See other formats

Full text of "Dictionary of the apostolic church"

/\ 







Dictionary 

of the 

Apostolic Church 



Dictionary 



of the 



Apostolic Church 



"K'e.f 
440 

EDITED BY / f Jj 

. n q- 

JAMES HASTINGS, D.D. 



WITH THE ASSISTANCE OP 

JOHN A. SELBIE, D.D. 

AND 

JOHN C. LAMBERT, D.D. 



VOLUME I 
AARON-LYSTRA 



/<? 



NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK 

1916 




an 



BS440 
-H4 



COPTBIGHT, 1916, BY 

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 






H 



The above copyright notice is for the protection of articles copyrighted in the United States. 



Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of this 
DICTIONARY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH in the United States and Canada. 



PREFACE 



IT has often been said that the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels is of more 
practical value than a Dictionary of the Bible. From all parts of the world has 
come the request that what that Dictionary has done for the Gospels another 
should do for the rest of the New Testament. The DICTIONARY OF THE APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH is the answer. It carries the history of the Church as far as the end of 
the first century. Together with the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, it forms a 
complete and independent Dictionary of the New Testament. 

The Editor desires to take the opportunity of thanking the distinguished New 
Testament scholars who have co-operated with him in this important work. 



AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME 



ALLEN (WILLOUGHBY CHARLES), M.A. 

Archdeacon of Manchester ; Principal of 
Egerton Hall, Manchester ; author of ' The 
Gospel according to St. Matthew' in The 
International Critical Commentary. 
Anointing, Children of God, Gospels, 
Kingdom of God. 

ALLWORTHY (THOMAS BATESON), M.A. (Camb.), 

B.D. (Dublin). 

Perpetual Curate of Martin-by-Timberland, 
Lincoln ; Founder and First Warden of S. 
Anselm's Hostel, Manchester. 
Ampliatus, Andronicus, Apelles, Aristo- 
bulus, Asyncritus, Epaenetus, and other 
proper names. 

BANKS (JOHN S.), D.D. 

Emeritus Professor of Theology in the 
Wesleyan Methodist College, Headingley, 
Leeds ; author of A Manual of Christian 
Doctrine. 
Christian, Contentment. 

BATIFFOL (PIERRE), Litt.D. 

PrStre catholique et prelat de la Maison du 
Pape, Paris ; auteur de Tractatiis Origenis 
de libris scripturarum (1900), Les Odes de 
Salomon (1911), La Paix constantinienne et 
le Catholicisme (1914). 
Ignatius. 

BECKWITH (CLARENCE AUGUSTINE), A.B., A.M., 
S.T.D. 

Professor of Systematic Theology in Chicago 
Theological Seminary ; author of Realities 
of Christian Theology ; departmental editor 
of the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of 
Religious Knowledge. 

Beast, Blindness, Blood, Dysentery, 
Fever, Gangrene, Lamb, Lion. 

BERNARD (JOHN HENRY), D.D. (Dublin), Hon. 

D.D. (Aberd.), Hon. D.C.L. (Durham). 
Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin ; some- 
time Archbishop King's Professor of 
Divinity, Dublin, and Dean of St. Patrick's 
Cathedral. 
Descent into Hades. 

BOYD (WILLIAM FALCONER), M.A., B.D. (Aberd.), 

D.Phil. (Tubingen). 

Minister of the United Free Church of Scot- 
land at Methlick. 

Alexander, Crown, Desert, Gog and 
Magog, Israel, Jew, Jewess, and other 
articles. 



BROOKE (ALAN ENGLAND), D.D. 

Fellow, Dean, and Lecturer in Divinity at 
King's College, Cambridge ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of S. Alban's; 
author of A Critical ana Exegetical Com- 
mentary on the Johannine Epistles. 
James and John, the Sons of Zebedee, 
John (Epistles of). 

BULCOCK (HARRY), B.A., B.D. 

Minister of the Congregational Church at 
Droylsden, Manchester. 
Anger, Care, Cheerfulness, Comfort, 
Commendation, Fool, Grief, and other 
articles. 

BURKITT (FRANCIS CRAWFORD), M.A., F.B.A., 

Hon. D.D. (Edin., Dublin, St. And.), D. 
Theol. h.c. (Breslau). 

Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge ; author of The Gospel 
History and its Transmission. 
Baruch (Apocalypse of). 

BURN (ANDREW E.), D.D. 

Vicar of Halifax and Prebendary of Lichfield ; 
author of The Apostles' Creed (1906), The 
Nicene Creed (1909), The Athanasian Creed 
(1912). 

Confession, Hallelujah, Hymns, Inter- 
cession. 

CARLYLE (ALEXANDER JAMES), M.A., D.Litt., 

F.R. Hist. Soc. 

Lecturer in Economics and Politics at Univer- 
sity College, Oxford. 
Alms, Community of Goods. 

CASE (SHIRLEY JACKSON), M.A., B.D., Ph.D. 

Professor of New Testament Interpretation in 
the University of Chicago ; author of The 
Historicity of Jesus, The Evolution of Early 
Christianity ; managing editor of The 
American Journal of Theology. 
Allegory, Interpretation. 

CLARK (P. A. GORDON). 

Minister of the United Free Church at Perth. 
Divination, Exorcism, Lots. 

CLAYTON (GEOFFREY HARE), M.A. 
Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge. 

Corinthians (Epistles to the), Eucharist, 
Love-Feast. 



Vlll 



AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME 



CLEMENS (JOHN SAMUEL), B.A., Hon. D.D. (St. 

And.). 

Governor of the United Methodist College at 
Ranmoor, Sheffield. 

Bondage, Constraint, Liberty, Lord's 
Day. 

COBB (WILLIAM FREDERICK), D.D. 

Rector of the Church of St. Ethelburga the 
Virgin, London ; author of Origines 
Judaicce, The Book of Psalms, Mysticism 
and the Creed. 

Antipas, Balaam, Euphrates, Hymenseus, 
Jannes and Jambres, Jezebel, and other 
articles. 

COOKE (ARTHUR WILLIAM), M.A. 

Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 
at Wallasey, Cheshire ; author of Palestine 
in Geography and in History. 
Elamites, Galilee. 

COWAN (HENRY), M.A. (Edin.), D.D. (Aberd.), 

D.Th. (Gen.), D.C.L. (Dunelm). 
Professor of Church History in the University 
of Aberdeen ; Senior Preacher of the Uni- 
versity Chapel ; author of The Influence of 
the Scottish Church in Christendom, John 
Knox, Landmarks of Church History. 

Apphia, Archippus, Epaphras, Epaphro- 
ditus. 

CRUICKSHANK (WILLIAM), M.A., B.D. 

Minister of the Church of Scotland at Kinneff, 
Bervie ; author of The Bible in the Light of 
Antiquity. 

Arts, Clothes, Games, Jerusalem, Key, 
Lamp, and other articles. 

DA VIES (ARTHUR LLYWELYN), M.A. 

Siracox Research Student, Queen's College, 
Oxford. 

Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of 
Moses, Enoch (Book of). 

DEWICK (EDWARD CHISHOLM), M.A. (Camb.). 

Tutor and Dean of St. Aidan's College, 
Birkenhead ; Teacher of Ecclesiastical 
History in the University of Liverpool ; 
author of Primitive Christian Eschatology. 
Eschatology. 

DlMONT (CHARLES TUN NACLIFF), B.D. (Oxon.). 

Principal of Salisbury Theological College ; 
Prebendary of Salisbury; Chaplain to the 
Bishop of Salisbury. 

Business, Labour. 

VON DOBSCHUTZ (ERNST), D.Theol. 

Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the 
University of Breslau. 

Communion, Fellowship, Hellenism, 
Josephus. 

DONALD (JAMES), M.A., D.D. (Aberd.). 

Minister of the Church of Scotland at Keith- 
hall and Kinkell, Aberdeenshire. 

Dispersion, Gentiles, Heathen, Libertines. 

DUNCAN (JAMES WALKER), M.A. 

Minister of the United Free Church at Lass- 
odie, Dumfriesshire. 
Canaan, Haran. 

DUNDAS (WILLIAM HARLOE), B.D. 

Rector of Magheragall, near Lisburn. 
Authority, Dominion. 



FAULKNER (JOHN ALFRED), B.A., B.D., M.A., 

D.D. 

Professor of Historical Theology in Drew 
Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. 
Benediction, Doxology. 

FELTOE (CHARLES LETT), D.D. 

Rector of Ripple, near Dover ; sometime 
Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge ; author 
of Sacramentarium Leonianum, The Letters 
and other Remains of Dionysius of Alex- 
andria. 

Akeldama, Candace, Chamberlain, 
Ethiopians, Ethiopian Eunuch, Judas 
Iscariot. 

FLETCHER (M. SCOTT), M.A., B.D., B.Litt. 

Master of King's College, University of 
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ; author of 
The Psychology of the New Testament. 
Edification, Enlightenment, Exhortation. 

FREW (DAVID), D.D. 

Minister of the Church of Scotland at Urr. 
Barnabas, Esdras (The Second Book of), 
Herod. 

GARVIE (ALFRED ERNEST), M.A. (Oxford), D.D. 

(Glas.). 

Principal of New College, London ; author of 
The Ritschlian Theology, Studies in the 
Inner Life of Jesus, Studies of Paul and his 
Gospel. 

Evil, Fall, Good. 
GORDON (ALEXANDER REID), D.Litt., D.D. 

Professor of Hebrew in M'Gill University, and 

of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis 

in the Presbyterian College, Montreal ; 

author of The Poets of the Old Testament. 

Judgment-Hall, Judgment-Seat, Justice, 

Lawyer. 
GOULD (GEORGE PEARCE), M.A., D.D. 

Principal of Regent's Park College, London ; 
Ex-President of the Baptist Union of Great 
Britain and Ireland. 

Berenice, Drusilla, Felix, Festus, Lysias. 

GRANT (WILLIAM MILNE), M.A. 

Minister of the United Free Church at 
Drumoak, Aberdeenshire ; author of The 
Religion and Life of the Patriarchal Age, 
The Founders of Israel. 
Assembly, Building, Day-Star, Founda- 
tion, Genealogies, Gospel, and other 
articles. 

GRENSTED (LAURENCE WILLIAM), M.A., B.D. 
Vice-Principal of Egerton Hall, Manchester ; 
joint-author of Introduction to the Books of 
the New Testament. 

Colossians (Epistle to the), Ephesians 
(Epistle to the). 

GRIEVE (ALEXANDER JAMES), M.A., D.D. 

Professor of New Testament Studies and 
Christian Sociology in the Yorkshire United 
Independent College, Bradford. 
Form, Friendship, Fruit, Image. 

GRIFFITH- JONES (EBENEZER), B.A. (Lond.), D.D. 

(Edin.). 

Principal, and Professor of Dogmatics, Homi- 
letics, and Practical Theology, Yorkshire 
United Independent College, Bradford ; 
author of The Ascent through Christ, Types 
of Christian Life, The Economics of Jesus, 
The Master and His Method, Faith and 
Verification. 

Abiding, Abounding, Acceptance, Access, 
Account, Answer. 



HAMILTON (HAROLD FRANCIS), M.A., D.D. 

Ottawa, Canada ; formerly Professor in the 
University of Bishop's College, Lennoxville, 
Quebec. 
Barnabas (Epistle of). 

HANDCOCK(P.S.P.), M.A. 

Member of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at- 
Law ; Lecturer of the Palestine Exploration 
Fund ; formerly of the Department of 
Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the 
British Museum ; author of Mesopotamian 
Archaeology, Latest Light on Bible Lands. 
Dog, Eagle, Goat, Hospitality, Locust, 
and other articles. 

HOOKE (SAMUEL HENRY), M.A. (Oxon.), B.D. 

(Lond.). 

Professor of Oriental Languages and Litera- 
ture in Victoria College, Toronto. 
Heaven, Immortality, Lake of Fire. 

JAMES (JOHN GEORGE), M.A., D.Lit. 

Author of Problems of Personality, Problems 
of Prayer, The Coming Age of Faith, The 
Prayer-Life. 

Cross, Crucifixion, Custom, Dream. 

JORDAN (HERMANN), Ph.D. 

Professor of Church History and Patristics in 
the University of Erlangen. 
Catholic Epistles, Epistle, Letter. 

LAKE (KiRSOPP), M.A. (Oxford), D.D. (St. And.). 
Professor of Early Christian Literature in 
Harvard University ; author of The Earlier 
Epistles of St. Paul. 

Acts of the Apostles, Acts of the Apostles 
(Apocryphal), Luke. 

LAMBERT (JOHN C.), M.A., D.D. 

Fenwick, Kilmarnock ; author of The Sacra- 
ments in the New Testament. 
Antichrist, Body, Conscience, Flesh, Life 
and Death, Light and Darkness, and 
other articles. 

LAW (ROBERT), D.D. (Edin.). 

Professor of New Testament Literature in 
Knox College, Toronto ; author of The Tests 
of Life : A Study of the First Epistle of St. 
John. 



Covetousness, Formalism, 
Generation, Glory, Hour. 



Fulness, 



LlGHTLEY (JOHN WILLIAM), M.A., B.D. 

Professor of Old Testament Language and 
Literature and Philosophy in the Wesleyan 
College, Headingley, Leeds. 
Epicureans. 

LOFTHOUSE (WILLIAM F.), M.A. 

Professor of Philosophy and Old Testament 
Language and Literature in the Wesleyan 
College, Handsworth, Birmingham ; author 
of Ethics and Atonement, Ethics and the 
Family. 

Conversion, Creation, Forgiveness, Free- 
dom of the Will. 

MACKENZIE (DONALD), M.A. 

Minister of the United Free Church at Oban ; 
Assistant Professor of Logic and Meta- 
physics in the University of Aberdeen, 
1906-1909. 

Abstinence, Feasting, Fornication, 
Harlot, Lust, and other articles. 



MACLEAN (ARTHUR JOHN), D.D. (Camb.), Hon. 

D.D. (Glas.). 

Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Caithness ; author 
of Dictionary of Vernacular Syriac ; editor 
of East Syrian Liturgies. 
Adoption, Angels, Ascension, Baptism, 
Demon, Family, and other articles. 

MAIN (ARCHIBALD), M.A. (Glas.), B.A. (Oxon.), 

D.Litt. (Glas.). 

Minister of the Church of Scotland at Old 
Kilpatrick ; examiner in Modern and Ecclesi- 
astical History and in Political Economy in 
St. Andrews University ; member of the 
Examining Board of the Church of Scot- 
land. 
Cymbal, First-Fruit, Harp. 

MARSH (FRED. SHIPLEY), M.A. 

Sub- Warden of King's College Theological 
Hostel and Lecturer in Theology, King's 
College, London ; formerly Tyrwhitt and 
Crosse Scholar in the University of Cam- 
bridge. 

Clement of Rome (Epistle of), Galatians 
(Epistle to the), Hebrews (Epistle to 
the). 

MARTIN (A. STUART), M.A., B.D. 

Formerly Pitt Scholar and Examiner in 
Divinity in Edinburgh University and 
Minister of the Church of Scotland at 
Aberdeen ; author of The Books of the New 
Testament. 
Grace, Justification. 

MARTIN (G. CURRIE), M.A., B.D. 

Lecturer in connexion with the National 
Council of Adult School Unions ; formerly 
Professor of New Testament at the York- 
shire United College and Lancashire College. 
Hell. 

MATHEWS (SHAILER), A.M., D.D. (Colby, 

Oberlin, Brown). 

Dean of the Divinity School, and Professor of 
Historical Theology, in the University of 
Chicago ; President of the Federal Council 
of the Churches of Christ in America ; 
author of The Messianic Hope in the New 
Testament. 
Assassins, Judas the Galilsean. 

MAUDE (JOSEPH HOOPER), M.A. 

Rector of Hilgay, Downham Market ; 
formerly Fellow and Dean of Hertford 
College, Oxford; author of The History of 
the Book of Common Prayer. 
Ethics. 

MITCHELL (ANTHONY), D.D. 

Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney ; formerly 
Principal and Pantonian Professor of 
Theology in the Theological College of the 
Episcopal Church in Scotland. 
Hermas (Shepherd of). 

MOE (OLAF EDVARD), Dr. Theol. 

Professor of Theology in the University of 
Christiania. 
Commandment, Law. 

MOFFATT (JAMES), D.Litt., Hon. D.D. (St. 

And.), Hon. M.A. (Oxford). 
Professor of Church History in the United 
Free Church, Glasgow ; author of Th 
Historical New Testament, The New Testa* 
ment : A New Translation. 
Gospels (Uncanonical). 



AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME 



MONTGOMERY (WILLIAM), M.A. (Cantab.), B.D. 

(London). 

Lecturer in Divinity in the University of 
Cambridge ; author of St. Augustine. 
Book of Life, Book with the Seven Seals, 
James the Lord's Brother, James 
(Epistle of). 

MONTGOMERY (W. S.), B.D. 

Minister of the Presbyterian Church in 
Ireland at Ballacolla, Queen's County. 
Beating, Buffet, Chain, Fire, Jailor. 

MORGAN (WILLIAM), M.A., D.D. (Aberd.). 

Professor of Systematic Theology and Apolo- 
getics in Queen's Theological College, King- 
ston, Ontario ; Kerr Lecturer for 1914. 
Judgment. 

Moss (RICHARD WADDY), D.D. 

Principal, and Tutor in Systematic Theology, 
Didsbury College, Manchester ; author of 
The Range of Christian Experience. 
Aaron, Aaron's Rod, Anathema, Condem- 
nation, Curse, Levite. 

MOULTON (WILFRID J.), M.A. (Cantab.). 

Professor of Systematic Theology in the 
Wesleyan College, Headingley, Leeds; 
author of The Witness of Israel. 
Covenant. 

MUIRHEAD (LEWIS A.), D.D. 

Minister of the United Free Church at 
Broughty - Ferry ; author of The Terms 
Life and Death in the Old and New Testa- 
ments, The Eschatology of Jesus. 
Apocalypse. 

NlCOL (THOMAS), D.D. 

Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Univer- 
sity of Aberdeen ; Moderator of the General 
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1914. 
Assurance, Education, Election, Fore- 
knowledge, and other articles. 

NIVEN (WILLIAM DICKIE), M.A. 

Minister of the United Free Church at Blair- 
gowrie ; co-examiner in Mental Philosophy 
in the University of Aberdeen. 
Cerinthus, Doctor, Ebionism, Emperor- 
Worship, Essenes, Gnosticism. 

PEAKE (ARTHUR SAMUEL), M.A., D.D. 

Rylands Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the 
University of Manchester and Tutor in the 
Hartley Primitive Methodist College ; some- 
time Fellow of Merton College and Lecturer 
in Mansfield College, Oxford ; author of 
The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testa- 
ment, A Critical Introduction to the New 
Testament, Christianity : its Nature and its 
Truth. 

Cainites, Jude the Lord's Brother, Jude 
(Epistle of). 

PLATT (FREDERIC), M.A., B.D. 

Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology 
in the Wesleyan College, Handsworth, Bir- 
mingham ; author of Miracles: An Outline 
of the Christian View. 
Atonement. 

PLUMMKR (ALFRED), M.A., D.D. 

Late Master of University College, Durham ; 
formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity 
College, Oxford ; author of ' The Gospel 
according to S. Luke ' in The International 
Critical Commentary, and other works. 
Apostle, Bishop, Church, Deacon, Evan- 
gelist, and other articles. 



POPE (R. MARTIN), M.A. (Cantab, and Man- 
chester). 

Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 
at Keswick ; author of Expository Notes on 
St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, 
and other works. 

Abba, Christian Life, Conversation, 
Gifts, Judging. 

REID (JOHN), M.A. 

Minister of the United Free Church at Inver- 
ness ; author of Jesus and Nicodemus, The 
First Things of Jesus, The Uplifting of Life ; 
editor of Effectual Words. 
JEon, Age, Aged, Honour. 

ROBERTS (JOHN EDWARD), M.A. (London), B.D. 

(St. Andrews). 

Minister of the Baptist Church at Manchester; 
author of Christian Baptism, Private 
Prayers and Devotions. 

Apollo s, Aquila and Priscilla, Bar-Jesus, 
Gallic, and other articles. 

ROBERTS (ROBERT), B.A. (Wales), Ph.D. (Leipzig). 
Rhuallt, St. Asaph. 
Expediency. 

ROBERTSON (ARCHIBALD THOMAS), M.A., D.D., 

LL.D. 

Professor of Interpretation of the New Testa- 
ment in the Southern Baptist Theological 
Seminary, Louisville, Ky. ; author of A 
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the 
Light of Historical Research, and other 
works. 

Bond, Debt, Deliverer, Destruction. 

ROBINSON (GEORGE L.), Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. 

Professor of Biblical Literature and English 
Bible in M'Cormick Theological Seminary, 
Chicago. 
Caesarea. 

ROBINSON (HENRY WHEELER), M.A. (Oxon. and 

Edin.). 

Professor of Church History and of the 
Philosophy of Religion in the Baptist 
College, Rawdon ; sometime Senior Kenni- 
cott Scholar in the University of Oxford ; 
author of ' Hehrew Psychology in Relation 
to Pauline Anthropology' in Mansfield 
College Essays, The Christian Doctrine of 
Man, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testa- 
ment. 

Adorning, Ear, Eye, Feet, Hair, Hand, 
Head. 

SANDAY (WILLIAM), D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., F.B.A. 
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, and 
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain 
in Ordinary to H.M. the King. 
Inspiration and Revelation. 

VON SCHLATTER (ADOLF). 

Professor of New Testament Introduction and 
Exegesis in the University of Tubingen. 
Holy Spirit. 

SCOTT (CHARLES ANDERSON), M.A., D.D. 

Professor of the Language, Literature, and 
Theology of the New Testament in West- 
minster College, Cambridge ; author of The 
Making of a Christian, and other works. 
Christ, Christology. 

SlDNELL (HENRY CARISS JONES), B.A., B.D. 

(London). 

Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 
at Ilkley. 

Admonition, Chastisement, Discipline, 
Excommunication. 



AUTHORS OF AETICLES IN THIS VOLUME 



SMITH (SHERWIN), M.A., B.D. 

Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 
at Burnley. 
Abomination, Clean and Unclean. 

SOUTER (ALEXANDER), M.A., D.Litt. 

Regius Professor of Humanity and Lecturer 
in Mediaeval Palaeography in the University 
of Aberdeen ; formerly Professor of New 
Testament Greek and Exegesis in Mansfield 
College, Oxford ; author of A Study of 
Ambrosiaster, The Text and Canon of the 
New Testament. 

Augustus, Caesar, Caligula, Citizenship, 
Diana, Domitian, and other articles. 

SPOONER (WILLIAM ARCHIBALD), D.D. 

Warden of New College, Oxford ; Hon. Canon 
of Christ Church, Oxford ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Peterborough. 
Lucius. 

STEVENSON (MORLEY), M.A. 

Principal of Warrington Training College ; 
Hon. Canon of Liverpool ; author of Hand- 
book to the Gospel according to St. Luke, and 
other works. 

Author and Finisher, Circumcision, 
Divisions, Forerunner, Heresy, Judaiz- 
ing. 

STEWART (GEORGE WAUCHOPE), M.A., B.D. 

Minister of the Church of Scotland at Hadding- 
ton (First Charge) ; author of Music in the 
Church. 

King, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, 
Lord. 

STEWART (ROBERT WILLIAM), M.A., B.Sc., B.D. 
Minister of the United Free Church at Duthil 
(Carr Bridge). 
Apostolic Constitutions. 

STRACHAN (ROBERT HARVEY), M.A. (Aberd.), 

B.A. (Cantab.). 

Minister of the Presbyterian Church of 
England at Cambridge. 
Consecration, Fast (The), Holiness, Holy 
Day. 

STRAHAN (JAMES), M.A., D.D. 

Professor of Hebrew and Biblical Criticism in 
the M'Crea Magee Presbyterian College, 
Londonderry ; Cunningham Lecturer ; author 
of Hebrew Ideals, The Book of Job, The 
Captivity and Pastoral Epistles, 
Abraham, Colours, Elements, Galatia, 
Hypocrisy, and other articles. 



THUMB (ALBERT). 

Professor of Comparative Philology in the 
University of Strassburg ; author of Hand- 
book of the Modern Greek Vernacular. 

Hellenistic and Biblical Greek. 
TOD (DAVID MACRAE), M.A., B.D. (Edin.). 

Minister of the Presbyterian Church of 
England at Huddersfield ; formerly Hebrew 
Tutor and Cunningham Fellow, New College, 
Edinburgh. 

Faith, Faithfulness, Ignorance, Know- 
ledge. 

VOS (GEERHARDUS), Ph.D., D.D. 

Charles Haley Professor of Biblical Theology 
in the Theological Seminary of the Presby- 
terian Church at Princeton, N. J. 

Brotherly Love, Goodness, Joy, Kind- 
ness, Longsuffering, Love. 

W ATKINS (CHARLES H.), D.Th. 

Minister of the Baptist Church at Liverpool ; 
Lecturer in the Midland Baptist College 
and University College, Nottingham ; author 
of St. Paul's Fight for Galatia. 
Ambassador, Blessedness, Brethren, 
Conspiracy. 

WATT (HUGH), B.D. 

Minister of the United Free Church of Scotland 
at Bearsden ; Examiner for the Church 
History Scholarships of the United Free 
Church of Scotland. 
Didache. 

WELLS (LEONARD ST. ALBAN), M.A. (Oxon.). 
Vicar of St. Aidan's, South Shields ; sub- 
editor of the Oxford Apocrypha and Pseud- 
epigrapha. 
Alpha and Omega, Amen. 

WILLIS (JOHN ROTHWELL), B.D. 

Canon of St. Aidans, Ferns, and Rector of 
Preban and Moyne. 

Angels of the Seven Churches, Collec- 
tion, Contribution. 

WORSLEY (FREDERICK WILLIAM), M.A., B.D. 

Subwarden of St. Michael's College, Llandaff ; 
author of The Apocalypse of Jesus. 
Areopagite, Baal, Babbler, Calf, Damaris, 
Dioscuri, Idolatry, Jupiter. 

ZENOS (ANDREW C.), D.D., LL.D. 

Professor of Historical Theology in the 
M'Cormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. 
Dates. 

ZWAAN (J. DE), D.D. (Leiden). 

Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the 
University of Groningen. 
Acts of Thomas ' in Acts of the Apostles 
(Apocryphal). 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 



I. GENERAL 



App. = Appendix. 

Arab. = Arabic. 

art., artt. = article, articles. 

A. S. = Anglo-Saxon. 

Assyr. = Assyrian. 

AT = Altes Testament. 

AV = Authorized Version. 

A Vm= Authorized Version margin. 

Bab. = Babylonian. 

c. = circa, about. 

cf . = compare. 

ct. = contrast. 

ed. = edited, edition. 

Eng. = English. 

Eth.= Ethiopia 

EV, EW = English Version, Versions. 

f. =and following verse or page. 

ff. = and following verses or pages. 

fol. = folio. 

fr. = fragment, from. 

Fr. = French. 

Germ. = German. 

Gr.= Greek. 

Heb. = Hebrew. 

Lat. = Latin. 



lit. = literally, literature. 

LXX = Septuagint. 

m., marg. = margin. 

MS, MSS = manuscript, manuscripts. 

n. =note. 

NT = New Testament, Neues Testament. 

N.S. =new series. 

OT = Old Testament. 

pi. = plural. 

Sv., qq.v. =quod vide, quce vide, which see. 
hem. =Rhemish New Testament, 
rt. - root. 

RV Revised Version. 
RVm Revised Version margin. 
Sem. = Semitic, 
sing. = singular. 
Skr. = Sanskrit. 
Syr. = Syriac. 
Targ. = Targum. 
tr. = translated, translation. 
TR = Textus Receptus, Received Text, 
v. = verse. 

v.l. varia lectio, variant reading. 
VS, VSS = Version, Versions. 
Vulg., Vg. = Vulgate. 



II. BOOKS OF THE BIBLE 



Old Testament. 



Gn= Genesis. 

Ex = Exodus. 

Lv = Leviticus. 

Nu = Numbers. 

Dt = Deuteronomy. 

Jos = Joshua. 

Jg= Judges. 

Ru = Ruth. 

1 S, 2S = 1 and 2 Samuel. 

1 K, 2K = 1 and 2 Kings. 

1 Ch, 2 Ch = l and 2 

Chronicles. 
Ezr=Ezra. 
Neh = Nehemiah. 
Est = Esther. 
Job. 

Ps = Psalms. 
Pr= Pro verbs. 
Ec=Ecclesiastes. 

Apocrypha. 

1 Es, 2 Es=l and 2 To = Tobit. 

Esdras. Jth= Judith. 



