fearing lest they should have fallen into Syrtes," we
find the following note, " ye goulfe Syrtes, which were certaine
boy ling sandes that swallowed up all that they caught." 2 This
note reappears in the margin of the Rheims version in a
shorter form " a place of quicke sandes." Thence appar
ently it found its way in the A.V. into the text itself as
quicksands. 3

The translators at Geneva had set an example in their com- Authorised
mittee for translation which was followed years afterwards in
England. As a result of the Hampton Court Conference (1604)
a large committee was appointed, and, divided into six groups, it
worked steadily from 1607 to 161 1 . The four Gospels and the Acts
were allotted to a group of Oxford scholars, of whom the most
famous was Sir H. Savile, the Provost of Eton, the most learned
classic in England in Elizabeth s reign. 4

Basing their work upon the Bishops Bible 5 they made full
use of all the best preceding versions, both English and Con
tinental, and specially of the Geneva version. It is also clear
that they paid considerable attention to the Roman Catholic

1 The headlines at the top of the pages of this version are sometimes very
curious : e.g. above Acts xi. 15 ff., " Peter is purged " ; above Acts xii. 18-25,
" The plague of tyrantes." But there is nothing in the Acts to come up to the
heading of the page containing the account of the beheading of St. John the
Baptist (Mk. vi.), " The inconuenience of dauncing." [Ed. of 1582.]

2 Cf. the similar geographical note upon Salmone (Acts xxvii. 7) " which
was an high hil of Candie bowing to the seaward."

3 It is a curious fact that Wycliffe s version here has " sondi places."
The word Crete (Acts xxvii. 7) came into the A.V. in a somewhat similar
way. The Geneva version, followed by the Bishops Bible, had Candie
with Greta hi the margin ; in the Rheims version and the A.V. Crete is in
the text.

4 Hallarn, Lit. Hist, of Europe, ii. 62. His is still the best complete edition
of the works of St. Chrysostom.

6 There seems to have been something lacking in the supervision of this
Bible for publication. This fact is illustrated by the curious forms of some of
the initial letters. The background of the first letter of the Epistle to the
Hebrews is a picture of Leda and the Swan : that of the first letter of the
Acts is a picture of Neptune driving in the sea.

404 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

version which had been issued from Rheims, and particularly in
the matter of vocabulary. 1

It is unnecessary to dwell upon this noble version. Its
defects, such as they are, in the Acts are due not so much to
carelessness or inaccuracy of translation as to the deficiencies of
the Greek text which was before the translators. Erasmus s text
which they used had been based on poor MSS. at Basel.

Even from this slight sketch it will be seen that, starting with
Erasmus, there had been a succession of students who had broken
away from the scholastic tradition and had undertaken fresh
studies of the text of the New Testament itself. The movement
may indeed be traced back another twenty years to Michaelmas

John Coiet. 1496, when John Colet, having just returned to Oxford from Italy,
delivered his famous course of lectures upon St. Paul s Epistles.
Colet began with the Epistle to the Romans and treated it as
a whole, bringing out its connection with St. Paul s life and
illustrating it by Suetonius s description of the contemporary
state of society at Rome. 2

Erasmus. A year or two later Erasmus attended some of these lectures

when he was at Oxford, and came under the influence of Colet s
strong personality. Colet urged him to devote himself to the
study of the Scriptures, 3 and after some delay, during which he
was diligently improving his Greek, Erasmus at length issued his
Novum Instrumentum, consisting of the Greek text of the New
Testament and a Latin version of it, together with Annotations.
In these Annotations Erasmus uses the critical method of ex
position in much the same way as Colet had done. 4 He uses it

1 This is not specially noticeable in the Acts, but examples do occur, e.g.
xxviii. 11 "sign" (A.V. and Rheims) where the Great Bible, Geneva, and
the Bishops Bible have " badge." For other books see Westcott, op. cit.
pp. 253 ff., pp. 266 ff.

2 A copy of Colet s exposition of this epistle is in Cambridge University
Library, MS. Gg 4, 26. It seems to contain corrections in Colet s own hand
writing (Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers, 3rd ed., 1887, p. 33 n.).

3 Seebohm, op. cit. p. 128.

4 Although in his conversations with Colet Erasmus had to a certain extent
defended a manifold sense in Scripture (Seebohm, op. cit. p. 124).

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 405

cautiously, however, and takes shelter as far as possible behind
the Fathers, and especially behind St. Jerome. For example,
he points out that St. Jerome had observed the discrepancy
between the account of Abraham s doings in St. Stephen s
speech (Acts vii.) and the account in the book of Genesis,
and simply adds, " Hunc nodum illic nectit Hieronymus nee
eum dissolvit." x

Erasmus was by this time the writer most admired in Europe,
and his publication exerted an immense influence. It may be
regarded as the starting-point of modern scientific exegesis.

But we must return to England. The Reformers had
appealed from the Church to the Bible, and the Bible came
more and more to take the place of the books of the School
men. " The New Testament was locked up again, after a
preliminary glance, as an armoury of arguments for or against
Protestant bodies." 2 Some of the controversialists were more
judicious, some were less, in their use of this armoury. Most
judicious of all is Richard Hooker. He instances the decree of Richard
Acts xv. 28 to illustrate the fact that laws properly divine may
still be mutable, 3 " this very law ... is ... abrogated by
decease of the end for which it was given." He points to the
case of Matthias (Acts i. 26) to show that the word bishop
was not confined in the times of the Apostles to " oversight
in respect of a particular Church and congregation. For, I
beseech you, of what parish or particular congregation was
Matthias bishop ? his office Scripture doth term episcopal." 4
And so on.

A distinct advance had been made at any rate in two The laity

read the

1 Annotationes (Acts vii.), p. 242. And see Seebohm, op. cit. pp. 331 f. for
other examples. As Professor Burkitt points out (Encycl. Brit., llth ed.,
vol. iii. p. 886, Art. "Bible") Erasmus is careful to distinguish between his
sources, e.g. with regard to St. Paul between (a) direct statements in the Acts,
(b) inferences from the Pauline epistles, and (c) the statements of later writers
like Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius).

2 Professor Burkitt in one of his lectures in Cambridge in 1910.

3 Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, III. x. 2 (1594).

4 Book VII. xi. 3.

406 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

respects. In the first place, the laity had begun to be readers of
the Bible. A practical man of affairs like William Bradford
(1590-1657), the second governor of Plymouth, New England,went
so far as to acquire some knowledge of Hebrew as well as Latin and
Greek in order " to see with his own eyes the ancient oracles of
God in their native beauty." And in the second place, the texts
were taken according to their plain literal meaning, and not used
as an allegory. This advance was maintained, and more atten
tion paid to historical background, by the writers of the next (the
seventeenth) century. Three names may be mentioned, all of
them honoured by both sides in the long controversy between
Puritan and Churchman, Roundhead and Cavalier. The first was
John the Roundhead, John Lightfoot, who under the Commonwealth
Dot was appointed Master of St. Catharine Hall in Cambridge (1650),
and at the Restoration offered to resign, but was confirmed in
his mastership by Shelden the Archbishop of Canterbury in
recognition of his learning. He is chiefly remembered by his
Home Hebraicae et Talmudicae, of which one part deals with
the Epistle to the Corinthians (Cambridge, 1664), and another,
published posthumously by Richard Kidder in 1678, with the
Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. Some years
earlier, in 1645, Lightfoot had published a commentary upon the
Acts of the Apostles, chapters i.-xii., in the introduction to which
he explains that the Acts naturally falls into two sections, the
first dealing with the Jews, the second with the Gentiles. His
comments are useful and scholarly, and his chief contribution to
New Testament study is the light that he throws upon Jewish
customs and thought from the Rabbinical writings. " By
constant reading of the rabbis," says Gibbon, " he became almost
a rabbi himself."

Henry A more popular figure was Henry Hammond, one of Charles

Hammond, j , g ctaplams Hig life by Bishop Fell (1661) is one of the most

charming of English biographies. During the Commonwealth he

found an asylum with Sir John Pakington at Westwood, and there

he wrote his Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of

n BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 407

the New Testament (fol. London, 1653). 1 It is sensibly written,
and was much used. Hammond says he purposely abstains
" from all doctrinal conclusions and deductions and definitions
on one side, and from all Postillary observations, and accommoda
tions, moral, or mystical anagogies on the other side." His plan
rather was to weigh the context, to compare one Scripture with
another, to study closely the original language and the meaning
of Hebrew words as well as Greek, to take " notice of some
customes among the Jewes, the Grecians, and Romans," and
to add " sometimes the testimonies of the Antients when they
appeared most usefull, and when my slender collections enabled
me to annex them." In the margin he gives (a translation of)
some of the variants from three Greek MSS., one of which is
Codex Bezae, " because this Kingdome of ours hath been
enriched with some monuments of Antiquity in this kind, which
were probably designed by God for more honourable uses than
onely to be laid up in Archives, as dead bodies in vaults and
charnel-houses, to converse with dust and worms and rottenness."

This type of scholarship reaches its height in John Pearson, Bishop
Lady Margaret Professor at Cambridge, Master of Jesus, of Trinity,
and finally Bishop of Chester. Pearson again was a royalist, but
the Puritans had a great respect for him. 2 It was in 1659 that
he published his great Exposition of the Creed. Two years later,
when he became Professor at Cambridge, one of the courses of
lectures which he delivered was upon the Acts of the Apostles.
But his Lectiones in Acta Apostolorum were not published till
after his death. 3 They were accompanied by a short essay
entitled " Ann ales Paulini." 4 Pearson makes good use of Roman

1 Hearne tells us (Diary, Bliss, vol. i. p. 352) that he was the first man in
England that had copy-money. " He was paid such a some of money (I know
not how much) by Mr. Royston, the King s printer, for his Annotationes on
the Testament."

2 He was apparently the only Episcopalian at the Savoy Conference (1661)
who impressed Baxter.

3 By Dodwell in 1688.

* These are both translated from the Latin and edited by J. R. Crowfoot,
Cambridge, 1851. The lectures are incomplete (Crowfoot, op. cit. p. 50 n.).

408 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

authors, of Josephus, and of the patristic writings. 1 But he does
not allow his pages to be overburdened. One quotation will be
sufficient to illustrate the care with which he consulted his
authorities. " It may be collected," he says, " from Acts xi. 28,
where the Cambridge MS. has While we were assembled together,
that Luke was before with Paul at Antioch, and had now come
up with him at Troas." 2

The rise of But we are now at the dawn of a new era in the world of
Thomas thought. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes, a friend of Galileo and
Hobbes. Mersenne, published his Leviathan. The purpose of this brilliantly
written book was to advocate the entire subordination of the
ecclesiastical to the secular authority, but incidentally it con
tained 3 some acute criticism of the Old Testament. His attitude
to the New Testament may be summed up in his own words : " At
which time, 4 though ambition had so far prevailed on the great
doctors of the Church, as no more to esteem Emperours, though
Christian, for the Shepherds of the people, but for Sheep ; and
Emperours not Christian, for Wolves ; and endeavoured to
passe their Doctrine, not for Counsell, and Information, as
Preachers ; but for Laws, as absolute Governours ; and thought
such frauds as tended to make the people the more obedient to
Christian Doctrine, to be pious ; yet I am perswaded they did
not therefore falsifie the Scriptures, though the copies of the Books
of the New Testament were in the hands only of the Ecclesias-
ticks ; because if they had an intention so to doe, they would
surely have made them more favorable to their power over
Christian Princes, and Civill Soveraignty, than they are."
Matthew The rise of Deism has begun. It reaches its summit in

Tindal.

Matthew Tindal s Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730).

A few quotations will show the new attitude to the Bible :
" In things tending to the Honour of God, and the Good of
Mankind, the dernier Resort is to Reason ; whose Dictates, as

1 Cf. M. Poole s massive Synopsis Criticorum (1669-76.)

2 Annals of S. Paul, ed. Crowfoot, p. 93. 3 Chapter xxxiii.

4 I.e. at the time of the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364, p. 281, ed. A. R.
Waller (Cambridge, 1904).

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 409

they need no Miracles for their Support, so all Doctrines incon
sistent with them, tho they plead endless Miracles, must be
look d upon as diabolical Impostures." 1

" Had there been but one Language, and a Book writ in that
Language, in indelible characters (so that there cou d be none of
these thirty thousand various Readings, which are own d to be
crept into the New Testament) and all cou d have access to it ;
yet even then, considering how uncertain the meaning of Words
are, and the interest of designing Men to put a wrong sense on
them ; it must be morally impossible this Religion could long
continue the same." 2

In another passage Tindal quotes from Scripture (e.g. Gal. ii.
13, Acts xv. 39, and Rom. vii. 19, 23) : " Do not these instances,
tho many more might be added, plainly show that inspir d
Persons, whether Prophets or Apostles, are subject to the same
Passions, even to dissembling and lying, as other Men ? And
that we sin against that Reason, which was given us to distin
guish between Good and Evil ; Religion and Superstition ; if
we do not by it examine all Doctrines whatsoever, and by
whomsoever deliver d ? " 3

One more quotation will be sufficient : " And as to those
Prophecies, if they may be so call d, in the New Testament,
relating to the second Coming of Christ, and the End of the World,
the best Interpreters and Commentators own, the Apostles them
selves were grossly mistaken ; there scarce being an Epistle,
but where they foretel that those Times they wrote in, were
Tempora novissima" 4

1 Chap, xii., 3rd ed. (1732), p. 181. Tindal (p. 249) quotes with approval
Nye s explanation of the sun standing still, Josh. x. 12, 13, viz. that the words
come from a Poem, written by one Jasher, and are to be taken as "an elegant
Fiction, and very proper in a Poem that was written on such an Occasion."
Conyers Middleton, another of the Deists, left behind him at his death, 1750,
a paper on miracles so heterodox that Bolingbroke advised that it should not
be published (Diet. Nat. Biography, art. "Middleton," vol. xxxvii. p. 347).

2 Chap. xiii. p. 260.
8 Op. cit. p. 221.

4 Op. cit. p. 233. And then Tindal refers to more than a dozen passages in
the Epistles.

410

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

John
Toland

Replies to
Deism.

John
Locke.

All this, it will be seen, involved a fresh study of the New
Testament itself. Indeed some years previously (1696) Toland
had contended that his thesis that Christianity was not mysterious
but " intended a Rational and Intelligible Religion " was " prov d
from the Miracles, Method and Stile of the New Testament." 1
In his later paper, Nazarenus (1718), Toland lays down that
" it will not be enough barely to quote our Gospels, Epistles,
and the Acts of the Apostles, but their genuineness and integrity
must be likewise establish d by those arguments of which every
good Christian may and ought to be appriz d." 2

Toland had claimed to base his general position upon a
philosophy similar to that of John Locke, and Locke was not
unnaturally annoyed at having his name bracketed with Toland s
by Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, and wrote three replies to
the Bishop s charges (1696, 1697, and 1699). Locke had himself
in 1695 published The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered
in the Scriptures, which consisted of a careful study of the New
Testament itself ; 3 and before his death he had prepared a
paraphrase and notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians,
Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, " to which is prefixed an essay
for the understanding of St. Paul s epistles by consulting St.
Paul himself." 4

1 The heading of Section II. chapter iii. In Sect. III. chapter vi. he dis
cusses the question, " When, why, and by whom were Mysteries brought into
Christianity ? " and concludes ( 91) that " Mystery prevail d very little in the
first Hundred or Century of Years after Christ ; but in the second and third
it began to establish it self by Ceremonies."

2 Nazarenus, chapter xx. In this paper Toland lays stress on the differences
between St. Paul and the other Apostles (especially St. Peter and St. James).
See chapters viii. ff.

3 One of the most striking passages in this book is that (10th ed. vol. vii.
pp. 140 f.) in which he shows : " Though yet, if any one should think, that out
of the sayings of the wise heathens before our Saviour s time, there might be
a collection made of all those rules of morality, which are to be found in the
Christian religion ; yet this would not at all hinder, but that the world, never
theless, stood as much in need of our Saviour, and the morality delivered by
him."

4 In this masterly essay he complains of the chopping and mincing of the
text into chapters and verses (Locke, Works, 10th ed., vol. viii. p. vii) and main
tains that the epistles must be read as wholes. He also contends that " he

ri BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 411

The greatest classic of the age, Richard Bentley, also entered Richard
the lists, and his reply to Anthony Collins s l discourse of Free-
thinking is characteristic of his vast learning and ready wit.
He has no difficulty in exposing the deficiencies of Collins s
scholarship and his remarks on Acts xix. 32, xx. 28, vii. 59, 2
xxvii. 14 3 are good examples of his acute criticism. 4 The whole
essay is written in the same spirit which prompted his famous
note in the margin of his copy of John Malalas where the
chronicler had made a gross blunder in geography : " Euge
vero, &&amp;gt; Iwawibiov " (" Good indeed, Johnny ").