Ca= Can tides. 
Is = Isaiah. 
Jer = Jeremiah. 
La = Lamentations. 
Ezk = Ezekiel. 
Dn = Daniel. 
Hos = Hosea. 
Jl = Joel. 
Am = Amos. 
Ob = Obadiah. 
Jon = Jonah. 
Mic=Micah. 
Nah = Nahum. 
Hab = Habakkuk. 
Zeph = Zephaniah. 
Hag=Haggai. 
Zee = Zechariah. 
Mal = Malachi. 



Ad. Est = Additions to Sus = Susanna. 

Esther. Bel = Bel and the 

Wis Wisdom. Dragon. 

Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- Pr. Man = Prayer of 

asticus. Manasses. 

Bar = Baruch. 1 Mac, 2 Mac = 1 and 2 

Three = Song of the Three Maccabees. 

Children. 

New Testament. 

Mt = Matthew. 1 Th, 2 Th = l and 2 

M k Mark. Thessalonians. 

Lk = Luke. 1 Ti, 2 Ti=l and 2 

Jn = John. Timothy. 

Ac = Acts. Tit = Titus. 

Ro = Romans. Philem = Philemon. 

1 Co, 2 Co = 1 and 2 He = Hebrews. 

Corinthians. Ja= James. 

Gal = Galatians. 1 P, 2 P = 1 and 2 Peter. 

Eph = Ephesians. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn = l, 2, 
Ph = Philippians. and 3 John. 

Col = Colossians. Jude. 

Rev = Revelation. 



XIV 



LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 



III. BIBLIOGRAPHY 



^iG ! G r =Abhandlungen der Gbttinger Gesellschaft 

der Wissenschaften. 

A JPh= American Journal of Philology. 
AJTh= American Journal of Theology. 
ARW = Ajtchiv fiir Religionswissenschaft. 
AS=Act& Sanctorum (Bollandus). 
.BJ"=Bellum Judaicum (Josephus). 
.B.L = Bampton Lecture. 
BW= Biblical World. 
CE Catholic Encyclopedia. 
CIA = Corpus Inscrip. Atticarum. 
CIG = Corpus Inscrip. Graecarum. 
CIL= Corpus Inscrip. Latinarum. 
C1S= Corpus Inscrip. Semiticarum. 
CQR= Church Quarterly Review. 
CR = Contemporary Review. 
CSEL = Corpus Script. Eccles. Latinorum. 
DB=Dict. of the Bible. 
DCA=Dict. of Christian Antiquities. 
DCS = Diet, of Christian Biography. 
DCG=Dict. of Christ and the Gospels. 
DGRA = Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 
DGRB = ~Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography. 
DGRG = Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography. 
EBi= Encyclopaedia Biblica. 
JE.Br= Encyclopaedia Britannica. 
EGT= Expositor's Greek Testament. 
ERE= Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 
Exp = Expositor. 
ExpT= Expository Times. 
6?.4P=Geograpbie des alten Palastina (Buhl). 
GB= Golden Bough (J. G. Frazer). 
GGA = Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 
GGN= Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der 

Wissenschaften zu Gb'ttingen. 
G ! 7F'=Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes (Schiirer). 
Grimm-Thayer = Grimm's Gr.-Eng. Lexicon of the 

NT, tr. Thayer. 

HDB = Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (5 vols.). 
ffJ=Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.). 
HGHL = Historical Geography of the Holy Land 

(G. A. Smith). 

HI= History of Israel (Ewald). 
HJ= Hibbert Journal. 
HJP= History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of 

OJV). 

HL = Hibbert Lecture. 
#.A/"=Historia Naturalis (Pliny). 
ICC= International Critical Commentary. 
ISS= International Science Series. 
JA = Journal Asiatique. 
JBL= Journal of Biblical Literature. 
JE= Jewish Encyclopedia. 
JHS= Journal of Hellenic Studies. 
JPh= Journal of Philology. 

JPTh= Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. 
JQR= Jewish Quarterly Review. 
JRS= Journal of Roman Studies. 
JThSt Journal of Theological Studies. 
^r^4T 2 =Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament* 

(Schrader, 1883). 
/JL".4jr 8 =Zimmern-Winckler's ed. of the preceding 

(a totally distinct work), 1902-03. 



KIB= Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. 

iC5/=Literarisches Centralblatt. 

LNT=Int,Tod. to Literature of the New Testament 

(Moflatt). 
LT = Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 

(Edersheim). 
M G WJ= Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissen- 

schaft des Judentums. 
NGG = Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der 

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. 
Nene kirchliche Zeitschrift. 
= Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Holtz- 

mann and others). 
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 
OTJC=Old Testament in the Jewish Church (W. 

R. Smith). 
Pauly-Wissowa = Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyklo- 

padie. 

PB = Polychrome Bible. 
PC= Primitive Culture (E. B. Tylor). 
PEF= Palestine Exploration Fund. 
PEFSt = Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly 

Statement. 

P.R.=Realencyklopadie fiir protestantische Theo- 
logie und Kirche. 
PSBA= Proceedings of the Society of Biblical 

Archaeology. 

RA = Revue Archeologique. 
RB = Revue Biblique. 
REG = Revue des Etudes Grecques. 
RGG = Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 
RHR= Revue de 1'Histoire des Religions. 
Roscher=Roscher's Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der 

griech. und rbm. Mythologie. 
RS = Religion of the Semites (W. Robertson 

Smith). 
5.8,4 W=Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie 

der Wissenschaften. 
SBE= Sacred Books of the East. 
Schatf-Herzog=The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclo- 
pedia (Eng. tr. of PEE). 
SDB = Hastings' Single-vol. Dictionary of the 

Bible. 

SEP = Memoirs of Survey of Eastern Palestine. 
ff"=Studien und Kritiken. 
S WP = Memoirs of Survey of Western Palestine. 
ThLZ= Theologische Litteraturzeitung. 
7Vir=Theol. Tijdschrift. 
TS= Texts and Studies. 
TU=Texte und Untersuchungen. 
Wetzer-Welte = Wetzer-Welte's Kirchenlexikon. 
WH = Westcott-Hort's Greek Testament. 
ZATW = Zeitschrift fur die alttest. Wissen- 

schaft. 
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland- 

ischen Gesellschaft. 

ZKG = Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. 
ZKWL = Zeitschrift fiir kirchl. Wissenschaft und 

kirchl. Leben. 
ZNTW = Zeitschrift fur die neutest. Wissen- 

schaft. 
ZTK= Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche. 

Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. 



DICTIONARY 
OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH 



AARON. By name Aaron is mentioned in the 
NT only by St. Luke (Lk 1 B , Ac 7 40 ) and by the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (5 4 7 U 9 4 ), 
and in his personal history very little interest is 
taken. Officially, he was represented to be the 
first of a long line of high priests, specifically 
appointed such (Ex 28 lf> ) in confirmation of the 
status already allowed him in Arabic usage 
(Ex 4 14 ) ; and, though his successors were prob- 
ably not all in the direct line of descent, they 
found it convenient to claim relationship with 
him (Ezr 2 61fi ), and gradually the conceptions in- 
volved in high-priesthood were identified with the 
name of Aaron. That continued to be the case 
in the apostolic period ; and it became a familiar 
thought that the nigh priest was a type of Christ, 
who was viewed as the antitype of all true sacer- 
dotal persons and ministries. 

In this typical relation between Aaron as the 
embodiment of priestly ideas and Christ as their 
final expression, an attempt was made to trace 
differences as well as correspondences. Christ was 
thought of, not as identical with His prototype, 
but as invested with higher qualities, of which 
only the germ and promise are to be found in 
Aaron. 

1. In regard to vocation, both were appointed 
by God (He 5 4 ) ; yet to the priesthood of Christ no 
Aaronic (7 11 ), or Levitical (7"), or legal (9 9 ) measure 
may be put. He was a man like Aaron (2 16t ), 
capable of sympathy both by nature and from 
experience (4 1B ) ; yet His priesthood is distinctly 
of a higher and eternal order (5 9 ), limited neither 
to an earthly sanctuary (9 24 ), nor to the necessity 
of repeating the one great sacrifice (&**), nor in 
efficiency to the treatment of offences that were 
chiefly ceremonial or ritual (9 s ' 14 ). 

2. In the consecration of the high priest the 
supreme act was anointing with oil (Lv 8 12 ), from 
which, indeed, the designation Messiah ('anointed 
one') arose. Yet such was the lofty position of 
Jesus, and such was His consciousness, that He 
could say, ' I consecrate myself ' ( Jn I? 19 ), on the 
very eve of His priestly sacrifice. 

3. In function Aaron stood between God and 
the congregation, representing each to the other. 
On the one hand, not only were the priests 
gathered together into an embodied unity in him, 
but in his annual approach to God he brought a 
sacrifice even for the 'ignorances' of the people 

VOL. I. i 



(He 9 7 ), and purified the sanctuary itself from any 
possible defilements contracted through the sins 
of its frequenters (9 19ff> ; cf. Lv 16 18 ). As the repre- 
sentative of God, he wore the sacred Urim and 
Thummim in the pouch of judgment upon his 
heart (Ex 28 30 ), indicating his qualification to com- 
municate God's decision on matters that tran- 
scended human wit ; and through him and his order 
the blessing of God was invoked. In the Chris- 
tian thought of the apostolic age all these functions 
pass over to Jesus Christ, with modifications em- 
phasizing their ethical effect and the intrinsically 
spiritual benefit that follows. One of the most 
general statements is He 2 17 , where the phrase 
' things pertaining to God ' covers both sides of the 
relations between God and man, though promin- 
ence is given, as in the passages that speak of 
Christ as our Advocate with God, to the work 
done by Him as representing men. Much the 
same is the case with the great passage on medi- 
atorship (1 Ti 2 s ). As He is the Saviour, so He is 
the High Priest, of all men, 'specially of them 
that believe' (1 Ti 4 10 ). In virtue of His imma- 
nence as God, as well as of His priestly rank and 
sympathy, He fitly represents all men before God, 
while for those who have put themselves into a 
right attitude towards Him He acts as Paraclete 
(1 Jn 2 1 ), promoting their interests and completing 
their deliverance from sin. On the other hand, 
as representative of God, He bestows gifts upon 
men (Eph 4 8 ), communicating to them the will of 
God and enriching them with every spiritual bless- 
ing. He is not only the Revealer of the Father ; 
but, just as He offers His sacrifice to God in the 
stead of man, so He represents to man what God 
is in relation to human sin, and what God has 
devised and does with a view to human redemption. 
Between God and man He stands continuously, 
the medium of access on either side, the channel 
of Divine grace and of human prayer and praise. 
See, further, art. MELCHIZEDEK. 

LITERATURE. See art. ' Aaron ' in HDB, DCG and JE, and 
Comm. on Hebrews, esp. those of A. B. Davidson and B. F. 
Westcott, A. S. Peake (Century Bible), E. C. Wickham 
(Westminster Com.) ; also Phillips Brooks, Sermons in English 
Churches, 1883, p. 43 ; J. Wesley, Works, vii. [London, 1872] 
273. R. W. MOSS. 

AARON'S ROD. Aaron's rod is mentioned only 
in He 9 4 , which locates the rod in the ark. An 
earlier tradition (Nu 17 10 ; cf. 1 K 8 9 ) preserves it 



ABADDON 



ABBA 



'before' the ark, on the spot on which it had 
budded (see HDB i. 3 b ). In either case the object 
was to secure a standing witness to the validity of 
the claims of the Aaronic priesthood (so Clement, 
1 Cor. 43). The rod has sometimes been identi- 
fied as a branch of the almond tree ; and both 
Jewish and Christian fancy has been busy with it. 
For early legends associating it symbolically with 
the cross, or literally with the transverse beam of 
the cross, see W. W. Seymour, The Cross in Tradi- 
tion, History, Art, 1898, p. 83. B. W. MOSS. 

ABADDON. The word is found in the NT only 
in Rev 9 11 . In the OT text 'dbhaddon occurs six 
times (only in the Wisdom literature), AV in each 
case rendering 'destruction,' while RV gives 'De- 
struction' in Job 28 22 31 12 , Ps 88 11 , but 'Abaddon' 
in Job 26 6 , Pr 15" 27 20 , on the ground, as stated by 
the Revisers in their Preface, that ' a proper name 
appears to be required for giving vividness and 
point.' Etymologically the word is an abstract 
term meaning ' destruction,' and it is employed in 
this sense in Job 31 12 . Its use, however, in paral- 
lelism with Sheol in Job 26 6 , Pr 15 11 27 20 and with 
' the grave ' in Ps 88 11 shows that even in the OT 
it had passed beyond this general meaning and 
had become a specialized term for the abode of the 
dead. In Job 2S 22 , again, it is personified side by 
side with Death, just as Hades is personified in 
Rev 6 8 . So far as the OT is concerned, and not- 
withstanding the evident suggestions of its deriva- 
tion (from Heb. 'dbhadh, 'to perish'), the connota- 
tion of the word does not appear to advance be- 
yond that of the parallel word Sheol in its older 
meaning of the general dwelling-place of all the 
dead. In later Heb. literature, however, when 
Sheol had come to be recognized as a sphere of 
moral distinctions and consequent retribution, 
Abaddon is represented as one of the lower divi- 
sions of Sheol and as being the abode of the wicked 
and a place of punishment. At first it was distin- 
guished from Gehenna, as a place of loss and de- 
privation rather than of the positive suffering 
assigned to the latter. But in the Rabbinic teach- 
ing of a later time it becomes the very house of 
perdition (Targ. on Job 26 tf ), the lowest part of 
Gehenna, the deepest deep of hell (Emek Ham- 
melech, 15.3). 

In Rev 9 11 Abaddon is not merely personified in 
the free poetic manner of Job 28 22 , but is used 
as the personal designation in Hebrew of a fallen 
angel described as the king of the locusts and ' the 
angel of the abyss,' whose name in the Greek 
tongue is said to be Apollyon. In the LXX 
'dbhadddn is regularly rendered by diruXeia ; and 
the personification of the Heb. word by the writer 
of Rev. apparently led him to form from the 
corresponding Gr. verb (diroXXtfw, later form of 
dw6\\vfu) a Gr. name with the personal ending <av. 
Outside of the Apocalypse the name Abaddon has 
hardly any place in English literature, while 
Apollyon, on the contrary, has become familiar 
through the use made of it in the Pilgrim's Pro- 
gress by Bunyan, whose conception of Apollyon, 
however, is entirely his own. Abaddon or Apoll- 
yon was often identified with Asmodseus, ' the evil 
spirit' of To 3 8 ; but this identification is now 
known to be a mistake. 

LITERATURE. The artt. s.m. in HDB and&Bi; art. 'Abyss' 
in ERE ; ExpT xx. [1908-09] 234 f. J. C. LAMBERT. 

ABBA. Abba is the emphatic form of the Aram, 
word for 'father' (see Dalman, Aram. Gram. p. 
98, for 3* and its various forms ; also Maclean, in 
DCG, s.v.). It is found only in three passages in 
the NT, viz. Mk 14 38 , Ro 8 15 , Gal 4 6 ; in each case 
6 ir<x7/> is subjoined to 'A$3, the whole expres- 
sion being a title of address. [The use of 6 var^p, 



nominative with the article, as a vocative, is not a 
Hebraism, as Lightfoot thought, but an emphatic 
vocative not unknown to classical Greek and com- 
mon in the NT : ' nearly sixty examples of it are 
found in NT ' ; see Moulton, Gram, of NT Greek, 
Edinburgh, 1906, p. 70.] 

Lightfoot on Gal 4 6 argues that the bilingual 
expression is a liturgical formula originating with 
Hellenistic Jews, who, while clinging to the original 
word which was consecrated by long usage, added 
to it the Greek equivalent ; but he supports an 
alternative theory that it took its rise among Jews 
of Palestine after they had become acquainted with 
the Greek language, and is simply an expression 
of importunate entreaty, .and an example of that 
verbal usage whereby the same idea is conveyed 
in different forms for the sake of emphasis. As 
illustrations of this repetition, he quotes Rev 9 11 
('AiroXMwv, 'Aj3a8duv) 12 9 20 2 (Zaravas, Aid^SoXos). 
Thayer, in HDB (s.v.), points out that, though de- 
votional intensity belongs to repetition of the same 
term (e.g. ictipie, Kvpie), it is also expressed by such 
phrases as val d-^v, ' Hallelujah, Praise the Lord,' 
where the terms are different. The context of each 
passage where 'Abba, Father' is found appears to 
prove that the Greek addition is not merely the 
explanation of the Aramaic word, such as, e.g., 
St. Peter might have added in his preaching a 
custom to be perpetuated by the Evangelists, as 
suggested by the passage in Mk. ; but is rather an 
original formula, the genesis of which is to be 
sought further back, perhaps in the actual words 
used by our Lord Himself. Thus Sanday-Headlam 
on Ro 8 15 (ICC, 1902) remark : 

'It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, using 
familiarly both languages, and concentrating into this word of 
all words such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled 
spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His 
disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is signifi- 
cant however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christi- 
anity that we find no other original examples of the use than 
these three.' 

Thus, the double form is due to the fact that the 
early Christians were a bilingual people ; and the 
duplication, while conveying intensity to the ex- 
pression, ' would only be natural where the speaker 
was using in both cases his familiar tongue.' F. H. 
Chase ( TS I. iii. 23) suggests that the phrase is due 
to the shorter or Lucan form of the Lord's Prayer, 
and that the early Christians repeated the first 
word in the intensity of their devotion, coupling a 
Hellenistic rendering with the Aramaic A bba. He 
argues that the absence of such a phrase as 8 t<rriv, 
or 8 fori /judep/j.rjvevotJ.ei'ov, in Mk 14 36 is due to the 
familiarity of the formula ; and that, while the 
Pauline passages do not recall Gethsemane, they 
suggest the Lord's Prayer as current in the shorter 
form. Moulton (op. cit. p. 10), combating Zahn's 
theory that Aramaic was the language of St. Paul's 
prayers a theory based on the Apostle's 'Abba, 
Father ' remarks that ' the peculiar sacredness of 
association belonging to the first word of the Lord's 
Prayer in its original tongue supplies a far more 
probable account of its liturgical use among Gen- 
tile Christians.' He mentions the analogy (see 
footnote, loc. cit. ) of the Roman Catholic ' saying 
Paternoster,' but adds that ' Paul will not allow 
even one word of prayer in a foreign tongue with- 
out adding an instant translation ' ; and further 
refers to the Welsh use of Pader as a name for the 
Lord's Prayer. 

It seems probable (1) that the phrase, 'Abba, 
Father,' is a liturgical formula ; (2) that the duality 
of the form is not due to a Hebraistic repetition 
for the sake of emphasis, but to the fact that the 
early Christians, even of non- Jewish descent, were 
familiar with both Aramaic and Greek ; (3) that 
Abba, being the first word of the Lord's Prayer, 
was held in special veneration, and was quoted 



ABEL 



ABOMINATION 



with the Greek equivalent attached to it, as a 
familiar devotional phrase (like Maran atha [1 Co 
16 22 ], which would be quite intelligible to Chris- 
tians of Gentile origin, though its Greek transla- 
tion, 6 Ki/ptos tyyts [Ph 4 s ], was also used ; cf. Did. 
10", where ' Maran atha' and ' Amen ' close a public 
prayer) ; and (4) that our Lord Himself, though 
this cannot be said to be established beyond doubt, 
used the double form in pronouncing the sacred 
Name, which was invoked in His prayer. 

In conclusion, it should be noted that, while the 
phrase is associated with the specially solemn occa- 
sion of the Gethsemane agony, where our Lord is 
reported by St. Mark to have used it, both ex- 
amples of its use in the Pauline writings convey a 
similar impression of solemnity as connected with 
the Christian believer's assurance of sonship and 
sonship (let it be noted) not in the general sense 
in which all humanity may be described as children 
of God, but in the intimate and spiritual connota- 
tion belonging to vlof)e<ria, or ' adoption,' into the 
family of God. 

LITERATURE. See art. Abba ' in HDB, DOG, and JE, an art. 
in ExpTxx. [1909] 356, and the authorities cited above. 

K. MARTIN POPE. 

ABEL. Abel ("AjSeX) has the first place in the 
roll of ' the elders' (ol irpeafitrepoi, He II 2 ), or men 
of past generations, who by their faith pleased 
God and had witness borne to them. It is recorded 
of him that he offered unto God a more excellent 
sacrifice (vXeiova ffwiav) than his elder brother 
(He II 4 ). In the original story (Gn 4 1 ' 7 ) his offer- 
ing was probably regarded as more pleasing on 
account of the material of his sacrifice. It was in 
accordance with primitive Semitic ideas that the 
occupation of a keeper of sheep was more pleasing 
to God than that of a tiller of the ground, and 
accordingly that a firstling of the flock was a 
more acceptable offering than the fruit of the 
ground. The ancient writer of the story (J) 
evidently wished to teach that animal sacrifice 
alone was pleasing to God (Gunkel, Genesis, 38 ; 
Skinner, 105). The author of Hebrews gives the 
story a different turn. The greater excellence of 
Abel's sacrifice consisted in the disposition with 
which it was offered. The spirit of the worshipper 
rather than the substance of the offering is now 
considered the essential element. Abel's sacrifice 
was the offering of a man whose heart was right. 
Through his faith he won God's approval of his 
gifts, and through his faith his blood continued to 
speak for him after his death. In a later passage 
of Heb. (12 24 ) that blood is contrasted with ' the 
blood of sprinkling,' by which the new covenant 
is confirmed. The blood of Abel cried out from 
the ground for vengeance (cf. Job 16 18 , Is 26 21 , 
2 K 9 s8 ; also Rev e 9 - 10 ) ; it was such a cry as is 
sounded in Milton's sonnet, ' Avenge, O Lord, thy 
slaughtered saints ' ; but the blood of the eternal 
covenant intercedes for mercy. 

St. John (1 Jn 3 12 ) uses the murder of Abel by 
his brother to illustrate the absence of that spirit 
of love which is the essence of goodness. The 
writer indicates that the new commandment, or 
message (ayyeXla), which has been heard from the 
beginning of the Christian era, was also the funda- 
mental law of the moral life from the beginning of 
human history. Cain was of the evil one (K rov 
v), and slaughtered (ftr^a^ev) his brother. 



LITERATURE. Besides the artt. in the Bible Dictionaries, see 
W. G. Elmslie, Expository Lectures and Sermons, 1892, p. 164 ; 
J. Hastings, Greater Men and Women of the Bible, vol. i. 
[1913] p. 53 ; G. Matheson, The Mepresentative Men of the 
Bible, L [1902] 45 ; A. P. Peabody, King's Chapel Sermons, 
1891, p. 317 ; A. Whyte, Bible Characters, L [1896] 44. 

JAMES STRAHAN. 

ABIDING. As in the Gospels, so in Acts and 
Ephesians we find both the local and the ethical 
connotations of this word, which in almost every 



case is used to render pfru or one of its numerous 
compounds (&rt-, Kara-, irapa-, irpos-, VTTO-). With 
the purely local usages we have here no concern ; 
but there is a small class of transitional meanings 
which lead the way to those ethical connotations 
which are the distinctive property of the word. 
Among these may be mentioned the several places 
in 1 Co 7, where St. Paul, dealing with marriage 
and allied questions (? in view of the Parousia), 
speaks of abiding in this state or calling. In the 
same Epistle note also 3 14 'If any man's workafiicfe,' 
and 13 13 ' And now abide faith, hope, love.' * Simi- 
larly we are told of the persistence (a) of Mel- 
chizedek's priesthood (He 7 3 ), (b) of the Divine 
fidelity even in face of human faithlessness (2 Ti 
2 13 ), and (c) of the word of God (1 P I 23 ). 

It is, however, in the 1st Ep. of John, as in the 
Fourth Gospel, that we get the ethical use of 
abiding most fully developed and most amply pre- 
sented. But, while in the Gospel the emphasis is 
laid on the Son's abiding in the Father ana Christ's 
abiding in the Church, in 1 Jn 2 s4 - 27 the stress is 
rather on the mutual abiding of the believer and 
God (Father and Son). Note the following ex- 
perimental aspects of the relation in question. 

1. The believer as the place of the abiding. 
A somewhat peculiar expression is found in 1 Jn 
2 27 , where we read : ' The anointing . . . abideth 
in you.' By x/M<r/*a is meant the gift of the Holy 
Spirit (cf. 2 Co I 21 ), whose presence in the heart 
gives the believer an independent power of testing 
whatever teaching he receives (cf. ' He shall take 
of mine and shall show it unto you,' Jn 16' 8 ).f In 
1 Jn 2 14 it is said that the word of God abideth in 
' young men ' ; but it is also the meaning in v. 24 ; 
while in S 24 Christ is mentioned as abiding in them 
' by the Spirit.' In each passage we have a subtle 
instance of the perfectly natural way in which the 
operation of the risen Christ on the heart is identi- 
fied with that of the Spirit. The believer's soul 
is thus mystically thought of as the matrix in 
which the Divine energy of salvation, conceived 
of in its various aspects, is operative as a cleansing, 
saving, and conserving power, safeguarding it from 
error, sin, and unfaithfulness. 

2. The abiding place of the believer. In 1 Jn 
2 M we have the promise that ' if the [word] heard 
from the beginning' remains in the believer's 
heart, he shall ' continue in the Son ' and in the 
Father (cf. 3 8 ). This reciprocal relation between 
the implanted word and the human environment 
in which it energizes is peculiarly Johannine. 
Secondary forms of the same idea are found in 2 10 
('he that loveth his brother abideth in the light'), 
and in 3 14 ( ' he that hateth his brother abideth in 
death '). In 2 s we have the fact that the believer 
abides in Christ made the ground for a practical 
appeal for consistency of life, and in y. 28 the reward 
of such living is that the believer ' abideth for ever,' 
i.e. has eternal life. As a general principle, in the 
use of this word we find a striking union of the mys- 
tical and the ethical aspects of the Christian faith. 

LITKRATURB. G. G. Findlay, The Things Above, 1901, p. 237 ; 
G. H. Knight, Divine Uplifting*, 1906, p. 85 ; F. von Hugel, 
Eternal Life, 1912, p. 365 f . ; and also the art. ' Abiding ' in 
DOG, and the literature there cited. 

E. GRIFFITH-JONES. 

ABOMINATION (pdfrvyna). Like the word 
' taste ' originally a physical, then a mental term, 
' abomination ' denotes that for which God and 
His people have a violent distaste. It refers in 
the OT to the feeling of repulsion against pro- 
hibited foods (Lv II 10 , Dt 14 s ), then to everything 

* Popular opinion, based on a well-known hymn (Par. 49 lsr ), 
very erroneously makes faith and hope pass away, only love 
abiding. 

t As indicated in HDB \. 101>, the words of 1 Jn27 gave rise 
to the practice of anointing with oil at baptism. 



ABOUNDING 



A.BHAHAM 



connected with idolatry (Dt 7 125 , Ko 2 22 [Gr.]).* 
Thence it acquires a moral meaning, and together 
with fornication stigmatizes all the immoralities 
of heathendom (Rev 17 4 - *). Its intensest use is 
reserved for hypocrisy, the last oti'ence against 
religion (Lk 16 16 , Tit I 18 , Rev 21 27 ). 

SHERWIN SMITH. 

ABOUNDING. The English word 'abound' in 
the Epistles of the NT is the translation of the Gr. 
words irXeovdfa and irfpura-evw. There is nothing of 
special interest in these terms ; perhaps the former 
has the less lofty sense, its primary connotation being 
that of superfluity. As used by St. Paul, however, 
there seems little to choose between them, although 
it is worth noting that, where he speaks (Ro 5-) 
of the ' offence ' and ' sin ' abounding, he uses 
ir\eovdeiv. Yet lie employs the same term in Ro 
6 l of the ' abounding of grace,' and in Ph 4 17 of the 
fruit of Christian giving. His favourite term, 
however, is irepicrffevu (in one case inrepirepiffffetiw, 
'overflow,' Ro 5 20 ), whether he is speaking of the 
grace of God (Ro 5 1S ), the sufferings of Christ (2 Co 
I 5 ), or the Christian spirit that finds expression in 
liberality (2 Co 8 7 9 8 ), contentment (Ph 4 12 - ls ), hope 
(Ro 5 15 ), service (1 Co 15 58 ). This list of references 
is not exhaustive, but it is representative. These 
words and the way in which they are used give us 
a suggestive glimpse into 

1. The religious temperament of the Apostle. 
His was a rich and overflowing nature, close-packed 
with vivid, ever-active qualities of mind and heart. 
His conception of the gospel would be naturally in 
accordance with the wealth of his psychic and 
moral nature ; he would inevitably fasten on such 
aspects of it as most thoroughly satisfied his own 
soul ; and he would put its resources to the full 
test of his spiritual needs and capacities. It is 
fortunate that Christianity found at its inception 
such a man ready to hand as its chief exponent to 
the primitive churches, and that his letters remain 
as a record of the marvellous way in which he 
opened his heart to its appeal, and of the manifold 
response he was able to make to that appeal. In 
all ages our faith has been conditioned by the 
human medium in which it has had to work. The 
ages of barrenness in Christian experience have 
been those which have lacked richly-endowed per- 
sonalities for its embodiment and exposition ; and 
vice versa, when such personalities have arisen 
and have given themselves wholeheartedly to the 
Divine Spirit, there has been a wide-spread efflor- 
escence of religious experience in the Church at 
large. Ordinary men and women are pensioners 
religiously, to a peculiar degree, of the great souls 
in the community. St. Paul, Origen, Augustine, 
Bernard. Luther, Wesley, etc., have been the focal 
points through which the forces of the gospel have 
radiated into the world at large, and lifted its life 
to higher levels. 