This sketch of the Deistic controversy will serve as an intro- William
duction to Paley s Home Paulinae (1790). The purpose of this
book was definitely apologetical, and it is, as it was intended to
be, a companion to the author s still more famous Evidences of
Christianity. The Deists had challenged the Church to an un
prejudiced examination of the origins of Christianity and had
even thrown out insinuations of imposture. The Boyle lecture
had been founded in 1692 for the purpose of combating their
allegations. One of the early lecturers on this foundation, R.
Biscoe, had taken as his subject the Acts of the Apostles 5 (1736-

that would understand St. Paul right, must understand his terms in the sense
he uses them, and not as they are appropriated by each man s particular philo
sophy to conceptions that never entered the mind of the apostle " (Ibid. p. xxi).

1 Published 1713. In 1724 Collins published an examination of an essay
by W. Whiston (now chiefly remembered as a translator of Josephus) on the
fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament in the New Testament, in
which he showed that in many cases this fulfilment can only be maintained in
the sense in which Whiston maintained it by giving an allegorical interpretation
to the Old Testament passages. Whether intentionally or not, Collins made
nonsense of the whole subject. Incidentally he threw out the brilliant con
jecture that the book of Daniel was a forgery of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes.
(See F. C. Conybeare, The History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 47.)

2 8th ed., 1743, pp. 133 ff. 3 Ibid. pp. 97 ff.

4 Especially the last, a discussion of the relative value of the readings
tvpoK\vdwt&gt; and evpaKvXuv. We may notice also Bentley s remarks, p. 141.
about the " postscripts " to 2 Tim. and Titus " nobody yet either believ d or
affirm d that these were underwritten by St. Paul himself. They are nothing
but Memorandums or Endorsements written by others long after the death of
the Apostle."

5 1736, the year in which Butler s Analogy was published.

412 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

1738). He had shown how various facts stated by St. Luke are
confirmed by other writers such as Josephus, Philo, the Rabbis in
the Talmud, Roman and Greek writers, and St. Paul in his epistles.
Indeed Paley had behind him a century of controversy, and
his Evidences are a compendium of the most striking arguments
against the Deists * during that period as they had been absorbed
by him in his reading. The Horae Paulinae is a much more
original work, and illustrates not only the extraordinary clear
ness of the writer s style, but his great power of observation of
details. If a few of his conclusions 2 have to be modified in the
light of further research, Jowett s commendation is not un
deserved. " The ingenuity of his arguments, the minuteness of
the intimations discovered by him, the remoteness and com
plexity of his combinations leave the impression on the mind of
absolute certainty in reference to the great Epistles to the Romans
and Corinthians, and of high probability in reference to most of
the others." 3

Paley does not embark upon any criticism of the text itself
except in his appendix, where he gives his reasons for rejecting
the Euthalian colophons to Galatians, 1 Cor., 1 and 2 Thess.,
1 Tim. and Titus : and all the Epistles and every part of the Acts
were placed by him upon the same level of authenticity and
genuineness.

At the opening of the nineteenth century, then, the New
Testament had again been unlocked through the combined efforts
of the Deists and their opponents. The Deists had suggested
problems : through their lack of scholarship they could do little
more.

Advance in The next advance took place in the field of textual criticism.

crTticTsL As long ago as 1707, Dr. John Mill 4 had published a careful

1 E.g. Paley s argument from the contempt, ridicule, and sufferings under
gone by the early professors of Christianity is found in a shortened form on
pp. 22 ff. of Biscoe s book (ed. 1742).

2 E.g. with regard to 1 and 2 Thess. For other instances see Dean Howson s
edition, 1877. 3 Commentary (see below), vol. i. p. 204.

4 Dr. Mill continued the work of Bishop Fell, who in 1675 had published a
collection of more than 100 MSS., one of which was the Codex of the Acts

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 413

collation of a number of MSS., but he had not ventured to intrude
any of their readings into the received text itself. It was Karl
Lachmann, the great authority on Lucretius, who in 1831 pro
duced the first modern critical edition of the New Testament.

The first English scholar to avail himself of this work and to Henry
develop it was Henry Alford, the versatile x Dean of Canterbury.
He began his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek 2
while Vicar of Wymeswold in Leicestershire, and he struck a new
line both by his good use of the researches of the best Continental
scholars of his day, 3 and also by making his commentary philo
logical rather than homiletical. Scholars were now beginning to
have more help from works of reference such, for example, as
Winer s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms.^

The German writers to whom Alford is most indebted are
those who, like de Wette, are typical of the exegesis of the period
immediately before Baur. 5 Neander s Geschichte der Pflanzung
und Leitung der cliristlichen Kirche durch die Apostel 6 ; Wieseler,
Chronologic des apostolischen Zeitalters 7 ; and the commentaries
of H. A. W. Meyer are other examples of the German writings
used by Alford.

Alford also refers to the commentary of Professor B. Jowett Benjamin
upon St. Paul s Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and
Romans 8 ; who likewise acknowledges his indebtedness to some
of these and other Continental scholars, notably to the Swiss

mentioned above as used by Bede, which had recently been presented to the
Bodleian Library by Archbishop Laud. It was Mill who first called attention to
the connection between Codex E and Bede (Prol. p. clvii, col. 1).

1 It will be remembered that he is the author of several popular hymns,
e.g. " Come, ye thankful people, come," " Ten thousand times ten thousand."

2 Four volumes, 1841-1861.

3 He had spent three months in Bonn, 1847, in order to learn German.

4 Published in 1821. The first edition of Liddell and Scott s Greek Lexicon
appeared in 1843 : the first edition of C. L. W. Grimm s in 1862-1868. Older
works were Surenhusius s Mischna (1698-1703); Schoettgen s Rabbinical
studies (1733-1742) ; Bingham s Origenes Ecclesiasticae (1708-1722) ; Mangey s
Pkilo (1742) ; J. J. Wettstein s Greek Test. (1751-1752) ; Holmes and Parsons
Septuagint (1798-1827).

6 A. Schweitzer, Paul and his Interpreters, p. 10 n.

6 1st ed., 1832-1833. 7 1848. lst edi&gt; 1855 .

414 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

theologian Usteri, whose Development of the Pauline System of
Doctrine may be regarded as one of the starting-points of the
modern historical study of Paulinism, 1 and to Gfrorer, whom he
follows very closely in his treatment of Philo.

Professor Jowett, as we should expect, deals with his subject
in a forceful and independent manner. His excursus upon Philo
is one of the first attempts in English to estimate the importance
of this writer s works for the illustration of the philosophical
atmosphere in which the New Testament writers lived, and of
the language which they had in common. In another essay
Jowett identifies the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. ii. with
that described in Acts xv. and says that " it cannot be denied
that these discrepancies are important." 2 At the same time he
admits that " they are of a kind which would be likely to arise
in two authorities so different," and he makes no attempt to
overpress them. He rejects the identification of the Galatians
with the barbarous people of Lycaonia. 3 He takes them rather
to be Gauls, or at any rate the Phrygians or Greeks associated
with them, and suggests that the fickleness of which the Apostle
complains " may lead us to conjecture that he is addressing a
people subject to violent religious impulses." 4 Bishop Lightfoot
speaks of Jowett s work with respect, 5 and brackets with it that
of Bishop Ellicott, whose commentaries on the epistles were the
standard commentaries in English until Lightfoot s own appeared.
Bishop Ellicott is a temperamental conservative : he does not approve

of Jowett s work, clever as he acknowledges it to be ; even Alford
is a little too dependent upon the Germans. He himself uses
German work, but very cautiously. We should not expect him
to take much notice of Baur ; Hilgenfeld he finds very useful in

1 1st ed., 1824. See Schweitzer, op. cit. p. 9 n.

2 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 308.

3 Ibid. p. 237. A foretaste of the South Galatian hypothesis. The hypo
thesis was expounded a little later by Perrot (De Galatia provincia Romana,
1807, pp. 43 ff.).

4 Ibid. p. 238.

5 In his Commentary on Galatians (1865). He had subjected Jowett s
commentaries to a searching examination in 1856 (see below).

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 415

historical questions, but the tone of his exegesis he thinks bad ;
while he finds that Fritzsche often treats the Greek Fathers with
unjust levity. The chief merit of Ellicott s work is due to his
" minute and careful scrutiny " of the Apostle s language, and
his commentaries are to be classed with those of Christopher
Wordsworth (1856-1860), Godet, the Swiss theologian (1879-1887),
E. H. Gifford and T. S. Evans (in the Speaker s Commentary,
1881), as monuments of painstaking exegesis.

While all this exegetical work was going on there appeared illustrative
side by side with it a series of studies illustrative of St. Paul s Bi
travels. The first of the series is the essay published in 1848 by
a Fellow of the Royal Society, James Smith of Jordanhill, on James
" The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul." Smith was an
enthusiastic yachtsman as well as an eminent geologist, and his
work is of permanent value as a demonstration that the twenty-
seventh chapter of the Acts was written by an eye-witness and a
landsman. He also proved conclusively that the scene of the ship
wreck was St. Paul s Bay, Malta, and not the island of Meleda
in the Adriatic as had been suggested by some. The acuteness
of Smith s critical faculty was made still more evident by the
publication in 1853 of his Dissertation on the Origin and Connection
of the Gospels. He maintained that the correspondence between
the synoptic gospels was too close for them to be in literary
independence. He illustrated his contention by placing in
parallel columns narratives of the same incidents in the Peninsular
War written by Alison, Napier, and Suchet, and showed that there
was no close verbal agreement between them except when one
authority was using another, or two were using common sources.
His conclusion was that St. Luke made use of the first and second
gospels ; l and although this particular result has since required
modification, the acuteness of Smith s criticism will be recognised
at once.

1 Or rather of the original memoir written by St. Peter in Aramaic (of
which the second gospel as we have it now is a translation by St. Mark) and of
the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew. See especially pp. 201 ff., 302 ff.

416 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

r. Lewin. The next illustrative work of this kind is found in T. Lewin s
Life and Epistles of St. Paul (1851). Lewin was a barrister who
had travelled a good deal in the Nearer East and made a study
of St. Paul s life for upwards of forty years. 1 He paid special
attention to chronology and finally published his results in Fasti
Sacri, or a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament (1865). 2
Conybeare There followed the similar and more famous work of Cony-
Howson. beare and Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, published
first in parts and then completely in 1852.

A late Master of Trinity, after having heard Dean Howson
preach a University sermon, is said to have remarked that he
never knew till then what a very clever man the late Mr. Conybeare
must have been. As a matter of fact, however, this is merely a
bon mot of the kind familiar to those who knew the late Master,
for the credit of the book belongs principally to Howson. 3 It
was he who contributed the geographical and historical sections
which are its chief merit. Conybeare s work was less important
and the translations for which he was responsible were the " least
happily executed portion * 4 of the book. Howson continued his
work on St. Paul in several other publications, as, for example, his
Bohlen lectures on the Evidential Value of the Acts, delivered at
Philadelphia in 1880. In the same succession and of a still more
popular character are A. P. Stanley s The Epistles of St. Paul
to the Corinthians, 5 a work lively and picturesque rather than
scholarly or accurate ; and the voluminous writings of F. W.

1 His second edition, 1874, contains above 370 engravings views of places,
maps, plans, and coins many of them sketches of his own.

2 A work still found to be very useful on account of its array of collateral
evidence by a modern writer like Dr. D. Smith, Life and Letters of St. Paul,
1919, p. xi.

3 Howson, moreover, is said (Diet. Nat, Biogr.) to have been an interesting
preacher.

4 Bp. Ellicott. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul not only had a large circula
tion but was widely used in such works as The Footsteps of St. Paul, by the
author of The Morning and Night Watches, written (1855) for youths (" say
from ten to seventeen years of age ... to attract them to a more careful and
devout study of the Word of God ").

5 Published in 1855, while Stanley was a Canon of Canterbury.

BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 417

Farrar. Farrar had made his reputation while Headmaster of F. W;
Marlborough by his Life of Christ, twelve editions of which were
exhausted in a single year. 1 Popular and uncritical though this
book was it was founded on a wide if old-fashioned scholarship.
Farrar followed it up with the Life and Work of St. Paul, pub
lished in 1879, 2 the ablest and most thorough of all his works.
Three years later a third work appeared on The Early Days
of Christianity. 3

Such was the general character of English work about the
sixties ; painstaking exegesis, and illustration by means of travel
and a certain amount of archaeology. Meanwhile in Germany
renewed interest in Pauline study had been awakened by the
startling suggestions of F. C. Baur, which involved the authen
ticity of a number of the books of the New Testament. Many
years before an English divine of the name of Evanson had written Evanson.
a book 4 in which, after accusing the four gospels of gross irreconcil
able contradictions, he denied the authenticity of the Epistles to
the Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians, and left those to Titus,
Philippians, and Philemon doubtful. The Epistle to the Romans
he rejected, because he argued from the Acts that " when St.
Paul arrived at Rome, for the first time, in the reign of Nero,
there was no Christian Church there, as indeed it is not at all
probable there should have been. . . ." 5 In the Acts and in the
third Gospel he had every confidence : " We have here, then," he
says after reviewing and comparing the two works of St. Luke, 6
" every kind of evidence, whereof the nature of the case admits,
to convince us of the genuine authenticity and veracity of
both these histories ; and with these, for my own part, I am

1 And thirty editions were issued in the author s lifetime.

2 10th ed., 1904. A long review of the work appeared in the Church Quarterly
Review, Jan. 1880, where it is objected that Farrar gives a clear and consistent
conception of the man Paul rather than of the Apostle (p. 429).

3 1882. The work passed through five editions. Farrar then went on from
the New Testament to the History of the Early Church in the first six centuries
and published his Lives of the Fathers : Church History in Biography, in 1889.

4 The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the Evidence
of their respective authenticity examined (1792).

6 P. 258. 6 Whom he identifies with Silas, p. 111.

VOL. II 2 E

418 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

abundantly satisfied." For him Prophecy " is by far the most
satisfactory, and the only lasting, supernatural evidence of the
truth of any Revelation." 1

Evanson was evidently an acute observer if he was not a
great scholar, but he scarcely had sufficient weight to compel the
attention of his generation. He was, however, answered not only
by a Bampton lecturer, 2 but by Joseph Priestley the scientist, who
in his Letters to a Young Man (1792-1793) pointed out that " the
books called the Gospels were not the cause, but the effect, of
the belief of Christianity in the first ages. For Christianity had
been propagated with great success long before those books were
written ; nor had the publication of them any particular effect
in adding to the number of Christian converts. Christians
received the books because they knew beforehand that the
contents of them were true." 3

F. c. Baur. But Baur was a man of great ability, already famous as a
Pauline scholar. Like Strauss 4 he viewed history from the
standpoint of a Hegelian philosopher. The early Catholic
Church, according to his view, was the synthesis of the two rival
forces of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, the first centring in St.
Peter and the second in St. Paul. In St. Paul s genuine epistles,
which for him were only those to the Galatians, Romans, and the
two to the Corinthians, he detected distinct traces of the primitive
antagonism. The rest of the epistles attributed to St. Paul,
together with the Acts, Baur held to be the result of the effort in
the second century to reconcile the two parties in order that the
Church might present a united front to the Gnosticism which was
then threatening its very existence. 5

The book 6 in which Baur embodied these ideas was published
in 1845, was written with great force and ability, and immediately

1 P. 6. 2 T. Falconer, 1810.

3 See F. C. Conybeare, op. cit., 1910, p. 95.

4 D. F. Strauss, who had been a pupil of Baur s, had published his Leben
Jesu in 1835-6.

6 See J. A. M Clynaont, New Testament Criticism, p. 231.
6 Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi.

n BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 419

attracted the attention of the German theologians. The clever
ness of his work was also recognised in England, but its im
portance was not generally realised until W. R. Cassels adopted
Baur s dates for the books of the New Testament in two volumes
entitled Supernatural Religion, An Inquiry into the Reality of Super.
Divine Revelation , which he published anonymously in 1874. To

this book an answer at once appeared in a series of nine articles in
the Contemporary Review, 1 by Bishop (then Professor) J. B. Light-
foot. They were followed later by another in the same journal 2
on " Discoveries Illustrating the Acts of the Apostles." Cassels,
whose identity was entirely unknown to Lightfoot, replied in the
Fortnightly Review 3 and elsewhere. Meanwhile his book had
passed through six editions by 1875. 4 But the author, acute
as he was, was no match for one of the greatest Biblical scholars
of the time.

The best sketch of Lightfoot s life and work is that by F. J. J. B.
A. Hort in the Dictionary of National Biography. 5 After being
elected Fellow of Trinity in 1852, he lectured both on the Classics
and upon the Greek Testament, and laid the foundations of his
future work on St. Paul. He won his spurs as a Biblical critic by
an article in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology for
March 1856 6 upon " Recent Editions of St. Paul s Epistles."
The article is chiefly remarkable for its writer s faithful dealing
with the recently published editions of St. Paul s Epistles by A. P.
Stanley and B. Jowett. A. P. Stanley was convinced by Light-
foot s criticism that it was not his vocation to be a commentator
upon the New Testament ; he forthwith became a personal friend
of his reviewer and produced commentaries no more. As against
Jowett, Lightfoot maintained that though every allowance should
be made for the difference between the Greek of the New Testa
ment and Attic Greek, there was no sufficient reason " for

1 Dec. 1874 to May 1877. 2 May 1878. 3 Jan. 1875.

4 The only other English theological writer at this date who appears to
follow Baur to any great extent is S. Davidson, whose Introduction to the New
Testament in three volumes was first published in 1848-51.

6 Vol. xxxiii. 6 Vol. iii. pp. 81-121.

420 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

imputing a want of precision to Greek in this later stage " ; l
and further that there was no evidence that St. Paul s knowledge
of the language was imperfect.

Lightfoot s Lightfoot s own commentaries are accordingly based upon an
meTitaries. exac ^ investigation of the grammar and vocabulary of St. Paul.
The first to be published was his commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians 2 (1865) ; the second, three years later (1868), was upon
the Epistle to the Philippians ; 3 the third in 1875 was upon the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. These commentaries
are strictly scientific in that they attempt to set forth the natural
meaning of the original, verse by verse, without any ulterior
polemical purpose ; and it has been remarked by a very com
petent observer that the writer s judgment and scholarship show
an ever-increasing maturity.

The first of the three works mentioned above contains the
celebrated dissertations on " The Brethren of the Lord," and on
" St. Paul and the Three " ; the third, the exhaustive dissertation
on the Essenes ; the second, the most famous of all, on the
Christian Ministry.

Lightfoots The dissertations appended to the Epistle to the Galatians
tcair contain Lightfoot s answer to the Tubingen School. By tracing,
Tubingen s tep by step, "the progressive history of the relations between the
Jewish and Gentile converts in the early ages of the Church as
gathered from the Apostolic writings, aided by such scanty
information as can be got together from other sources," Light-
foot made use of the historical method of Baur with still greater
effect. By a more thorough exegesis, and by a more faithful
adherence to the actual sources, Lightfoot constructed a picture
of the development of the early Church which was plainly more
reliable than anything the Tubingen school had been able to
produce.

It was the great merit of Lightfoot not to isolate the New
Testament from the remaining documents of the early Church.
Along with the New Testament he was studying Clement of

1 Op. tit. p. 107. 2 10th ed., 1890. 3 9th ed., 1888.

n BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 421

Rome, 1 Ignatius, 2 Polycarp, 2 the early Roman succession of
Bishops, 3 Hippolytus of Pontus, 3 Eusebius of Caesarea, 4 Roman
Archaeology, 5 and Greek and Latin inscriptions of all kinds.

The result was that Lightfoot s work rested on a solid founda
tion and provided a firm basis upon which subsequent investi
gators could build. 6 A better illustration of the permanence of
his achievements could scarcely be found than the third of the
dissertations mentioned above, that on the development of the
Christian ministry. Fifty years later, in the Essays on the Early
History of the Church and the Ministry, edited by the late
Professor Swete (1918), Lightfoot s account is reaffirmed. 7

Another example of a different kind may be quoted from
the edition of the Epistle to the Galatians. In the very difficult
passage in the second chapter, verses 17, 18, and 19, Lightfoot s
interpretation still holds the field.

The chief advances that have been made since Lightfoot s Advances
death have taken place along three main lines ; the first in Lightfoot.
Archaeology, the second in Philology, the third in Comparative
Religion. With the first, British students associate the name of
Sir William Ramsay ; with the second, Dr. Grenfell, Dr. Hunt,
Professor Deissmann, and the late Professor Moult on ; with the
third Professor Kirsopp Lake and Professor Percy Gardner.

I. It will be convenient to consider the second of these i. Philology.
departments first, because its effect upon the specific study of the
Acts is the least. The discovery, the decipherment, and the inter
pretation of great numbers of papyri and ostraka dating from
300 B.C. to A.D. 300 hidden in various places in Egypt has thrown
new light upon the Greek Koivr) of the first century A.B., the

1 Of v/hose works he published an edition in 18G9. 2 Edited in 1885.

3 Essays not issued till 1890 in the second edition of Clement, published
posthumously.

4 On whom he published an article in the Dictionary of Christian Biography
(1880).

5 Especially De Rossi s work on Subterranean Rome.

* Harnack in the Theol. Literaturzg. (June 14, 1890) spoke of Lightfoot s
work as of imperishable value, and said that the considerations which he brings
forward were never to be neglected. 7 Op. clt. pp. xiii, 87 f.

422

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

Grenfell
and Hunt.

J. H.

Moulton.

language in which the New Testament was actually written.
Lightfoot himself had almost anticipated this development. In
a lecture as early as 1863 he had said with reference to a New
Testament word which had its only classical authority in
Herodotus, " You are not to suppose that the word had fallen
out of use in the interval, only that it had not been used in the
books which remain to us : probably it had been part of the
common speech all along. I will go further, and say that if we
could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each
other without any thought of being literary, we should have the
greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of
the New Testament generally." * Among the pioneers in the
work were Dr. Grenfell and Dr. Hunt, whose series begun in 1898
is happily still continuing.

Upon these and other similar discoveries, as well, as upon a
study of the ever-increasing number of Greek inscriptions,
philologists like Dr. Moulton have been able to construct
grammars and lexicons of Hellenistic Greek. 2

From these it appears that the language had in some respects
lost its old precision. Et? and ev are almost interchangeable ;
the optative has almost dropped out of use ; verbs are com
pounded with various prepositions with little or no particular
force ; and so on. In spite of all subsequent additions to our
knowledge, however, such studies as that of Lightfoot on the
meaning of Kpiveiv and its compounds, 3 based on a close examina
tion of the actual usage of the New Testament writers, still
retain their value. 4 On the other hand, one has only to read the

1 Quoted from the lecture notes of the Rev. J. Pulliblank by Moulton,
Gramm. N.T. Greek, vol. i. 2nd ed. p. 242 (additional notes).

2 Part I. of vol. ii. of the late Professor Moulton s Grammar was published
by his pupil W. F. Howard in 1919 ; The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament,
compiled by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (1914), is still in the course of
publication ; A. T. Robertson s Grammar of New Testament Greek in the Light
of Historical Research (3rd ed., 1919) runs to over 1500 pages.

3 On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament (2nd ed., 1872), pp. 62 ff.

4 A good introduction to the whole subject will be found in Cambridge
Biblical Essays (1909), No. 14. " New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern
Discovery," pp. 461-505.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 423

translations of W. G. Rutherford to realise what a new light can w. G.
be thrown upon the interpretation of the New Testament by
a real familiarity with the /cotvij (Romans, 1900 ; Thessalonians
and Corinthians, 1908). St. Paul s language is " vigorous and
effective but neither correct nor elegant." 1

II. Turning now to Archaeology we fall at once upon The n.
Historical Geography of Asia Minor, published by Professor i ogy-
W. M. Ramsay the year after Lightfoot s death. 2 This was at w. M.
once recognised both in England and on the Continent as a
work of extraordinary importance. Mommsen himself explained
its " ungewohnliche Bedeutung " to the Archaeological Institute
of Berlin. 3 Sanday declared that " Professor Ramsay s explora- Ramsay on

Asia Minor.

tions in Asia Minor are among the three or four best things done
by Englishmen in the field of scientific scholarship in this genera
tion." 4 Certainly such an array of facts with regard to the
historical geography of Asia Minor had never till then been
displayed. Inscriptions, coins, ancient and modern literature
of all kinds had been searched out and brought to light and laid
under contribution in a thoroughly workmanlike manner. The
result was a more exact delimitation of the Roman provinces, 5
a more complete definition of the network of roads, a surer
identification of the ancient sites of Lystra 6 and Derbe 7 and
other places than had ever been achieved by modern scholarship
before.

It was in connection with his work upon Asia Minor that Ramsay
Professor Ramsay turned to the study of the Acts of the Apostles.
He tells us 8 that he started with the confident assumption that
the book was fabricated in the middle of the second century, and

1 Dean Inge in Outspoken Essaijs (1919), pp. 220 f. 2 1890.

3 Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des kaiserlich dcutschen archdologischen Instiluts,
1891, p. 37.

4 See Expositor, Series IV. No. 3, 1891, pp. 232 ff.

5 Bingham in his Origines Eccksiasticae (1708-1722) had studied the state
and division of the Roman Empire with a view to its effect upon the organisa
tion of the Church (ix. 1).

6 At Khatyn Serai. 7 At Zosta. See Sanday, op. cit. p. 240.
8 Pauline and other Studies in Early Christian History (1906), p. 199.

424 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

that it was with a view to seeing what light it could throw on
the state of Asia Minor at that period that he began to study it at
all. He was, however, " gradually driven to the conclusion that
it must have been written in the first century and with admirable
knowledge." He began, therefore, to work at the second part of
the Acts of the Apostles and at St. Paul s Epistles, and some years
later he published the first of his studies in the life of St. Paul,
The Church in tJie Roman Empire before A.D. 170} followed two
years later by St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. 2
These books, written as they are in a popular style and contain
ing several novel and interesting theories, were at once a great
success.

In the first Ramsay pronounced the Travel Document as
unquestionably of the first century, but reserved his opinion as to
the earlier chapters of the Acts ; in the second he confidently
ascribed the authorship of the whole book to St. Luke, the com
panion of St. Paul. Professor Ramsay s main thesis is that St.
Paul wrote from the Roman standpoint, and like St. Luke dreamed
of the subjugation of the Empire " by the new provincial power
of life and truth, the vitalising influence first for the Roman
state and later for the world." 3

The South Some of Professor Ramsay s minor theories were based on

theoty. facts already observed by Lightfoot, who had prepared for

Smith s Dictionary of the Bible an article on the Acts which was

Lightfoot. not published till 1893. 4 Lightfoot, for instance, had pointed out

that the writer of the Acts had close relations with Philippi : 5

Professor Ramsay opined that St. Luke himself was a native of

the place. Again, to take a more famous and a more important

case, Lightfoot had recognised that " Galatia, as a Roman

province, would include, beside the country properly so called,

1 London, 1893 (now in its 10th edition,, of which Part I. is devoted to St.
PauFs travels in Asia Minor.

2 London, 1895 (now in its 14th edition).

3 Pauline and other Studies, p. 200.

4 Smith s Dictionary of the Bible, i. pp. 25-43.

5 Ibid. i. p. 25.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 425

Lycaonia, Isauria, the south-eastern district of Phrygia, and a
portion of Pisidia. Lycaonia is especially mentioned as belonging
to it, and there is evidence that the cities of Derbe and Lystra in
particular were included within its boundaries." 1 But Lightfoot
definitely rejected the view that the Galatian churches of the
epistle comprise Derbe and Lystra, Iconium and the Pisidian
Antioch, largely on the ground that in the Acts " Mysia, Phrygia,
Pisidia are all geographical expressions destitute of any political
significance " ; 2 that " St. Luke distinctly calls Lystra and
Derbe cities of Lycaonia, while he no less distinctly assigns
Antioch to Pisidia ; a convincing proof that in the language of
the day they were not regarded as Galatian towns " ; and that
" the expression used in the Acts of St. Paul s visit to these parts "
the Phrygian and Galatian country " shows that the district
intended was not Lycaonia and Pisidia, but some region which
might be said to belong either to Phrygia or Galatia, or the parts
of each contiguous to the other." 3

Ramsay, however, both here and still more fully in A Historical Ramsay.
Commentary on St. Paul s Epistle to the Galatians* insists that the
Acts and the Epistles " plunge him into the movements and forces
acting in Asia Minor during the first century when the Roman
sphere of duty called Galatia was the great political fact," 5 and
when the most suitable if not the only title a writer could use to
cover the inhabitants of all the four cities mentioned would have
been Galatians.

The question can hardly yet be regarded as settled, although
the South Galatian theory has found an increasing number of
advocates during recent years. 6 Most if not all of the minor
arguments in its favour may be countered without difficulty from
the opposite side. The whole question is further involved in
that of the relation between St. Paul s own account of his visits
to Jerusalem in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians

1 Galatians, 10th eel. p. 7. 2 Ibid. p. 19. 3 Ibid, p 20.

4 London, 1899. 5 Pauline Studies, p. 200.

6 A very convenient summary of the arguments on both sides is given by
Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911), pp. 90 ff.

426 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

and the narrative of the visits in the Acts. From the earliest
times the later of the two visits recorded in the Epistle has been
identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv. ; and the dis
crepancies between the two accounts are no greater than might
be expected if they are really independent. 1 But to this Professor
Ramsay on Ramsay demurs. For he has become the champion of St. Luke s

St. Luke.

accuracy, 2 one might almost say of his immunity from mistakes.
He is ready with all kinds of suggestions to defend him. 3 Many
of these suggestions are fresh and striking, but some of them
seem to rest on a rather slight foundation. Nor are we prepared
to adventure with him when he stakes his whole argument on
some particular interpretation of a phrase that plainly allows of
a certain degree of indefiniteness. Dr. M. Jones 4 has called
attention to an example of this procedure in the case of Professor
Ramsay s determination of a fixed date in the life of St. Paul
from Acts xx. 6. 5 Here the whole argument rests on the assump
tion that the sentence " And we sailed away from Philippi after
the days of unleavened bread " can only mean that St. Paul
started on his journey to Jerusalem on the very first morning
after " the days of unleavened bread." St. Paul may very well
have had to wait at least a day or two for a ship.

In adventures of this kind Sir William is hardly a safe guide.
But when he keeps close to some clue which his wide research
into the life of the Roman Empire has put into his hands, we
could not wish for more skilful leadership. Reference may be
made to the essay on the " Supposed Trial of St. Paul in Rome "
contributed by Professor Ramsay to the Expositor in 1913 as an

1 This is in general the conclusion to which Lightfoot comes, Galatians, pp.
123 ft.

2 See The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New
Testament (1915), pp. 89, 96.

3 Ingenious examples will be found in Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? (1898).
It must be granted that Ramsay has shown that most of the case against St.
Luke s accuracy in Lk. ii. 1 -3 falls to the ground. The governorship of Quirinius is
still a doubtful point (T. Nicklin, Classical Review, Dec. 1899, p. 460). Mommsen
came to the conclusion that Quirinius governed Syria for the first time 3-2
B.C. (Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the N.T. p. 229).

4 Expositor, 1919 (No. 17), p. 365. 5 Ibid. Ser. V. No. 3, pp. 336 ff.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 427

example, 1 an essay which sheds quite a fresh light upon the
twenty-eighth chapter of the Acts. 2

III. The third advance in the study of primitive Christianity in. Com.
has come from the field of comparative religion. The researches
of classical archaeologists and anthropologists have been utilised
by Professor Loisy, Professor Kirsopp Lake, and Professor Percy
Gardner in painting a livelier picture of the religious milieu in which
the infant Christian society found itself. 3 The best introduction
to the subject is probably Professor Gardner s The Religious
Experience of St. Paul* For an account of the mystery religions
themselves we still have to rely chiefly upon Continental writers.
H. A. A. Kennedy s St. Paul and tlie Mystery Religions (1913) is
useful until a more satisfactory account appears ; but Dr. Kennedy
puts the cards on the table in such a way that it is very difficult
to see whether they are all there and still more difficult to pick
out the aces. No English work on the subject has yet been
published which is complete enough to be quite satisfactory.
A Zeitgeist is an elusive thing, and is not likely to be caught
at the first attempt. Great caution is needed, a caution not
sufficiently exercised by pioneers like Reitzenstein ; 5 and the
clearing of the situation due to their not unnatural extrava
gances is one of the present tasks of New Testament scholarship.

1 Expositor, Ser. VIII. No. 5, pp. 264-284.

2 Outside his own particular province Ramsay is sometimes a little careless ;
e.g. in Luke the Physician, p. 58, he quotes as an example of the changes in Mark s
narrative which may be attributed to St. Luke s medical interest, Lk. viii. 55,
in the following words : " 3. In Luke viii. 55 the physician mentions that
Jairus s daughter called for food (cf. Mk. v. 42)." But it is not the daughter but
our Lord who calls for food ; and the only difference here between the third
gospel and the second is that in St. Luke the request for food follows immediately
upon the healing, while in St. Mark it comes after the injunction to secrecy.
St. Matthew (ix. 26) omits both. Even in connection with Asia Minor some
loose writing will be found in The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trust
worthiness of the N.T., e.g. pp. 193 ff.

3 A suggestive and widely read book on this subject is Dr. T. R. Glover s
The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, 1909 (now in its eighth
edition).

4 London, 1911. See also The Growth of Christianity, 1907 (especially
Lecture V.).

6 Poimandres (1904) ; Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen (1910).

428 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

More recent Here it is only possible to glance at the chief publications
tions. Cd " which, appearing since 1890, 1 have made more or less use of the
new material which has been produced. We may begin with the
articles in Dictionaries. Lightfoot s article on the Acts in Smith s
Bible Dictionary (1893), to which reference has already been made,
found a not unworthy successor along the same lines in the
article on the same subject which Professor A. C. Headlam
contributed to Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible (1898). 2 A rival
to it appeared in the next year (1899) in Schmiedel s article on
the Acts in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. Schmiedel adopted to
a great extent the position of the Tubingen School, a position
which was becoming more and more untenable, as a reviewer of
Schmiedel s article pointed out. 3

The articles on St. Paul in the two Dictionaries present
a similar contrast. That in Hastings s by Professor Gr. G.
Findlay is a well-balanced and conservative summary of
the Apostle s life and works ; that in the Encyclopaedia Biblica,
on the other hand, in so far as it is by Dr. Hatch, is scholarly
and suggestive, but in so far as it is by Professor W. C. van
Manen it follows the ultra-Tubingen School 4 on a wild-goose
chase.

chronology. Another article of great importance for the study of the New
Testament is Professor C. H. Turner s article on " Chronology " in
Hastings s Dictionary. His masterly discussion of the available
data leads to a system of chronology intermediate between that

1 For a long list of older works on the Acts see C. Wordsworth s Greek
Test. vol. i. part 2, pp. 32-34, (in the ed. of 1872).