2. The superabundant wealth of the gospel as 
a medium of the Divine energies of redemption. 
The Christian faith is full of spiritual resources 
on which the soul may draw to the utmost of its 
needs. In the teaching of our Lord, the prodigality 
of His illustrations, their varied character, and the 
frequency with which He likens the Kingdom to a 
' feast,' with all its suggestions of a large welcome 
and an overflowing abundance of good things, are 
very characteristic of His own attitude towards 
the gospel He preached ; and St. Paul is pre- 
eminent among NT writers for the way in which 
he has grasped the same idea, and caught the 
spirit of the Master in his exposition of spiritual 
realities. (Cf. 'How many hired servants of my 
father's have bread enough and to spare ' [Lk 15 17 ] 

* Cf. the well-known expression, ' abomination of desolation,' 
applied to a heathen altar (Dn 12" ; cf. 1 Mac 154, Mt 241", 
Mk IS"). See art. ' Abomination of Desolation ' in HDB. 



with ' the grace of God, which is by one man, Jesus 
Christ, hath abounded unto many' [Ro 5 16 ; also 
vv. 17 - 1M - -- 21 ], and many other passages.) 

3. The call for an adequate response on the 
part of believers to the varied and abundant 
resources of the gospel. Here, again, St. Paul 
exhausts the power of language in urging his con- 
verts to allow the Divine energies of salvation to 
have their way with them. The normal type of 
Christian is not reached till his nature is flooded 
with the grace of God, and he in turn is lifted into 
a condition which is characterized by an abounding 
increase of hope, grace, love, good works, and fruit- 
fulness of character. ' Therefore, as ye abound in 
(everything), see that ye abound in this grace also ' 
(2 Co 8 7 ) expresses one of his favourite forms of 
appeal. He was not satisfied to see men raised to 
a slightly higher plane by their faith in Christ ; 
they were to be ' transformed in the spirit of their 
minds' (Ro 12 2 ) ; they were always to 'abound in 
the work of the Lord v (1 Co 15 58 ; cf. 2 Co 9 8 ) ; and, 
as ' they had received ' of him how they might walk 
and ' to please God,' they were exhorted to ' abound 
more and more' (1 Th 4 1 ), and that especially 
because they knew what commandments ' had been ' 
given them by the Lord Jesus ' ( 1 Th 4 2 ). It was 
a subject for joy fulness to him when he found his 
converts thus responding to the power of God (see 
2 Co 8"-). As regards his realization of this Divine 
abundance in his own experience, we find him 
breaking out into an ecstasy of thanksgiving at 
the thought of what God has done for him, and 
of the sense of inward spiritual abundance which 
he consequently enjoys, so that he feels quite in- 
dependent of all outward conditions, however hard 
they may be (cf. Ph 4 11 ' 13 ). This is the language 
of a man who enjoys all the resources of the God- 
head in his inner life, and who can, therefore, be 
careless of poverty, misfortune, sickness, and even 
the prospect of an untimely end. 

LITBRATURK. See Sanday-Headlam, and Ligfhtfoot (especi- 
ally Notes on Epistles of St. Paul), on the passages referred to, 
also Phillips Brooks, The Light of the World, 1891, p. 140, and 

viii. [1897] 5i4. E. GRIFFITH-JONES. 



ABRAHAM ('A/3/>ad/t). Addressing a Jewish 
crowd in the precincts of the Temple, St. Peter 
emphasizes the connexion between the Hebrew and 
the Christian religion by proclaiming that ' the God 
of Abraham . . . hath glorified his servant (iraiSa ; 
cf. RVm) Jesus ' (Ac 3 1S ). This Divine title, which 
is similarly used in St. Stephen's speech (7 32 ), was 
full of significance. All through the OT and the 
NT the foundation of the true religion is ascribed 
neither to the Prophets nor to Moses, but to 
Abraham. Isaac (Gn 26 24 ) and Jacob (31 42 ) wor- 
shipped the God of Abraham, but Abraham did 
not worship the Elohim whom his fathers served 
beyond the River (Jos 24 4 14 - 15 ). He was the head 
of the great family that accepted Jahweh as their 
God. Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all in 
some sense his seed, as having either his blood in 
their veins or his faith in their souls. To the Jews 
he is ' our father Abraham ' (Ac 7 2 , Ro 4 12 , Ja 2 21 ), 
'our forefather (rbv TrpoTr&Topa) according to the 
flesh' (Ro 4 1 ). To the Muhammadans he is the 
'model of religion' (imam, or priest) and the first 
person 'resigned (muslim) unto God' (Qur'an, ii. 
115, 125). To the Christians he is 'the father of 
all them that believe ' (Ro 4 11 ), ' the father of us 
all' (4 16 ). Taking the word Abraham to mean 
(according to the popular word-play, Ro 4 17 1| Gn 17 s ) 
' a father of many nations,' St. Paul regards it as 
indicating that Abraham is the spiritual ancestor 
of the whole Christian Church. 

1. In the Epistles of St. Paul. As Abraham 
was the renowned founder of the Jewish nation 
and faith, it was crucially important to decide 



ABRAHAM 



ABKAHAM 



whether the Jews or the Christians could claim 
his support in their great controversy on justifica- 
tion. The ordinary Jews regarded Abraham as a 
model legalist, whose faith in God (Gn 15 5 '-) con- 
sisted in the fulfilment of the Law, which he knew 
by a kind of intuition. According to the Jewish 
tradition (Bereahith Rabb. 44, Wiinsche), Abraham 
saw the whole history of his descendants in the 
mysterious vision recorded in Gn 15 lff -. Thus he 
is said to have ' rejoiced with the joy of the Law ' 
(Westcott, St. John [in Speaker's Com.], 140). In 
the philosophical school of Alexandria there was 
a much higher conception of faith, which was re- 
garded as ' the most perfect of virtues,' ' the queen 
of virtues,' ' the only sure and infallible gooa, the 
solace of life, the fulfilment of worthy hopes, . . . 
the inheritance of happiness, the entire ameliora- 
tion of the soul, which leans for support on Him 
who is the cause of all things, who is able to do 
all things, and willeth to do those which are most 
excellent' (Philo, Quis rer. div. her. i. 485, de 
Abr. ii. 39). In these passages faith, in so far as 
it expresses a spiritual attitude towards God, does 
not differ much from Christian faith. Nor could 
anything be finer than the Rabbinic Mechilta on 
Ex 14 31 : ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed 
on Him that spake and the world was. ... In 
like manner thou findest that Abraham our father 
inherited this world and the world to come solely 
by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the 
Lord ; for it is said, and he believed in the Lord, 
and He counted it to him for righteousness ' (Light- 
foot, Galatians, 162). But the ordinary tendency 
of Judaism was to give Abraham's life a pre- 
dominantly legal colour, as in 1 Mac 2 52 ' Was not 
Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was 
reckoned unto him for righteousness ? ' 

To St. Paul faith is the motive power of the 
whole life, and in two expositions of his doctrine 
Bo 4, Gal 3 he affirms the essential identity of 
Abraham's faith with that of every Christian. He 
does not, indeed, think (like Jesus Himself in 
Jn 8 s8 ) of Abraham as directly foreseeing the day 
of Christ, but he maintains that Abraham's faith 
in God as then partially revealed was essentially 
the same as the Christian's faith in God as now 
fully made known in Christ. Abraham had faith 
when he was still in uncircumcision (Ro 4 11 ), faith 
in God's power to do things apparently impossible 
(4 17-19 ), faith by which he both strengthened his 
own manhood and gave glory to God (4 20 ). 
Abraham believed ' the gospel ' which was preached 
to him beforehand, the gospel which designated 
him as the medium of blessing to all the nations 
(Gal 3 8 ). And as his faith, apart from his works, 
was counted to him for righteousness, he became 
the representative believer, in whom all other 
believers, without distinction, may recognize their 
spiritual father. It is not Abraham's blood but 
his spirit that is to be coveted (3 2 ) ; those who are 
of faith (ol K irlffreus) are ' sons of Abraham,' are 
' blessed with the faithful Abraham ' (3 7 - 9 ) ; upon 
the Gentiles has come ' the blessing of Abraham ' 
(3 14 ) ; all who are Christ's, without any kind of 
distinction, are 'Abraham's sons,' fulfilling, like 
him, the conditions of Divine acceptance, and in- 
heriting with him the Divine promises. 

St. Paul uses the narratives of Genesis as he finds them. 
Before the dawn of criticism the theologian did not raise the 
question whether the patriarchal portraits were real or ideal. 
To St. Paul Abraham is a historical person who lived 430 years 
before Moses (Gal 3 17 ), and who was not inferior to the great 
prophets of Israel in purity of religious insight and strength of 
inward piety. It is now almost universally believed that the 
faith ascribed to the patriarchs was itself the result of a long 
historical evolution. But, while the maturer conceptions of a 
later age are carried back to Abraham, the patriarch is not dis- 
solved into a creation of the religious fancy. ' The ethical and 
spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the religion 
of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ 



of divine revelation ; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham 
the first of that long series of prophets through whom God has 
communicated to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself ' 
(Skinner, Genesis [ICC, 1910], p. xxvil). 

2. In the Epistle of St. James. St. James (2 s1 - 23 ) 
uses the example of Abraham to establish the 
thesis, not that 'a man is justified by faith apart 
from the works of the law ' (Ro S 28 ), but that ' by 
works a man is justified, and not only by faith' 
(Ja 2 M ). While the two apostles agree that 
Christianity is infinitely more than a creed, being 
nothing if not a life, they differ in their conception 
of faith. The meaning which St. James attaches 
to the word is indicated by his suggestion of 
believing demons and dead faith (2 19 - w ). St. Paul 
would have regarded both of these phrases as con- 
tradictions in terms, since all believers are con- 
verted and all faith is living. Asked if faith must 
not prove or justify itself by works, he would 
have regarded the question as superfluous, for a 
faith that means self-abandonment in passionate 
adoring love to the risen Christ inevitably makes 
the believer Christlike. St. James says in effect : 
' Abraham believed God, proving his faith by 
works, and it was counted to him for righteous- 
ness.' With St. Paul righteousness comes between 
faith and works ; with St. James works come 
between faith and righteousness. Had St. James 
been attacking either Galatians or Romans, and 
in particular correcting St. Paul's misuse of the 
example of Abraham, his polemic would have been 
singularly lame. Such a theory does injustice to 
his intelligence. But, if he was sounding a note 
of warning against popular perversions of evangeli- 
cal doctrine, St. Paul, who was often ' slanderously 
reported ' (Ro 3 8 ), must have been profoundly grate- 
ful to him. See, further, art. JAMES, EPISTLE OF. 

It is interesting to note that Clement of Rome co-ordinates 
the doctrines of the two apostles. Taking the typical example 
of Abraham, he asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham 
blessed ? ' and answers, ' Was it not because he wrought right- 
eousness and truth through faith ? ' (Ep. ad Cor. 31). If the 
two types of doctrine could be regarded as complementary sets 
of truths, justice was done to both apostles. But the difference 
assumed a dangerous form in the hard dogmatic distinction of 
the Schoolmen between fides informis and fides formata cum 
caritate, the latter of which (along with the ' epistle of straw ' 
on which it seemed to be based) Luther so vehemently re- 
pudiated. 

3. In the Epistle to the Hebrews. The writer 
of Hebrews bases on the incident of Abraham's 
meeting with Melchizedek (He 7 ; cf. Gn 14) an 
argument for a priesthood higher than the Aaronic 
order (v. llff -). To the king -priest of Salem 
Abraham gave tithes, and from him received a 
blessing, thereby owning his inferiority to that 
majestic figure. As Abraham was the ancestor 
of the tribe of Levi, the Aaronic priesthood itself 
may be said to have been overshadowed in that 
hour and ever afterwards by the mysterious order 
of Melchizedek. This is the conception of the 
writer of Ps 110, who identifies God's vicegerent, 
seated on the throne of Zion, not with the Aaronic 
order, but with the royal priesthood of Melchizedek. 
When the Maccabees displaced the house of Aaron, 
and concentrated in their own persons the kingly 
and priestly functions, they found their justifica- 
tion in the priestly dignity of Melchizeaek, and 
called themselves, in his style, ' priests of the 
Most High' (Charles, Book of Jubilees, 1902, pp. 
lix and 191). Finally, when Christ had given a 
Messianic interpretation of Ps 110, it was natural 
that the writer of Hebrews should see the Aaronic 
priesthood superseded by an eternal King-Priest 
after the ancient consecrated order of Melchizedek. 

For divergent critical views of the Abraham-Melchizedek 
pericope of Gn 14 see Wellhausen, Comp.t, 1889, p. 211 f. ; 
Gunkel, Genesis, 253 ; Skinner, Genesis, 269 f. Against 
Wellhausen's theory that the story is a post-exilic attempt to 
glorify the priesthood in Jerusalem, Gunkel and Skinner argu 
for an antique traditional basis. 



ABSTINENCE 



ABSTINENCE 



The writer of Hebrews illustrates his definition 
of faith (II 1 ) by three events in the life of Abraham. 
(1) The patriarch left his home and kindred, 
and ' went put not knowing whither he went ' 
(He II 8 ). His faith was a sense of the unseen and 
remote, as akin to the spiritual and eternal. In 
obedience to a Divine impulse he ventured forth 
on the unknown, confident that his speculative 
peradventure would be changed into a realized 
ideal. The doubting heart says, ' Forward, though 
I cannot see, I guess and fear ' ; the believing 
spirit, ' Look up, trust, be not afraid.' (2) Abraham 
remained all his life a sojourner (ir&poiicos ical 
ira.peirldr)/j.os=3v'in} na, Gn 23 4 ) in the Land of Promise 
(He II 9 ). He left his home in Chaldsea, and never 
found another. Wherever he went he built an 
altar to God, but never a home for himself. He 
was encamped in many places, but naturalized in 
none. His pilgrim spirit is related to his hope of 
an eternal city a beautiful conception transferred 
to Genesis from the literature of the Maccabsean 
period (En. 90 28 - 2fl , Apoc. Bar. 32 s - 4 etc.). (3) By 
faith Abraham offered up Isaac, ' accounting that 
God is able to raise up, even from the dead' 
(He II 19 ). Here again the belief of a later age 
becomes the motive of the patriarch's act of 
renunciation. The narrative in Gn 22 contains 
no indication that the thought of a resurrection 
flashed through his agonized mind. 

LITERATURE. F. W. Weber, Syst. der altsyn. palastin. 
Theol. aus Targum, Midrasch, u. Talmud, 1880, ch. xix. ; J. B. 
Lightfoot, Galatians, 1866, p. 158 ff. ; Sanday-Headlara, 
Romans*, 1902, p. 102 ff. ; W. Beyschlag, NT Theology, 
1894-96, i. 364 ff. ; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christi- 
anity, 1896, p. 116 f. ; G. B. Stevens, Theology of the NT, 
1901, p. 289 ; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, 1882-83, L 

*37 ff. JAMES STEAHAN. 

ABSTINENCE. Introduction. The whole of 
morality on its negative side may be included 
under Abstinence. Christian moral progress 
(sanctification) includes a holding fast (KaTtyecrOai.) 
of the good, and an abstaining from (&irx.eff6u) 
every form of evil (1 Th 5 21L ). While Christianity 
has general laws to distinguish the good from the 
bad, yet for each individual Christian these laws 
are focused in the conscience, and the function of 
the latter is to discriminate between the good and 
the bad it cannot devolve this duty on out- 
ward rules. With it the ultimate decision rests, 
and on it also lies the responsibility (Ro 14 8 , He 5 14 ). 
The lists of vices and virtues,* of 'works of the 
flesh' and 'fruits of the spirit,' given in the NT 
are not meant to be exhaustive, out typical ; nor 
are they given to make needless the exercise of 
Christian discernment. The NT is not afraid to 
place in the Christian conscience the decision of 
what is to be abstained from and what is not, 
because it believes in the indwelling of the Holy 
Spirit, and because it exalts personal responsibility. 
It is necessary to make this clear, because, as we 
shall see, the ultimate tribunal of appeal in mat- 
ters of abstinence in the ordinary sense (i.e. in 
the sphere of things indifferent) is the Christian 
conscience. The ideal of Christian conduct is 
sometimes said to be self-realization, not self- 
suppression ; consecration, not renunciation. These 
antitheses are apt to be misleading. In the self 
with which Christianity deals there are sinful ele- 
ments that have to be extirpated. Christian sanc- 
tification takes place not in innocent men, but in 
sinners who have to be cleansed from all filthiness 
of the flesh and spirit (2 Co 7 1 ). To purify oneself 
(1 Jn 3 3 ) is not simply to realize oneself; it is to 
do no sin. 

In all moral conduct there is suppression ; in 
Christian conduct there is extirpation. This nega- 

See Dobschutz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, 
Eng. tr., 1904, p. 406 ff., for lists. 



tive side of Christian conduct is abstinence. It is 
the crucifying of the flesh death unto sin and 
it is the correlative of 'living to righteousness,' 
' being risen with Christ,' etc. Abstinence in this 
sense is an essential and ever-present moment in 
the Christian life. 

More narrowly interpreted, abstinence is a re- 
fraining from certain outward actions as eating, 
drinking, worldly business, marriage, etc. It is 
thus applied to outward conduct, while continence 
((y/rpdreia) is used of inward self-restraint. Cicero 
makes this distinction, though, from the nature of 
the case, he cannot always consistently apply it 
(see Lewis and Short, Lat. Diet., s.v. ' Abstinentia'). 

We may look first at the outward side of absti- 
nence, and then try to find out what the Christian 
principles are (as these are unfolded in the apos- 
tolic writings) that determine its nature and its 
limits. 

I. ASCETIC PRACTICES. 1. Fasting. (a) Fast- 
ing, or abstinence from food and drink, may be un- 
avoidable or involuntary (e.g. Ac 27 21 - M , 1 Co 4 11 , 
2 Co 6 8 * II 27 ,* Ph 4 12 ). Such fastings have a re- 
ligious value only indirectly. They may overtake 
the apostate as well as the apostle. If they are 
caused by devotion to Christian service, they are, like 
all other privations so caused, badges or fidelity; 
and they may be referred to with reasonable pride 
by Christ's ministers (2 Co 6 1 "- II 28 ). They ought 
to silence criticism (cf. Gal 6 17 , where St. Paul 
speaks of his bruises as arty/mra rov 'IijaoO), and 
they enforce Christian exhortation (Col 4 18 , Eph 4'). 
On the principle that he who chooses the end 
chooses the means, such fastings are real proofs of 
fidelity to Christ. They are like the scars of the 
true soldier. 

(b) An absorbing preoccupation with any pursuit 
may be the cause of fasting. The artist or the 
scientist may forget to take food, in the intensity 
of his application to his work ; or any great emo- 
tion like sorrow may make one 'forget to take 
bread.' Such a fast we have in Ac 9 9 , where St. 
Paul, we are told, was without food for three days 
after his conversion. As Jesus fasted in the wil 
derness (Mt 4 1 ' 11 ), or at the well forgot His hungei 
(Jn 4 311 -), so the ferment of the new life acted on 
St. Paul thus also. Fasting is not the cause of 
such pre-occupation, but the effect ; and so its value 
depends on the nature of the emotion causing it.f 
Such involuntary privations, however, are not fast- 
ing in the proper sense. In themselves they are 
morally indifferent, as they may overtake any one 
irrespective of moral conditions ; but, when borne 
bravely and contentedly in the line of Christian 
duty, they are not only indications of true faith, 
but in turn they strengthen that faith (Ro 5 8 ' 8 , 
Ph 4"). 

(c) Real fasting is purposive and voluntary. It 
is a total or partial abstinence from food for an 
unusual period, or from certain foods always or at 
certain times, for a moral or religious end. Such 
a fast is mentioned in Ac 13 2 - 8 14 23 in connexion 
with ordination. It is associated with prayer. 
Some hold that it was the form to ' be permanently 
observed ' in such cases (Ramsay, St. Paul, 1895, 
p. 122). There is no mention, however, of fasting 
at the appointment of Matthias (Ac I 24 ), or of the 
seven (6"). We cannot, therefore, take it as inher- 
ently binding on Christian Churches at such solem- 
nities. It is rather the survival of ancient religious 
practices (like the fasting on the Day of Atone- 
ment), which on the occasions referred to were 
adopted through the force of custom, and served 

* These are sometimes explained as voluntary fasts to use 
Hooker's expression (Ecc. Pol. v. 72. 8) but the contexts seem 
decisive against that view. 

t This was probably what Jesus had in view in the saying in 
Mt 9i. 



ABSTINENCE 



ABSTINENCE 



to solemnize the proceedings. The Atonement fast 
(Ac 27 9 ) is mentioned only as a time limit after 
which navigation was dangerous. It is not said 
that St. Paul fasted on that day, though probably 
he did. 

These Jewish survivals were conserved without 
investigation by the Palestinian Church, though, 
after what Jesus had said on fasting, we may be- 
lieve that the spiritual condition of- the believer, 
rather than the performance of the outward rite, 
would be the essential element. Pharisaism, how- 
ever, follows so closely on the heels of ritual that 
in some quarters it very early influenced Christi- 
anity (cf. Did. i. 3 : ' Fast for those who persecute 
you' ; and Epiph. Hcer. Ixx. 11 : 'When they {i.e. 
the Jews] feast, ye shall fast and mourn for them ' ; 
cf. also Poly carp, vii. 2 ; Hernias, Vis. iii. 10. 6 ; 
and, in the same connexion, the interpolations in 
the NT [Mt 17 21 , Mk Q 29 , Ac 10 s0 , 1 Co 7 s ]). Even 
the Pharisaic custom of fasting twice a week 
(Monday and Thursday) was adopted in some 
quarters, though these days were changed to Wed- 
nesday and Friday (Did. viii. 1). These are the 
later dies stationum or crdcretj (cf. Clem. Alex. 
Strom, vii. 12, p. 877). See ERE v. 844 b . 

To evaluate the practice of fasting, we must look 
to the end aimed at and the efficacy of this means 
to attain that end. (1) In many cases it would be 
mainly a matter of tradition. On any eventful 
occasion men might practise fasting, to ratify a 
decision or induce solemnity, as those Jews did 
who vowed to kill St. Paul (Ac 23 12 ). Under such a 
category would fall the Paschal and pre-baptismal 
fasts. Though not mentioned in the NT, they 
were early practised in the Christian Church (Eus. 
HE v. 24 ; Did. vii. ; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61). 
There can be no doubt that ordination and bap- 
tismal and Paschal fasts may serve to solemnize 
these events, yet there is no warrant for making 
them an ecclesiastical rule. In such traditional 
fasting there is often, consciously or unconsciously, 
implicated the feeling that God is thereby pleased 
and merit acquired, and the result in such cases 
is Pharisaic complacency and externalism. Jesus, 
following the great prophets (Is 58 5 ' 7 , Zee 8 19 ), had 
relegated outward rites to a secondary place. He 
demanded secrecy, sincerity, and simplicity in all 
these matters, and the Apostolic Church never 
wholly lost sight of His guidance. St. James, 
while emphasizing the value of prayer (5 17 ' 20 ), 
says nothing of fasting, and be makes real ritual 
consist in works of mercy and blameless conduct 
(I 27 ). Even when fasting was enjoined, the danger 
of externalism was recognized (Hermas, Sim. v. 1 ; 
Barn. ii. 10 ; Justin Martyr, Dial. 15). St. Paul 
had to prove that such fastings could not be re- 
demptively of any value, that they were not bind- 
ing, that they did not place the observer of them 
on a higher spiritual plane than the non-observer, 
that even as means of discipline they were of 
doubtful value, and that they were perpetually 
liable to abuse (Col 2 20ff -). 

(2) Fastings were used in certain cases to induce 
ecstatic conditions. This is a well-known feature 
in apocalyptic writings. Perhaps the Colossi an 
heretics did this (cf. & e6pa.Kev ^u/3arei;a>', Col 2 18 ). 
St. John and the other Apostles with him are said 
to have fasted three days before writing the Fourth 
Gospel (Muratorian fragment). The Apocalypse, 
however, though a opacrw (vision), is lacking in 
the usual accompaniments of a vision, viz. prayer 
and fasting (contrast Hernias, Sim. v. 1). St. 
Peter's vision (Ac 10 9 ' 18 ) was preceded by hunger, 
but it was not a voluntary fast ; nor is there any 
reference to fasting in the case of St. Paul's visions 
(Ac 16 9 18 9f -, 2 Co 120, and the reference in the 
case of Cornelius (Ac 10 30 ) is a later interpolation. 
It was more when direct prophetic inspiration be- 



came a memory rather than when it was a reality 
that men resorted to fasting in order to superin- 
duce it. 

(3) Fasting was resorted to also that alms might 
be given out of the savings. 

1 If there is among them a man that is poor and needy, and 
they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast for two or 
three days, that they may supply the needy with necessary 
food ' (Aristides, Apology, xv.). Cf. also Hermas, Sim. v. 3. 7 : 
' Reckon up on this day what thy meal would otherwise have 
cost thee, and give the amount to some poor widow or orphan, 
or to the poor.' 

Origen (horn, in Levit. x.) quotes an apostolic 
saying which supports this practice : 

'We have found in a certain booklet an apostolic saying, 
"Blessed is also he who fasts that he may feed the poor"' 
(' Invenimus in quodam libello ab apostolis dictum Beatus est 
qui etiam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem '). 

This saying might legitimately be deduced from 
such passages as Eph 4 28 and Ja 2 16 , but the prac- 
tice easily associated itself with the idea of fasting 
as a work of merit. 

' More powerful than prayer is fasting, and more than both 
alms.' 'Alms abolish sins' (2 Clem. xvi. 4 ; cf. Hermas, Sim. 
v,3). 

Fasting done out of Christian love to the brethren 
is noble ; but, when done to gain salvation, it be- 
comes not only profitless but dangerous. ' Though 
I give all my goods to feed the poor and have not 
love, it profateth me nothing' (1 Co 13 3 ). 

(4) Again, fasting may have been viewed as 
giving power over demons (cf. Clem. Horn. ix. 9 ; 
Tertullian, de Jejuniis, 8 : ' Docuit etiam adversus 
diriora demonia jejuniispraeliandum ' ; cf. Mt 17 21 , 
Mk O 29 ). Some find this view in the narrative of 
the Temptation (see EBi, art. ' Temptation '). This 
view of fasting, grotesque as it appears to us, is 
akin to the truth that surfeiting of the body dulls 
the spiritual vision, and that the spiritual life is a 
rigorous discipline (cf. 1 Co 9 s4 ' 27 ). 

What strikes one in the apostolic writings gener- 
ally, as contrasted with later ecclesiastical litera- 
ture, is the scarcity of references to fasting as 
an outward observance. Nowhere is the tradi- 
tional Church ascetic held up to imitation in the 
NT, as Eusebius ( HE ii. 23) holds up St. James, or 
Clement of Alexandria (Peed. ii. 1) St. Matthew, or 
the Clem. Horn. (xii. 6, xv. 7) St. Peter, or Epiph- 
anius (Hasr. Ixxviii. 13) the sons of Zebedee. 

In the NT the references to fasting are almost 
all incidental, and apologetic or hostile. It is 
regarded as due to weakness of faith, or positive 
perversion. Neither St. John, St. James, St. 
Jude, nor St. Peter once mentions it as a means 
of grace. This silence, it is true, ought not to be 
unduly pressed ; yet it is surely a proof that they 
considered fasting as of no essential importance. 
Its revival in the Christian Church was due to 
traditionalism and legalism on the one hand, and 
to ascetic dualism (Orphic, Platonic, Essenic) on 
the other. In the NT the latter influence is 
strenuously opposed (Colossians and Pastorals), 
and the former is as vigorously rejected when it 
makes itself necessary to salvation, although it is 
tenderly treated when it is only a weak leaning 
towards old associations. The whole spirit of 
apostolic Christianity regards fasting as of little 
or no importance, and the experience of the 
Christian Church seems to be that any value it 
may have is infinitesimal compared with the evils 
and perversions that seem so inseparably associ- 
ated with it. According to Eusebius (HE v. 18), 
Montanus was the first to give laws to the Church 
on fasting. The NT is altogether opposed to such 
ecclesiastical laws. The matter is one for the indi- 
vidual Christian intelligence to determine (Ro 14 s ). 