2 That is, three years after the publication of the well-known Commentary
upon the Epistle to the Romans (in the International Critical Series), the joint
work of Professor W. San day and Professor Headlam, and the most notable
English commentary of the decade.

3 In the Church Quarterly Review, 1901.

4 The Dutch school to which van Manen belonged push Baur s theories to
still more extravagant lengths. Oddly enough, they " stand Baur s theory on
its head " (H. S. Nash, The Hist, of the Higher Criticism, 1900, p. 159) and use
the Acts to prove that the Epistle to the Galatians is not genuine. Hilgenfeld,
on the other hand, Baur s longest - lived disciple, reacts from his teacher s
theories to a considerable extent and recognises the genuineness of 1 Thess.,
Philippians, and Philemon.

n BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 429

of Lightfoot on the one hand and Harnack on the other, and this
system has been widely accepted in England as at any rate a
provisional standard of dating. The only important addition to
the evidence, a votive inscription found at Delphi and published
in 1905 which throws light upon the date of Gallic s proconsul-
ship, does not involve any alteration in Professor Turner s table
of dates. 1

The title Home Synopticae (1899) does not suggest the Acts, Sir John
but in his book Sir John Hawkins has tabulated linguistic facts & *d l
which have been widely recognised as forming a valid basis for the Harnack;
thesis that the author of the we sections of the Acts is the editor
of the whole book. 2 This is by far the simplest and most natural
explanation of the data presented by Sir John. It has been advo
cated with great force by Harnack, whose three books, Luke the
Physician, 3 TJie Acts of the Apostles,* and Tlie Date of the Acts and
Synoptic Gospels, 5 are indispensable for the study of these works.
In these three volumes Hamack s dating of the Acts becomes
progressively earlier : in the first the date suggested is A.D. 80 ;
in the second, 65 ; in the third, 62 at the latest.

The last date is that which is adopted in one of the three best Date,
commentaries in English upon the Acts, that of R. B. Rackham
in the Westminster Series, published 1902. Of the other two,
T. E. Page s was published long before Harnack s work appeared, 6
and suggests a date somewhat later than A.D. 70 ; and Professor
Knowling s in the Expositor s Greek Testament 7 leaves the ques
tion open but apparently 8 inclines to agree with Harnack and
Rackham. Dr. A. C. MoGiSert of New York, formerly a pupil

1 Professor Turner discusses this inscription in his inaugural lecture as
Dean Ireland s Professor, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920,
Oxford, 1920, pp. 15 f . The inscription survives only in fragments. The largest
of them was published by A. Nikitsky in 1894-95, and was re-published
together with three smaller fragments by E. Bourguet, De rebus Delphicis, 1905,
pp. 63 f. See Deissmann, St. Paul (Eng. transl. Appendix I. pp. 235 ff.).

2 Op. cit. 2nd ed. pp. 182 ff. 3 English translation, 1907.
4 English translation, 1909. 6 English translation, 1911.
6 1886. It was reprinted nine times between 1886 and 1906. 7 1900.

8 P. 35. Professor Salmon, the most accomplished all-round scholar of his
day, took the same view (Introduction to the N.T., 1885).

430

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM

Mono
graphs.

St. Luke

the

physician.

The organi
sation of
the early
Church.

of Professor Harnack s, in his careful and independent study of
the Apostolic Age decides that the indications point to the
reign of Domitian as the time when the Acts was composed. 1
Professor Burkitt, on the other hand, agrees with Schmiedel in
thinking that the author of the Acts used the Antiquities of
Josephus, 2 and he therefore dates his work between A.D. 95
and 105.

Passing on now to useful monographs upon various points we
shall find it impossible to do justice to them all. We can merely
call attention to a few of the more influential.

As long ago as 1882 3 Hobart of Dublin published his
researches on The Medical Language of St. Luke. On linguistic
grounds he sought to prove " that the gospel according to St.
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same
person, and that the writer was a medical man." It has been
recently shown 4 by Professor H. J. Cadbury and Professor G. F.
Moore that his argument from a comparison of St. Luke s vocabu
lary with that of Galen and other medical writers breaks down,
although a large number of scholars, including such great names
as Harnack and Zahn, had been considerably impressed by it.
The early tradition, however, that St. Luke was a physician still
remains, and some of the details observed by Hobart and others,
e.g. in their comparisons of St. Luke s account with that of the
other two synoptists, are still not without significance in connec
tion with it.

The subject of the organisation of the early Church has called

1 A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1897), pp. 437 f.

2 See The Gospel History and its Transmission (1907), pp. 105 ff. Professor
A. S. Peake apparently holds the same opinion (A Critical Introduction to the
New Testament, 1909, pp. 133 ff.). For a statement of the case against St.
Luke s use of Josephus, see C.Q.R., April 1919, pp. 89 ff.

3 Hobart was by no means the first to work along this line. James Smith, of
Jordanhill, in his Dissertation on the Gospels notices details in St. Luke s account
"which it was natural for a medical man to inquire into " (p. 269), and refers
to an article by Walker in the Gentleman s Magazine of June 1841.

4 Harvard Studies, vi. Part I., 1919. In Part II. (1920) Professor
Cadbury goes on to a similar detailed study of St. Luke s treatment of his
sources,

BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 431

forth several interesting studies. We have Hatch s Organisation
of the Early Church (1880), maintaining that the Bishop was
connected more with administration than with worship ; *
followed by Gore s Ministry of the Christian Church (1888) ; 2
later by Hort s Christian Ecclesia (1897) ; later still by H. F.
Hamilton s suggestive study in The People of God (1912) ; finally
by the Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry,
edited by Dr. Swete (1918), which is likely to be the starting point
of any further inquiries into the subject which may be made
in England.

On the Jewish side of the early Church we have Hort s
Judaistic Christianity (1894) and H. St. J. Thackeray s Relation
of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (1900).

With regard to the important literary question of the The sources
sources of the first part of the Acts we have Professor K. first part of
Lake s article in Hastings s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, 3 Acts
which builds upon Professor Harnack s above-mentioned Acts
of the Apostles ; and we have also Professor Torrey s impressive
attempt to prove that an Aramaic document 4 lies behind
Acts i.-xv. ; 5 but Professor Burkitt s trenchant criticisms in
the Journal of Theological Studies 6 will probably restore most
students to their former lack of conviction upon the subject.

Professor Burkitt s work on the Western Text 7 and Dr. Miscei-
Rendel Harris s study of Codex Bezae 8 have an important works" 8

1 The book gave considerable offence, e.g. to the reviewer in the C.Q.R.
(July 1881, pp. 409 ff.), who felt that Hatch had done no more than discover
" external connections which make the bishop an almoner, and the Eucharist
a charity supper."

2 Which was much more favourably received by the C.Q.R. (April 1889).

3 1916, vol. i. p. 23.

* Dr. J. H. Bernard once expressed his opinion with regard to the early
chapters of the Acts, that " the hypothesis of an underlying Semitic document
affords at once the readiest and the most complete explanation of the fact- "
(St. Margaret s Lectures on the Criticism of the New Testament, 1902, p. 227).

6 C. C. Torrey, " The Composition and Date of Acts " (Harvard Theological
Studies, i., 1916).

6 J.T.S. vol. xx., 1918-1919, pp. 320-329. See also J. W. Falconer in the
Expositor, 1920 (Series VIII. vol. xix. pp. 271 ff.).

7 Texts and Studies, iv. 3. 8 Ibid. ii. 1.

432 THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM m

bearing on other problems 1 in the Acts beside the textual one,
but we can do no more than name them here.

Bishop Chase s Hulsean lectures on The Credibility oftlie Ads
(1902) may be mentioned for their convenient summary of fairly
familiar evidence ; Mr. C. W. Emmet s Commentary upon the
Epistle to the Galatians (1912) for the freshness of its treatment of
well-worn subjects ; and Dr. R. St. J. Parry s edition of the
Pastoral Epistles (1920) for its notable defence of their much-
disputed authenticity. A regiment of worthy successors to
Conybeare and Howson may serve to bring up the rear of this
straggling review : first, Mr. Baring-Gould s Study of St. Paul,
his Character and Opinions (1897), in which Mr. Baring-Gould
appears to be a little perverse ; next, Dr. B. W. Bacon s Story of
St. Paul (1904), in which Dr. Bacon is very much on his guard
against being deceived by the author of the Acts. We may then
group together Mr. J. R. Cohu s St. Paul in the Light of Modern
Research (1911) ; Dr. David Smith s The Life and Letters of St.
Paul (1920), an attractive work in which the author shows that
he keeps in close touch with the prevailing currents of the best
accredited criticism ; and Professor A. H. M Neile s St. Paul,
his Life, Letters and Christian Doctrine (1920). All three
are eminently readable and may be recommended as useful
introductions to the subject. Last of all, and in a class by
itself, we may put the remarkable essay on St. Paul published
w. R. Inge, by Dean Inge in his Outspoken Essays. 2 There has been nothing
like it since Matthew Arnold s St. Paul and Protestantism. 3 As
we read it we can scarcely fail to be struck with the advance that
has been made since the days when Dean Farrar s Life was criti
cised as giving a picture of the man rather than of the apostle.

Looking back now over the two centuries which have elapsed
since British scholarship began to learn from the Deists to treat
the books of the Bible as books, we see that the knowledge
of the period covered by the Acts has been pushed forward

1 The most familiar example is that of the Apostolic Decree (Acts xv.).
See (e.g.) C. H. Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, p. 30.

2 1919, pp. 205-229. 3 1870.

ii BRITISH WORK ON THE ACTS 433

steadily if somewhat slowly. British scholarship has shown British
little tendency to originate startling hypotheses like those
of Baur, 1 although it has generally learned something from tive -
them. It has rather devoted itself to the more concrete
problems of textual criticism and archaeology, and its general
temper has been conservative.

At the present time it is probably true to say that proposi- Results
tions such as the following would be accepted by the great accepted.
majority of British scholars :

(i.) That the Acts is a product not of the second century but
of the first :

(ii.) That there is a very strong probability that the author
of the * we sections is the author both of the Acts and of the
third gospel :

(iii.) That he possesses a great deal of accurate information
with regard to St. Paul s journeys, some of it being first-hand :

(iv.) That whatever be his sources for the early chapters of
the Acts these " Scenes from Early Days " 2 are well chosen and
consistent, and give a picture of the march of events which is
at any rate, on the whole, correct in outline.

It is also widely recognised that further advance can only
take place through close and exact study, not only of the Apostolic
Church itself, but also of its milieu and of the Church of the
succeeding age. 3 Such study makes ever-increasing demands
upon the equipment of the scholar and can only be carried forward
by the combined efforts of the whole company of faithful students
throughout the world.

1 Cf. the present attitude of caution with regard to the work of such scholars
as Loisy, which nevertheless has already exerted a very considerable influence
(see G. Tyrrel, Christianity at the Cross Roads, 1909, p. 44).

2 The phrase is Professor Burkitt s.

3 See Professor C. H. Turner s inaugural lecture as Dean Ireland s Professor
of Exegesis in the University of Oxford (1920 already referred to above),
especially pp. 8 and 20. It is very interesting to compare this lecture with that
delivered by the late Dr. Sanday on his appointment to the same Professorship
in 1883.

VOL. II 2 F

APPENDICES

435

APPENDIX A

TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES

THE preface has explained the purpose of this appendix, of which
the first part is by Mr. G. G. Coulton, and the second by the
Editors. It is intended to throw some light on two cognate prob
lems of psychology. How far does tradition create, rather than
commemorate, in its description of great personalities ? How far
can writers be trusted, even when they wish to be truthful in their
treatment of non-literary sources ? A book dealing with this sub
ject by a specialist in psychology would greatly advance the under
standing of history, and would render much ignorant criticism
impossible. The examples of the Saint of Assisi or the Servant
Maid of Suffolk may be taken as indications of what is needed in a
more complete collection of narratives necessary to elucidate the
problem of the way in which tradition almost unconsciously alters
facts in the process of its development.

437

438 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI
By G. G. COULTON

When Professor Barzellotti, in 1885, published his brief history
of the movement connected with David Lazzaretti of Arcidosso, he
called this book " a contribution to the embryology of religious
phenomena. Early Franciscan history presents a far wider, and
even more interesting, field for this study.

It is only in comparatively recent times that due importance has
been given, by conservative students who are in no sense extremists,
to the twenty or more years which elapsed between the death of
Christ and the very earliest of existing records. Even those who
have recognised the extreme probability of a considerable develop
ment during those years have often been too ready to assume that
this movement had been all along in harmony with the course of
later developments, so that the Christianity of Ignatius might safely
be described as Primitive Christianity writ large. They have taken
for granted a general unity of direction, and have unduly ignored
the possibility that this blank in Christian history may conceal
very considerable deflections from the original Christian orientation
nay, more, even the impossibility of its concealing an actual volte-
face. Here it is that the analogy of Franciscan history is so valu
able. In those records we can trace, first, how easily the written
story of a whole generation might have perished, and, secondly, how
grievously we should have erred, in that case, by inferring Francis s
actual doctrines too confidently from the actual state of his Order
a generation after his death.

The first of these points may be most clearly grasped, perhaps,
if we marshal the earliest Christian records, and their Franciscan
analogues, side by side. Amidst all our uncertainties as to the
former, there is yet sufficient agreement on nearly all hands to render
such a comparison possible and profitable ; and it seems safest, as an
automatic corrective of possible bias, to choose the dates given by
Professor C. H. Turner in his article on " Chronology " in Hastings s
Dictionary of the Bible and in his Inaugural Lecture (Oxford. 1921).
The uncertainties of date, great as they are in many cases, will not
render such a schematic representation entirely valueless, so long as
we bear steadily in mind that its truth can only be approximative.

APP.A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSIST

439

Years from
Death of
Founder.

A.D.

29.

CRUCIFIXION.

Gap of 20 years.

Galatians and other

Pauline Epistles;

also perhaps the

PETRINE REMINIS

CENCES and Q

64.

(LOGIA).

Gap of 6 years.

70.

MARK.

Gap of 5 years.

75.

LUKE and ACTS.

Gap of 15 years.

90.

MATTHEW.

Gap of 10 years.

100 [Most other books of

to 1 the New Testa-

120. 1 ment.

100

[St. F. s own writings.]
[1216-21. Jacques de Vitry, two letters

and Historia Occidental s.]
1226. DEATH OF ST. FRANCIS, and

CIRCULAR LETTER OF ELIAS.

Gap of 2 years.

1228-29. CELANO, VITA PRIOR.
1230. Bull, " Quo Elongati."

Gap of 14 years.
[1244]. ROTULI LEONIS.

Gap of 3 years.
1247. CELANO, VITA SECUNDA.

Gap of 8 years.
[1255]. TRACTATUS DE MIRACULIS.

Gap of 5 years.

1260. DECREE OF UNIFORMITY.

(Narbonne.)

1261. BONA VENTURA, L.EGENDA MAJOR.

Gap of 5 years.
1266. DECREE OF DESTRUCTION.

Gap of 14 years.
[1280]. Liber de Laudibus.

Gap of 38 years.

1318. SPECULUM PERFECTIONS.

Gap of 4 years.
[1322-28]. Fac Secundum Exemplar.

Gap of 4 years.
[1326]. Fioretti.

Starting from this table, let us note the differences and analogies. Differences
(1) The first and greatest difference, that of the personalities of and anal -

personality.

the two Founders, will be present to every reader s mind ; it is

440

TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES

APP. A

(2) Francis
cans not
persecuted.

(3) Actual
writings of
Francis sur-

(4) Need
felt of his
torical
standard
isation .

indeed often pleaded as a bar to any serious comparison whatever.
The present writer feels, on the contrary, that our only way of
getting at the true Christ is to deal with him as the man ; to recog
nise the actual recorded limitations of his knowledge, and therefore
of his pre-knowledge ; and to assume, in default of evidence to the
contrary, that as Christianity was preached by human tongues, so
also it was left to carry on by human methods its struggle for survival
against other religions. On no other supposition can we account
for what unfriendly critics call the present bankruptcy of Christianity
a bankruptcy which (if such indeed it be) the historian can trace
almost from its earliest recorded history. On the other hand, to
admit the claim for Francis as the most Christ-like man since Christ,
is, in the judgment of the present writer, to emphasise the enormous
gulf between the two persons.

(2) The second difference, almost equally important from our
present point of view, is that Francis never resisted unto blood ; and
that he and the vast majority of his disciples lived and died in favour
with the Church of their birth. Not from any tinge of personal
timidity, but from pure kindness of heart and sense of solidarity, he
shrank from conflict with a hierarchy and a priesthood which needed
reform quite as much as the Jewish Church needed it at the Christian
era. We possess, therefore, an official biography written only a few
months after his death by command of the Pope himself ; indeed
we can see much of his history through a succession of official docu
ments which have no parallel in early Christian history until we come
to the Pliny-Trajan correspondence of 112 A.D.

(3) Partly for this same reason, partly because those later times
have drifted far more documentary wreckage down to us than has
survived from an age twelve centuries farther removed from our
own, we have actual writings of St. Francis, with such contemporary
and subcontemporary descriptions of him and his Order as are
almost altogether lacking for the study of Christian origins. These,
in the foregoing conspectus, are printed in thick brackets [ ].

(4) These circumstances have to some extent directly affected
the comparison which is our chief interest in this present essay. We
are mainly concerned with studying, in the Franciscan legend, the
natural action and reaction of centrifugal and centripetal forces.
In the earlier days, literary individualism breeds frequent diverg
ences, and even discrepancies, in the story. Then, by more or
less conscious reaction, the organised society feels the necessity of
historical standardisation. In proportion as the Founder s imme
diate personal influence is withdrawn, in proportion as his ideal
becomes diluted by contamination with other ideals and practices,
his official successors are compelled to supply that which is lacking
in unity of the spirit by tightening the bonds of disciplinary

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 441

uniformity. We can find few better illustrations of this, in all
religious history, than an anecdote of Francis himself which has
been preserved by Wadding under the year 1258, but has received
too little attention.

In that year died brother Stephen, who had lived with St. A story of
Francis, and cooked for him, in one of those little mountain hermit- the real
ages to which he loved to retire in the later days of his life, and who
solemnly deposed as follows before the Provincial Minister of Tus
cany : "I, brother Stephen, dwelt for a few months in a certain
hermitage with St. Francis and other brethren, to care for their beds
and their kitchen ; and this was our manner of life by command of
the Founder. We spent the forenoon hours in prayer and silence,
until the sound of a board [struck with a mallet, like a gong] called
us to dinner. Now the Holy Master was wont to leave his cell about
the third hour ; and, if he saw no fire in the kitchen, he would go down
into the garden and pluck a handful of herbs, which he brought home,
saying, Cook these, and it will be well with the Brethren. And
whereas at times I was wont to set before him eggs and milk food
which the faithful had sent us, with some sort of gravy-stew (cum
aliquo jusculento), then he would eat cheerfully with the rest and say,
Thou hast done too much, Brother ; I will that thou prepare nought
for the morrow, nor do aught in my kitchen. So I, following his
precepts absolutely, in all points, cared for nothing so much as to
obey that most holy man ; when, therefore, he came and saw the
table laid with divers crusts of bread, he would begin to eat gaily
thereof, but presently he would chide me that I brought no more,
asking me why I had cooked nought, whereto I answered, For that
thou, Father, badest me cook none/ But he would say, Dear son,
discretion is a noble virtue, nor shouldst thou always fulfil all that
thy superior biddeth thee, especially when he is troubled by any
passion. "

The very human interest of this story, and the very charm that
it adds to the Saint s personality, makes us realise more fully the
almost insoluble problem which he set to himself and his Order.
Within the walls of that hermitage, or anywhere else where his
immediate influence was felt, it was possible to live not only without
thought for the morrow, but even without consistency from hour to
hour ; whithersoever the Saint s impulse led him, the rest followed
without effort. But no Order could exist on such a basis ; mission
ary success at one end involved, of necessity, some corresponding
failure at the other end, and the mere multiplication of disciples
compelled Franciscanism to become partly untrue to the original
Francis.

A similar phenomenon is clearly traceable in the earlier Christian
records ; but we must expect to find peculiarities in Franciscanism

442

TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES

APP. A

(5) Differ
ence be
tween the
ideal and
the actual.

corresponding to the differences detailed here above. The know
ledge which official outsiders had of the Order would tend to retard
Franciscan disintegration ; Gregory IX., first as Cardinal-Protector
and then as Pope, helped to fix certain points which remained stable
amid many uncertainties. Far weaker, yet not altogether negligible,
would be the influence of public opinion as shown by contemporary
chroniclers. Roger of Wendover s description shows general outside
ignorance on many important points ; indeed, the friars themselves
were very secretive in their dealings with outsiders. 1 The Rules of
the Order and St. Francis s Testament (even after Gregory IX. had
deprived this document of all legally binding force in his bull
Quo Elongati of 1230 2 ) supplied definite points which, however the
friars might neglect them in practice or try to circumvent them
in theory, had always to be reckoned with. Moreover, as will
presently be seen, Church politics rendered it more important to
keep dissidents within the Franciscan Order than to cast them
forth as heretics. We must bear in mind, therefore, that the
Franciscan historical tradition was, from the first, a rudimentary
vertebrate. When, on the other hand, we turn to the Christian
historical tradition, the evidence seems to point to an organism
comparatively invertebrate at its birth and in its early stages. To
adopt a slightly different metaphor, there were certain mechanical
checks upon Franciscan variations which we cannot trace in early
Christianity.

(5) While this earlier vertebration of Franciscanism, if we may
so term it, must certainly have worked to a considerable extent
against change, yet it was far from preventing change altogether,
even upon essential points. We have, therefore, in Franciscan
history, a clearly traceable contrast between the ideal and the actual ;
between what the Order aimed at and what it actually became. It
is here that the story is of such importance by reason of the analogies
which it will suggest. Though we must beware of the easy a priori
assumption that every stage of Franciscan evolution implies a similar
stage in early Christianity, yet we may most legitimately infer that
every such stage may possibly have had its primitive analogue ;
and we may scientifically exploit this possibility in all cases where it
is not ruled out, or at least rendered highly improbable, by the
difference of attendant circumstances in the two movements which
we are comparing. When we see how flatly men argued, while
claiming to be orthodox Franciscans, against certain doctrines of
Francis, we may legitimately look very closely, at least, for the

1 I have brought this out in From St. Francis to Dante, chap. xxv. (p. 319
of the first edition).

2 The Testament is printed by Bohmer and translated in Fr. Cuthbert s
Life ; the bull Quo Elongati is printed in the appendix to Sabatier s Spec. Per/.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 443

possibility of similar distortions of Christ s tenets by even the earliest
Christians.

With this preface, let us now go through the Franciscan docu- Franciscan
ments in such summary detail as our space will permit. In early documents -
Franciscan literary history, as in early Christian, many points are
still doubtful. In those cases there is no room for discussion here ;
but enough references will be given to enable the reader to follow up
all important debatable points.

Francis s own writings are in harmony with the other evidence ; Francis s
but, by themselves, they would certainly not have enabled us to ^ ntm g 3
reconstruct his unique personality. 1 Much the same may be said of
what we learn from Cardinal Jacques de Vitry and other contempor
aries. Their testimony is of the utmost corroborative value ; but,
if Francis had quarrelled with the Church and had been extinguished
as Peter Waldo was extinguished, we should have been left with
almost as vague an impression of his personality. Elias s circular
letter, on the other hand, is a document almost unique in earlier
church history ; it contains the description of a miracle (the Stig
mata) by a person of high responsibility, written within a few hours
of its actual observation, and under circumstances which might
easily have provoked protest if the writer had indulged in glaring
inaccuracies.

Celano s Vita Prior is a work of very great value. Celano himself Ceiano s
had not seen much of Francis personally ; his rhetorical skill probably Vita Prior -
recommended him more than anything else for this particular
task ; and the papal choice would, of necessity, bring him implicitly
under certain official restrictions. We must not exaggerate the
contrast on this point between the first and second Lives, but it would
be still more misleading to ignore it altogether.

Half a generation later, the officials of the Order felt the in- The Three
completeness of this first sketch. Great changes had taken place Corn -
in the interval, with struggles comparable in bitterness and import- pan
ance (though not in any other way analogous) to the struggle between
Early Christianity and Gnosticism. The rule of Frate Elia, and the
revolt by which his domination was overthrown, were not only
symptoms, but also causes of considerable changes of direction.
Those who had known Francis personally were fast dying off. There
fore the General Chapter of 1244, under Crescenzio da- Jesi, appealed
for fresh first-hand evidence, which was supplied mainly by three
intimate companions of the Saint, Leo, Angelo, and Rtiffino. From
this material, with their approval, and from other sources also, a

1 This is true, I think, even of the three Rules, the Testament, and the
Epistola ad quemdam Ministrum. Moreover, it must be remembered that, if
Francis had broken away from the Church, he would probably not have lived
to write any of these, except, perhaps, the first Rule.

444 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES AM*. A

Vita Secunda was compiled by Celano, who had again been chosen
as the official biographer. 1 Goetz is probably right in contending
that this Vita Secunda marks far less of a conscious reaction against
the tendencies of the Vita Prior than Sabatier had assumed, and
that, in the main, it holds faithfully to its professed purpose of
supplementing, not correcting, its predecessor. At the same time,
even apart from the contributions by Leo and his companions,
Celano s own share in this Vita Secunda shows a noticeable change
of attitude towards Elias and his policy.

The Leo- But the main historical interest centres now in the Leo-group ;

papers. m ^e contributions of these early companions who had steadily
resisted the de-Franciscanisation of the Order. Leo had come into
collision with Elias soon after Francis s death, by protesting in word
and deed against the collection of vast sums of money to build that
magnificent convent and basilica which still commands the city of
Assisi ; Elias had caused him to be scourged and expelled from the
city. 2 That Elias s hand lay heavy on all dissidents, we learn not only
from Salimbene (pp. 104, 158), but from a letter quoted by Wadding
(an. 1239), in which the General asks the Pope s approval for strong
measures against those who resist him in the name of strict observ
ance, " men who, on account of their discipleship and intimacy with
our holy father Francis, are held in high esteem both within and
without the Order." It is evident, therefore, that the testimony of
this group must have a very special historical value. Let us begin
by summing up what now seems practically certain with regard to
these Leo-papers, as we may call them for brevity s sake. 3

The writings thus furnished to the General Chapter were not all
utilised by Celano. 4 The originals, in whole or in part, were kept
for some time at the convent of San Damiano, where Clare and her
nuns were friendly to the Spirituals. After a while, some at least

1 This transpires from the following sources : Leg. 3 Soc., Prefatory Epistle ;
2 Celano, Preface and last chapter ; Salimbene, p. 176 ; Analecta Franciscana,
iii. p. 262. Even if we deny the authenticity of the Prefatory Epistle, for
which I can see no valid reason, the other evidence is explicit enough on this
point.

2 Glassberger s Chronicle (Ana. Frs. ii. 45). Angelo Clareno, in his Hist.
Sept. Trib., tells us how St. Antony of Padua was scourged also, and Caesarius
of Speyer, who had helped Francis to compose the Rule of 1221, was imprisoned
and finally killed by the brutality of his gaoler. Tocco (p. 440) doubts the
truth of this, but there is no great intrinsic improbability in the story.

3 For the evidence as to these Eotuli Leonis (otherwise called Cedulae,
Dicta, Verba, Scripta Leonis), see Goetz, pp. 151-57, and Little, Guide, pp. 17-21.

4 Celano utilised a little more than half the material which was collected
later into the Speculum Perfectionis. This latter compilation contains 124
chapters, of which 85 furnish the materials for 77 out of the 167 chapters in the
second part of the Vita Secunda.

AFP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 445

of these notes came into the possession of Ubertino da Casale, the
great Spiritual leader, who refers also to an autograph volume of
Leo s writings in the friars library at Assisi. These Leo-papers
are appealed to, as against the growing relaxations of the Order, by
a whole series of zealous friars, from Petrus Johannis Olivi in about
1280 to Alvarus Pelagius about 1330. In 1318, a Spiritual compiled
from them a little book called Speculum Perfectionist This contains, The Specu-
with the seventy-five chapters utilised by Celano, thirty-nine more lu
which Celano has neglected, but which are often of the highest tlonit -
importance. Goetz (p. 216), who goes as far as is reasonably possible
in contradiction to Sabatier, decides that, of the one hundred
and twenty-four chapters in the Speculum, ten can claim with
reasonable certainty to be prior to Celano, five seem posterior,
and " about fifty " cases must remain doubtful for lack of
conclusive evidence. Minocchi reckons that eighty chapters of
the book stand practically as they were written in 1246 ; and I
cannot help thinking that later critics will agree more nearly
with this conclusion. Many of Goetz s detailed arguments seem
captious and unconvincing, and once at least his facts need
correction ; 2 I cannot help thinking that subsequent criticism will
rate the priority of the Speculum considerably higher than he does.
For the present, however, it is sufficient to point out that the Specu
lum contains a mass of first-hand evidence from some of the Saint s
earliest companions, sometimes evidently retouched ; 3 retouched
also, perhaps, in other places where no evidence has survived to
betray the alterations ; but, on the whole, bringing us nearer to the
real Francis than anything else written since his death.

Side by side with the Speculum we must consider the so-called
Legend of the Three Companions, around which controversy still rages.
Earlier critics, including Sabatier, had taken it to be what its prefatory
letter professes a book composed by three of the Saint s earliest in
timates, Leo, Angelo, and Ruffino, in 1246. But Fr. Van Ortroy, in
Analecta Bollandiana, vol. xix. (1900), undertook to show that it is
" une piece apocryphe, dont les parties sont assez habilement agenc6es,
mais qui n a aucun rapport avec les premiers disciples de S. Francois "
(p. 138). This thesis was combated by Sabatier in vol. 75 of the
Revue Historique (1901) ; by Minocchi in Archivio Storico Italiano, fifth
series, vols. xxiv. and xxvi. (1899 and 1900) ; 4 and by Tilemann in his

1 Which Sabatier, misled by a false date in one of his MSS., attributed at
first to 1227.

2 P. 178, where his generalisations about the term generalis minister are con
tradicted by Francis s Letter to the General Chapter (Bohmer, pp. 61. 15, and 62. 3).

3 E.g. it is difficult to explain the mistakes as to St. Francis s age and the
year of his death in chap, cxxiv.

4 He maintains the priority of 3 Soc. to 2 Gel., and attributes 3 Soc. to John
of Ceperano.

446 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APF. A

Speculum Perfectionis u.s.w., especially pp. 109-119. The discussion
is far too complicated for this place ; here we can only note : (a) Even
those who doubt the genuineness of the prefatory letter are unable to
point out a motive for the forgery. Van Ortroy admits that the
supposed forger " n a pas Fair d avoir agi dans un but polemique quel-
conque," and that we may possibly have here a genuine letter " qui se
rattache a quelque document franciscain aujourd hui perdu " (p. 120).
(6) His elaborate parallel extracts from the 3 Socii, side by side with 1
and 2 Celano, Julian of Speyer, Bonaventura, Bernard of Bessa, and
others whom he supposes the " forger " to have pillaged, have given to
others besides Sabatier the impression that this " forger " is really the
prior author in most, if not all, these cases. On the other hand, (c) the
warmest defenders of 3 Socii are compelled to admit that the prefatory
letter, promising a large number of new details and apologising for the
want of sequence in this material, stands in flat contradiction to the
rest of the book, which is more remarkable for consecutive order than
for novelty. The truth may perhaps be found in a conclusion, borne
out to some extent by Tilemann s arguments, that this prefatory letter
of Leo and his friends was originally attached to the material contributed
in answer to the appeal of 1244 in other words, to those papers which
we now know mainly through 2 Celano and the Speculum. With regard
to the body of 3 Socii, I should venture to suggest that it may represent
an earlier sketch begun by Leo immediately after St. Francis s death,
and left incomplete because Celano s official life rendered it superfluous.
Such a book might conceivably be referred to by the portion here
italicised in Ubertino da Casale s assertion that all his own tenets could
be proved to be those of the real Francis, since " omnia . . . patent per
sua [Francisci] verba expressa, quae per sanctum virum Leonem ejus
socium tarn de mandato sancti patris quam etiam de devolione predicti
fratris [Leonis] fuerunt solemniter conscripta in libro qui habetur in
armario fratrum de Assisio, et in rotulis ejus, quas apud me habeo,
manu ejusdem fratris Leonis conscriptis, in quibus op time beati Fran
cisci intentio quoad paupertatem regulae declaratur contra omnes
abusiones et transgressiones." * Such a book kept in the official
library at Assisi, and not only, like the other Leo-papers, preserved by
such Spirituals as the nuns of St. Damian s or Ubertino himself
would naturally be exploited by all biographers, from Celano to Bernard
of Bessa ; and this would account for the apparent priority of the
3 Socii : the compiler of this book, as we now have it, used the Leo-
original more faithfully than Celano or the rest.