St. Paul's language in 1 Co Q 24 *- has been ad- 
duced in support of self-torture of all kinds ; but, 
while we must not minimize the reality of Christian 



ABSTINENCE 



ABSTINENCE 



discipline, nothing can be legitimately deduced 
from this passage or any other in favour of fasting 
or flagellation as a general means of sanctification, 
nor is the Apostle's view based on a dualism which 
looks on matter and the human body as inherently 
evil. It may be said that interpolations like 
1 Co 7" (cf. Ac 10 30 , Mt 17 21 , Mk 9 29 ) reveal the 
beginnings of that ascetic resurgence which 
reached its climax in monastic austerities, and 
that there is at least a tinge of ascetic dualism in 
certain Pauline passages (e.g. Ro 8 1S , 1 Co 5 5 7 1 " 8 
O 27 , 2 Co 4 1U - ", Col 3 8 ) ; but even those who hold 
this view of these Pauline passages admit 'that there 
is very little asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in 
St. Paul's Epistles, while there is much that makes 
in the opposite direction ' (McGiffert, Apostol. Age, 
1897, p. 136). We shall see, however, when we 
come to deal with the principles of abstinence as 
unfolded by St. Paul, that even this minimum 
residuum has to be dropped. 

We may conclude, then, that, according to the 
NT, fasting is not enjoined or even recommended 
as a spiritual help. The ideal is life with the Risen 
Christ, which involves not only total renunciation 
of all sinful actions but self-restraint in all conduct. 
When the individual Christian finds fasting to be a 
part of this self-restraint, then it is useful ; but one 
fails to find any proof in the NT that fasting is 
necessarily an element of self-restraint. When it 
is an effect of an absorbing spiritual emotion, or 
when practised to aid the poor, or involuntarily 
undergone in the straits of Christian duty, then it 
is highly commendable. 

2. The use of wine. While drunkenness as 
well as gluttony is sternly condemned, nowhere is 
total abstinence, in our sense, enforced. In one 
passage it has even been contended that St. Paul 
indirectly opposes it (1 Ti 5), but his words in our 
time would be simply equivalent to medical advice 
to the effect that total abstinence as a principle 
must be subordinated to bodily health. Thus, while 
total abstinence is in itself not an obligatory duty, 
it may become so on the principle that we ought 
not to do anything by which our brother stumbles, 
or is offended, or is made weak (1 Co 8 13 ). This 
principle, which is equally applicable to fasting, 
must be considered in deciding the Christian at- 
titude towards all outward observances. While 
Christianity recognizes the indifferent nature of 
these customs, while its liberty frees Christians 
from their observance, yet cases may arise when 
this liberty has to be subordinated to love and the 
interests of Christian unity. In 1 Co 8 the Apostle 
is dealing with the conditions of his own time ; our 
conditions did not engage his attention. Christian 
abstainers can find an adequate defence for their 
position in the degrading associations of strong 
drink in our modern life. On the other hand, total 
abstinence from strong drink is no more a univer- 
sally binding duty than fasting is, nor are ecclesi- 
astical rules called for in the one case more than in 
the other.* Both these customs fall within the 
sphere of things indifferent, and are to be deter- 
mined by the individual in the light of the nature 
of the Christian life, which is 'neither meat nor 
drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the 
Holy Ghost ' (Ro 14 17 ). 

3. Marriage and celibacy. We are not here 
concerned with the NT doctrine of marriage (q.v.) 
in its totality, but with the question as to whether 
celibacy is commanded as a superior grade of living, 
and as to whether this is based on a dualistic view 
which regards the sexual functions as in their very 
nature evil. To begin with, marriage is viewed by 
St. Paul as being in general a human necessity, as 

The ' water-folk ' found in the Eastern Church in the 3rd 
cent, (who objected to wine at the Lord's Supper), cannot 
appeal to NT principles for a Justification of their actions. 



indeed a preventive against incontinency. It is a 
' part of his greatness that, in spite of his own 
somewhat ascetic temperament, he was not blind 
to social and physiological facts' (Drummond, 
quoted in EGT on 1 Th 4 4 ). He recommends those 
who can to remain single as he is himself. In view 
of the approaching world-end in which he believed, 
marriage meant the multiplication of troubles that 
would make fidelity to Christ more difficult ; and 
perhaps in this light also the propagation of the 
race was undesirable. It is possible also that he 
may have been here influenced unconsciously by 
his Rabbinical training, and that he interpreted 
his own case as too generally applicable. He was 
a celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Mt 
19 10 " 12 ), and he may have made the mistake of de- 
siring to universalize his own exceptional case. 

Yet there is no ground for the view that celibacy 
in itself is a superior form of life. * St. Paul does 
not say that it can produce that life or is necessary 
to it, but when it is a consequence of it, then it is 
of value. It is the supremacy of single-hearted 
devotion to Christ that ne holds out as an ideal, 
and his view is that in some cases marriage en- 
dangers this. Again, marriage is not to him 
simply a preventive against uncleanness (see art. 
SOBERNESS). It is also the object of sanctification, 
and its relations have their own honour (1 Th 4 4 ; 
see MARRIAGE, VIRGINITY). He uses it as an 
illustration of the highest relationship ; he opposes 
those who prohibit it (1 Ti 4 2 ) owing to a false 
asceticism. It is true he does not there give 
reasons, as he does in the case of abstinence from 
food, because the same principle applies to both 
cases. While, then, we may admit that on this ques- 
tion his view was narrow, we may say with Sabatier 
(The Apostle Paul, Eng. tr., 1891, p. 164) that ' this 
narrowness, for which he has been so greatly 
blamed, does not arise from a dualistic asceticism. 
There is no dualism to be found in Paul's doctrine.' 

4. World-flight is not encouraged in the NT. 
Slaves even are warned to abide in their situations, 
knowing that they are God's freemen (see art. 
ABUSE). The necessity of labour is unfolded in 
the Thessalonian Epistles, against the practice of 
those who had given up work under escnatological 
influences. World-flight is not conquering the 
world, but rather giving up the idea of conquering 
it, abandoning the battlefield, and, as such, is 
contrary to the apostolic view. St. Paul did not, 
it is true, expatiate after the manner of modern 
moralists on the dignity of labour, t but he did 
insist on 'the divineness of those obligations and 
ties which constitute man's social life. . . '.' The 
institutions of society 'marriage, the state, the 
rights of possession are of Divine appointment, 
and must De upheld and honoured, however short 
the time before the order to which they belong 
shall pass away forever ' (Stevens, Theol. of NT, 
1899, p. 454). 

II. ASCETIC PRINCIPLES. Abstinence is wider 
than fasting or outward observances ; it implies 
principles by which these external actions are 
determined, and it keeps in view also the inner 
reality of which they are the expression. It in- 
cludes character as well as conduct. Indeed, it is 
this inward reality which is mainly of value in the 
Christian ideal of abstinence. 

1. The verb OKTKCIV occurs only once in the NT 
(Ac 24 16 ), in this sense of a life whose activities are 
explained, in the way both of omission and com- 
mission, by an inner principle. St. Paul was 
accused of deliberately offending Jewish legal sus- 

* Harnack (on Did. xi. 8) thinks Eph 532 recommend* 
celibacy as a higher life for the Christian. See, however, 
Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, 1885, p. 202. 

t See Harnack's What is Christianity? (Eng. tr., 1904, p 
123 ff.) for remarks qualifying the idea underlying the phrase, 
' the dignity of labour.' 



ABSTINENCE 



ABSTINENCE 



ceptibilities. He denies the charge. While he 
adheres to the heresy of 'the Way,' he does so 
without intentionally corning into collision with 
the customs or prejudices of others. Not only so, 
but his plan is a studied attempt to conform to 
all customs of Jew and Gentile, of ' weak ' and 
'strong,' consistently with his faithfulness to God 
and his being under law to Christ. This is his 
dffK-rjffis for the gospel's sake (1 Co 9 19 ' 22 ). His 
whole life is an illustration of this. He yielded to 
Jewish susceptibilities (Ac 16 3 18 18 21 26 ), and bore 
with Gentile immaturity (1 Th 2 7 ' 12 ). This con- 
duct was not due to fickleness or guile (1 Co 2 16 , 
1 Th 2 3 ), but to love (2 Co 5 13 '-), and it was done 
in simplicity and godly sincerity of conscience 
(2 Co I 1 -, Ac 24 16 ). It was different from the love- 
less superior liberty of Corinthian liberalism, and 
from the servile man-pleasing of weak Judaism 
(Gal 1. 2). It was, in short, a reproduction of that 
/c^wcrts of self (so different from selfish human ac- 
quisitiveness) which was the great feature of the 
life of Christ (Ph 2 8 ). 

To St. Paul this involved very real asceticism. 
In striking language he figures himself as in the 
course of his Christian race undergoing privations, 
abstinences, and self-discipline as great as any 
runner for the Isthmian prize or as any pugilist. 
It is not simply that this asceticism involved 
abstinence from sin Christianity demands that 
from all ; it involved also the giving up of privi- 
leges and rights, and the denial to self of anything 
that would hinder his being sure of the prize or 
that would weaken others or cause them to stumble. 
It is a warning to Christian liberalism in Corinth 
not to degenerate into licence and so to fall. 
Christian asceticism is the remedy against this. 
We are not to infer that St. Paul practised bodily 
torture, that he went, as it were, out of his way to 
invent austerities, self-imposed fastings, or flagella- 
tions. What he refers to here is the effect on his 
whole life of his absorbing passion for men's salva- 
tion. That was the expulsive power which made 
him an ascetic in this sense, which made him 
abnegate his rights of maintenance at Thessalonica 
and Corinth, which made him work at night though 
preaching through the day, which overcame his 
bodily weaknesses, which brought him into dangers 
by land and sea without being deterred by the fear 
of pain or privation. 

Nor was this &rio;<rts of his a superior form of life 
which was binding only on a few choice souls. St. 
Paul has no double morality. No one can empty 
himself too much for Christ or endure too much 
for Him. In this way must we explain the mani- 
fold passages where the Christian life is compared 
to a race, to an athletic contest, to military life and 
warfare. Just as these involve abstinence, so also 
does Christianity. This asceticism is, however, not 
arbitrarily imposed or cunningly invented ; it is 
the consequence of fidelity to Christ's cause. It 
arises out of the very nature of the Christian life. 
Its outward manifestation is accidental. What is 
essential is the presence of the self-denying spirit, 
which spends and is spent willingly out of love to 
Christ. It is a complete perversion to suppose that 
outward austerities can create this spirit. Out- 
ward hardships of any sort must be effects, not 
causes. This Christian asceticism is not due to 
any disparagement of the body or undervaluation 
of earthly relationships or a false view of matter. 
The asceticism born of these is at best only a 
ffa/j-ariKTi yvnvacria* (1 Ti 4 7 *-), while Christian as- 
ceticism is one whose end is piety. The one is of 
little profit, the other of eternal worth. This 
gymnastic for holiness arises out of the provi- 

* This o-ujuariKi) yv/nvowria is not athletics in our sense ; it is a 
bodily discipline dictated by a philosophico-religious view of 
the body a dualistic view o! things (cf. 1 Xi 43). 



dential disciplines furnished copiously by a strict 
adherence to the line of Christian duty. It is the 
Koiriav KO.I 6veidie<r6ai, the exhaustive labouring, and 
the abuse (or earnest conflict [d.ywifcffBa.i]) of the 
man who sets his hope on the living God (1 Ti 4 10 ). 

2. What, then, are the principles that determine 
the nature and limits of Christian abstinence? 
We may learn these by considering the general 
word for ' abstinence ' (a.ir-)(fa6a.i) in the NT 
(Ac 15 20 - M , 1 Th 4 s 5 23 , 1 Ti 4 3 , 1 P 2 n ). These 
principles did not disengage themselves all at once 
in the Church's consciousness. The first real 
attempt at such a disengagement is found in the 
so-called Apostolic Decree (Ac 15). This was 
nothing more than a working compromise to ease 
the existing situation. Attempts have been made 
often and early to moralize it and so find in it a 
valid basis for Christian abstinence. Thus ' blood ' 
was explained as ' homicide,' and ' things strangled ' 
were omitted, as in Codex D ; but such attempts 
are beside the point as surely as the attempts to 
judaize the document completely by making ' forni- 
cation' mean 'marriage within the prohibited 
degrees.' For our purpose the Decree is valuable 
historically rather than morally. It is a land-mark 
in the liberating of Christianity from ceremonial 
Judaism, similar to the evangelizing of Samaria 
by Philip and his baptizing of the eunuch, or the 
dealing of St. Peter with Cornelius. It does not, 
however, supply a logical or lasting basis for 
abstinence. Such a basis is furnished by St. Paul 
(1 Th 4 1 ' 8 , 1 Co 6 1 '- 20 , Gal 5 18 etc. ; cf. 1 P 2 11 ). 
The ground of Christian abstinence is found in the 
nature of the Christian life, which is a holy calling 
a fellowship with the Holy One whose animat- 
ing principle is the Holy Spirit. The Christian 
man body, soul, and spirit is in union with 
Christ. Hence the very nature of the Christian 
life gives a positive principle of abstinence. Every- 
thing carnal is excluded. 'The carnal mind is 
enmity against God, it is not subject to the law of 
God, neither indeed can be' (Ro 8 7 ). This deter- 
mines positively what is of necessity to be avoided, 
and lists of these sins are given in the NT (see 
above, Introduction). These are ' the works of the 
flesh.' At the very lowest foundation of the 
Christian life there must be personal purity. 
ayia<r/j.6s is wholly opposed to aKadapffia (1 Th 4 7 ). 

Some have maintained that St. Paul tends to 
regard sanctification as mainly absence from 
sensual sin (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, 
Eng. tr., 1904, ii. 334), and others that he, possibly 
from his own bitter experience of this sin, empha- 
sized this aspect of sanctification (A. B. Bruce, 
St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 264). 
But St. Paul's view of sanctification includes the 
whole personality. He was keenly alive to the 
' inconceivable evil of sensuality, although he 
himself had the charism of continence (1 Co 7 7 ). 
The reason for his emphasis on personal purity is 
found in the immoral state of Grecian cities ' the 
bottomless sexual depravity of the heathen world ' 
(Schaff, op. cit. p 202) and in the sensual bias of 
human nature. Christians had to learn this grace 
of purity (1 Th 4 4 ). 

The Christian life, then, is a positive life a life 
that is being sanctified ; and this includes all along 
a negative element, for Christianity does not deal 
with innocent men, but with sinners. Hence the 
crucifying of the flesh, with its affections and lusts, 
and the mortifying of the bodily members are just 
the negative side of advance in holiness. 

It is sometimes held that at first St. Paul's 
teaching on this point was tinged with dualism, 
and that he tended to regard the body itself as 
essentially evil, and that it was only later on, when 
the full consequences of his early views were carried 
into effect, as in Colossians and the Pastorals, 



10 



ABSTINENCE 



ABSTINENCE 



that he came to repudiate this dualistic asceticism 
(Baring Gould, A Study of St. Paul, 1897 [see 
Index, under 'Asceticism']), or it is maintained 
that his attitude towards the flesh changes that 
at times he views it as something to be extirpated, 
while at other times and oftener ' his exhortations 
to his Christian readers have reference commonly 
not to the Christian's attitude towards his fleshly 
nature, but to his relation to Christ or the Divine 
Spirit within him' (McGiffert, Apostol. Age, p. 
137 f. ). The truth is that the change was not in 
St. Paul's principle, but in the circumstances and 
conditions with which he happened to be at any 
time dealing, and that this opposition between a 
negative and a positive attitude is not a contra- 
diction, but only exhibits the opposite sides of the 
one Christian principle of sanctification. Abstain- 
ing and retaining, pruning and growth, are not 
contradictories but complements. Even McGiffert, 
as we have seen, admits that ' there is very little 
asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in Paul's epistles, 
while there is much that makes in the opposite 
direction ' (op. cit. p. 136). These distinctions, 
however, are largely irrelevant. To St. Paul the 
Christian life was a life of sanctification, and this 
included both aspects. 

This positive principle, then, of Christian abstin- 
ence is found in the very nature of the Christian 
life, which includes the affirmation of all the per- 
sonality and its relationships as instruments of 
the spirit, and also the negation of the flesh and the 
world, or of personality and its relationships as 
alienated from the Spirit of God. 

This principle, just because it contained these 
two moments, was apt to be misunderstood. Its 
twofold unity was apt to be disrupted, and we may 
well believe that the later Gnostic dualism and 
licentious libertinism may both have appealed to 
the authority of St. Paul. The Apostle, however, 
had a second principle of abstinence which helps us 
to correct this antagonism. He clearly distin- 
guished between those things that in their very 
nature were hostile to the Christian life and those 
things that were indifferent. The neglect or abuse 
of this principle is apt to confuse the whole ques- 
tion of abstinence. The difficulty is intensified by 
the fact that in this region of the indifferent we are 
dealing with the application of a universal principle 
to changing conditions, so that, to use logical 
language, while the major premiss is the same, 
the minor premiss varies, and thus the right con- 
clusion has to be discovered from the nature of the 
conditions with which we are for the moment deal- 
ing. Thus we find that the conditions at Rome 
and Corinth were not the conditions present in 
Colossians or the Pastorals, and accordingly St. 
Paul deals with each according to its merits. His 
general principle in regard to indifferent things is, 
'All things are lawful.' This is universally ap- 
plicable only inside this universe of discourse. It 
is not applicable to our relation to those things 
that by their very nature are inimical to the 
Christian life. To apply the principle to the 
latter sphere is to degenerate into libertinism such 
as St. John, St. Jude, and St. Peter had to face. 

While St. Jude and St. Peter are content with 
combating this libertinism mainly by denunciation 
and exhortations to Christians, St. John applies 
St. Paul's positive principle of abstinence to refute 
it. He points out the inadmissibility of sin ( 1 Jn 
2 28f> )- By this neither he nor St. Paul means per- 
fectionism, nor yet are they speaking ideally of the 
Christian life. It is not true, as the Gnostics say, 
that the gold of Christianity is not injured by the 
mud of impurity (Irenaeus, c. Hcer. i. 6. 2). Some 
so explained the saying ascribed to Nicholas (cf. 
Rev 2*- 15 ), SeTv ira.pa.\pr)aOa.i. TTJ (rapid ( ' the flesh must 
be abused'). According to Clem. Alex. (Strom. 



ii. 20), ' abandoning themselves like goats to 
pleasure, as if insulting the body, they lead a life 
of self-indulgence.' It is this that St. John is con- 
futing in these perfectionist passages, just as St. 
Paul confutes ascetic severity towards the body in 
Colossians, by pointing to the nature of the new 
life the Christian has in Christ. 

This Christian principle of abstinence, then, 
' All things are lawful,' does not apply to sin. It 
has further limitations. These are unfolded in 
1 Cor. and Romans. The abstainers in both these 
cases were in the minority. They did not base 
their views on a material dualism. They were 
under the influence of an atmosphere rather than 
a system, and they were apt to be treated in a 
high-handed fashion. They were not endangering 
the very basis of Christianity as a free service of 
God, as the Galatians were. Hence they had to 
be defended rather than condemned. St. Paul 
says all he can in their favour, although he ranges 
himself in principle on the other side. He tells 
the advocates of liberty that love is superior to the 
Christian's freedom towards things indifferent, that 
it makes liberty look as much on the weakness of 
others as on its own strength. The interests of 
brotherly love and Christian unity make liberty 
impose restraints on itself. This restraint is a 
noble asceticism. ' The liberty of faith is found 
in the bondage of love ' (Sabatier, Paul, p. 163). 
He warns the advocates of liberty also that they 
may apply this principle to matters that are 
essential and not indifferent. This warning was 
necessary, because idolatry was so identified with 
all social functions that it was difficult to escape it. 
Why not to advert to the coming conditions 
adore the image of the Emperor ? Why not throw 
incense into the fire ? Just because by so doing 
the first and major principle of Christian abstin- 
ence was destroyed, viz. that it was a holy life in 
fellowship with the risen Christ ; and its second 
principle of freedom in things indifferent did not 
consequently apply. 

Yet this second principle was distinctly valuable. 
It was a great step in advance to have it clearly 
enunciated. For the weak brother, as in Galatia, 
might become intolerant ; he might become the 
victim of false views, which would look on the ob- 
servance of indifferent rites as a necessary quali- 
fication of full salvation and Christian privilege. 
Then Christian liberty in its fullness must be 
maintained (Gal 5 1 ). This liberty rightly under- 
stood contains in itself the real principle of ab- 
stinence from what is sinful. Nowhere have we 
fuller lists of the works of the flesh given than in 
the Galatian Epistle. 

Or, again, as in Colossians and the Pastorals, 
a false asceticism might be present which re- 
garded matter and body as evil, in which case 
both principles would be used to destroy such a 
view. 

(a) In regard to indifferent matters like food 
and drink God has given freedom. The argument 
is the same as that used by Jesus when He purified 
all meats (Mk 7 19 ). These minutiae of fasting are 
human inventions, not Divine commands ; and to 
respect them casuistically is to blur the distinction 
between the essential and the indifferent. We get 
what God meant us to get from perishable meats 
when we joyfully use them with a thankful spirit 
towards God. They, like the bodily appetites 
which they satisfy, do not belong to the eternal 
world, but to the natural. Yet the natural world 
and its relations to us, our bodies and their re- 
quirements, are of God and can all be used to His 
glory. Our bodies, souls, and spirits are His. It 
is not by using severity towards the body or by 
abstaining from marriage or leaving our earthly 
callings that we can gain further sanctification. In 



ABUSE, ABUSEES 



ABYSS 



11 



fact, St. Paul says that this d<f>eidla o-w/uaros 
severity towards the body is of little practical 
value (Col 2 28 ). Its aim is to destroy the body, not 
to fit it for God's service. Logically carried to its 
issue, this false asceticism would not only enfeeble 
the soul by debasing the body, but would destroy 
the body and matter altogether. But God's ideal 
for the body is different (cf. Ph 3 21 ), so that what 
is to be aimed at by the Christian is the destruc- 
tion of the flesh (<rdp|), not of the body as such 
(ffufw.). 

But (b) the Apostle uses the primary principle of 
Christian abstinence to refute this dualistic asceti- 
cism. He shows that Christianity is not a matter 
of prohibitions, but of a renewed life a walking in 
the Spirit. Asceticism at its best leaves the house 
empty. It is doubtful from history and physiology 
if it can even do that, but the new life in Christ 
has an expulsive power against sin and a construc- 
tive power of holiness. 

These, then, are the principles that govern Chris- 
tian abstinence: (1) The Christian life as a 'holy 
calling ' demands abstinence from all sin. This pro- 
hibits not only sinful actions but sinful thoughts. 
This is what may be called essential abstinence. 
(2) Besides this, there may be abstinence in in- 
different matters, but it rests with the individual 
conscience to determine when this is necessary 
for the furtherance of the new life in Christ. 
This sphere by its very nature is not subject to 
obligatory ecclesiastical rules, nor must such ab- 
stinence be made the basis of salvation or of a 
higher moral platform, nor must it be based on a 
false view of matter or of the human body or of 
human relationships. 

See also artt. SELF-DENIAL and TEMPERANCE. 

LITERATURE. Consult the books referred to in the article and 
the various Commentaries. See also J. B. Ligrhtfoot, C'olos- 
siantf, 1879, p. 397 ff. ; C. E. Luthardt, Christian Ethics 
before the Reformation, tr. Hastie, Edinburgh , 1889 ; O. 
Zockler, Kritische Gesch. der Askese, Frankfurt am M., 1897 ; 
A. Harnack, History of Dogma, Eng. tr., 1894-99; H. J. 
Holtzmann, NT Theologie, Tubingen, 1911, bk. iv. ch. vii.; 
A. B. D. Alexander, The Ethics of St. Paul, Glasgow, 1910 ; 
A. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche, Bonn, 1857, p. 
173 f. ; E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages 
upon the Christian Church (Hibbert Lecture, 1888), London, 
1890, Lecture vi. DONALD MACKENZIE. 

ABUSE, ABUSER3. The Latin abiltor means 
either (1) ' use badly,' ' misuse,' or (2) ' use to the 
full.' In this second sense Cicero uses the word 
of spending one's whole leisure time with a friend 
(see Lewis and Short, Latin Diet., s.v. ' Abutor '). 

The Greek verb Karaxpao/JMi had both these mean- 
ings. Thus in Plato (Menex. 247 A) it means 
' use wrongly ' ; and Clem. Alex. Peed. i. (p. 142, 
Potter) speaks of ' using fully every device of wis- 
dom.' In older English the verb had both mean- 
ings. Cranmer's Bible has ' abuse ' = ' use to the 
full ' in Col 2 22 . In both 1 Co 7 S1 and 9 18 KaraxpdofMi 
means ' use to the full.' The RV translates it so in 
9 18 and marginally so in 7 S1 . 

(a) i Co 7 31 . The connexions (e.g. marriage), 
circumstances (e.g. sorrow and joy), and concerns 
(e.g. business and wealth) of life have in Christianity 
an emotional interest. Stoicism would expel these 
emotions and leave the soul empty. Christianity 
determines them eschatologically (cf. 1 Co 7 29a 3lb ). 
To avoid abuse of the world is to use it sub specie 
finis. Abuse here borders on our meaning of 
misuse (cf. French abuser on abuse celui qui se 
laisse captiver ; and Mark Pattison's note on Pope's 
Essay on Man, ii. 14) ; and that perhaps is why 
RV retains 'abuse.' Texts like this apply in 
their original freshness and strength to times of 
crisis (cf. Luther's hymn, ' Gut, Ehre, Kind, und 
\Veib . . . lass fahren dahin '), when the dissolu- 
tion of society seems imminent, but in essence they 
are applicable to all time, as human life is always 



uncertain. They do not, however, encourage aloof- 
ness from or slackness in social duties (cf. St. Paul's 
attitude towards the non-workers in Thessalonica, 
2 Th 3 lom ). 

(6) 1 Co 9 18 . One phase of St. Paul's accommodat- 
ing conduct (irvyKardpaffis) for the gospel's sake 
was the voluntary abridgment of his rights of 
maintenance by the Corinthians ( 1 Co 9 7 " 14 , 2 Co II 8 ). 
This accommodation must be distinguished from 
men-pleasing (cf. Gal I 10 ). As the height of right 
may be the height of injury (summum ius summa 
iniuria), so conversely the abnegation of Christian 
rights for the gospel's sake enhances the power of 
both Evangelist and Evangel (cf.. Mk lO 2911 ). 

Summary. A lawful use of the world (1 Co 7 S1 ) 
or even of Christian rights (9 18 ) becomes harmful 
when dissociated from eternal issues, or pursued 
without regard to others. The lower planes of life 
gain significance in subordination to the highest. 
Rights legally due may, if pressed without regard 
to love, become injurious. 

(c) In 1 Co 6 9 and 1 Ti I 10 apffevoKotrat is translated 
' abusers of themselves with mankind ' (cf. Ro I 27 
written from Corinth). This unnatural vice is that 
known in Greek literature as ircuSe/jacrWa. In St. 
Paul's view sins of uncleanness were the inevitable 
Divine penalty of forgetfulness of God a view 
strengthened by the association between unclean- 
ness and the worship of Aphrodite in places like 
Corinth. 



LITERATURE. Grimm-Thayer, *.. (caraxpao/iai ; HDD, 
vol. i. art. 'Abuse'; the Comm. on above passages, e.g. 
Edwards in EGT and Hand-Corn. ; cf. also C. J. Vaughan, 
Lemons of Life and Godliness, London, 1870, Sermon xix. ; 
F. W. Robertson, Sermons, vol. iii. sermon xiv. ; W. G. 
Blaikie, Present Day Tracts, no. 4, 'Christianity and the 
Life that now is.' On irauSepaorio. consult W. A. Becker, 
Charikles, 3 vols., Berlin, 1877-78, voL ii. p. 252 ff. 

DONALD MACKENZIE. 