But our decision on this point need not greatly affect our parallel
between the Franciscan and New Testament records. The acceptance
of Van Ortroy s theory would only strengthen two of our main points
the ease with which these early records become contaminated and almost

1 See Goetz, p. 155. Goetz convinces himself, like Van Ortroy, that the
3 Socii forms of the stories are not prior but posterior ; but he ignores the tell
tale differences of stj^le, and his arguments are, to me, most unconvincing.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 447

inextricably intermingled, 1 and the superior chances of survival enjoyed
by documents in which the dominant majority recognises its own point
of view. This will be most painfully apparent if we admit Van Ortroy s
contentions to the full, and decide that there is nothing in the 3 Socii
or the Speculum which was not already in the official Celano, to whom,
therefore, all other biographers go back, from Julian of Speyer to the
author of the Golden Legend. " De quelque maniere que Ton envisage
la filiation des anciennes Vies de S. Frangois d Assise . . . c est tou jours
a Celano que Ton aboutit, directement ou indirectement, comme au
premier anneau de la chaine. . . . L influence si notoire et si profonde
de Celano se manifesto pareillement dans le domaine liturgique " (pp.
136-7).

If all this be indeed true, then the Franciscan legend has been Official
even more thoroughly " officialised " than we have judged it to be
on other grounds. Such, in brief, is Franciscan literary history
until 1260, thirty-four years after the Saint s death. In that year
the General Chapter met at Narbonne, under the generalate of St.
Bonaventura, who had been elected three years earlier. This election
had great political significance ; John of Parma, the previous
General (1247-57), had strongly supported the Spiritual minority ; 2
there had thus been a decade of great friction between these and the
Conventuals, and St. Bonaventura had been chosen not only on
account of his intellectual distinction, but even mainly, perhaps, as
a moderate who would work hard to reconcile the two extremes. 3
The Chapter of 1260 recognised that the Spirituals found their
strongest documentary support in the Leo-papers and the early
biographies of St. Francis ; therefore it decreed a standardisation of
the legend in the interests of uniformity, which (it was hoped) might
be also the interests of peace. It was decided " that the variety of
many legends should be removed, and that he [Bonaventura] should
compose a harmonious, weighty, and genuine history from those
different fragments of histories which were current concerning St.
Francis." This was aimed not only at the more definitely spiritual

1 For this multiplicity of documents, in different combinations, see Van
Ortroy, I.e. pp. 119-123; Little, Guide, pp. 15, 19-22; Fr. Cuthbert, Life,
pp. 435-39 ; and the prefaces to Sabatier s editions of the Speculum Perfectionis
and the Actus. Besides those mentioned in my text, the most important of
these is the so-called Anonymus Perusinus, closely akin to the 3 Socii.

2 The Spirituals (or Zelanti) clung to the original simplicity of the Franciscan
ideal, and, in their zeal, tended oven to exaggerate this. They dwelt mainly in
hermitages : hence the relaxed majority of the Order were termed Conventuals,
in contradistinction to mere solitaries.

3 He met with the usual fate of the moderates ; Angelo Clareno (A.L.K.O.
ii. 280) shows us that he is the unnamed villain of chapter xlviii. in the
Fioretti ; this was the light in which he appeared to the Spirituals.

4 Wadding, an. 1260, 18.

448 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

writings, but even at Celano, concerning whom Wadding has pre
served a notice under the year 1256 ( 4). that a good many friars
were scandalised in these days at the public reading of his Vita
Secunda. Bonaventura, thus commissioned, produced a Legenda
Major and a Legenda Minor, both of which were submitted to the
General Chapter of 1263, and formally approved. The next step
was even more significant. The General Chapter of 1266 decreed
the destruction of all the pre-Bonaventuran legends, even, so far as
possible, all copies found outside the Franciscan Order. 1 It fortun
ately proved impossible to enforce this in all its strictness ; yet the
decree was so far successful that " it took just six hundred and
thirty- two years to recover all the scattered fragments of Celano s
legends of St. Francis," 2 and that the Leo-papers survived only
under protest, and in a disconnected fragmentary condition. 3

Early friars, if of a literary turn, often made up little common
place-books of their own. 4 It was natural that such collections
should most frequently deal with the life and sayings of the Founder ;
again, the fullest and best-arranged of such collections would natur
ally be copied from pen to pen, until they sometimes rivalled even
the official publications in popularity. They were anonymous, not
only because nothing had any legal right to exist side by side with
Bonaventura s two Legends, but also because nobody cared much
who had compiled them ; their aim was edificatory rather than
historical in the modern sense. The same causes which conditioned
their birth controlled their growth also ; each possessor or transcriber
dealt with them as he pleased, adding or omitting or altering accord
ing to his own taste. Thus, though the MSS. fall into definite groups,

1 Van Ortroy has attempted to prove that this refers only to the liturgical
legends ; but this view is irreconcilable with the actual evidence, and is dis
missed as untenable by such moderate conservatives as D Alencon (Celano,
Introd. p. xliii) and Father Cuthbert (Life of St. F. p. 430).

2 Fr. Paschal Robinson, Short Introduction, p. 10. Cf. D Alencon (Celano,
Introd. p. xlv). Only twelve MSS. of the Vita Prior are known to have come
down to modern times ; of the Vita Secunda two only ; of the Tractatus miracu-
lorum, a single MS. The author of the Golden Legend, who wrote less than thirty
years after 1266, did not know the Vita Secunda, nor did the author of the Chron.
xxiv. generalium, writing two generations later. It is difficult to follow Father
D Alengon in his contention that the decree had not much to do with these
disappearances.

3 A similar policy was pursued with regard to the official records of the
General Chapter ; cf. Statutes of Narbonne (1260 ; diffinitio 1) and Father
Ehrle s comments thereon (A.L.K.G. vi. pp. 11, 33). D Alen9on points out that
the Dominican Order pursued a similar policy, though less brutally thorough,
against unofficial lives of St. Dominic (I.e. p. xliii, n. 4).

4 Cf. in quite a different style, the commonplace book of Fr. Giovanni da
Camerino, published by Count Monaldo Leopardi in 1833, and MS. Harl. 913,
apparently compiled by Fr. Michael of Kildare in the early fourteenth century.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 449

they are often contaminated by other groups, and they have some
times survived in a longer and a briefer redaction, of which it is not
always easy to decide which comes nearer to the original. 1 Of these
compilations the most important is the Speculum Perfectionis,
which thus describes itself : " This work was compiled as a biography
[per modum legendae] from certain ancient materials which the
companions of St. Francis wrote and caused to be written in diverse
places." 2 Without professing to reproduce the Leo-papers in their
entirety, this compilation evidently represents the most complete
surviving collection from those documents.

Next in importance I should reckon the Legend of tJie Three Com
panions, in spite of the adverse judgments of Fr. van Ortroy and Goetz.
But, as explained above, there is so little agreement on this point, and
the evidence which this book supplies, if genuine, is so nearly consonant
with the rest, that we may leave it aside for the present.

With the Liber de laudibus we come again to a semi-official The De
publication. Bonaventura died in 1274, and in 1277 the General laudibus -
Chapter of Padua appealed for information supplementary to his
two Legendae. Bernard of Bessa, who had been his secretary, was
thus encouraged to write a new biography of St. Francis ; but this
throws no fresh light on the Saint himself, and its main significance
from our point of view is that its very inception, in connection with
the General Chapter decree, testifies to the fact that the Order could
not for ever content itself with the limitations which Bonaventura
had tried to impose.

It is in this light, then, that we must consider the Fioretti, the TheFioretti.
last, and in some ways the most remarkable phenomenon in early
Franciscan literature. It is the least strictly historical, yet by no
means the least Franciscan, of all these records. We have it only
in an early Italian version ; its exact Latin original has not been
found, but a derivative from that original survives in the compilation
called Actus S. Francisci et sociorum ejus? This forms part of a
much larger and more miscellaneous collection called Fac secundum

1 Compare the Speculum Perfectionis, as edited by Sabatier, with the Roman
MS. published at a very low price at Quaracchi by Fr. Lemmens (Documenta
antiqua Franciscana, i. and ii.). It is probable that this MS. represents " a
series of extracts [from the Leo-papers] based on an earlier text than that of
Sabatier s Spec. Per/." (Little, Guide, p. 21). "A similar, but smaller, com
pilation from the same materials [as the Spec. Perf.] was made or copied by a
friar at Avignon a few years later " (ibid. p. 19).

2 Sabatier, Spec. Perf. Introd. p. xlvi. Sabatier, misled by his mistake as
to the date, removed this note from its proper place, treating it as a matter
of minor importance.

3 A provisional edition of this book was printed in 1902 by Sabatier, who
promises soon to give us a critical edition.

VOL. II 2 G

450 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES AFP. A

exemplar, which again contains the whole or part of six smaller
collections. This Fac secundum exemplar, which was probably
compiled between 1322 and 1328, is found in a large number of MSS.,
which differ a good deal from each other ; all its constituent parts
seem to be based on authentic earlier documents of the kind which
the Decree of 1266 had attempted to destroy ; one of its sections,
in fact, consists of eighty-one chapters from the Speculum Perfectionis,
though not always in identical form. The tendency of the collection
is definitely Spiritual. 1 For part of the Actus, at any rate, we have
for once an author s name ; a certain Fr. Ugo da Brunforte had
something to do with it. This was a Spiritual friar, nephew to the
two brothers Pellegrino and Jacopo da Fallerone who are mentioned
in the book (chaps, xxvii., li,). The whole book records the tradi
tions of a particular group, the Spirituals of the Mark of Ancona,
where large convents were few, and the majority of the brethren
dwelt by twos and threes in mountain hermitages. These, with
their similar homes in the Umbrian hills, formed the headquarters
of the Spirituals in Italy. The Fioretti, therefore, embody a genuine
and living tradition of the Saint, primarily, in all likelihood, oral,
but passed down continuously from the lips of those who had known
him familiarly. Even as a record of historical facts, its reputation
has rather revived in recent years. 2 If we were to attempt to charac
terise it in terms of early Christian documents, it corresponds
roughly to the Fourth Gospel, and probably Renan was mainly
thinking of the Fioretti when he wrote : " Nous avons la preuve
que, sauf les circonstances miraculeuses, le caractere reel de Frangois
d Assise repond exactement au portrait qui est reste de lui. Fran-
gois d Assise a toujours ete une des raisons les plus fortes qui m ont
fait croire que Jesus f ut a peu pres tel que les evangelistes synoptiques
nous le depeignent." 3

Franciscan We are now in a position to consider what light is cast by the
and Chris- Franciscan upon the Christian literary tradition. The significance
^ ^^ e com P ar i son w iM best be brought out if we begin by eliminating
those Franciscan documents which, in the nature of the case, could
scarcely have had their parallel in the other period. If St. Francis,
like Christ, had died as a condemned felon and rebel against the

1 For the whole of this complicated question see Sabatier, Spec. Per/. Introd.
pp. clxxvi-cc, and Opuscules, torn. i. fasc. 1, 3. The first thirty-eight chapters
of the Fioretti are earlier than the rest ; the " Considerations on the Stigmata "
and the sections dealing with Jumper and Giles do not really belong to the
Fioretti at all, though they are added to that book in most of the MSS. and all
the printed editions.

2 See Sabatier (Actus, Introd. p. xiii), who, however, seems rather to ex
aggerate the importance of this particular instance.

3 NouvelUs Etudes d kisioire religieuse, 1884, p. 326.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 451

Church of his birth, all absolutely contemporary notices would have
been reduced, at most, to a few unfriendly sentences, possibly alto
gether mendacious. We should have had none of his own writings,
since the little he might have written in those early days of his
mission would almost certainly have been destroyed. There would
have been no Circular Letter from his official successor ; no Vita
Prior, officially commanded by the head of his Church. The Tracta-
tus de miraculis, the two Bonaventura lives, and the Liber de laudi-
bus would not have existed, at least in anything like their present
form. Of the Leo-papers, and of those sources, whatever they may
have been, which underlie the Three Companions, the Anonymus
Perusinus, the Fioretti, and Fac secundum exemplar, we should
probably have only a small fraction, handed down orally during
the early days when it was perilous to be a Franciscan, committed
to writing when the generation of first disciples was fast dying out,
and " edited " by some later follower who had far less personal
knowledge of the master than even Celano had. We should have
been, therefore, by so much farther from our present knowledge of
early Franciscan history, though not necessarily from that of the
essential Francis. His originality, his charm, and his magnetic force
might have shone out as clearly from those more fragmentary
documents as from these that we now possess ; the Vita Prior,
which would have been by far our most serious loss, supplies little
or nothing which might not have been inferred from other sources ;
these latter, in conjunction with the facts of the growth of the Order
and its missionary spirit, would still have shown us something like
the true and complete Francis. But there are two or three currents
in the early history of the Order of capital importance for the study
of religious embryology, for which we should have had no conclusive
documentary evidence if the Franciscan had been as meagre as the
Gospel records. Some critics would doubtless have inferred, but
others would steadily have denied, things which are now admitted
on all sides only because they rest upon the most unexceptionable
documentary evidence.

(1) The Three Rules. In 1209 or 1210 St. Francis wrote his The Rules,
first Rule, which was confirmed after some hesitation by Innocent
III., but only verbally. In 1221, Francis drew up a fresh and fuller
Rule ; in 1223 a third, which was formally ratified and sealed by
Honorius III. If Francis, like Christ, had suffered for his faith, he
would never have lived to draw up the Rules of 1221 and 1223 ;
this gives great importance to the differences between these three
Rules, which may be summarised here in the words of a writer
who will not be suspected of anti-Franciscan bias :

" The Rule of the Friars Minor " (writes Father Cuthbert, Life, p.
86) " underwent many changes and modifications before it was finally

452 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

sealed with the solemn and written approbation of Pope Honorius III.
in 1223. That final Rule reflects many issues and experiences in the
development of the fraternity, which Francis in these earlier years
never contemplated, and in it the fine idealism of his aspiration is
somewhat tempered by the exigencies of the world, as pure gold is
mixed with harder metal to serve the uses of men. It was indeed
necessary to beat out the finer, heroic spirit of the founder of the
fraternity with an admixture of more earthly wisdom for the multitude
which gathered to him after the first enthusiasm had begun to wane.
So only do the idealists retain a following, whether in the Church or
outside it." And again (p. 394) : " Any one conversant with the life
and character of Francis would expect of the Primitive Rule that it
would be almost exclusively an expression of principles rather than a
code of practical regulations or of constitutions. Francis was from
beginning to end an idealist and a poet. In the practical application
of his ideals he waited on circumstance ; he made a practical regulation
only when a situation arose which demanded a practical decision, and
then his decision was formulated by the occasion ; he never seems to
have run ahead of the occasion, but he waited until the actual demand
for a decision came to him."

Two instances of this process of development may be quoted,
one general and one particular, (a) The First Rule, by the general
agreement of critics of all schools, consisted of little more than a
collection of Gospel texts, with a few practical precepts of detail. 1
Many prescriptions of the other two, therefore, are in the nature of
afterthoughts ; in other words, the Franciscans began, even in
their Founder s lifetime, to run that coarse of hierarchical evolution
which Christianity ran after the Founder s death, (b) The Third
Rule deliberately omitted one of the most important clauses of the
First and Second (chap, xiv.) : " When the brethren go through
the world, let them carry nothing by the way, neither scrip, nor
wallet, nor bread, nor money, nor staff. And into whatsoever house
they shall enter, let them first say : Peace be to this house. And in
that same house let them remain eating and drinking such things
as are set before them. Let them not resist him that is evil ; but
whosoever smiteth them on the cheek, let them turn to him the
other also ; and if any man take away their coat, let him have their
cloak also. Let them give to every one that asketh them ; and of
him that taketh away their goods let them not ask them again." 2
This omission was made (says the Speculum, c. iii.) by the

1 It was reconstituted by Karl Miiller in his Anfdnge u.s.w. pp. 14 E., a
reconstitution which Father Cuthbert accepts with a few small changes (Life,
pp. 87 E., and 395 ff.). I here use the latter, as more accessible to English
readers, and excluding all suspicion of anti-Franciscan partiality.

2 The texts are from Luke ix. 3, x. 4-8, vi. 29-30, and Matt. v. 39, with slight
verbal alterations.

APP.A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 453

influence of those who " thought they would thus not be bound to
the observation of evangelical perfection " ; it was bitterly resented
by St. Francis, but the officials of the Order carried their point.
For, already in Francis s lifetime, the Order had an official hierarchy,
which naturally laid increasing stress upon mechanical discipline ;
the steady pressure of institutionalism upon individualism, which
can only be surmised from scattered glimpses in Apostolic history,
is clearly recorded in these Franciscan documents. The earliest
group of brethren had actually lived up to these few Bible texts ;
but no Order, in the medieval sense of that word, could live up to
them.