ABYSS. This is the RV rendering of the word 
<J/3i/er<ros which occurs in Lk 8 S1 , Ro 10 7 , Rev 9 U * " 
II 7 17 8 20 L 3 . In Lk. and Rom., A V translates 'deep'; 
in Rev., ' bottomless pit ' no distinction, however, 
being made between rb <f>ptap rijs afifaffov in 9 1 - 2 
(RV ' the pit of the abyss ') and i) afivo-cros simply 
in the remaining passages (RV 'the abyss'). 
&fiv<rffos (from a intens. and ^3u<r<r6j, Ion. for fivQ&s, 
' the depth ') occurs in classical Greek as an adj. 
meaning ' bottomless,' but in biblical and ecclesi- 
astical Greek almost invariably as a substantive 
denoting ' the bottomless place,' ' the abyss.' The 
word is found frequently in the LXX, usually 
as a rendering of the Heb. t'hdm, and primarily 
denotes the water-deeps which at first covered the 
earth (Gn I 2 , Ps 103 (104) 6 ) and were conceived of 
as shut up afterwards in subterranean storehouses 
(32 (33) 7 ). In Job 38 16f - the abyss in the sense of 
the depths of the sea is used as a parallel to 
Hades ; and in 41 23 (LXX) the sea-monster regards 
the Tartarus of the abyss as his captive. In Ps 
70 (71) 20 ' the abyss' is applied to the depths of the 
earth, and is here evidently a figurative equiva- 
lent for Sheol, though it is nowhere used in the 
LXX to render the Heb. word. In the later Jewish 
eschatology, where Sheol has passed from its OT 
meaning of a shadowy under world in which there 
are no recognized distinctions between the good 
and the bad, the wicked and the weary (cf. Job 3 17 , 
EC 9*), and has become a sphere of definite moral 
retribution, the conception of the abyss has also 
undergone a moral transformation. The Ethiopian 
Book of Enoch is especially suggestive for the 
development of the eschatological conceptions that 
appear in pre-Christian Judaism ; and in the earliest 
part of that book the fallen angels and demons are 
represented as cast after the final judgment into 
a gulf (xdos) of fire (10 13 - 14 ), while in 21 7 the chasm 
(Sia/coTn?) filled with fire (cf. TO <f>pap in Rev 9 1 - 3 ) is 
described as bordered by the abyss. Apparently 



12 



ACCEPTANCE 



ACCEPTANCE 



the abyss was conceived of as the proper home of 
the devil and his angels, in the centre of which 
was a lake of fire reserved as the place of their 
final punishment. 

The previous history of the word explains its use 
in the NT. In Ro 10', where he is referring to Dt 
30 13 , St. Paul uses it simply as the abode of the dead, 
Sheol or Hades a sense equivalent to that of Ps 70 
(71 P. In Lk 8 31 the penal aspect of the abyss conies 
clearly into view ; it is a place of confinement for 
demons. In Rev. we are in the midst of the visions 
and images of apocalyptic eschatology. In 9 1 - 2 
' the pit of the abyss ' sends forth a smoke like the 
smoke of a great furnace. The abyss has an angel 
of its own whose name is Abaddon (q.v.) or Apoll- 
yon (v. 11 ). From it 'the beast' issues (II 7 17 8 ), 
and into it ' the old serpent which is the Devil and 
Satan ' is cast for a thousand years (20 1 ' 3 ). 

LITERATURE. The Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries ; art- 
'Abyss' in ERE. J. C. LAMBERT. 

ACCEPTANCE. The noun itself is not found in 
the AV of the NT, though we come very near it in 
'acceptation' (dirodoxri), 1 Ti I 15 4 9 . Instances of 
the verb and adjective are frequent, and are mostly 
equivalents of d^xonat and its derivatives, as the 
following list shows: 3^xA, 2 Co 6 1 8 17 II 4 ; 
5eT<k, Ph 4 18 ; dTrddexros, 1 Ti 2 3 5 4 ; Tr/wo-S^o/tai, 
He II 35 ; fv-n-p&ffdeKTos, Ro 15 16 - 31 , 2 Co 6 2 8 12 , 1 P 2 5 . 
We also find \a/j.pdvw, Gal 2 s ; cMpevTos,* Ro 12 1 - a 
14 18 , 2 Co 5 a , Eph 5 10 , Ph 4 18 , Col 3 M , Tit 2 9 , He 13 21 , 
nndevapdffTus,* He 12 28 ; x<i/>is, 1 P 2' 20 ; and xapir<5w, 
Eph I 6 . It should be noticed that in the RV the 
adjective ' well-pleasing ' often takes the place of 
the AV ' acceptable ' ; and that in Eph 1" the 
familiar expression ' (his grace) wherein he hath 
made us accepted in the Beloved' gives place to 
the more correct ' which he freely bestowed upon 
us,' etc. See the commentaries of Westcott and 
Armitage Robinson, in loc. 

2 Co 8 17 (Titus 'accepted the exhortation') and 
He II 89 ('not accepting deliverance') do not call 
for comment. With 2 Co II 4 on the non-accept- 
ance of another gospel than that of Paul, compare 
1 Ti 1 s and 4 1 , 2 Ti I 15 4 10 ; see also for the ' accepted 
time' (the day of opportunity for accepting the 
Divine message) 2 Co 6 1 ' 2 (cf. Lk 4 19 ). In Ro 15 31 
St. Paul hopes that the collection for the Jerusalem 
poor may be acceptable to the saints ; and, refer- 
ring to the same project in 2 Co 8 12 , lays down the 
principle that contributions are acceptable in pro- 
portion to the willingness with which they are given. 

We are now left with the passages which speak 
of God's acceptance of man. Christians are ' child- 
ren of light,' are to 'prove what is acceptable (or 
well-pleasing) to the Lord' (Eph 5 10 ; cf. Col 3-'), to 
test and discern the Lord's will (Ro 12 2 ). They are 
'to make it their aim,' whether living or dying, 
' to be well-pleasing to him ' (2 Co 5 9 ). 

What then are the principles and practices that 
ensure this happy consummation ? We may first 
notice the familiar negative proposition set forth 
in Gal 2 15 and Ac 10 34 'God accepteth no man's 
person ' (i.e. the mere outward state and presence) ; 
and over against it the comprehensive declaration 
of Ac 10 35 ' In every nation he that feareth God 
and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him.' 
This furnishes a starting-point for a detailed enum- 
eration of the courses which are ' well-pleasing ' to 
God, and which may be set forth as follows : the 
offering of our bodies as a living sacrifice (Ro 12 2 ) ; 
the serving of Christ by not putting stumbling- 
blocks before weaker brethren (14 18 ) ; missionary 
work the ' offering up J of the Gentiles ( 15 16 ) ; the 
gift of the Philippian Church to St. Paul in prison 

* On the use of these words in inscriptions see A. Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, 214 f. The use of ipeords, ' pleasing,' and the 
verb apeVicw in the NT should also be noted. 



(Ph 4 18 ; cf. Mt 25 31 ' 46 ) ; filial affection to a widowed 
mother (1 Ti 5 4 ) ; supplication and intercession for 
all men (1 Ti 2 3 ) ; undeserved suffering patiently 
endured (1 P 2-'). All these may be looked upon 
as examples of the 'spiritual sacrifices' (1 P 2 s ), 
the offering of ' service with reverence and awe ' 
(He 12 28 ; cf. 13 16 ), which are 'acceptable' to God. 
He it is who ' works in us that which is well-pleas- 
ing in his sight through Jesus Christ ' (He 13-'). 

It is interesting and instructive to compare the 
grounds of ' acceptance ' in the circle of OT thought 
with those in the NT. In the former these grounds 
are partly ceremonial (Lv 22*), and partly ethical 
(Is I 12 ' 15 , Jer 6' JO etc.), though here and there a 
higher note is struck (cf. Pr 21 3 , Mic 6 8 , Dt 10 4 ) ; 
in the latter the ceremonial association has entirely 
vanished except in a metaphorical sense, and be- 
come purely ethico-spiritual, as the above references 
prove. It was largely due to the prophets that the 
old ceremonial ground was gradually ethicized ; 
and, though it never died out under the earlier 
' dispensation ' (which, indeed, reached its most 
rigid and mechanical development in the degener- 
ate Pharisaic cult of NT times), the way was 
effectually prepared for the full proclamation of 
the spiritual message of the gospel by Jesus, who 
was Himself the perfect embodiment of all that was 
acceptable and well-pleasing to God (cf. Mk I 11 , 
Mt 17 5 , JnS^etc.). 

There is a theological problem of importance 
raised by these passages What is it that consti- 
tutes the ground of our acceptance with God ? The 
full treatment of this problem must be sought 
under the art. JUSTIFICATION, but the following 
considerations may be properly adduced here. 
Unquestionably the Christian religion is a religion 
of Grace, as contra-distinguished from Judaism and 
other faiths, which are religions of Law. Salvation, 
according to the NT throughout (explicitly in the 
writings of St. Paul, more or less implicitly else- 
where), is of God, and not of man ; not our own 
doings, but willingness to accept what He has done 
for us, and what He is ready to do in us, is the 
condition of initial inclusion within the Kingdom 
of Divine love and life. This is the watershed 
which determines the direction and flow of all 
subsequent doctrinal developments in Christian 
theology ; it is what settles the question whether 
our thoughts and practice are distinctively Christian 
or not. There are, however, two alternative perils 
to be carefully avoided antinomianism, on the 
one hand, which assumes our continued acceptance 
with God irrespective of our moral conduct after- 
wards ; and the doctrine of salvation by works, on 
the other, which makes moral conduct the condi- 
tion of acceptance, thus surreptitiously introduc- 
ing the legal view of religion once more. This 
' Either Or ' is, however, a false antithesis, from 
which we are saved by the recognition of the 
' mystical union ' of the believer with God in Christ. 
By that act of faith, in virtue of which the sinner 
' accepts ' Christ and appropriates all that He ia 
and has done, he passes from a state of condemna- 
tion into a state of grace (Ro 8 1 ), and is henceforth 
'in Christ' organically united to Him as the 
member is to the body (1 Co 12 12L ), as the branch is 
to the vine (Jn 15 1 "*). This 'justifying faith' is, 
however, not an isolated act ; it is an act that 
brings us into a permanent relation with the source 
of spiritual life. Now, ' good works ' in the 
Christian sense are a necessary proof and outcome 
of this relation, and as such are well-pleasing or 
' acceptable' to God, because (a) they are a mani- 
festation of the spirit of Christ in us (Gal 2 20 ; cf. 
v. 21 ) ; and (b) a demonstration of the continuance 
of the believer ' in Christ' (Jn 15 8 ; cf. Mt 5' 6 , Ph 
jiof.j T ne re l a tion of the believer to Christ, in 
other words, while it is religious in its root, ia 



ACCESS 



ACCESS 



13 



ethical in its fruit, and the quality and abundance 
of the latter naturally show the quality and potency 
of the faith-life of which it is the expression and 
outcome. Thus our ' works ' do not constitute our 
claim for acceptance with God after entering the 
Kingdom of Grace any more than before ; but they 
determine our place within the Kingdom. There 
is an aristocracy of the spiritual as well as of the 
natural life ; the saved are one in the fact of salva- 
tion, but not in the magnitude of their attainments 
or the quality of their influence ; and they are more 
or less acceptable to God according to the entireness 
of their consecration and the value of their service. 
There is thus an adequate motive presented to us 
for perpetual striving after perfection, and St. 
Paul s spiritual attitude ' not as though I had 
already attained, but I follow after' (Ph 3 12 ) is 
the normal attitude of every true believer (cf. Col 
I 10 " 12 , 1 Th 4 1 ' 3 , 1 Jn S 22 ). It was given only to One 
to be altogether well-pleasing to God ; but it is the 
unfading ideal, and the constant endeavour of His 
true disciples to follow in His steps, and in all 
things to become more and more like Him, as well 
as ' well-pleasing ' to Him. 

See, further, artt. JUSTIFICATION, etc. , and Litera- 
ture there specified. E. GRIFFITH- J ONES. 

ACCESS. This word in the Epistles of the NT 
is the translation of the Greek word irpoffayuyti 
(Ro 5 2 , Eph 2 18 3 12 ; cf. IP 3 18 , where the verb is 
used actively). It has been treated very thoroughly 
in DCG (s. v. ). Here we shall confine ourselves to 

1. The connotation of the word. In classical 
Greek, the term irpo<ray(ayeijs was used primarily 
for ' one who brings to,' ' introduces to another as 
an intermediary,' mainly in a derogatory sense (cf. 
irpoffayuyetis X^/u.yu.d.roH', one who hunts for another's 
benefit a jackal [Dem. 750. 21 ; cf. Aristid. ii. 
369, 395] ; the spies of the Sicilian kings were 
called irpocrayuyeis, ' tale-bearers ' [Plut. ii. 522 D]). 
It was, however, used later in a technical sense, 
the court irpocraywyeijs being a functionary whose 
business it was to bring visitors or suppliants into 
the king's presence, irpoa-ayuy^ came thus to mean 
access to the royal presence and favour. It is 
from this association of ideas that the word derives 
its religious connotation in the NT. God is con- 
ceived in the kingly relation (as frequently in the 
OT), as one whose favour is sought and found, 
and Christ as the irp<xraywyevs who introduces the 
sinner into the Divine presence. It is thus a form 
of words representing Him in the light of a Mediator 
between God and man ; and it throws light on the 
relation of the three parties in the transaction. 

2. The light thrown on the character and 
attitude of God towards man. The kingly con- 
cept represents God as supreme, one to whom all 
allegiance is due, and who has the power of life 
and death over all His subjects. In the OT, 
Jahweh, especially in the Psalms, is often repre- 
sented as the King of His people Israel (cf. Ps 10 16 
248-10 44 4 472 eg* etc- ) j t ia noticeable, however, 
that in most of these passages the Oriental awe in 
which all potentates were habitually held is suffused 
with a sense of joy and pride in God as Israel's 
King ; His power, favour, and victorious character 
are mainly dwelt on. The idea which lies behind 
the NT references, however, is rather that of the 
difficulty of approach to the King's presence, not 
merely on account of His loftiness and majesty, 
but of His alienation, which demands a process of 
reconciliation. It suggests that the normal relation 
of the King and His subjects has been disturbed 
by rebellion or wrong-doing. The Divine dignity 
has been outraged, and His claim to obedience set 
at defiance. There is thus no longer a right of 
admittance to the Divine presence, unless the wrong 
is righted and the lost favour restored ; and, till 



that has been secured, the protection and kindly 
attitude of God can no longer be relied on. 

3. The light thrown on the condition and 
attitude of man towards Gcd. The suggestion is 
that man is conscious of being alienated from God 
by sin ; that he has no confidence in approaching 
God in consequence, being uncertain of his recep- 
tion ; that he knows of nothing which he can do 
to restore the lost relation ; and that he is deeply 
sensible of the shame and peril of his condition. 
The conception of the effects of evil-doing as 
separating God and man is one that runs through 
the priestly ritual of Judaism (cf. also the pro- 
phetic declaration in Is 59 2 ' your iniquities have 
separated between you and your God '), and corre- 
sponds to a fact in the consciousness of P 1 ! awakened 
sinners. In the earlier experience of k,*.. Paul this 
feeling was evidently poignantly emphasized ; and 
the sense of deliverance that came to him through 
the gospel may be taken as the measure of the 
pain and sorrow from which he had been delivered. 

4. The function fulfilled by Christ as the One 
through whom the renewal of the lost relation 
between God and man was accomplished. 
The word irpoffayuy-f) is insufficient to represent this 
function. In itself it stands for the work of a 
functionary whose r61e is to act as a merely official 
link between the two parties, having no active 
part in the process of reconciliation, and having 
therefore no claim to the gratitude of the bene- 
ficiary in the process. On the other hand, the 
apostolic use of the word in its reference to the 
person and work of Christ includes the suggestion 
that the 'access' to God referred to has been 
accomplished by Christ Himself, and an over- 
whelming sense of gratitude is awakened by this 
fact. This appears in the four passages in which 
the word is used, especially in the last (1 P 3 18 ). 
According to this, the bringing of man to God is 
effected through the work of Christ in His Passion ; 
'because Christ also suffered for sins once (airaZ, 
meaning here 'once for all' = a fact accomplished), 
the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might 
bring us (ir poo-ay dyy) to God,' i.e. restore us to 
His favour, and lead us to the benefits of the 
Divine reconciliation. In Ro 5 2 , again, the ' access ' 
receives its meaning and privilege through its 
consummation in and by Christ, 'through whom 
we have also (ical, ' copulat et auget ' [Toletus], 
' answering almost to our " as might be expected " ' 
[Alford]) got (^ffx^Kafifv) our (ryv) access (introduc- 
tion) by our (TV) faith, into this grace wherein we 
stand ' (see DCG i. 13*). Here the Person of the 
irpoffaytayefo is chiefly thought of ( ' this has come to 
us through Him ') ; and the resulting benefit is urged 
as a reason for holy exultation, since it means 
justification as a ground for ' rejoicing in the hope 
of glory.' In Eph 2 18 a slightly different emphasis 
is suggested : 'for through Him we both (i.e. Jew 
and Gentile) have our access in one spirit unto the 
Father.' Here that revelation of God, not as uni- 
versal King but as the All-Father, which came 
through Jesus Christ, is included in the benefit 
secured by Him for mankind at large, and the 
reconciliation of humanity at variance with itself 
as well as with God is brought into the circle of 
mediation (cf. v. 14 'for he is our peace [i.e. He 
is the peace-maker, the irpoirayuyevs between us, 
Jew and Gentile, who were once far off from each 
other] who hath made both one' by His blood 
[v. 13 ]). Through this word we are thus led into the 
deep places of the gospel as the reconciling agency 
of God to man, man to God, and man to man. 

LITERATURE. To the literature in the DCG add John Foster, 
Lectures, 1853, ii. 69 ; R. W. Dale, The Jeurish Temple and 
the Christian Church, 1877, p. 205 ; A. J. Gordon, The Twofold 
Life, 1886, p. 175 ; W. M. Macgregor, Jesus Christ the Son oj 

God, 1907, p. 175. E. GRIFFITH-JONES. 



14 



ACCOUNT 



ACHAICUS 



ACCOUNT. It will be sufficient merely to 
mention the use of the verb ' account ' (Xoytfopai) 
in the sense of ' reckon,' ' deem,' ' consider ' (Ro S 36 , 
1 Co 4 1 , He 1 1 19 , 2 P 3' 5 ). Simple uses of the noun 
are found in Ac 19 40 , when the 'town-clerk' (q.v.) 
of Ephesus warns his fellow-citizens of the difficulty 
of giving ' account (\6yos) of this concourse ' : and in 
Ph 4 17 ' the fruit that increaseth to your account.' 
The only significant passages where the word is 
found are those dealing with the Judgment. 

The declaration in Ro 14 12 , ' Each one of us 
shall give account of himself to God,' must be 
studied in the light of the paragraph (vv. 7-12 ) of 
which it is the conclusion. Those who are them- 
selves liable to judgment must not set themselves 
up as judges or one another, either to make light 
or sincere scruples or to reprove laxity. For one 
man to judge another is to usurp the prerogative 
of God, to whom alone (as universal sovereign and 
object of worship) man is answerable. The passage 
should be compared with 2 Co 5 10 , where the 'judg- 
ment-seat' is called Christ's; see also 1 Co 4 6 . St. 
Paul applies this doctrine, which is found in the 
Synoptic Gospels and was an integral part of 
primitive Christian teaching, to Jew and Gentile, 
to himself and his converts, to those who have 
died before the Parousia and those who are alive 
at it. The life in the body provides the oppor- 
tunity for moral action, and by the use they have 
made of it men are sentenced (cf. Gal 6*). A. 
Menzies (Com. on 2 Cor.) calls attention (a) to this 
aspect of the Judgment in contrast with that which 
represents the saints as judging the world and 
angels (1 Co 6 21 -; cf. Mt 19'*); (b) to the incon- 
sistency between the doctrine of justification by 
faith alone, and the doctrine of final judgment of 
men according to their actions. There is, however, 
in the present writer's opinion, no inconsistency 
here. The NT generally represents the saved as 
judged as well as the unsaved. The judgment of 
the latter, however, is retributory and involves 
rejection ; that of the former is for a place, higher 
or lower, within the heavenly Kingdom ; and this 
place is in accordance with the faithfulness and 
quality of their service while in the body. St. 
Paul, as the above references prove, is emphatic as 
to the fact and nature of this judgment (cf. 1 
Co 3 12 " 15 ), and shows that, however true it is that 
salvation is by grace, there will be gradations in 
standing and in reward in the after-life. This is 
in harmony with the teaching of our Lord in the 
Synoptics, especially in the parables of service and 
reward (Lk 19 18 ' 20 etc. ; cf. Mk 10 40 ). Cf. also, as 
to the fact of the saints having to give an account 
of their earthly stewardship, He 13 17 , 1 P 4 5 : ' [evil- 
doers and slanderers of Christians] shall give 
account to him that is ready to judge the quick 
and the dead' (in 1" to the Father, in I 18 and 5 4 
to Christ). These may be regarded as special 
instances of the General Judgment already referred 
to. The expression diro5i56vau \6yov generally im- 
plies that defence is not easy. 

LITERATURE. See lit. on art. JUDGMENT ; the Comm. in loce. ; 
W. N. Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theol., 1898, p. 459 ft. 

E. GRIFFITH-JONES. 
ACCURSED. See ANATHEMA. 

ACCUSATION. See TRIAL-AT-LAW. 
ACELDAMA. See AKELDAMA. 

ACHAIA. Achaia ('A^aSa) was, in the classical 
period, merely a strip of fertile coast-land stretch- 
ing along the south of the Gulf of Corinth, from the 
river Larisus, which separated it from Elis, to the 
Sythas, which divided it from Sicyonia, while 
the higher mountains of Arcadia bounded it on the 
south. Its whole length was about 65 miles, its 



breadth from 12 to 20 miles, and its area about 
650 sq. miles. 

The Achaeans were probably the remnant of a Pelasgian race 
once distributed over the whole Peloponnesus. Though they 
were celebrated in the heroic age, they rarely figured in the 
great Hellenic period, keeping themselves as far as possible 
aloof from the conflicts between the Ionian and Doric States, 
happy in their own almost uninterrupted prosperity. It is not 
till the last struggle for Hellenic independence that they 
appear on the stage of history. 

The cities which formed the famous Achaean 
League became the most powerful political body in 
Greece ; and, when the Romans subdued the country 
(146 B.C.), they at once honoured the brave con- 
federation and spared the feelings of all the Hellenes 
by calling the new province not Greece but Achaia. 
As constituted by Augustus in 27 B.C., the province 
included Thessaly, ^itolia, Acharnania, and part 
of Epirus (Strabo, XVII. iii. 25), being thus almost 
co-extensive with the modern kingdom of Greece. 
As a senatorial province Achaia was governed by 
a proconsul, who was an ex-prsetor. In A.D. 15 
Tiberius took it from the Senate, adding it to 
Macedonia to form an Imperial province under the 
government of a legatus ; but in 44 Claudius re- 
stored it to the Senate. ' Proconsul ' (dvOuwa.*, 
Ac 18 la ) was therefore the governor's correct official 
title at the time of St. Paul's residence in Corinth. 
Nero, as ' a born Philhellene,' wished to make 
Greece absolutely free. 

' In gratitude for the recognition which his artistic contribu- 
tions had met with in the native land of the Muses . . . [he] 
declared the Greeks collectively to be rid of Roman govern- 
ment, free from tribute, and, like the Italians, subject to no 
governor. At once there arose throughout Greece movements, 
which would have been civil wars, if these people could have 
achieved anything more than brawling ; and after a few months 
Vespasian re-established the provincial constitution, so far as it 
went, with the dry remark that the Greeks had unlearned the 
art of being free ' (Mommsen, Provinces, i. 262). 

To the end of the empire Achaia remained a 
senatorial province. The administrative centre was 
Corinth (q.v.), where the governor had his official 
residence. During a prolonged mission in that 
city, St. Paul was brought into contact with the 
proconsul Gallic (q.v.), the brother of Seneca. 
The rapid progress of the gospel in Achaia is partly 
explained by the fact that Judaism had already 
for centuries been working as a leaven in many of 
the cities of Greece. Sparta and Sicyon are named 
among the numerous free States to which the 
Romans sent letters on behalf of the Jews about 
139 B.C. (1 Mac 15 23 ), and Philo's Legatio <ad Gaium 
( 36) testifies to the presence of Jews in Bceotia, 
./Etolia, Attica, Argos, and Corinth. Only three 
Achaean cities are mentioned in the NT Athens, 
Corinth, and Cenchreaa but the address of 2 Cor. 
to ' all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia,' 
and the liberality of ' the regions of Achaia ' (2 Co 
9 2 1 1 10 ), prove that there must have been many other 
unnamed centres of Christian faith and life in the 
province. While 1 Co 16 16 refers to the house of 
Stephanas as 'the firstfruits of Achaia,' Ac 17 84 
rather indicates that the Apostle's brief visit to 
Athens had already borne some fruit, ' Diouysius, 
Damans, and others with them' being Achaean 
believers. Athens (q.v.) was either reckoned by 
itself or else entirely overlooked. 

LITERATURE. The Histories of Polybius and lavy ; A. Holm, 
History of Greece, Eng. tr. London, 1894-98, vol. iv. ; T. Momm- 
sen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire*, Eng. tr., London, 
1909, i. 260 ff. ; J. Marquardt, Rom, Staatsverwaltung, newed., 
Leipzig, 1885, i. 321 f. ; C. v. Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, Eng. 
tr. 1.2 [London, 1897] p. 303 ff. ; A. C. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 
Edinburgh, 1897, p. 256 ff. JAMES STRAHAN. 

ACHAICUS. One of many worthies whose 
character adorned the early Church, and whose 
service edified it, but whom we know only by a 
casual reference in the NT. In 1 Co 16" St. Paul 
rejoices 'at the coming of Stephanas and Fortu- 
natus and Achaicus.' Probably they formed a 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



15 



deputation from the Corinthian Church ; they 
may have been bearers of the letter of inquiry 
which St. Paul answers in ch. 7 ff. His language 
suggests that their coming somewhat reassured 
him after the disquieting news brought by Chloe's 
household, and other ugly rumours (1 Co 5 1 ). 
Perhaps they represented the parties in Corinth ; 
yet they must have been trusted by the Church 
and must also have shown themselves loyal to the 
Apostle. Achaicus is such a rare name that some 
authorities call it 'Greek,' others ' Koman.' The 
suggestion that Achaicus was a slave either of 
Stephanas or of Chloe does not comport either 
with his position as a delegate or with St. Paul's 
appeal to the Church to 'acknowledge such,' i.e. 
to recognize the quality of their service and to 
treat them with becoming deference. 

LITERATURE. Artt. in HDB on 'Achaicus,' and 'I. Corinth- 
ians,' i. 487 ; Comm. on 1 Cor. by Findlay (.EG Z 1 ), 950, and by 
Godet, ii. 467 ; C. v. Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, i. 2 [London, 
1897] pp. 113, 305, 319, ii. [do. 1895] p. 320 ; Expositor, 8th ser. 
L [1911] 341 L J. E. ROBEBTS. 

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 

L Text 

1. Greek MSS. 

2. The Latin Versions. 

3. The Syriac Versions. 

4. The Egyptian Version*. 
6. Secondary Versions. 

6. Early Quotations. 

7. Textual theories : Westcott and Hort, Rendel Harris, 

Chase, Blass, von Soden. 
II. Tradition as to authorship 

1. In favour of Lucan authorship. 

2. Against the tradition. 

III. The date of Acts and reception in the Canon 

1. The date of the Lucan Gospel. 

2. The abrupt termination of Acts. 

3. Knowledge of Josephus in Acts. 

4. Reception in the Canon. 
IV. The composition of Acts 

1. The obvious facts. 

2. The purpose of the whole narrative 

8. The sources used in Acts. 

(1) The we-clauses. 

(2) The earlier chapters. 

(a) The Antiochene tradition. 

(b) The Jerusalem tradition. 

V. Historical value of the various traditions 

1. The Gospel of Luke and Ac 1. 

2. The Jerusalem and Galilaean traditions. 

VI. Chronology of Acts 

1. The death of Herod Agrippa. 

2. The famine in Judaea. 
8. Gallio's proconsulate. 

4. The expulsion of the Jews from Borne. 
6. The arrival of Festus in Judasa. 
VII. The theology of Acts 

1. Christology. 

2. Eschatology. 

3. The OT and Jewish Law. 

4. The Spirit 
6. Baptism. 

I. TEXT. The text of the Acts is preserved in 
Greek MSS, in Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, 
Armenian, and other secondary Versions, and 
quoted extensively, though not nearly so fully as 
the Gospels, by the early Fathers. 

1. Greek MSS. The most complete study of the 
whole mass of Greek MSS is that of von Soden 
in his Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 
1902-10). As his grouping of the MSS is almost 
entirely independent of his theories as to the 
early history of the text, and represents facts 
which cannot be overlooked, it is best to give the 
main outlines of his classification, dividing the 
MSS into H, K, and /recensions, and following his 
numeration ; in the brackets are given the numbers 
of these MSS in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischen- 
dorf's Editio Major octava. It has not seemed 
necessary to give also Gregory's new numeration, 
as this is not any better known than von Soden's, 
and does not belong (and apparently will not 
belong in the immediate future) to a full critical 
edition. 