(2) This comes out still more clearly in the story of the Testament. The Testa-
Francis, in the last months of his life, dictated this document, which m 3nt *
is at the same time a spiritual autobiography and a passionate protest
against the degradation of the early ideal. 1 " Let not the brethren
say, This is another Rule, for this is a reminder, an admonition,
and an exhortation ; it is my Testament, which I, brother Francis, in
my littleness make unto you, my blessed brethren, in order that we
may keep more catholically that Rule which we have promised unto
the Lord. . . . And in all Chapter meetings, when they read the
Rule, let them read these words also. . . . And whosoever shall
keep these things, let him be filled in heaven with the blessing of
God Most High, and on earth let him be filled with the blessing of
His beloved Son, with the most holy Spirit, the Comforter, and all
the Powers of heaven and all the Saints." Yet the later history of
this document was conditioned not by the emphasis Francis laid on it,
nor by the intrinsic importance of the precepts repeated in it, but
by its relation to the increasingly bitter contest between individual
ism and institutionalism within the Order. The Testament became
the Magna Carta of the Spirituals, since it justified all their main
contentions ; it is recorded how certain Conventual persecutors
burned the Testament upon the head of a too persistent Spiritual,
in mockery of his protests. 2 But the question, so far as a Pope s

1 " This was the Testament which St. Francis dictated in these last days
at the Porzhmcola, to be a memorial to his brethren to the end of time. . . .
You who read it may see therein, as in a mirror, the soul of this long story of
Francis s life " (Fr. Cuthbert, Life, pp. 378-9). " It is more important than any
other of [St. F. s] writings, and its genuineness seems better attested than that
of any other " (Goetz, p. 11).

2 Angelo Clareno, in " Hist. Septem Tribulationum," A.L.K.G. iii. 168. The
action will be better understood if Ubertino da Casale s words are given in full :
" Quin ymo (quod nephas est cogitare) in provintia Marchie et in pluribus
aliis locis [prelati Ordinis] testamentum beati Francisci mandaverunt districte
per obedientiam ab omnibus auferi et comburi. Et uni fratri devoto et sancto,
cuius nomen est N. de Reconoto, combuxerunt dictum testamentum super caput
suum. Et toto conatu fuerunt soliciti annullare scripta beati patris nostri
Francisci, in quibus sua intentio de observantia regule declaratur."

454 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

voice could decide it, was settled very early. Gregory IX., who had
been Cardinal Protector of the Order during Francis s lifetime,
published in 1230 the bull Quo Elongati, which laid down that the
brethren were not bound by the Testament, and that (although
Francis had most explicitly forbidden them to gloss the actual
words of his Rule) the brethren were not bound to obey literally
that chapter ol the Rule which forbids " that the brethren receive
money or coin in any way whatsoever, whether directly or through
other persons." The Pope annulled in this same bull Francis s
prescription in the Testament " that the brethren should in no wise
seek for letters 1 from the Holy See " ; and he spoke of the Founder
as having " inserted [in his Testament] certain other things which
cannot be kept without much difficulty." 2

he (3) The Stigmata. Although there is a great deal of miracle even

in the earliest Franciscan records, yet these, on the whole, will be
found conformable to the general law that the miraculous grows
with every fresh step which separates us from the original source.

(a) We may trace this in the description of the appearance
presented by these marks on Francis s body. In the Circular Letter
of brother Elias a document perhaps unique at that early period,
since it gives an absolutely contemporary description of a miracle,
drawn up by an eye-witness under circumstances which would
probably have left room for criticism from other eye-witnesses
the description is comparatively simple. " His hands and feet had,
as it were, the punctures of nails imprinted on both sides, keeping their
scars and showing the blackness of the nails ; his side, again, seemed
lanced, and often oozed blood." This, taken strictly, amounts
only to a proof of the existence of wounds somewhat blackened in
the centre, from which the beholders might naturally conjecture the
stains of rusty iron ; and I believe no early pictorial representation of
the Stigmata goes any farther than this. But in literature this
simple description was soon outdone. Celano s Vita Prior, only
two or three years later, tells us ( 95) : " His hands and feet seemed
pierced in the midst by nails, the heads of the nails appearing in
the inner part of the hands and in the upper part of the feet, and
their points over against them. Now those marks were round in
the inner side of the hands and elongated on the outer side ; and
certain small pieces of flesh were seen like the ends of nails bent and
driven back, projecting from the rest of the flesh. So also the marks
of nails were imprinted in his feet, and raised above the rest of the
flesh." 3 Bonaventura, in his Legenda Major, follows this description ;

1 I.e. letters of protection or privilege.

2 J. H. Sbaralea, Bullarium Franciscanum, vol. i. (1759), pp. 68 ff.

3 Quasi puncturas clavorum habuerunt ex utraque parte confixas, reservantes
cicatrices et clavorum nigredinem ostendentes (Bohmer, p. 91). If we conjecture

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 455

and his Legenda Minor, written a little later, takes the miracle one
step further. 1 " Moreover, the bending of the nails under his feet
was so prominent and so far extended that it not only suffered him
not to plant his soles freely on the ground, but even a finger could
easily be inserted between the bow-like bend of these ends [of the
nails], as I myself have heard from those who saw the thing with
their own eyes." There is a similar crescendo of the marvellous,
from 1 Celano onwards, in the descriptions of the manner in which
these marks were imprinted on the Saint by a seraph ; and the
Treatise on the Stigmata, which became a sort of appendix to the
Fioretti, betrays, by the frequency with which it records revelations
made on the subject to enquiring brethren, how strongly the Order
desiderated fresh and confirmatory marvels. 2 But the story of the
Stigmata has one other lesson for us which is perhaps even more
important than this.

Elias s letter distinctly implies that the w r ounds were impressed When the
upon the Saint shortly before his death, non diu ante mortem. 3 Other Stl 9 mata
contemporary authors say the same ; e.g. Jacques de Vitry, in a bestowed,
sermon preached before a Franciscan congregation perhaps even
before the composition of 1 Celano, says in morte ejus. Several
testimonies come to us indirectly through Brother Leo, who might
be expected to lay most emphasis on an earlier date if such were
true ; yet, with one exception, which will presently be noticed,
Leo s words tell, so far as they tell at all, slightly in favour of the
later date. Meanwhile, however, the official Franciscan tradition
had taken a line incompatible with Elias s contemporary statement.
Celano, in his Vita Prior, first records this ( 94) ; according to
him, and to all later biographies, Francis received the Stigmata
during his retreat on Monte Alverno two years before his death.
Now, Leo had been with the Saint on that retreat, and all Leo s
testimonies but one are either neutral or slightly unfavourable

reserantes (" disclosing ") for reservantes, the sense will not be appreciably
altered. The letter is printed in Bb hmer s Analecten and by Amoni at the end
of his Legenda Trium Sociorum.

1 De stigmatibus sacris, lect. iii.

2 This same tendency is general in Franciscan historiography ; the miracles
in 1 and 2 Celano were not considered numerous enough, and his third volume,
the Tractatus de miraculis, was therefore composed at the express command of
the Minister General somewhere about 1250.

3 Amoni, it is true, prints instead " nam diu ante mortem " (p. 106 of his
edition of the 3 Socii, Rome, 1880). But Amoni was a thoroughly unconscien-
tious editor, and he produced no MS. authority for this change, which must
therefore be taken only as an index of the anxiety of extreme conservatives to
reconcile contradictions in this story. For full discussion of these variations
of time, see J. Merkt, Die W^lndmale des hi. F. v. Assisi (Leipzig, 1910), pp.
34-52.

456 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

to that earlier date. Yet, in his autograph note on the back of the
autograph blessing which Francis wrote for him, he distinctly falls
in with the official tradition, and dates the Stigmata from two years
before Francis s death. He makes no claim, however, to have
seen the marks during those two years ; and the evidence, taken as
a whole, points to a very natural process of legendary growth. Leo,
though a very honest man, was no historical critic ; his own personal
experience contained nothing absolutely irreconcilable with the
official tradition ; his natural and innocent bias was here in the
direction of conformity ; and therefore he accepted the story,
though without vouching for it as a first-hand witness.

The nuns (4) The early history of the Second Order (nuns of St. Clare)

of St. Clare, shows a great change of front, which we could never have traced if
the surviving Franciscan documents had been as scanty as their
Apostolic parallels. In this case, the Franciscan ideal of poverty
was abandoned even earlier, and more officially, than in the case
of the First Order. Though it is almost certain that Francis drew
up an early " Form of Life " (i.e. Rule) for them, yet this has perished
almost without traces, and it probably consisted, like the first
Friars Rule, mainly of Gospel texts. How the Clarisses lived under
it at first, we know from Cardinal Jacques de Vitry : " These women
live in community just outside the walls of towns, in different
dwellings ; they accept nothing, but live by the labour of their
hands." 1 We know also that St. Francis, and his very earliest
disciples, associated for a short time with these nuns in a spirit of
freedom which contrasted with the monastic ideals of his day.
Yet this latter point is carefully obscured by the official biographers ;
St. Francis himself, in later life, enjoined a policy of separation upon
his brethren ; and, in the matter of poverty, the change came even
more definitely during his lifetime, though not by his will. As early
as 1218-19, we find the Cardinal Protector giving to at least five
convents a form of life practically identical with that of the Bene
dictine nuns, admitting corporate property ; and in 1219 he drew
up ; for the whole Order, a Rule which is astoundingly un-Franciscan.
frankly abandoning the ideal of corporate poverty and trying to
make up for this by what Clement IV. described as " grievous and
intolerable austerities " in other directions. In a bull promulgated
when Ugolino had become Gregory IX., he assures us that St.
Francis " accepted " this Rule ; but this cannot be pressed further
than passive acceptance ; if St. Francis had been whole-heartedly
in its favour, Gregory could hardly have failed to say so. The rest
of this tangled story is too long for recapitulation here ; it may be
read in E. Wauer s Entstehung und Ausbreitung d. Claris senordens,
or, better still, in the De origine regularum O.S.C. of Father Ligarius

1 Sabatier, Speculum, p. 299 ; Bohmer, p. 98 ; Oliger, p. [14].

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 457

Oliger, reprinted from vol. v. of the Archivum Franciscanum his-
toricum. 1 If our first documents concerning the Second Order had
begun some thirty years after Francis s death, it would have been
absolutely impossible to recover what we now know to have been
the real facts.

(5) The history of Learning brings out an even more striking Learning
contrast between the first ideal and the official attitude of thirty in the
years later. Here, not only the enormous numerical majority, but
the whole hierarchy of the Order and (almost as a matter of course)
all its intellectual forces championed the relaxed ideal. It is im
possible to reconcile Francis s strict ideal of poverty with that of a
student Order. The Saint s only pronouncements as to books and
study are most discouraging in their tone ; this is brought out all
the more strongly by Father Hilarin Felder s attempts to gloss them
in favour of his own theory. 2 The most that Father Felder could be
said to have proved (and we cannot legitimately insist on reading
even this much into the documents) is that Francis would have wished
his disciples to know their Bible in the sense in which the tinker
Bunyan, and thousands of other popular preachers, have known it.
But no great apparatus of books was necessary for this ideal ; the
Waldensians, by a simple process of memorising, had attained to a
knowledge of the Scriptures which extorted the unwilling admiration
even of their persecutors. 3 Yet, by 1260 at least, St. Bonaventura
was leading the Order along a path of higher study, linked up with
actual residence at the universities, which was frankly incompatible
with " the extreme and strictest poverty." From that time onwards,
the only protests came from those despised and persecuted Spirituals
who would have been cast forth altogether from the Order if their
elimination had not been even more dangerous, for political reasons,
than their presence. 4 All the weight, not only of numbers, but of

1 Father Oliger shows no bias, except an occasional over-anxiety to diminish
the Benedictine role in this story. Father Cuthbert, on the other hand, and
Jb rgensen betray an astounding ignorance of the actual documents, dismissing
the story as a victory for St. Clare s ideal of poverty at the very conjuncture
when the final defeat of that ideal was becoming obvious, and making no attempt
to pursue the subject to the end. E. Gilliat-Smith s St. Clare of Assisi (1914)
is a pretentious but confused and unhistorical book.

2 Gesch. d. wissenschaftlichen Studien im Franziskanerorden, Freiburg, 1904.
This is a really learned book ; its logic is therefore all the more instructive
for our present purpose. Fr. Cuthbert (Romanticism of St. Francis, pp. 166 ff.)
is entirely dependent upon Felder for all that is of any value on this subject.

3 Fjtienne de Bourbon, Anecdotes historiques, p. 308. Bourbon, who was
himself a friar, adds : " This I say on account of their diligence in evil [i.e.
in learning these forbidden Scriptures] and the negligence of the Catholics in
good."

4 Compare the words of Angelo Clareno, who complains that, even under
Crescenzio da Jesi (1244-47) there grew up, to the shame of the Order, " a certain

458 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP.A

all other ponderable factors, was against these men ; under St.
Bonaventura the Franciscans were unquestionably it may almost
be said, essentially a student Order ; and when, about 1270, Roger
Bacon speaks of the duos ordines studentes, par excellence, it is to
the Franciscans and Dominicans that he refers. Indeed the Domini
cans, with whom study was from the first a paramount and essential
factor in their ideal, can hardly be more definitely characterised as a
learned Order than the Franciscans already were at that distance
from their Founder s death at which, if the documentary survivals
had been exactly parallel with those of early Christian history, our
first fairly definite information with regard to the constitution of
the Order would begin.

Franciscan- "We find here, indeed, a startling crosslight on the theory of
Apostolic succession, if we compare the role played by Ignatius s
evidence with that of Bonaventura. With Ignatius, two short

in Ignatius, generations after the Founder s death, we are on firm ground ;
whether Christianity had started in individualism or not, Ignatian
Christianity is now definitely collectivist and institutional. With
Bonaventura, thirty-four years after Francis s death, or forty-one
after the date when Francis began to lose disciplinary hold over his
own Order, we are on equally firm ground. Under his Generalate,
in 1260, the Chapter of Narbonne decided that learning was definitely
included in that " work " which St. Francis had laid as a duty upon
all his followers ; and Father Felder would therefore have us believe
that this construction had been certainly in the Saint s own mind
in 1221-23, and almost certainly from the days of the first Rule of
1209 (p. 99). But here, fortunately, we can check the theory by a
document of which the analogue in Christian origins would be price
less by St. Francis s own Testament of about 1226. There the
Saint writes of his own beginnings with his earliest companions ( 4,
5) : " We were unlearned and subject unto all men . . . and I used
to work with my hands, and I wish to work, and it is my firm wish
also that all the other brethren should work at labour [laboritio]
which pertains to honesty." Those who maintain that a student
Order, even in a rudimentary form, was implicit in Francis s ideal
are obliged to argue against all the evidence, until they come to a
period when the theory of corporate poverty was explained away
by the friars and not even held in theory by the nuns ; a period

insatiable lust of knowledge and show and possessing and getting, changing the
poor solitary settlements and building sumptuous edifices" (A.L.K.G. ii. 257).
Father Felder (p. 95) tries to weaken this by quoting from the Spiritual teacher,
Ubertino da Casale : " We have no intention of blaming the holy and orderly
study of theology " ; but here, and a few lines farther down, where Father Felder
uses the same word, the original has sanctae scripturae, sanctorum litterarum, and
it is obvious that his whole argument falls with these mistranslations.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 459

when the authority of the Testament was officially repudiated, when
more than one Spiritual had paid with his life for strict loyalty to
the first ideal ; when the Stigmata had become something very
different from the actual marks seen by Elias and Leo upon the Saint s
corpse ; when the very memory of that first Franciscan freedom
of Clare and her nuns had almost perished ; and when the officials
were already contemplating that Decree of Destruction which, six
years later, fell upon nearly all the most authentic and illuminating
of the original documents. 1 At this, which may be called the
Ignatian period in Franciscan history, the Order was clearly organ
ised, maintained its general direction, and fixed in a consistent policy
which, through succeeding generations, decided it steadily in that
same direction. 2 But that direction, as we know from documents
which the hierarchy would fain have destroyed, was in some most
important respects not only different from, but almost contrary to
Founder s mind.

From this brief survey we may draw certain deductions which Bearing of

have a verv definite bearing UDon the study of Christian origins.

,. . J ,, . , on Christian

(a) A movement so real and so living as this can keep a great originPi
deal of its essential value even while it loses, or even falsifies, values
of detail. When all room has been made for legitimate scepticism,
students may justify their conviction that the true mind of St.
Francis can be known more intimately, if not described more exactly,
than the inner mind of any man who lived so long ago. Tamassia s
attempt to undermine the whole basis of Franciscan biography is a
lamentable exhibition of limited and undigested reading and of
perverse logic.

(6) Yet, with all the force which the original impulse exerts even
to-day and the revival of Franciscan interest, especially in Pro
testant countries, is one of the most striking movements in con
temporary thought it remains undeniable that this impulse was
perverted very early in certain directions, and that the majority,
while claiming to speak for the Saint, violated his principles so
deliberately and consistently that such violation became almost a
test of orthodoxy. The more faithful minority were partly driven
into heresy, but were mainly retained by force within the Order,
since nothing could have exposed the bankruptcy of the ideal more
clearly than to permit a few handfuls of Zelanti to form an in
dependent Order based upon the real observance of that Rule which

1 Cf. Wadding s evidence, quoted above, that the movement for suppressing
even Celano dates from as early as 1256.

2 Among the many later reforms in the Second Order, none, I believe, has
ever really gone back to the strict observance even of the Rule of 1223, at any
rate for any appreciable time.