(1) B. This is represented by 61 (B), 82 (X), S3 (C), 64 (A), 86 
(i//), 848 (13), 74 (39), 1008 (Pap. Amh. 8. saec. v.-vi.), 103 (25), 
162 (61), 257 (33). Of these MSS 81 and 82 represent a common 
archetype 81-2, which is much the best authority for H. 81 is 
better than 82, which is, however, somewhat better in Acts, apart 
from scribal errors, than it is in the Gospels. 74 and 162 are 
specially good representatives of H, but no single witness is 
free from K or 1 contamination. There is a special nexus be- 
tween 848 and 257, but 848 is considerably the better of the two. 

(2) K. It is impossible to give here the full list of K MSS ; 
roughly speaking, 90 per cent of the later MSS belong to this 
type. Two groups may be distinguished from the purer K 
MSS : K r , a mediaeval revision of K for lectionary purposes, 
critically quite valueless ; and K", a text with enough sporadic 
/ readings to raise the question whether it be not an 1 text 
which has been almost wholly corrected to & K standard ; it is 
called K <= because MSS of this type seem to be represented in 
the Complutensian edition. 

(3) /. The / recension is found in three forms : / 7 b /. I*- 
is best represented by 85 (D= Codex Bezse*), 1001 (E= Codex 
Laudianus t) ; by three pairs of connected MSS, 7 (Apl. 261)-264 
(233), 200 (83)-382 (231), 70 (505)-101 (40) ; and by a few other 
MSS which have suffered more or less severely from K con- 
tamination. It is also well represented in the text of the com- 
mentary of Andreas (A ff P). l b is found in two branches, / M 
and /b2. The best representatives of />>i are 62 (498), 8602 (200), 
365 (214=a scr )and a few other minuscules ; the best representa- 
tives of /*>2 are the pair 78 (' von der Goltz's MS ') and 171 (7) 
which are almost doublets, and 157 (29). 1^ is also found in two 
branches ^ci and 1<&. The best representatives of Y<=i are 208 (307X 
370 (353), 116(-), 551 (216) ; the best representatives of 1<* are 
364 (137) t and a series of other MSS contaminated in varying 
degrees by K. 

2. The Latin Versions. The Old Latin or ante- 
Hieronymian text is not well represented. As in 
the Gospels, it may be divided into two main 
branches, African and European. 

(1) The African is represented by Codex Floriacensis (h), now 
at Paris, formerly at Fleury, containing a text which is almost 
identical with that of Cyprian ; it is in a very fragmentary 
condition, but fortunately the quotations of Cyprian and 
Augustine (who uses an African text in Acts, though he 
follows the Vulgate in the Gospels) enable much of the 
text to be reconstructed. (The best edition of h is by E. 8. 
Buchanan, Old Latin Biblical Texts, v. [Oxford, 1907].) Accord- 
ing to Wordsworth and White, a later form of the African text 
can be found in the pseudo-Augustinian de Divinis Scripturis sive 
Speculum (CSEL xii. 287-700), but the character of this text 
is still somewhat doubtful. 

(2) The European text is best represented by g (Gigas) at 
Stockholm, which can be supplemented and corrected by the 
quotations in Ambrosiaster and Lucifer of Cagliari (see esp. 
A. Souter, ' A Study of Ambrosiaster,' TS vii. 4 [1905]). A branch 
of the European text of a Spanish or Provencal type is found 
in p, a Paris MS from Perpignan, and in w, a Bohemian MS 
now in Wernigerode, but in both MSS there is much Vulgate 
contamination. Other primarily European mixed MSS are s, a 
Bobbio palimpsest (saec. v.-vi.) at Vienna, x in Oxford, and gj in 
Milan. 

A Spanish lectionary of perhaps the 7th cent, known as the 
Liber Comieus, which has many early readings, has been edited 
by G. Morin from a Paris MS of the llth cent, and is quoted 
by Wordsworth and White as t. 

(3) Besides these purely Latin MSS, we have the Latin sides 
of the Grace-Latin MS 85 (D) or d (Codex Bezas), and of the 
Latino-Greek MS 1001 (E) or e. The latter of these agrees in 
the main with the European text as established by g-Ambro- 
siaster-Lucifer, but the text of d is in many ways unique, and 
may possibly have been made for the private use of the owner 
of 85, or perhaps of the archetype of 85. 

(4) The Vulgate. It is impossible here to enumerate the 
hundreds of Vulgate MSS of the Acts. Their study is a special 
branch of investigation, which has little bearing on the Acts, 
and for all purposes, except that of tracing the history of the 
Vulgate, the edition of Wordsworth and White may be regarded 
as sufficient. 

3. The Syriac Versions. It is probable from 
the quotations in Aphraates and Ephraim that 
there existed originally an Old-Syriac Version of 
Acts, corresponding to the Evangelism da-Mephar- 
reshe represented by the Curetonian and Sinaitic 
MSS ; but no MS of this type has survived. 

* This MS is adequately described by F. G. Kenyon (Handbook 
to the Textual Criticism of the XT*, 88 ff.) or in other well- 
known handbooks. 

t Besides the details noted in the handbooks, it should be 
observed that this MS, after being used by Bede in North- 
uinbria, passed to Germany, whence it was probably obtained by 
Laud, who gave it to the Bodleian Library. 

t As an instance of the advance in knowledge which von 
Soden's labours have produced, it should be noted that this MS 
used to be regarded as one of the principal authorities for the 
' Western ' text, and was at one time deemed worthy of a 
separate edition. 



16 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



(1) The oldest Syriac Version of the Acts is therefore the 
Peshifta, probably made by Kabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411- 
435) (see F. O. Burkitt, '8. Ephraim's Quotations from the 
Gospel,' TS vii. 2 [1901] p. 57 f.). (N.E. The Peshijjta is quoted 
by Tischendorf as Syr**.) 

(2) Besides the Peshitta we have the Harklean made by 
Thomas of Heraclea. This was based on an earlier Syriac 
text, made in 506 by Polycarp for Philoxenus, Bishop of 
Mabug (Hierapolis, the modern Membij on the Euphrates), 
which is no longer extant for Acts. Thomas of Heraclea 
revised the Philoxenian with the help of Greek MSS in the 
Library of the Enaton at Alexandria, and enriched his edition 
with a number of critical notes giving the variants of these 
Greek MSS which often have a most remarkable text agreeing 
more closely with Codex Bezae than with any other known 
Greek MS. (N.B. It is quoted by Tischendorf as SyrP.) 

(3) There is also a lectionary of the so-called ' Palestinian ' 
type, which was probably in use about the 7th cent, in the 
neighbourhood of Antioch. (On the nature of the ' Palestinian ' 
Syriac literature see F. 0. Burkitt, JThSt ii. [1901] 174-185.) 

4. The Egyptian Versions. The two Versions, 
Bohairic and Sahidic, which are extant for the 
Gospels, exist also for Acts, and there are a few 
fragments of Versions in other dialects. The re- 
lative date of these Versions has not been finally 
settled, but the opinion of Coptic scholars seems 
to be increasingly in favour of regarding the Sahidic 
as the older form. The Bohairic agrees in the 
main with the H text, but the Sahidic has many 
/ readings (see E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Biblical 
Texts, London, 1912, for the best Sahidic text). 

5. Secondary Versions. Versions of Acts are 
also found in Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, 
Georgian, Persian, and other languages ; but none 
of them is of primary importance for the text. 

6. Quotations in early writers. The earliest 
quotations long enough to have any value for de- 
termining the text are in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and 
Clement of Alexandria, who may be regarded as 
representing the text of the end of the 2nd cent, in 
Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. For the 3rd cent, 
we have Origen and Didymus, representing the 
Alexandrian school ; Cyprian for Africa, and No- 
vatian for Italy. For the 4th cent. Athanasius 
and Cyril represent the later development of the 
Alexandria text ; Lucifer, Jerome, and Ambrosi- 
aster represent the text of Rome and Italy ; 
Augustine, that of Africa ; Eusebius and Cyril of 
Jerusalem the Palestinian text, which according to 
von Soden is /; the later Church writers mostly 
use the K text, though they sometimes show traces 
of probably local contamination with H and /. 

7. Textual theories. As soon as textual criticism 
began to be based on any complete view of the 
evidence, it became obvious that the chief feature 
to be accounted for in the text of Acts was the 
existence of a series of additions in the text in the 
Latin Versions and Fathers, usually supported by 
the two great bilingual MSS 55 and 1001 (D and E), 
frequently by the marginal readings in Syr Harcl , 
and sporadically by a few minuscules ; opposed to 
this interpolated text stood the Alexandrian text 
of 51, 52 (B K), and their allies; while between the 
two was the text of the mass of MSS agreeing 
sometimes with one, sometimes with the other, 
and sometimes combining both readings. 

(1) The first really plausible theory to meet even 
part of the facts was Westcott and Hort's (The 
New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. [Cambridge, 
1882]), who suggested that the later text (K) was 
a recension based on the two earlier types. They 
regarded 55 (Codex Bezae) as representing the 
' Western ' text, and 51 and 52 as representing as 
nearly as possible the original text. The weak 
point in their theory was that they could not 
explain the existence of the Western text. 

(2) Founded mainly on the basis of their work, two 
theories were suggested to supply this deficiency. 

(a) Rendel Harris (' A Study of Codex Bezae in 
TS ii. 1 [1891], and Four Lectures on the Western 
Text, Cambridge, 1894) and F. H. Chase (The Old 
Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezce, London, 



1893) thought that retranslation from Latin and 
Syriac would solve the problem ; but no amount 
or retranslation will account for the relatively 
long Bezan additions. 

(b) F. Blass (Act a Apostolorum secundum formam 
quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1897, and also in 
his commentary, Acta Apostolorum, Gottingen, 
1895) thought that Luke issued the Acts in two 
forms : one to Theophilus (the Alexandrian text), 
and the other for Rome (the Western text) ; but 
his reconstruction of the Roman text is scarcely 
satisfactory, and the style of the additions is not 
sufficiently Lucan. 

(3) More recently von Soden (Die Schriften des 
Neuen Testaments, 1902-1910, p. 1834 ff.), using 
the new facts as to the MSS summarized above, 
has revived Blass's theory in so far that he thinks 
that the interpolated text witnessed to by 55 and 
the Latin Versions and Fathers really goes back 
to a single original ; but, instead of assigning this 
original to Luke, he attributes it to Tatian, who, 
he thinks, added a new recension of Acts to his 
Diatessaron. The weak point in this theory is 
that the only evidence that Tatian edited the Acts 
is a passage in Eusebius * which states that he 
emended ' the Apostle.' This may refer to Acts, 
but more probably refers to the Epistles. Accord- 
ing to von Soden, the / text did not contain all 
the interpolations, K contained still fewer, and H 
contained none. He thinks that in the 2nd cent, 
there existed side by side the Tatianic text and a 
non-interpolated text which he calls I-H-K. From 
these two texts there arose the Latin Version 
predominantly Tatianic and most of the early 
Fathers were influenced by Tatian. Later on, in 
the 4th cent., three revisions were made : (a) H, by 
Hesychius in Alexandria, which preserved in the 
main the texit of I-H-K without the Tatianic ad- 
ditions, but with a few other corruptions ; (b) K, 
by Lucian, in Antioch, which had many Tatianic 
corruptions, as well as some of its own ; (c) /, in 
Palestine, possibly in Jerusalem, which preserved 
many Tatianic additions, though in a few cases 
keeping the I-H-K text against H. 55 (D) is the 
best example of this text, but has suffered from 
the addition of a much greater degree of Tatianic 
corruption than really belongs to the / text, owing 
to Latin influence. 

The general relations of the various forms of the 
text, according to von Soden, can be shown roughly 
in the following diagram : 

I-U-K 




i A A 



Obviously this complicated theory cannot be 
dismissed without much more attention than it 
has yet received. It may prove that the 'text 
with additions ' is not Tatianic but is nevertheless 
a single text in origin. It is also very desirable 
to investigate how far it is possible to prove that 
there was an / text, derived from I-H-K, which 



* TOW 8' airo<rr6Aov <a<rt TO\HTJ<r<il nvaf aMtv firrai^paa-ai <!><avdt 
W? eiriSiopSovfitvov avrotv T^V Trjs <p<wrecos tnJiraf iv (Eus. HE iv. 
29. 6). This scarcely sounds as though a series of interpolation! 
was intended. 



AUTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



17 



nevertheless did not possess, in its original state, 
all the ' Bezan ' interpolations.* If it were possible 
to say that the interpolations were a connected 
series (whether Tatianic or not is of minor im- 
portance), the text in which they are imbedded 
would become extremely valuable, and we should 
have no right to argue, as is now often done, that, 
because the interpolations are clearly wrong, there- 
fore the text in which they are found is to be 
condemned. For instance, in Ac 15 28 the Latin 
text interpolates the Golden Rule into the Apos- 
tolic decrees. That is no doubt wrong. But it 
does not follow that the text omitting WIKTOV, in 
which this interpolation is placed, is not original. 

LITERATURE. The general textual question can be studied 
in H. von Soden, Die Schri/ten des NT, Berlin, 1902-1910, esp. 
pp. 1649-1840 ; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criti- 
cism of the NT*, London, 1912 ; E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das 
griecfi. NTS, Gottingen, 1909 (the Eng. tr. is from an older 
edition of the period before von Soden) ; K. Lake, The Text oj 
the NTS, London, 1911. Important for the study of the Latin 
are von Soden, ' Das lat. NT in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians,' TU 
xxxiii. [Leipzig, 1909]; and Wordsworth- White, Nov. Test. 
Dom. nost. les. Christi secundum edit. S. Hieronymi, vol. ii. 
pt. i. [Oxford, 1905] which also gives a clear statement of the 
best editions of the separate MSS of the Old Latin and the 
Vulgate (pp. v-xv). 

II. TRADITION AS TO AUTHORSHIP. So far 
back as tradition goes, the Acts is ascribed to St. 
Luke, the author of the Third Gospel, and com- 
panion of St. Paul (see, further, LUKE). This 
tradition can be traced back to the end of the 2nd 
cent. (Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12; Tertull. de Jejuniis, 
10; Iren. adv. Hcer. I. xxiii. 1, in. xii. 12 ff., 
IV. xv. 1 ; and the Canon of Muratori). If the 
connexion with the Third Gospel be accepted, as 
it certainly ought to be, the fact that Marcion 
used the Gospel is evidence for the existence of 
Acts, unless it be thought that the Gospel was 
written by a contemporary of Marcion who had 
not yet written Acts. Farther back tradition does 
not take us : there are no clear proofs of the use 
of Acts in the Apostolic Fathers (see The New Testa- 
ment in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905) or in 
the early Apologists. (For the later traditions 
concerning Luke and his writings see LUKE. ) 

The value of this tradition must necessarily de- 
pend on the internal evidence of the book itself. 
The arguments can best be arranged under the 
two heads of favourable and unfavourable to the 
tradition. 

1. In favour of the tradition of Lake's author- 
ship is the evidence of the ' we-sectibns,' or pass- 
ages in which the writer speaks in the first person. 
These are Ac 16 10 " 17 20 4 21 18 27 1 28 18 . They form 
together an apparent extract from a diary, which 
begins in Troas and breaks off in Philippi, on St. 
Paul's second journey ; begins again in Philippi, 
on his last journey to Jerusalem ; and continues 
(with only the apparent break of the episode of St. 
Paul and the Ephesian elders [20 18 " 38 ] which is told 
in the third person) until Jerusalem is reached and 
St. Paul goes to see James ; then breaks off again 
during St. Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and 
Csesarea ; begins again when St. Paul leaves 
Csesarea ; and continues until the arrival in Rome, 
when it finally ceases. 

It is, of course, theoretically possible that these 
sections are merely a literary fiction, but this 
possibility is excluded by the facts (a) that there 
is no conceivable reason why the writer should 
adopt this form of writing at these points, and 
these only, in his narrative ; (b) that by the 
general consent of critics these passages have all 
the signs of having really been composed by an 
eye-witness of the events described. It is, tnere- 

* The de Rebaptismate has not yet been sufficiently studied 
from this point of view. A monograph analyzing its evidence 
on the lines of F. C. Burkitf a Old Latin and the Itala might 
be valuable. 

VOL. I. 2 



fore, only necessary to consider the other possi- 
bilities : (1) that we have here from the writer of 
the whole work the description of incidents which 
he had himself seen ; (2) that the writer is here 
using an extract from the writing of an eye-wit- 
ness and has preserved the original idiom. 

The only way of deciding between these two 
possibilities is to make use of literary criteria, and 
this has been done in recent years with especial 
thoroughness by Harnack in Germany and Hawkins 
in England. For any full statement of the case 
reference must be made to their books ; the prin- 
ciple, however, and the main results can be 
summarized. 

If the writer of Acts is merely using the first 
person in order to show that he ia claiming to 
have been an eye-witness, the writer of the ' we- 
clauses' is identical with the redactor of the 
Gospel and Acts. Now, in the Gospel we know 
that he was using Mark in many places, and, by 
noting the redactorial changes in the Marcan sec- 
tions of Luke, we can establish his preference for 
certain idioms. If these idioms constantly recur 
in the ' we-clauses,' it must be either because the 
' we-clauses ' were written by the redactor, or be- 
cause the redactor also revised the 'we-clauses,' 
but without changing the idiom. As a fact we 
find that the ' we-clauses ' are more marked by the 
characteristic phraseology of the redactor than 
any other part of the Gospel or Acts. We are, 
therefore, apparently reduced to a choice between 
the theory that the redactor of the Gospel and Acts 
wrote the ' we-clauses,' and the theory that he 
redacted them with more care than any other part 
of his compilation, except that he allowed the first 
person to stand. The former view certainly seems 
the more probable, but not sufficient attention has 
been paid to the observation of E. Schiirer (ThLZ, 
1906, col. 405) that the facts would also be ex- 
plained if the writer of the ' we-clauses ' and the 
redactor of Acts came from the same Bildungs- 
sphdre. It would be well if some later analyst 
would eliminate from both sides the idioms which 
are common to all writers of good Greek at the 
period, for undoubtedly an element of exaggera- 
tion is introduced by the fact that in the Marcan 
source there were many vulgarisms which all re- 
dactors would have altered, and mostly in the same 
way. It should also be noted that there are a 
few ' Lucanisms* which are not to be found in the 
'we-clauses.' 

The details on which this argument is based will be found 
best in J. C. Hawkins, H orce Synopticce*, Oxford, 1909, pp. 174- 
193; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 19-85. 
There is also a good resume in J. Moffatt, LNT, p. 294 ff. 

2. Against the tradition it is urged (1) that the 
presentment of St. Paul is quite different from 
that in the Pauline Epistles, (2) that on definite 
facts of history the Acts and Epistles contradict 
each other ; and it is said in each case that these 
facts exclude the possibility that the writer of 
Acts was Luke the companion of St. Paul. 

(1) The presentment of St. Paul in the Epistles 
and in Acts. It has been urged as a proof that 
the writer of Acts could not have been a companion 
of St. Paul, that whereas St. Paul in the Epistles 
is completely emancipated from Jewish thought 
and practice, he is represented in the Acts as still 
loyal to the Law himself, and enjoining its observ- 
ance on Jews. The points which are really crucial 
in this argument are (a) St. Paul's circumcision of 
Timothy (Ac 16 3 ), as contrasted with his teaching 
as to circumcision in the Epistles ; (|3) his accept- 
ance of Jewish practice while he was in Jerusalem 
(Ac 21 21ff< ), as contrasted with his Epistles, espe- 
cially Galatians and Romans ; (7) the absence of 
' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in Acts ; (S) St. 
Paul's acceptance of a compromise at the Apostolic 



18 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



Council (Ac 15), as contrasted with the complete 
silence of the Epistles as to this agreement. 

If these four propositions were sound, they would 
certainly be strong evidence against the Lucan 
authorship of Acts. But there is much to be said 
against each of them on the following lines. 

(a) In Ac 16 3 , St. Paul circumcises Timothy, but 
the reason given is that he was partly Jewish. 
There is no evidence in the Epistles that the 
Apostle would ever have refused circumcision to a 
Jew : it was part of the Law, and the Law was 
valid for Jews. The argument in the Epistles is 
that it is not valid for Gentiles ; and, though 
logic ought perhaps to have led St. Paul to argue 
that Jews also ought to abandon it, there is no 
proof that he ever did so. It is also claimed that 
the incident of Titus in Gal 2 3 shows St. Paul's 
strong objection to circumcision ; but in the first 
place it is emphatically stated that Titus was not 
a Jew, and in the second place it is quite doubtful 
whether Gal 2 3 means that Titus, being a Greek, 
was not compelled to be circumcised, or that, 
being a Greek, he was not compelled to be circum- 
cised, though as an act of grace he actually was 
circumcised. () It is quite true that in Ac 21 21ff> 
St. Paul accepts Jewish custom : what is untrue is 
that it can be shown from his own writings that 
he was likely to refuse, (y) There certainly is an 
absence of ' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in 
the Acts, if we accept the reconstructions which 
are based on the view that in the Epistles we have 
a complete exposition of St. Paul's teaching. But, 
if we realize that the Epistles represent his treat- 
ment by letter of points which he had failed to 
bring home to his converts while he was with 
them, or of special controversies due to the arrival 
of other teachers, there is really nothing to be 
said against the picture given in the Acts. (5) If 
the exegesis and text of Acts be adopted which 
regard the Apostolic decrees as a compromise 
based on food-laws, it is certainly very strange 
that St. Paul should have said nothing about it in 
Galatians or Corinthians, and this undoubtedly 
affords a reasonable argument for thinking that 
the account in Ac 15 is unhistorical, and that it 
cannot have been the work of Luke. But it must 
be remembered that there is serious reason for 
doubting (i.) that the text and exegesis of Ac 15 28 
point either to a food-law or to a compromise, 
(ii.) that Galatians was written after the Council 
(see G. Resch, 'Das Aposteldecret,' TU xxviii. 
[1905] 3 ; J. Wellhausen, ' Noten zur Apostel- 
geschichte,' in GGN, Gb'ttingen, 1907 ; A. Harnack, 
Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig, 1908, p. 188 ff. ; K. Lake, 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, pp. 
29 ff., 48 ff.). 

(2) Rather more serious are the objections raised 
to the accuracy of certain definite statements, in the 
light of contrasting statements in the Epistles, and 
the conclusion suggested that the writer of Acts 
cannot have been a companion of St. Paul. Many 
objections of this kind have been made, but the 
majority are trivial, and the serious ones are really 
only the following : (a) the description of glossolalia 
in Ac 2 as compared with 1 Co 12 ff. ; (b) the 
account of St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts 
as compared with Gal 2 ; (c) the movements of St. 
Paul's companions in Macedonia and Achaia in 
Ac 17 15 18 5 as compared with 1 Th 3 lf -. 

(a) The account given of glossolalia in 1 Co 14 
shows that it was in the main unintelligible to 
ordinary persons. ' He that speaketh in a tongue 
edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth 
the congregation ' (1 Co 14 4 ; cf. vv. 6 - " *) ; 'If any 
man speaketh in a tongue let one interpret' 
(1 Co 14 27 ). On the other hand, the narrative in 
Ac 2 describes the glossolalia of the disciples as a 
miraculous gift of speech that was simultaneously 



intelligible to foreigners of various nations, each 
of whom thought that he was listening to his own 
language. It is argued that this latter glossolalia 
is as unknown to the historian of psychology as 
the glossolalia described in 1 Cor. is well known ; 
and it is suggested that Luke or his source has 
given a wrong account of the matter. In support 
of this it must be noted that the immediate judg- 
ment of the crowd, on first hearing the glossolalia 
of the disciples, was that they were drunk, and 
Peter's speech was directed against this imputa- 
tion. It is not probable that any foreigner ever 
accused any one of being drunk because he could 
understand him, and so far the account in Acts may 
be regarded as carrying its own conviction, and 
showing that behind the actual text there is an 
earlier tradition which described a glossolalia of 
the same kind as that in 1 Co 12-14. But, if so, 
is it probable that a companion of St. Paul would 
have put forward so ' un-Pauline ' a descriptioi of 
glossolalia ? There is certainly some weight in this 
argument ; but it is to a large extent discounted 
by the following considerations. (a) It is not 
known that Luke was ever with St. Paul at any 
exhibition of glossolalia. Certainly there is no- 
thing in Acts to suggest that he was in Corinth. 
(8) In all probability we have to deal with a tra- 
dition which the writer of Acts found in existence 
in Jerusalem more than twenty years after the 
events described. Let any one try to find out, by 
asking surviving witnesses, exactly what happened 
at an excited revivalist meeting twenty years ago, 
and he will see that there is room for considerable 
inaccuracy. (7) To us glossolalia of the Pauline 
type is a known phenomenon and probable for that 
reason ; it is a purely physical and almost patho- 
logical result of religious emotion, while glossolalia 
of the ' foreign language ' type as described in Acts 
is improbable. But to a Christian of the 1st cent, 
both were wonderful manifestations of the Spirit, 
and neither was more probable than the other. 

The whole question of glossolalia can be studied in H. Gun- 
kel, Die Wirkungen des neiligen Geistes, Gottingen, 1899 ; H. 
Lietzmann's Commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch zum NT, 
iii. 2, Tubingen, 1909 ; J. Weiss, ' 1 Cor.' in Meyer's Krit.-Exeg. 
Kommentar, Gottingen, 1910 (9th ed. of ' 1 Cor. 1 ). 

(b) The accounts given in Acts and Galatians of 
St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem. The points of 
divergence, which are serious, are concerned with 
(a) St. Paul's actions immediately after the con- 
version ; (B) his first visit to Jerusalem ; (7) his 
second visit to Jerusalem. 

(a) St. PauVs actions immediately after the con- 
version. The two accounts of this complex of in- 
cidents are Ac 9 10 ' 80 and Gal I 16 - 24 . The main 
points in the two narratives may be arranged thus 
in parallel columns : 

GALATIANS, 

1. Visit to Arabia immediately 

after the conversion. 

2. A ' return ' to Damascus. 

8. A visit to Jerusalem ' after 
three years.' 

4. Departure to the 'districts 
of Syria and Cilicia.' 

The difference between these accounts is obvious, 
and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Acts is 
here inaccurate. It should be noted, however, 
that the inaccuracy apparently consists in tele- 
scoping together two visits to Damascus and omit- 
ting the Arabian journey which came between them. 
St. Paul, by spealking of his ' return ' to Damascus, 
implies that the conversion had been in that city, 
and in 2 Co H S2f - ('in Damascus the ethnarch of 
Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damas- 
cenes to take me, and I was let down in a basket 
through a window ') we have a corroboration of the 



ACTS. 

1. Visit to Damascus immedi- 

ately after the conversion. 

2. Escape from Damascus and 

journey to Jerusalem. 

3. Retreat from Jerusalem to 

Tarsus in Cilicia. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



19 



escape mentioned in Acts, though it clearly must 
come after the visit (probably of a missionary 
character) to Arabia, in order to account for the 
hostility of Aretas. Thus, so far as the enumera- 
tion of events is concerned, the inaccuracy of Acts 
resolves itself into the omission of the Arabian 
visit, and the consequent telescoping together of 
two visits to Damascus along with a proportion- 
ate shortening of the chronology. 

(/3) St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. The de- 
tails of this visit are a more serious matter, and 
Acts and Galatians cannot fully be reconciled, as 
is plain when the narratives are arranged in 
parallel columns. 



Ac 926-30. 

' And when he was come to 
Jerusalem, he assayed to join 
himself to the disciples : and 
the? 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 coming out at Jeru- 
salem, and he spake and dis- 
puted against the Hellenists ; 
but they went about to kill 
him.' 



GAL 118-28. 

' After three years I went up 
to Jerusalem to become ac- 
quainted 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 to you, 
before God, I lie not. Then I 
came into the districts of Syria 
and Cilicia. And I was still 
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 once made havoc.' 



No argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks 
of a period of preaching in Jerusalem which 
attracted sufficient attention to endanger St. 
Paul's life, while Galatians describes an essentially 
private visit to Peter ; probably both documents 
refer to the same visit, as they place it between 
St. Paul's departure from Damascus and his 
arrival in Cilicia, but they give divergent accounts 
of it. 

(7) St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. It is 
possible that the difficulties here are due to a mis- 
taken exegesis rather than to any real divergence 
between Acts and Galatians. If we start from the 
facts, it is clear that St. Paul describes in Gal 2 1 ' 10 
his second visit to Jerusalem. In the course of this 
he held a private interview with the apostles in 
Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was free 
to continue his preaching to the Gentiles without 
hindrance. It is also clear from Ac H 27ff - 12 25 that 
St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was during 
the time of the famine. If we accept the identi- 
fication of the second visit according to Acts with 
the second visit according to Galatians, there is no 
difficulty beyond the fact that Acts does not state 
that St. Paul and the other apostles discussed their 
respective missions when they met in Jerusalem ; 
but, since this discussion altered nothing the 
Gentile mission had already begun there was no 
special reason why Luke should have mentioned 
it. Usually, however, critics have assumed that 
the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal 2 1 ' 10 is not 
the second but the third visit referred to in Acts, 
so that the interview with the apostles described in 
Gal 2 is identified with the ' Apostolic Council ' in 
Ac 15. Great difficulties then arise : it is obviously 
essential to St. Paul's argument that he should 
not omit any of his visits to Jerusalem, and it is 
not easy to understand why, if he is writing after 
the Apostolic Council, he does not mention the 
decrees. There would seem to have been a party 
in Galatia which urged that circumcision was 
necessary for all Christians ; this point had been 
settled at the Apostolic Council. If the Council 
had taken place, why did St. Paul not say at once 
that the judaizing attitude had been condemned 
by the heads of the Jerusalem Church ? 



These difficulties have been met in England since 
the time of Lightfoot by assuming that the Apos- 
tolic decrees had only a local and ephemeral import- 
ance, in which case it does not seem obvious why 
they are given so prominent a place in Acts. In 
Germany this difficulty has been more fully ap- 
preciated, and either the account in Ac 15 iaenti- 
fied with Gal 2 has been abandoned as wholly 
unhistorical, or the suggestion has been made that 
the account in Gal 2 is really a more accurate 
statement of what happened during St. Paul's 
interview with the apostles, which probably 
took place during the famine, while the ' decrees ' 
mentioned in Acts really belong to a later period 
perhaps St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem and 
have been misplaced by Luke. 

All these suggestions (and a different combination 
is given by almost every editor) agree in giving 
up the accuracy of Ac 15. On the other hand, if 
the view be taken that Gal 2 refers to an interview 
between St. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles 
during the time of the famine, and that it settled 
not the question of circumcision, but that of 
continuing the mission to the Gentiles which had 
been begun in Antioch, there is no further diffi- 
culty in thinking that Ac 15 represents the dis- 
cussion of the question of circumcision which 
inevitably arose as soon as the Gentile mission 
expanded. It is, therefore, desirable to ask 
whether the reasons for identifying Gal 2 and 
Ac 15 are decisive. The classical statement in Eng- 
lish is that of Lightfoot (Epistle to the Galatians, 
p. 1 23 ff. ), who formulates it by saying that there 
is an identity of geography, persons, subject of 
dispute, character of the conference, and result. 
Of these identities only the first is fully accurate ; 
and it applies equally well to the visit to Jerusalem 
in the time of the famine. The persons are not 
quite the same, for Titus and John are not 
mentioned in Acts. The subject is not the same 
at all, for in Galatians the question of the Law 
is not discussed (and was apparently raised only 
by St. Peter's conduct later on in Antioch), but 
merely whether the mission to the uncircumcised 
should be continued,* while in Acts the circum- 
cision of the Gentiles is the main point. The 
character of the conference is not the same at 
all, for in Galatians it is a private discussion, 
in Acts a full meeting of the Church ; and the 
result is not the same, for the one led up to the 
Apostolic decrees, while the other apparently did 
not do so. Lightfoot to some extent weakens 
these objections by suggesting that St. Paul de- 
scribes a private conference before the Council, 
but in so doing he weakens his own case still more, 
for he can give no satisfactory reason why St. 
Paul should carefully describe a private conference, 
but omit the public meeting and official result to 
which it was preliminary. 

Thus, if the identification of Gal 2 and Ac 15 
be abandoned, the objections which are raised 
against the account in Acts fall to the ground, 
and the resultant arguments against the identi- 
fication of the writer of Acts with Luke are 
proportionately weakened. 

The question may be studied in detail in C. Clemen, Paulus, 
Giessen, 1904 ; A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in 
the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897 ; A. Haruack, Apostel- 
gesch., Leipzig, 1908; J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, Cambridge, 
1865 ; K. Lake. Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911 ; C. 
W. Emmet, Galatians, London, 1912. 

(c) The movements of St. Paul's companions in 
Macedonia and Achnia in Ac 17 16 18 5 compared 
with 1 Th S lt - 6 . The difference between these 
narratives is concerned with the movements of 
Timothy and Silas. According to Acts, when St. 

* From the context it is clear that TO evayye'Aioi/ TTJJ d/cpo/3vorta{ 
. . . TTJS irepiTo/iiTJs means the gospel for the Uncircumcision (t.*. 
the Gentiles) and the Circumcision (i.e. the Jews). 



20 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



Paul went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas in 
Bercea, and sent a message to them either from 
Athens or from some intermediate point, asking 
them to rejoin him as soon as possible, but they 
did not actually join him until he reached Corinth 
(Ac 18 s ). This arrival of Timothy at Corinth is 
mentioned in 1 Th 3 6 , but, according to the im- 
plication of 1 Th 3"-, Timothy (and Silas ?) had 
already reached Athens and been sent away again 
with a message to Thessalonica. In this case Acts 
omits the whole episode of Timothy's arrival at 
and departure from Athens, and telescopes together 
two incidents in much the same way as seems to 
have been done with regard to St. Paul's visits to 
Damascus immediately after the conversion. This 
is the simplest solution of the question, though it 
is possible to find other conceivable theories, such 
as von Dobschiitz'ft suggestion that 1 Th 3 1 need 
not mean that Timothy came to Athens, as the 
facts would be equally covered if a message from 
St. Paul had intercepted him on his way from 
Beroea to Athens and sent him to Thessalonica. 

The best account of various ways of dealing with the question 
is given by E. von Dobschutz, ' Die Thessalonicherbriefe,' in 
Meyer's Krit.-Exeget. Kommentari, Oottingen, 1909. 

Summary. The general result of a consideration 
of these divergences between Acts and the Epistles 
suggests that the author was sometimes inaccurate, 
and not always well informed, but it is hard to 
see that he makes mistakes which would be im- 
possible to one who had, indeed, been with St. 
Paul at times but not during the greater part of 
his career, and had collected information from the 
Apostle and others as opportunity had served. On 
the other hand, the argument from literary affini- 
ties between the ' we-clauses ' and the rest of Acts 
remains at present unshaken ; and, until some 
further analysis succeeds in showing why it should 
be thought that the ' we-clauses ' have been taken 
from a source not written by the redactor himself, 
the traditional view that Luke, the companion of 
St. Paul, was the editor of the whole book is the 
most reasonable one. 

III. DATE OF ACTS AND RECEPTION IN THE 
CANON. The evidence for the date is very meagre. 
If the Lucan authorship be accepted, any date after 
the last events chronicled, i.e. a short time before 
A.D. 60 to c. A.D. 100, is possible. The arguments 
which have been used for fixing on a more definite 

Kint are : (1) the date of the Lucan Gospel, which 
v the evidence of Ac I 1 is earlier ; (2) the abrupt 
termination of Acts ; (3) the possibility that the 
writer knew the Antiquities of Josephus, which 
cannot be earlier than A.D. 90. 

1. The date of the Lucan Gospel. 1 1 has usually 
been assumed that this must be posterior to the 
fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but it is doubtful 
whether there are really any satisfactory proofs 
that this was the case. The only argument of 
importance is that in the apocalyptic section of 
Mark (ch. 13) expressions which might be supposed 
to refer to the fall of Jerusalem have been altered 
to correspond with the real facts of the siege. 
Actually, however, the most striking change is 
merely that the vague Marcan reference to Daniel's 
' abomination of desolation ' has been replaced by 
a description of Jerusalem surrounded by armies. 
Of course, if we knew that Luke was later than 
the fall of Jerusalem, it would be a rational 
assumption to think that the change was due to 
the influence of the facts on the writer ; but the 
force of the argument is not so great if we reverse 
the proposition, for to explain ' the abomination of 
desolation ' as a prophecy of a siege is not specially 
difficult. The most, therefore, that can be said is 
that this argument raises a slight presumption in 
favour of a date later than A.D. 70. 

2. The abrupt termination of Acts. Acts ends 



apparently in the middle of the trial of St. Paul : 
he has been sent to Rome, and has spent two 
years in some sort of modified imprisonment, but 
no verdict has been passed. From this Harnack 
has argued (Neue Untemuchungen zur Apostel- 
geschichte, p. 65 ff.) that the Acts must have 
been written before the end of the trial was 
known. 

This argument would be important if it were the 
only explanation of the facts. But two other 
possibilities have to be considered. In the first 
place, it is possible, though perhaps not very 
probable, that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a 
third book beginning with the account of St. Paul's 
trial in Rome. In the second place, it is possible 
that the end of Acts was not so abrupt to the ears 
of contemporaries as it is to us, for the two years 
may be the recognized period during which a trial 
must be heard, and after which, if the prosecution 
failed to appear, the case collapsed. The case of 
St. Paul had been originally a prosecution by the 
Jews, and probably it still kept this character, 
even though the venue was changed to Rome. 
But the Jews, as Luke says in Ac 28 21 , did not put 
in an appearance, and therefore the case must 
have collapsed for lack of a prosecution, after a 
statutory period of waiting. What this period 
was we do not know, but a passage in Philo's in 
Flaccum points to the probability that it was two 
years. According to this, a certain Lambon was 
accused of treason in Alexandria, and the Roman 
judge, knowing that he was dangerous, but that 
the evidence was insufficient to justify a condem- 
nation, kept him in prison for two years (dieriav), 
which Philo describes as the ' longest period ' (rbv 
n.i]Kiarov xp6vov). If this be so, Luke's termination 
of Acts is not really so abrupt as it seems, but 
implies that St. Paul was released after the end 
of the two years, because no Jews came forward 
to prosecute ; it is easy to understand that, as 
this was not a definite acquittal, Luke had no 
interest in emphasizing the fact. 

3. The knowledge of Josephus shown in Acts. 
The evidence for this is found in the case of 
Theudas. The facts are as follows. In Ac 5 s5 
Gamaliel is made to refer to two revolts which 
failed first, that of Theudas, and after him that 
of Judas the Galilaean in the days of the Census 
(i.e. A.D. 6). Both these revolts are well known, 
and are described by Josephus ; but the difficulty 
is that Judas really preceded Theudas, whose re- 
volt took place in the procuratorship of Fadus (c. 
A.D. 43-47). 

The revolt of Theudas was thus most probably 
later than the speech of Gamaliel, and the refer- 
ence to it must be a literary device on the part of 
Luke, who no doubt used the speeches Avhich he 
puts into the mouths of the persons in his narrative 
with the same freedom as was customary among 
writers of that period. But the remarkable point 
is that Josephus in Ant. XX. also mentions Judas 
of Galilee after speaking of Theudas ; * and the 
suggestion is that Luke had seen this and was led 
into the not unnatural mistake of confusing the 
dates. He apparently knew the correct date of 
Judas, and remembered only that Josephus had 
spoken of him after Theudas, and was thus led 
into the mistake of thinking that Theudas must 
have been earlier than Judas. 

If the case of Theudas be admitted, it is also 
possible that in the description of the death of 
Herod Agrippa some details have been taken by 
Luke from the description of the death of Herod the 

* After describing Theudas' revolt, Josephus continues : jrpbs 
TOUTOIS 6e KOI oi TrtuSes 'lovSa TOV PoAiAaiou a.trjx6ri<ra.v, T v T v 
Aabv airb 'Poo/ouu'uii' aTroonyirai'TOs Kvpivi'ov rijs 'lovJat'as rtiiifrt- 
VOI'TOS, cos tv Toil Trpb TOVTOJV efiijAwtra/nei', 'Idiao/3os (cat ^.ifuav of 
dvaoTavpaxrai TrpotreVafei' 6 'AAe'av6po (Ant. XX. V. 2). 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



21 



Great as given by Josephus. But the evidence is 
here much less striking, and, if Theudas be not 
conceded, has no real strength. The case of 
Theudas is, however, very remarkable ; it falls 
short of demonstration, but not so far short as the 
other arguments for dating the Acts. 

So far it has been assumed that Luke was the 
writer of Acts ; and in this case the probable 
length of his life gives the terminus ad quern for 
dating his writings, i.e. c. A.D. 100. If his author- 
ship be disputed, the terminus ad quern is the 
earliest known use of the book or of its companion 
Gospel. This is to be found in the fact that 
Marcion (c. A.D. 140) used the Gospel of Luke. It 
is, of course, possible that some of the isolated 
Evangelical quotations in the Apostolic Fathers 
may be from Luke ; but no proof of this can be 
given. As, however, Marcion's text is a redaction 
of the canonical text, and Luke's Gospel was 
taken into the Four-Gospel Canon not long after- 
wards, it must have been in existence some time 
previously, so that, even if the Lucan authorship 
be doubted, A.D. 130 is the latest date that can 
reasonably be suggested. Even this appears to be 
very improbable if attention be paid to some of 
the characteristics of Acts. For instance, Acts 
never uses the triadic formula : baptism is always 
in the name ' of the Lord,' or ' of Jesus' ; there is 
no trace of the developed Docetic controversy of 
the Johannine Epistles or of Ignatius ; xP lffT ^ is 
habitually used predicatively, and not as a proper 
name, and in this respect Acts is more primitive 
than St. Paul. 

On the other hand, the weakening of the eschato- 
logical element, and the interest in the Church, as 
an institution in a world which is not immediately 
to disappear, point away from the very early date 
advocated by Harnack and others. The decennium 
90-100 seems, on the whole, the most probable 
date, but demonstrative proof is lacking, and it 
may have been written thirty years earlier, or 
(but only if the Lucan authorship be abandoned) 
thirty years later. 

4. Reception in the Canon. There is no trace 
of any collection of Christian sacred books which 
included the Four-Gospel Canon, but omitted the 
Acts. That is to say, throughout the Catholic 
Church within the Roman Empire, Acts was uni- 
versally received as the authoritative and inspired 
continuation of the Gospel story. 

It appears also probable that in the Church of 
Edessa Acts was used from the earliest time as the 
continuation of the Diatessaron, for the Doctrine of 
Addai specifies as the sacred books 'the Law and 
the Prophets and the Gospel . . . and the Epistles 
of Paul . . . and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles,' 
of which the last item probably means the canon- 
ical Acts (see F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Chris- 
tianity, London, 1904, p. 59). 

Moreover, the Marcionites and other Gnostic 
Christians do not appear to have ever used the 
Acts. Later on the Manichaeans seem to have 
used a corpus of the five Acts of Paul, Peter, John, 
Andrew, and Thomas, as a substitute for the 
canonical Acts ; and the Priscillianists in Spain so 
far adopted this usage as to accept this corpus as 
an adjunct to the canonical Acts. (For the more 
detailed consideration of these Acts, both as a 
corpus and as separate documents, see ACTS OF 
THE APOSTLES [Apocryphal]. ) 

IV. THE COMPOSITION OF ACTS. The ques- 
tion of the composition of this or any other book 
is one partly of fact, partly of theory. In the 
sense of determining the arrangement of the sec- 
tions, and the relations which they bear to one 
another, it is a question of fact and observation ; 
but, when the question is raised why the sections 
are so arranged, and how far they represent older 



sources used by the writer, it becomes a question 
of theory and criticism. 

1. The obvious facts. The first point, there- 
fore, is the establishment of the facts, and in the 
main these admit of little discussion. Acts falls 
immediately into two chief parts the Pauline, 
and the non-Pauline parts with a short inter- 
mediate section in which St. Paul appears at in- 
tervals. The Pauline section, again, falls into the 
natural divisions afforded by his two (or three) 
great journeys ; and a cross-division can also be 
made by noting that the author sometimes uses 
the first person plural, sometimes writes exclu- 
sively in the third person. The earlier sections 
in tne same way can be divided though the 
division is here much less clear into those in 
which the centre of activity is Jerusalem, and 
those in which it is Antioch, while a further series 
of subdivisions can be made according as the chief 
actor is Peter, Philip, or Stephen. Finally, still 
smaller subdivisions can be made by dividing the 
narrative into the series of incidents which com- 
pose it. 

The table on p. 22 serves to give a general 
conspectus of the facts ; a somewhat more minute 
system of subdivision has been adopted in the 
earlier chapters, which are especially affected by 
the question of sources, than in the from this 
point of view more straightforward later chap- 
ters. This analysis is sufficient to show that the 
writer must have been drawing on various sources 
or traditions for his information, and we have to 
face three problems : What was the purpose with 
which the writer put together this narrative ? How 
far is it possible to distinguish the sources, written 
or oral, which he used ? What is the relative value 
of the sources which he used ? 

2. The purpose with which the whole narrative 
was composed. It is, of course, clear that the 
writer has not attempted to give a colourless story 
of as many events as possible, but is using history 
to commend his own interpretation of the facts. 
This is corroborated by his own account at the 
beginning of the Gospel, in which he defines his 
purpose as that of convincing Theophilus of the 
certainty of the ' narratives in which he had been 
instructed ' ('iva. ^TTLJVI^S irepl &v KaTijx 1 ?^* \6ywv ryv 
dff<f>d\fiav [Lk I 4 ]). In other words, he wishes to 
tell the story of the early days of Christianity in 
order to prove the Christian teaching. 

If we consider the narrative from this point of 
view, we can see several motives underlying it. 
(a) The desire to show that the Christian Church 
was the result of the presence of the Spirit (irvevfia, 
rb irvevfM, rb dyiov Trj/eC/xa are the usual expressions, 
but Trvev/M KvpLov in 5 9 8 39 [the text is doubtful], 
ri> TTvevfj.a 'lrj<rov in 16 7 ), which is the fulfilment of 
the promise of Jesus to send it to His disciples 
(Ac I 5ff - ; cf. Lk 3 16 24 481 -). The Spirit manifested 
itself in glossolalia, in the working of miracles of 
healing, and in the surprising growth of Christi- 
anity. This is perhaps the main object of Luke's 
writings, and to it is subordinated, both in the 
Gospel and in Acts, the eschatological expectation 
which is most characteristic of Mark and Matthew ; 
though many traces of this still remain. (b) The 
desire to show the unreasonableness and wicked- 
ness of Jewish opposition is also clearly marked, 
and is contrasted with the attitude of Roman 
officials. It is, therefore, not impossible that the 
writer desired to dissociate Christianity from 
Judaism, and to defend Christians from the im- 
putation of belonging to a sect forbidden by the 
State. If we knew the time when Christianity 
was, as such, first forbidden and persecuted, this 
might be a valuable indication of date, but at 
present all that is known with certainty is that 
(cf. Pliny's correspondence with Trajan) it wae 



22 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



forbidden by the beginning of the 2nd cent., and 
that in 64 it was probably (but not certainly) not 
forbidden, as the Neronic persecution was not of 
the Christians as such, but of Christians as 
suspected of certain definite crimes. It is, how- 
ever, in any case clear that this feature of Acts 
supports the view that one purpose cherished by 
the writer was the desire to protest against the 
view that Christians had always been, or could 
ever be, regarded as a danger to the Empire. 
(c) As a means towards the accomplishment of his 
other purposes, the writer is desirous of showing 
how Christianity had spread from Jerusalem to 
the surrounding districts, from there to Antioch, 
and from Antioch through the provinces to Rome. 
He also explains in what way the Christians came 



Church, and the early history of the Church in 
Jerusalem. In discussing them it is simplest to 
begin with the most marked feature the ' we- 
clauses ' and then work back to the earlier 
chapters. 

(1) The ' we-clauses.' As was shown above, the 
balance of evidence seems at present to be strongly 
in favour of the view that the writer of these 
sections intended to claim that he had been a 
companion of St. Paul, and that he was himself 
the editor of the whole book. If this be so, we 
have for the rest of the ' Paul ' narrative a source 
ready to our hand the personal information 
obtained by Luke from St. Paul himself, or from 
other companions of St. Paul whom he met in his 
society. This may cover as much as Ac 9 1 ' 30 ll 27 - 30 



BEFKRENCE. 


PLACB. 


GENERAL DESCRIPTION. 


CHIEF ACTORS. 


11-11. 


Jerusalem. 


The Ascension and promise of the Spirit. 


Jesus and the Twelve. 


112-26. 


_~ 


Choice of Matthias. 


Peter and the Twelve. 


21-47. 




Speech of Peter. 
Gift of the Spirit. 


Peter and the Twelve. 






Glossolalia. 








Speech of Peter. 




81-28. 


m 


Healing miracle by Peter and John. 


Peter [and John]. 






Speech of Peter. 




41-23 


ti 


Imprisonment of Peter and John. 


Peter [and John]. 






Speech of Peter. 




433-81. 


ti 


Their release. 


Peter [and John]. 






Meeting of the Church. 








Gift of the Spirit. 




432-518. 


m 


Communism in the Church. 


Peter, Barnabas [Ana- 








nias, Sapphira] . 


617-48. 


ti 


Imprisonment of Peter and John. 


Peter [and John]. 






Speech of Gamaliel. 




61-7. 


ti 


Appointment of the Seven. 


The apostles. 


68-18. 




Preaching of Stephen. 


Stephen. 






His arrest. 




71-88. 




Speech of Stephen. 


Stephen. 






His death. 




84-28. 


Samaria. 


Philip's preaching. 


Philip, Peter [and John]. 






Simon Magus. 


Simon Magus. 


826-10. 
91-81. 


The road to Gaza. 
The road to Damascus. 


Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian. 
Conversion of Saul, and extension of 


Philip. 
Paul. 






the Church. 




088-1048. 


Lydda, Joppa, Casarea. 


Peter's journey through Lydda, Joppa, 


Peter. 






Caesarea. 








Conversion of Cornelius. 








Speech of Peter. 




111-18. 
1119.88. 


Jerusalem. 
Antioch. 


Peter's speech on Cornelius* conversion. 
Foundation of Gentile Christianity. 


Peter. 
Hellenistic Jews, Barna- 








bas, Paul. 


1127-80. 




Collection for Jerusalem. 


Barnabas, Paul. 


121-24. 


Jerusalem. 


Herod's persecution. 


Peter. 






Peter's imprisonment. 








Death of Herod. 




1238. 




Be turn of Barnabas and Saul to 


Barnabas, PauL 






Antioch. 




181-1438. 


Journey. 


First missionary journey. 


Paul. 


151-88. 


Jerusalem. 


Apostolic Council. 


Peter, James, PauL 


1536-1822. 


Journey. 


Second missionary journey. 


Paul. 


18232118. 




Third missionary journey. 


Paul. 


2117-2311. 


Jerusalem. 


Paul's dealings with James. His arrest. 


PauL 






Speech to Sanhedrin. 




2313-2633. 


Caesarea. 


Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea. Felix. 


PauL 






Festus. Agrippa. 




271-2816. 


Journey. 


Journey to Borne. 


PauL 


2817-81. 


Borne. 


Paul and Jews in Rome. 


Paul. 



to preach to Gentiles without insisting on the 
Jewish Law, and how this had been perceived to be 
the work of the Spirit by the Jewish apostles who 
recognized the revelation to this effect to St. Paul 
and to St. Peter (Ac 9 15ff - 22 21 ll 18 15 lft ). 

3. The sources used in Acts. The most super- 
ficial examination of Acts shows that it is divided 
most obviously into a ' Peter ' part and a ' Paul ' 
part ; it is, therefore, not strange that the critics 
of the beginning of the 19th cent, thought of 
dividing Acts into narratives derived from a 
hypothetical ' Acts of Peter ' and a hypothetical 
'Acts of Paul.' But further investigation has 
gone behind this division : it has been seen that 
important questions are involved in the relation 
of the ' we-clauses ' to the rest of the narrative 
relating to St. Paul, the story of the Antiochene 



1225-si or even more> There is nothing in these 
sections which cannot have come from St. Paul 
or his entourage, and the inaccuracies in the 
narrative, as compared with the Epistles, do not 
seem to point to any greater fallibility on the part 
of the writer than that to be found in other 
historical writers who are in the possession of 
good sources. At the same time, this does not 
mean that the assignment of these chapters to a 
' Paul ' source is final or exclusive of others. Some 
sections within these limits (e.g. Ac 15) may come 
from some other Jerusalem or Antiochene source, 
and some sections outside them (e.g. the story of 
Stephen's death) may have come from the ' Paul ' 
source. 

If, on the other hand, it should ultimately 
appear that the evidence from style has been 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



exaggerated or misrepresented, it will be necessary 
to regard the ' we-sections ' as representing a 
separate source, and consider the question whether 
the rest of the chapters mentioned above came 
from one or several sources. At present, however, 
no one has shown any serious ground for thinking 
that we can distinguish any signs of change of 
style, or of doublets in the narrative, to point in 
this direction. 

(2) The problems presented by the earlier 
chapters are much more complicated. The chief 
point which attracts attention is that in the first 
half of these chapters the centre of interest is 
Jerusalem, or Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, 
while in the second half it is Antioch. Here again 
it is easier to begin by taking the later chapters 
first, and to discuss the probable limits of the 
Antiochene tradition, together with the possibility 
that it may have lain before the writer of Acts as 
a document, before considering the Jerusalem 
tradition of the opening chapters. 

(a) The Antiochene tradition. The exact limits 
of this tradition are difficult to fix. It is clear 
that to it the section describing the foundation of 
the church at Antioch and its early history 
(Ac H 19ff -) must be attributed ; but difficulties 
arise as soon as an attempt is made to work either 
backwards or forwards from this centre, as the 
later sections, which can fairly be attributed to 
Antiochene tradition, can also be attributed to the 
Pauline source, while the earlier sections of the 
same kind might be attributed to the Jerusalem 
tradition. It is obvious that the ol /*>> ofo 
Siaffiraptvres of Ac II 19 picks up the narrative of 
8 1 " 4 . In 8 1 - 4 the story of Stephen's death is brought 
to a close by the statement that tytvero d tv ^Keiv-g 
Ttj i}fdp<?. du*>y/j.bs /j,tyas tiri rty KK\r)(rlav r^v tv 
'lepoffoXtifJUHr irdvres 8t difftr<ip-r]ffav KO.TCI ras xdpas 
. . . ol fiitv oftv diacrwap^vres SiijXdov etia.yye\i6/j.fvoi 
rbv \6yov. Then the writer gives two instances of 
this evangelization by Philip and Peter in Samaria, 
and by Philip alone on the road to Gaza. Next 
he explains how the conversion of St. Paul put 
an end to the persecution, and how the conversion 
of Cornelius led to the recognition of preaching to 
Gentiles by the Jerusalem community. Finally, he 
returns to where he started from, and picks up his 
story as to the Christians who were dispersed after 
the death of Stephen, with the same formula 
ol ptv oZv SiacriraptvTes in II 19 . 

Thus there is an organic unity between 8 4 and 
II 19 . But 8 4 is the end of the story of the 
Hellenistic Jews, their seven representatives, and 
the persecution which befell them ; and the begin- 
ning of this story is in 6 8 . Between 6 6 and 8 4 there 
is no break unless it be thought that the whole 
speech of Stephen is the composition of the editor, 
as may very well be the case. Is, then, 6 6 -8 4 to 
be regarded as belonging to the Antiochene tradi- 
tion ? Harnack thinks so, and it is very probable. 
But it is also true that 6 6 -8 4 might have come 
either from Jerusalem or from St. Paul himself, 
and it is hard to see convincing reasons why the 
Antiochene source which Harnack postulates should 
not have come from the ' Paul ' source. 

The same sort of result is reached by considering 
the sections following II 19 ' 24 . Is ll 26 ' 30 ' Pauline' 
or ' Antiochene ' ? The following section, 12 1 ' 24 , 
is clearly part of the Jerusalem tradition, but 
what follows, ^^-IS 3 , might again be either 
Pauline or Antiochene, and the same is true of 
15 1 ' 35 , in which the account of the Council might 
be Antiochene or Pauline, but is less likely to 
represent Jerusalem tradition. These exhaust 
the number of the passages which are ever likely to 
be attributed to the Antiochene source. To the 
present writer it seems that, unless it prove 
possible (so far it has not been done) to find some 



literary criterion for distinguishing between the 
' Pauline ' and ' Antiochene ' sources, it will remain 
permanently impossible to draw any line of de- 
marcation between what Luke may have heard 
about the early history of Antioch from St. Paul 
and what he may have learnt from other Antiochene 
persons. It also seems quite impossible to say 
whether he was using written sources. This, of 
course, does not deny that the so-called ' Antiochene 
source ' represents Antiochene tradition. All that 
is said is that this Antiochene tradition may have 
come from St. Paul quite as well as from any one 
else. On the merits of the case we can go no 
further (for the possibility that Luke was himself 
an Antiochene see LUKE). 