460 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APP. A

even the Conventuals professed with their lips. 1 The facts so clearly
traceable in this movement may well make us hesitate to decide
that an overwhelming majority, claiming to speak for the Founder
and anathematising all dissidents, necessarily represents the Founder s
mind more truly than the dissidents do.

(c) At the same time, they justify a great deal of Loisy s apolo
getics for the Catholic Church. Auguste Sabatier has pointed out
that there were in Christ s teaching two separate potentialities not
easy to reconcile in practice ; 2 and the same may be said of Francis.
In religion, as in all social movements, even accuracy of detail is
less important (if choose we must) than breadth of proportion and
the sense of human solidarity. Franciscanism as the Spirituals
understood it could not have spread as the Conventuals spread ;
the Church of Paul could not have become the Church of Constantine ;
it is not enough for non-Catholics to show the way to Catholics in
biblical and historical criticism unless they can rival them also in
social solidarity. There is much to be said for the argument of
L Evangile et VEglise if only the author had carried his argument
down to the present day, thus admitting the possibility that non-
Catholic Christianity may be a no less legitimate development, as
it certainly is not a less living and widespread development, than
Catholic. But this, however logically it may follow from the con
siderations set forward in the preceding pages, would take us too
far afield.

The briefest conclusion would seem to be this, that, while certain
Franciscan developments cannot in themselves prove similar develop
ments in early Christianity, yet at least they prove the possibility
that the admitted gaps in our earliest Christian evidence may conceal
surprises no less startling than those revealed by the Franciscan
records. The theory of Apostolical Succession may always hold
its ground as a working theory, but only as one working theory
among others which have at least as much historical likelihood in
their favour. To make Apostolical Succession fundamental is to
base ourselves on the assumption that what we know to have actually
happened in the thirteenth century could not possibly have happened
in the first. And, as that assumption claims sometimes to base
itself on one fundamental truth, a few concluding lines may here be
devoted to it.

Christ differed so immeasurably from St. Francis (it is argued),
that deviations which were possible and natural in early Franciscan-
ism were impossible in early Christianity. We may apply to this

1 The best accounts of this quarrel are in Tocco, I.e. ; H. C. Lea, Inquis. in
Middle Ages, vol. iii. ; A. G. Ferrers Howell, St. Bernardino of Siena, introductory
chapters.

2 Esquisse d tine philosophic de la religion, 1903, pp. 223 ff.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 461

one simple test the tradition of the words of institution at the
Last Supper. Here we have some thirty words, spoken by Christ
at a moment which all his hearers knew to be supremely fateful,
and sealed with that solemn final warning : " This do in remem
brance of Me." The actual hearers had all the receptive memory of
illiterate folk absolutely devoted to their Master ; others, to whom
the sacred words were passed on, had the same virgin memory, and
an even more overwhelming sense of the incomparable solemnity
of that occasion. Yet we do not know what those thirty words were ;
four times they are recorded in the New Testament, and in four
different forms. No one speech of Christ, perhaps, has been so
much emphasised as this in every single syllable ; yet there are only
six words common to the four records which have come down to us.
In the face of this simple fact (which, after all, is only one out of
many), can we seriously attribute unparalleled and unapproachable
accuracy to that oral tradition upon which, at bottom, the whole
Gospel history rests ? Can we reasonably, here, rule out even the
possibility of such deflections during the first years of obscurity as
we can prove by irrefragable documentary evidence in the first years
of Franciscanism ?

462 TWO LITERARY ANALOGIES APR A

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. GENERAL

There are two cheap and admirable bibliographies : (a) A. G. Little,
Guide to Franciscan Studies (S.P.C.K., 1920, Is. 6d.), and (b) Father
Paschal Robinson, A Short Introduction to Franciscan Literature (New
York, 1907).

B. SPECIAL

A.L.K.G. Archiv fur Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters.
Ed. Denifle and Ehrle. (Freiburg i/B.)

BARZELLOTTI, G. David Lazzaretti. (Bologna, 1855.) The author, a

Spencerian philosopher, happened to come into personal contact

with this Italian Messiah of the nineteenth century, and made a

scientific study of the phenomenon.
BESSA, BERNARD or. "Liber de laudibus S. Francisci," printed in

Analecta Franciscana (Quaracchi), vol. iii.
BOHMER, H. Analekten z. Oeschichte d. Franz, v. Assisi. (Tubingen,

1904.) A cheap and admirable collection of the Saint s writings,

with a few extraneous documents of great value.
BONAVENTURA. Legenda Major and Legenda Minor. Excellent cheap

edition by the friars of Quaracchi near Florence. English translation

in Temple Classics by E. G. Salter.

CELANO, THOMAS or. Vita Prior, Vita Secunda, and Tractatus de miraculis.
Ed. D Alen9on. (Rome, 1906.) There is another very inaccurate
edition of the Latin text by Rosedale ; on the other hand, an admir
able and most scholarly English version has been published by A. G.
Ferrers Howell. (Methuen, 1908.)

CUTHBERT, FATHER. Life of St. F. of Assisi, 1912. In research, the author
adds practically nothing ; but he is a conscientious compiler from the
best modern sources, and his book is valuable as reflecting the mind
of a modern Franciscan, who tries to do justice to Sabatier s point of
view.

Fioretti di San Francesco. Published in the original Italian by Sansoni,
Florence. English translation in Temple Classics by Prof. T. W. Arnold.

APP. A THE STORY OF ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI 463

FRANCISCI S. Opuscula. (Quaracchi, 1904.) An excellent and very
cheap edition, though the editors have unfortunately omitted the
Canticle of the Sun, and do not print the valuable supplementary
documents which Bohmer supplies.

GOETZ, W. Die Quellen z. Geschichte d. hi. F. v. Assisi. (Gotha, 1904.)
The fullest work of its kind, valuable for its thoroughness, but often
lacking in judgment.

Legenda trium sociorum. Ed. Amoni, 1880, with old Italian translation.
An excellent English version by E. Gurney Salter (Temple Classics).

MLLLER, K. Anfdnge d. Minoritenordens, u.s.w. (Freiburg i/B., 1885.)
A very valuable book, forestalling even Sabatier in many of his most
important conclusions.

SABATIER, P. Vie de St. Francois d Assise. (Paris, 1894.) Translated
into English. A new edition, much revised, is promised shortly.
By far the best biography of St. Francis.

Speculum Perfectionis. Ed. Sabatier. (Paris, 1898.) Good and cheap
translations by Sebastian Evans (Nutt) and Prof. T. Okey (Dent).

TAMASSIA, N. St. F. of Assisi and his Legend. Translated by Lonsdale
Ragg. (Fisher Unwin, 1910.) The author, a law-professor, tries to
analyse Celano and the other legends in the spirit of the Tubingen
school, but lacks the necessary historical learning.

TILEMANN, H. Speculum Perfectionis und Legenda Trium Sociorum.
(Leipzig, 1902.)

Tocco, F. L 1 Eresia nel medio evo. (Florence, 1884.)

VITRY, JACQUES DE. The most important passages from his two letters
and his Historia Orientalis are printed by Bohmer, Analekten, pp. 94 ff.

WADDING, L. Annales Minorum. (Lyons, 1625, etc.)

464

TWO LITEKARY ANALOGIES

APP. A

THE STORY OF MARGARET CATCHPOLE

By THE EDITORS

Not a MARGARET CATCHPOLE professes to be, not a novel, but a true
professes** story of a Suffolk maid- servant, who, after an extraordinary
to be a career in England, was transported to Australia where she was
ry believed to have married and to have become the founder of
a highly respected family in the colony. It was written by a
clergyman, the son of the girl s mistress and benefactress, with
the distinctly moral object of showing what misery follows
surrender to temptation, however strong, and how a return to a
right course of life can be rewarded by an old age crowned by
felicity. The book attained an enduring popularity, and after a
lapse of more than seventy years is still widely read, owing to
the interest of the story and the fidelity with which the condition
of East Anglia at the beginning of the nineteenth century is
presented. From its first appearance, moreover, it gave rise to
an animated controversy, first between the author and the editor
of the Bury and Suffolk Post, then one of the leading Suffolk
newspapers, and next with a family in New South Wales, the
children of an elderly lady, who was generally, but falsely,
believed to be the heroine of the story. The historians and
literary men in Australia took a deep interest in the story, and
have been generally inclined to question the accuracy, if not
the good faith of the author.

The facts are briefly as follows. Margaret Catchpole, a
Suffolk peasant girl, was from childhood conspicuous for her
courage and resourcefulness, and her skill in managing horses.
She was entirely uneducated, and could neither read nor write.
At the age of fourteen she went out to service, and distinguished
herself by riding to the doctor in Ipswich to summon him to
attend her mistress who had had a fit. She never even stopped

Story
outlined.

APP. A THE STORY OF MARGARET CATCHPOLE 465

to bridle a spirited pony of her master s, but rode him bareback,
guided only by a halter, for several miles, and through the narrow
streets of the town crowded with carts on market day. This
exploit procured her the position of nursemaid to Mr. Cobbold s
mother. She was so clever that she managed to educate herself
with the children of the household, and rose to the position of
cook and almost housekeeper in the large establishment. She
had two lovers, the rejected, a virtuous young farmer, and the
favoured, a bold and adventurous smuggler, named William Laud.
Laud s too -frequent attentions caused her mistress to dismiss
her, and after various adventures Margaret was induced to steal
a horse belonging to her late master and ride him to London.
She was arrested, brought back to Suffolk, tried and condemned
to death. Considerable interest was brought to bear in her
favour, and she was with difficulty reprieved and committed
to gaol at Ipswich. She escaped from prison, joined Laud, and
was captured on the sea coast, again tried, and again sentenced
to death. Once more the death penalty was commuted and she
was transported to Australia for life. She wrote several letters
to her mistress from the colony, where she won her pardon by
her heroic conduct in rescuing people in a flood, and ultimately
married the virtuous lover whom she had in youth rejected.
She lived the rest of her life in great prosperity, and her son was
believed to have revisited the county of Suffolk and to have
tried to purchase a very important estate. Margaret was
believed to have died September 10, 1841, at the age of sixty-
eight, four years before Mr. Cobbold published his book.

It must be premised that he fully believed that his story was
literally true as the following words, taken from the preface,
testify :

The public may depend on the truth of the main feature of this
narrative : indeed most of the facts recorded were matters of
public notoriety at the time of their occurrence. The author who
here details them is a son of the lady with whom this extraordinary
female lived, and from whose hands he received the letters and the
facts here given.

He had. moreover, every opportunity of ascertaining the
facts. He was born at the time they took place, in 1799, and
his mother, who played a conspicuous part, lived till 1824. He

VOL. II 2 H

466 TWO LITERAKY ANALOGIES APP. A

had access to documents bearing on the case, and knew many
people concerned in it.

Truth of For various reasons Mr. Cobbold exposed himself to a

severe! criticism almost as relentless as that which Biblical writers have
criticised, received in modern days. The publication of his book in 1845
gave rise to misunderstanding and caused pain, though without
any intention on the part of the narrator. The result was that his
tale, which he solemnly declared to be a true one, was pronounced
a pure fiction, which owed its widespread popularity to the belief
of its readers that it was a relation of sober fact. Investigation
proved that there were certain erroneous statements ; but the
criticism was on the whole subjective, and could not be
substantiated by documentary evidence.

Based on The controversies, which lasted long after the appearance of

traction 3 the book which were not wholly academic, but were inspired
and by those who had family credit at stake gave rise to a strong

suspicion that in the correspondence which he had published as
genuine the author had trusted entirely to his imagination or
powers of invention. By the kindness of his lineal descendants we
have discovered the authentic documents which were used in the
compilation of the book, and, so far, we have been enabled to
establish the credit of the author. There are also other docu
ments, including a book of sketches made of the scenes in the
novel by Mr. Cobbold, with notes made in 1874, proving that in
old age he firmly believed that he had related absolute facts.
Even where he may be rightly charged with falsifying certain
details, which he might well have done for the sake of
heightening the interest of the story, this may be due to his
lack of accuracy and critical discernment.

Family The materials which were at Mr. Cobbold s disposal were

tradition, numerous and different in character. First there was the
family tradition. His father had an enormous family : twice
in his life there were twenty-two children living. His elder
brothers and sisters could remember Margaret Catchpole when
she was a servant in the family. Her letters from Australia
used to come to his mother when he was a growing boy. He
knew and conversed with many of those who had played a promi
nent part in the transactions he relates, and he had an intimate
knowledge of the scenes which he describes.

APP.A THE STORY OF MARGARET CATCHPOLE 467

When he wrote his book many eye-witnesses of the inci- Testimony
dents were alive, and he had abundant opportunity of inquiring J it c ^ e e 8 " ses
into the facts, as he lived all his life near the scene of the early
adventures of his heroine, though he had no personal knowledge
of her. He was also describing a state of affairs widely different
from those of his own time, using the method, employed by some Use of first
ancient and modern writers, of making some of his actors tell p*^,
their own story, and, as will be shown, he had before him the narrative,
documents which he professes to quote.

The documentary evidence in possession of Mr. Cobbold
when he wrote the book was discovered in his grand-daughter s
possession, in an old bundle of papers, and has been catalogued.

There is a letter, quoted below, from Mr. Charles Cobbold,
curator of the Zoological Gardens at Edinburgh, to his brother
Richard, in which he describes an interview with Mr. David
Hope. The result was that both gentlemen were equally perplexed
as to the identity of Margaret and his relative the lady in question,
as this extract shows : " When he had gone over his history of
her, I went over mine, or in other words, Margaret Catchpole s ;
at which he was very much interested and astonished ; and
expressed himself perfectly satisfied that she must be the Margaret
Catchpole whom he had all his life been led to believe was the
original Mary Haddock " (dated June 21, 1846).

The disappearance of Margaret from the scene and the
uncertainty as to whether she died or married and lived prosper
ously have a parallel in the mystery which hangs over the death
of Paul. There was good evidence for the tradition that Margaret
married and lived to be old ; and even the copies made of the
registry of her death exhibit discrepancies (see below). It is the
same with Paul ; there is a good tradition that he was martyred
at Rome, but did the writer of Acts know of his death ? Renan
thinks Paul simply disappears from history.

The notes in Mr. Cobbold s sketch-book " Illustrations of Notes
Margaret Catchpole. Sketched by the Author of Margaret
Catchpole " though made in 1874 when the author was in his
seventy-seventh year the sketches are of course much earlier
show how he relied on oral tradition.

(a) Sketch III. " Thomas Colson, alias Robinson Crusoe, the
ancient fisherman of the Orwell." Very few are alive now

468 TWO LITEEAEY ANALOGIES APP. A

(1874) who will remember the old fisherman of the Orwell.
In his day almost the only real fisherman on the river. He
was well read in a book of deep horoscopic literature Sadu-
cismus Triumphans (sic}. The history of this poor man
will be found in the Suffolk Garland.

(b) Sketch II. "The Priory Farm." My informant was Dr.

Stebbing, who was the first to commend M C to my mother.

of M C treasured up in his memory all that fell from the lips
of his father and mother concerning all the family events. . . .
In such a spirit of love are many things collected and done by
many a good old author.

(d) Sketch XXV. " The gaoler and Preventive service men going

to take Will Laud and Margaret from the North Vere."

The public records of the County at that period before
the employment of stenographic reporters were very meagre,
and the evidences given in a Court of Justice but very scant.
We are therefore dependent upon Mrs. Cobbold s letter for
the facts of how Margaret was taken.

(e) Sketch XXVIL " Will Laud defending the body of Margaret."

Concerning this we could only go upon her own account of it,
and Eipshaw s evidence. The death of many smugglers and
lawless men was little thought of in that day. Margaret had
very little pity except from her mistress.

(/) Sketch XXIX." Margaret s Cottage, Eichmond Hill." It is
astonishing with what avidity I used to hear my mother
read all Margaret s communications from Botany Bay. I
have all her letters labelled and dated by my dear father. . . .
As to me I remembered all things with gusto.

(g) Sketch XXXIII. " Margaret as last seen at Sydney." Margaret
herself outlived her husband a few years, and died in the
same year her dear mistress did.

Criticism The criticism of Mr. Cobbold s book began with its first

(a)*t!iftfc appearance and has continued down to the present day. He has
the author preserved a fragment of a correspondence with Mr. Johnson

Gedge, editor of the Bury Post, the letter being dated October

20, 1847. Mr. Gedge s words are :

I am well aware that the broad outline of the Narrative, so far
as regards her stealing of the horse, conviction, escape, recapture,
condemnation, reprieve, transportation, and subsequent rise to
wealth, and the arrival of her son in Suffolk for the purpose of buying
an estate in the county, is true ; and the last fact I imagine to be
that for which I am described by the Editor of the Herald as your

APP. A THE STOEY OF MARGAKET CATCHPOLE 469

authority, it having been communicated to me, if my memory serve

me, by the late Mr. Toplyn of Sproughton. But for the other (or

the greater part of the other) incidents the romance of the story,

and for the language and sentiments put into the mouth of the

heroine, I have been assured by respectable persons of Ipswich

there was no better