(b) The Jerusalem tradition. It is obvious that 
Ac P-5 42 represents in some sense a Jerusalem 
tradition, and it is scarcely less clear that 8 5 ' 40 9 31 - 
II 18 12 1 ' 24 represent a tradition which is divided 
in its interests between Jerusalem and Csesarea. 
It is, therefore, necessary to deal first with the 
purely Jerusalem sections, and afterwards with the 
Jerusalem-Csesarean narrative, before considering 
Avhether they are really one or more than one in 
origin. 

(a) The purely Jerusalem sections. The most 
important feature of Ac P-5 42 is that 2 1 ' 47 seems to 
contain doublets of S 1 ^ 35 , and that the suggestion 
of a multiplicity of sources is supported by some 
linguistic peculiarities. 

21-13 The gift of the Spirit, accompanied by the shak- 4*1 
ing of the house in which the Apostles were. 

214-36 A speech of Peter. 31-26 

237-41 The result of this speech is an extraordinarily 44 
large number of converts (5000, 3000). 

242-47 The communism of the Early Church. 434. SB 

Of this series of doublets the twice-told story of 
the early ' communism ' of the first Christians and 
the repetition of the shaking of the house at the 
outpouring of the Spirit are the most striking, but 
the cumulative effect is certainly to justify the 
view that we have two accounts, slightly varying, 
of the same series of events. 

This result finds remarkable corroboration in 
certain linguistic peculiarities of Ac 3 f . as com- 
pared with ch. 2. In the former the word dpcwnfa-as 
is used in the sense ' raised up to preach ' (S 26 ; cf. 
S 22 ), and ijyeipe is used of the Resurrection, but in 
the latter d^acmjo-as is used of the Resurrection. 
In Ac 3 f. Jesus is described as a TTCUJ 8eou (3 13 - 26 
427. 30^ k u k i n cfo 2 as &vdpa dirodedety/jL^vov cbr6 rov 
Oeov. In Ac 3 f. Peter is almost always accompanied 
by John (3 1 - 8-4> u 4 19 ), but in ch. 2 he appears alone 
or 'with the other apostles.' 

That Ac 2 and 3 f. are doublets is thus probable ; 
moreover, as the linguistic characteristics of 3 f . are 
peculiar and not Lucan, it is more probable here 
than anywhere else in Acts that we are dealing 
with traces of a written Greek document under- 
lying Acts in the same way as Mark and Q underlie 
tlie Lucan Gospel. To this branch of the Jerusalem 
tradition Harnack has given the name of ' source 
A,' and to Ac 2 the name of ' source B.' According 
to him, the continuation of A can be found in 5 1 ' 16 , 
and he also identifies it with the Jerusalem- 
Csesarean source (see below). B is continued in 
517-42 A C i more probably, he thinks, belongs to 
B than to A, but may have a separate origin. 

If A be followed, we get a clear and probable 
narrative of the history of the Jerusalem Church, 
but it begins in the middle. According to it, Peter 
and John went up to the Temple and healed a lame 
man ; in connexion with the sensation caused by 
this wonder Peter explained that he wrought the 
cure in the name of Jesus, whom he announced as 
the predestined Messiah. As the result of this 
missionary speech a great number of converts were 
made (about 5000 [4 4 ]). Peter and John were 
arrested, but later on released after a speech by 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



Peter, and a practical defiance of the command of 
the authorities not to preach in the name of Jesus. 
Then follows a description of the joy of the Church 
at the release of Peter and John, and an account of 
their prayer 56s rots SoiJXou <rov ftera irappTjcrias ir&crris 
\a\fiv rbv \6yov <rov. In answer to their prayer, the 
Spirit was outpoured amid the shaking of the room 
in which they were, after which they were able, 
as they had asked, to speak the word /nerd Trapprfffias. 
Finally, a picture is drawn of the prosperity of the 
Church, and of the voluntary communism which 
prevailed. 

The narrative gives an intelligible picture of the 
events which led to the growth of the Jerusalem 
Church and of an organization of charitable dis- 
tribution that ultimately led to the development 
described in Ac 6. Moreover, it has several marks 
of individuality, and an early type which suggests 
that we have here to do with a source used by Luke, 
probably in documentary form, rather than a Lucan 
composition. This applies especially to Peter's 
speech, which is in some ways one of the most 
archaic passages in the NT. Peter does not 
describe Jesus as having been the Messiah, but 
as a irals Oeov (more probably ' Servant of God ' than 
' Child of God,' and perhaps with a side reference 
to the ' Servant of Jahweh ' in Is 53, etc.) a phrase 
peculiar to source A, 1 Clement, the Martyrdom 
of Polycarp, and the Didache. He then goes on 
to announce that God has glorified this iratj by the 
Resurrection, and that He is the predestined 
Messiah (rbv TrpoffKfxeipifff^fov ~KpiffT6v), who will 
remain in the Heavens until the 'restoration of 
all things.' Recent research in the field of eschato- 
logy and Messianic doctrine has brought out clearly 
the primitive character of this speech. The same 
can also be said of the prayer of the Church in 
4 24 ' 1 , in which the phrase rbv &yiov iraidA <rov 'Ir)ffovi>, 
5i> txP lffa -s (' made Christ ' ?) is very remarkable. 

Thus source A commends itself as an early and 
good tradition, but it begins in the middle ana tells 
us nothing about the events previous to the visit of 
Peter and John to the Temple. Apparently it was to 
fill up this gap that Luke turned to source B, which 
seems to relate some of the same events, but in a 
different order ; and, though Harnack doubts this, 
it seems, on the whole, probable that Ac 1, or at 
least vv. 6 " 12 , ought to be regarded as belonging 
to it. According to this narrative, the disciples 
received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost amid 
the shaking of the room, after which Peter made 
a speech, in many points resembling that in Ac 3, 
but without the characteristic phraseology of A, 
and with the addition of many more ' testimonia ' 
as to the Resurrection. A great number of converts 
(about 3000) were made ; and, in the enthusiasm 
which prevailed, a spirit of voluntary communism 
flourished, and an organization of charitable dis- 
tribution came into being. 

This narrative does not seem so convincing as 
that of source A. But if Ac 1 be regarded as 
belonging to it, it has the advantage of connecting 
the story of the Church at Jerusalem directly with 
the events that followed the Crucifixion a period 
on which A is silent. Now, it is tolerably clear 
that A was a written Greek source used by Luke, 
just as he used Mark in the Gospel ; for, although 
it has been ' Lucanized,' it still retains its own 
characteristic expressions. Presumably, therefore, 
a copy of this document came into Luke's possession, 
and he supplemented it at the beginning with B ; 
but, whether B was a written source or oral tradi- 
tion, it is impossible to say. The question presents 
in this respect a remarkable parallel to the state of 
things in the last chapters of the Gospel of Luke. 
Here also the writer made use of a Greek document 
Mark and supplemented it with a Jerusalem 
tradition whether written or oral it is impossible 



to say either because the Marcan narrative broke 
off, as it breaks off in the existent text of Mark, or 
because he desired to correct the Marcan tradition. 
It is, moreover, plain that this Jerusalem tradition 
at the end of Luke is the same as that in source B 
of the Acts. The question then suggests itself 
whether source A the written source of Acts 
may not belong to the same document as ' Mark ' 
the written source of the Gospel. If we suppose 
that the original Mark contained a continuation of 
the Gospel story down to the foundation of the 
Church in Jerusalem, and either that Luke dis- 
liked the section referring to the events after the 
Crucifixion, or perhaps that his copy had been 
mutilated, the composition of this part of Acts 
becomes plain ; * but it also becomes a question 
whether the John who accompanies Peter in source 
A (and nowhere else) is not John Mark, rather 
than John the son of Zebedee. 

All this, however, is hypothetical. The actual 
existence of the source A in ch. 3f. and of the 
supplementary source B in ch. 2 is a point for 
which comparative certainty may be claimed. 

The problem then arises, how far these sources 
can be traced in the following chapters of Acts. 
Harnack is inclined to see in 5 17 ' 41 a doublet of 
4 1 ' 23 , and to assign the latter to A, the former to 
B. This is not improbable, but it is not so certain 
as the previous results. It is, for instance, by no 
means improbable that the apostles were twice 
arrested, and, as the story is told, 5 17 seems a not 
unnatural continuation of ch. 4. It is, however, 
true that the characteristic ' Peter and John ' is 
not found in 5 17ff> ; but, on the other hand, the 
rather curious phrase dpx'77 '' is applied to Jesus 
in 3 18 and 5 31 (elsewhere in NT only in He 2 10 12 2 ), 
which militates somewhat against the view that 
these chapters belong to different sources. In the 
same way the story of Ananias and Sapphira in 
Ac 5 1 ' 11 would fit quite as well on to B as on to A, 
with which Harnack connects it. Linguistically 
there is no clear evidence, but it may be noted 
that 0<fy3os is a characteristic of the Christian com- 
munity in B in 2^, and is repeated in S 5 - u . It is 
not found in A, though from the circumstances of 
the case not much weight can be attached to this. 
It therefore must remain uncertain whether Ac 5 
ought to be regarded as wholly A, wholly B, or be 
divided between the two sources. 

(/3) The Jeritsalem-Ccesarean sections. These are 
Ac 8 8 ' 40 9 s1 -! I 18 12 1 ' 23 , which describe Philip's evan- 
gelization of Samaria, followed by the mission of 
Peter and John, Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian 
on the road to Gaza, and his arrival in Caesarea, 
Peter's mission to Lydda, Joppa, and Csesarea, 
and return to Jerusalem, Peter s arrest, imprison- 
ment, and escape in Jerusalem, and Herod's death 
in Csesarea. Harnack thinks that all these pas- 
sages represent a Jerusalem-Caesarean tradition, 
which he identifies with source A. It is certainly 
probable that 8 14 ' 25 belongs to A, owing to the 
characteristic combination of Peter and John, and 
it may be regarded as reasonable to think that 
this also covers the rest of the section, so that 
8 5 -* may be attributed to A. It is more doubtful 
when we come to the two other sections. If, how- 
ever, any weight be attached to the suggestion 
that A is connected with Mark, it is noteworthy 
that 12 1 ' 23 is also very clearly connected with the 
house of Mark and his mother. 

The section 9 31 -! I 18 remains. This is much more 
clearly Csesarean than either of the others, and 
might possibly be separated from them and as- 

* See Burkitt, Earliest Soureet of the Gospels, London, 1911, 
p. 79 f., where the suggestion is made that the early part oi 
Acts may represent a Marcan tradition, though the bearing 
on this theory of the double source A and B in Acts is not 
mentioned. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



25 



cribed to a distinct Csesarean source. If so, the 
suggestion of Harnack and others that the source 
might be identified with the family of Philip, 
which was settled in Caesarea, is not impossible ; 
from 21 8 (a ' we-clause ') we know that Luke came 
into contact with him there. It is also obvious 
that the information given by Philip might be the 
source of much more of that which has been ten- 
tatively attributed to source A, or on the other 
hand might conceivably be identified with source 
B ; the truth is, of course, that we here reach the 
limit of legitimate hypothesis, and pass into the 
open country of uncontrolled guessing. 

The result, therefore, of an inquiry into the 
sources of the Jerusalem tradition is to establish 
the existence of a written Greek source, A, in 
Ac 3f., with a parallel narrative B apparently 
the continuation of the Lucan Jerusalem narrative 
in the Gospel ; and these two sources, or one of 
them, are continued in ch. 5. In 8 5 ' 40 is a further 
narrative which has points of connexion with A. 
Ac 9 31 -!! 18 is a Csesarean narrative, probably con- 
nected with Philip, and this raises difficulties in 
relation to A, for 8 3 ' 40 has also points of connexion 
with Philip. Finally 12 1 ' 23 is a Jerusalem narrative 
connected with Peter and Mark ; but here also the 
possibility of a connexion with Csesarea remains 
open. 

V. HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE VARIOUS TRA- 
DITIONS. So far as the ' we-clauses' and the prob- 
ably Pauline tradition are concerned, this question 
has already been discussed. While there are traces 
of probable inaccuracy, there is no reason to doubt 
the general trustworthiness of the narrative. The 
Antiochene narrative and the Jerusalem-Caesarean 
narrative (the ' Philip ' clauses) can be judged with 
more difficulty, as we have no means of comparing 
the narratives with any other contemporary state- 
ments. Here, however, we have another criterion. 
It is probable that Luke is dealing with traditions, 
and, at least in the case of A, with a document. 
We cannot say how far he alters his sources, for 
we have no other information as to their original 
form, but we can use the analogy of his observed 
practice in the case of the Gospel. Here we know 
that he made use of Mark ; and we can control his 
methods, because we possess his source. In this way 
we can obtain some idea of what he is likely to 
have done with his sources in Acts. On the whole, 
it cannot be said that the application of this 
criterion raises the value of Acts. In the Gospel, 
Luke, though in the main constant to his source 
Mark, was by no means disinclined to change the 
meaning of the story as well as the words, if he 
thought right. It is possible that he was justified 
in doing so, but that is not the question. The 
point is that he did not hesitate to alter his source 
in the Gospel ; it is therefore probable that he 
did not hesitate to do so in the Acts. 

Besides this, on grounds of general probability, 
various small points give rise to doubt, or seem to 
belong to the world of legend rather than to that 
of history for instance, the removal of Philip by 
the Spirit (or angel ?) from the side of the Ethiopian 
to Azotus ; but the main narrative offers no real 
reason for rejection. The best statement of all 
the points open to suspicion is still that of Zeller- 
Overbeck (The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., Lon- 
don, 1875-76), but the conclusions which Zeller 
draws are often untenable. He did not realize 
that in any narrative there is a combination of 
really observed fact and of hypotheses to explain 
the fact. The hypotheses of a writer or narrator 
of the 1st cent, were frequently of a kind that we 
should now never think of suggesting. But that 
is no reason why the narrative as a whole should 
not be regarded as a statement of fact. The exist- 
ence, in any given narrative, of improbable ex- 



planations as to how events happened is not an argu- 
ment against its early date and general trust- 
worthiness, unless it can be shown that the ex- 
planation involves improbability not only in fact 
but also in thought it must not only be improb- 
able that the event really happened in the manner 
suggested, but it must be improbable that a narra- 
tor of that age would have thought that it so hap- 
pened. Judged by this standard, the Antiochene 
and Jerusalem-Caesarean traditions seem to deserve 
credence as good and early sources. 

The same thing can be said of source A in the 
purely Jerusalem tradition. But the problem 
raised by source B is more difficult. If it be as- 
sumed that Ac 1 does not belong to it, it can only 
be compared with source A. To this it seems in 
ferior, but on the whole it narrates the same events, 
and it would certainly be rash to regard B as 
valueless. No doubt it is true that, if the events 
happened in the order given in A, they cannot 
have happened in the order given in B, but it is 
quite possible that many details in B may be cor- 
rect in spite of the fact that they are told other- 
wise or not told at all in A. 

If, on the other hand, Ac 1 be assigned to B, 
the question is more complicated. According to 
Ac 1, the Ascension took place near Jerusalem 
forty days after the Resurrection, and the infer- 
ence is suggested that the disciples, including 
Peter, never left Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. 
That this was Luke's own view is made quite plain 
from the Gospel, except that there does not appear 
to be any room in the Gospel narrative for the forty 
days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. 
The problems which arise are therefore : (1) How 
far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be recon- 
ciled? (2) Is it more probable that the disciples 
stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee ? 

1. How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 
be reconciled ? Various attempts have been made 
to find room in the Gospel for the ' forty days.' 
They have not, however, been successful, as the 
connecting links in the Gospel narrative are quite 
clear from the morning of the Resurrection to the 
moment of the Ascension, which is plainly intended 
to be regarded as taking place on the evening of 
the same day. According to Lk 24 8ff -, the sequence 
of the events was the following. Early on Sunday 
morning certain women went to the tomb, and to 
them two men appeared who announced the Resur- 
rection ; the women believed, but failed to con- 
vince the disciples. Later on in the same day (tv 
avrrj rfj rifdpq.) two disciples saw the risen Lord on 
the way to Emmaus, and at once returned to Jeru- 
salem to tell the news (dvaa-Tdvres afrry r% &pg.). 
While they were narrating their experience the 
Lord appeared, led them out to Bethany, and was 
taken up to heaven. The only place wnere there 
is any possibility of a break in tne narrative is v. 44 
(elirev 5), but this possibility (in any case contrary 
to the general impression given by the passage) is 
excluded by the facts that elirev St is a peculiarly 
Lucan phrase (59 times in Luke, 15 times in Acts, 
only once elsewhere in the NT), and that it never 
implies that a narrative is not continuous, and 
usually the reverse. Moreover, that Lk 24 s2 , what- 
ever text be taken, refers to the Ascension is 
rendered certain by the reference in Ac I 2 . Thus, 
there is no doubt that the Gospel places the Ascen- 
sion on the evening or night of the third day after 
the Crucifixion. It is equally clear that Acts 
places the Ascension forty days later, if the text 
of I 3 (Si ij/Li^puv reffffapdKovra) is correct ; and, though 
there is, it is true, some confusion in the text at 
this point, it is not enough to justify the omission 
of ' forty days ' (see esp. F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum 
secundum formam quce videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 
1896, p. xxiii). The only possible suggestion, 



26 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



therefore, is that the writer found some reason to 
modify his opinions in the interval between writ- 
ing the Gospel and the Acts. Whether he was 
right to do so depends on the judgment passed on 
various factors, which cannot be discussed here, 
but may be summed up in the question whether 
the evidence of the Pauline Epistles does not sug- 
gest that the earliest Christian view was that 
Ascension and Resurrection were but two ways of 
describing the same fact, and whether this is not 
also implied in the speeches of Peter in Ac 2 and 
3 * (cf. especially Ro 8 24 , Ph I 23 , Ac 2 W 3 13 ' 18 ). The 
evidence is not sufficient to settle the point, but it 
shows that the problem is not imaginary. 

2. Is it more probable that the disciples stayed 
in Jerusalem or went to Galilee? The evidence 
that the disciples went to Galilee is found in 
Mark.f The end of Mark is, of course, missing, but 
there are in the existing text two indications that 
the appearances of the risen Christ were in Galilee, 
and therefore that the disciples must have returned 
there after the Crucifixion, (a) Mk 14 m , ' All ye 
shall be offended : for it is written, I will smite the 
shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But 
after I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.' 
This seems intended to prepare the way for the 
flight of the disciples after the arrest in Geth- 
semane ; the meaning of the second part, ' I will 
go before you into Galilee,' is obscure, but in any 
case it implies a return to Galilee, (b) Mk 16 7 (the 
message of the young man at the tomb), ' Go, tell 
his disciples and Peter that he is going before you 
into Galilee, there shall you see him.' Here it 
is quite clearly stated that the first appearance of 
the risen Christ to the disciples is to be in Galilee, 
and once more it must be urged that this implies 
that the disciples went there. 

On the other hand, the evidence of Luke and 
the Acts is that the disciples did not leave Jeru- 
salem,' and that, so far from the risen Lord announ- 
cing His future appearance to the disciples in Galilee, 
He actually told them to remain in Jerusalem. 

That the two traditions thus exist cannot be 
questioned, nor can they be reconciled without 
violence. If, however, we have to choose between 
them, the Galilaean tradition seems to deserve the 
preference. It is in itself much more probable 
that the disciples fled to Galilee when they left 
Jesus to be arrested by Himself, than that they 
went into Jerusalem, if they were, as the narra- 
tive says, panic-stricken, Jerusalem was the last 
place to which those who were not inhabitants of 
that city would go. Moreover, it is not difficult 
to see that the tendency of Christian history would 
have naturally emphasized Jerusalem and omitted 
Galilee, for it is certainly a fact that from the be- 

S inning the Christian Church found its centre in 
erusalem and not in Galilee. Why this was so 
is obscure, and there is a link missing in the 
history of the chain of events. This must be 
recognized, but what either source B or Luke 
himself (if Ac 1 be not part of source B) has done 
is to connect up the links of the chain as if the 
Galilaean link had never existed. So far as this goes, 
it is a reason for not accepting Ac 1 as an accurate 
account of history ; and this judgment perhaps 
reflects on source B and certainly in some measure 
on Luke. It must, however, be noted that it ought 
not seriously to affect our judgment on Luke's 
account of later events. The period between the 
Crucifixion and the growth of the Jerusalem 
community was naturally the most obscure point 
in the history of Christianity ; and, even if Luke 

* Of course, if this be so, there is a contradiction between 
Ac 1 and 2, and it becomes more probable (a) that Ac 1 is from 
a separate tradition from source B ; (6) that source B, like A, 
was a written document when used by. Luke. 

t Secondary evidence is to be found in Mt 28, Jn 21, and the 
' Gospel oi Peter,' but Mark is the primary evidence. 



went wrong in his attempt to find out the facts at 
this point, that is no special reason for rejecting 
his evidence for later events when he really was in 
a position to obtain sound information. All that 
is really shown is that, unlike Mark, he was never 
in close contact with one of the original Galilaean 
disciples. 

VI. CHRONOLOGY OF ACTS. There are no 
definite chronological statements in the Acts, 
such as those in Lk 3 1 . But at five points syn- 
chronisms with known events can be established 
and used as the basis of a chronological system. 
These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Ac 12 23 -) ; 
the famine in Judaea (ll' 7ff 12 a3 ) ; Gallio's pro- 
consulate in Corinth (18 12 ) ; the decree of Claudius 
banishing all Jews from Rome (18 2 ) ; and the 
arrival of Festus in Judaea (25 1 ). 

1. The death of Herod Agrippa. Agrippa I., 
according to the evidence of coins* (if these be 
genuine), reigned nine years. The beginning of 
his reign was immediately after the accession of 
Caligula, who became Emperor on 16 March, A.D. 
37, and within a few days appointed Agrippa, who 
was then in Rome, to the tetrarchy of Philip, with 
the title of king ; to this in 39-40 the tetrarchy of 
Antipas was added. Later on, Claudius added 
Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. The difficulty is that 
Josephus says that Agrippa died in the seventh year 
of his reign. This would be between the spring of 
43 and that of 44, but it does not agree with the 
evidence of the coinage, unless it be supposed that 
Agrippa dated his accession from the death of Philip 
rather than from his appointment by Caligula. 

2. The famine in Judaea. Our information for 
the date of this event is found in Josephus and 
Orosius. Josephus (Ant. XX. v.) says that the 
famine took place during the procuratorship of 
Alexander. Alexander's term of office ended in 
A.D. 48, and this is therefore the terminus ad quern 
for the date of the famine. His term of office 
began after that of Fadus. It is not known when 
Fadus retired, but he was sent to Judaea after the 
death of Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44, so that 
Alexander's term cannot have begun before 45, 
and more probably not before 46. Thus Josephus 
fixes the famine within a margin of less than two 
years on either side of 47. 

Orosius (VII. vi.), a writer of the 5th cent., is 
more definite, and fixes the famine in the fourth 
year of Claudius, which, on his system of reckon- 
ing (see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? 
London, 1898, p. 223, which supplements and 
corrects the statement in St. Paul the Traveller 
and the Roman Citizen, do. 1895, p. 68 f. ), was prob- 
ably from Sept. 44 to Sept. 45, or possibly from Jan. 
45 to Jan. 46. This statement has, of course, only 
the value which may be attributed to the sources 
of Orosius, which are unknown ; but it supports 
Josephus fairly well, and it is not probable that 
Orosius was acquainted with the Antiquities, so 
that his statement has independent value. 

3. Gallio's proconsulate. This date has recently 
been fixed with considerable definiteness by the 
discovery of a fragment of an inscription at Delphi t 
which contains a reference to Gallio as proconsul 
(which must be proconsul of Achaia), and bears 
the date of the 26th ' acclamation ' of the Emperor 
Claudius. This acclamation was before 1 Aug. 
A.D. 52 (CIL vi. 125b), as an inscription of that 
date refers to the 271h acclamation, and after 25 
Jan. 51, as his 24th acclamation came in his llth 
tribunician year (i.e. 25 Jan. 51-24 Jan. 52). More- 
over, it must hare been some considerable time after 
25 Jan. 51, as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclamations 

* See F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews, London, 1881, p. 130. 

t First published by A. Nikitsky in Russian, in Epigraphical 
Studies at Delphi, Odessa, 1898, and now most accessible in 
Deissmann's Paulus, Tubingen, 1911. 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



27 



all came in the llth tribunician year, and the 
25th acclamation has not yet been found, so that 
really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date 
for the 26th acclamation. Thus the Delphi in- 
scription must be placed between the end of 51 
and 1 Aug. 52. At this time Gallic was in office. 
The proconsul usually entered on his office in the 
middle of the summer (cf. Mommsen, Bom. Staats- 
recht 3 , ii. [Leipzig, 1888] 256), and normally held it 
for one year only, though sometimes he continued 
in it for another term. According to this, Gallic 
must have come to Corinth in July 51. Twelve 
months later is not absolutely impossible, though it 
is improbable, for we do not know whether Claudius 
had been acclaimed for a long or a short time before 
1 Aug. 52, merely that by then his 27th acclamation 
had taken place. According to Ac 18 12 , St. Paul's 
trial took place TaXXtuvos d dvOwirdrov 6vTos, and 
this is usually taken to mean 'as soon as Gallic 
became proconsul.' Probably this is correct exe- 
gesis, though scarcely an accurate translation ; 
and, if so, St. Paul's trial must have been in the 
summer of 51, or, with later date for Gallic, in the 
summer of 52. 

4. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Ac- 
cording to Ac 18", the Emperor Claudius banished 
all Jews from Home. The same fact is mentioned 
by Suetonius (Claudius, 25), who says: ' ludeeos, 
impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma 
expulit,' but no date is given. Tacitus does not 
mention the fact ; nor does Josephus. Orosius 
(VII. vi. 15) states that it was in the ninth year of 
Claudius, which probably means Sept. 49-Sept. 50. 
He states that this date is derived from Josephus, 
which is clearly a mistake, unless he is referring 
to some other writer of that name (cf. Deissmann, 
Paulus), but the date agrees very well with that of 
Gallio's proconsulate ; for, if the trial before 
Gallio was in Aug. 51, and St. Paul had been in 
Corinth 18 months (Ac 18 12 ), the Apostle must 
have reached Corinth in April 50, at which time 
Aquila had just arrived in consequence of the 
decree of Claudius. 

5. The arrival of Festus in Judaea. This date 
is unfortunately surrounded by great difficulties. 
The facts are as follows : Eusebius, in his Chroni- 
con, places the arrival of Festus in the second year 
of Nero, which probably means not Oct. 55-Oct. 56 
the true second year of his reign but, accord- 
ing to the Eusebian plan of reckoning, Sept. 56- 
Sept. 57. Josephus states that Felix, whom Festus 
replaced, was prosecuted on his return to Rome, 
but escaped owing to the influence of Pallas his 
brother. But Pallas was dismissed, according to 
Tacitus, before the death of Britannicus, and 
Britannicus was, also according to Tacitus, just 
14 years old. Britannicus was born in Feb. 41, 
so that Festus must have entered on his office, 
according to this reckoning, before A.D. 55. 
Nevertheless, Josephus appears to place the 
greater part of the events under Felix in Nero's 
reign, and this can hardly be the case if he retired 
before Nero had reigned for three months. It is 
thought, therefore, either that Tacitus made a 
mistake as to the age of Britannicus, or that 
Pallas retained considerable influence even after 
his fall. Various other arguments have been used, 
but none is based on exact statements or has any 
real value. Thus, in view of the fact that the 
combination of statements in Josephus and Taci- 
tus seems to give no firm basis for argument, we 
have only Eusebius and general probability to use. 
General probability really means in this case con- 
sidering whether the Eusebian date tits in with 
the date of St. Paul's trial by Gallio, and has, 
therefore, most of the faults of circular reason- 
ing. Still, the Eusebian date comes out of this 
test fairly well. St. Paul was tried by Gallio in 



Aug. A.D. 51. We may then reconstruct as 
follows : 

Trial by Gallio Aug. 51. 

Corinth to Antioch end of 51. 

Arrival at Ephesus summer of 52. 

Departure from Ephesus and arrival at Corinth autumn of 64. 

Arrival at Jerusalem and arrest summer of 55. 

Two years' imprisonment 55 to summer 57. 

Trial before Festus summer 57. 

In view of the evidence as to Gallio, this is the 
earliest possible chronology, unless we suppose 
that two years in prison means June 55-summer 
56, which is, indeed, part of two years, though it 
is doubtful whether it could have been described 
as dierlas TrXrjpuBeiffTjs the phrase used in Ac 24* 7 . 

Summary. These are the only data in. Acts for 
which any high degree of probability can be 
claimed. The date of Gallio is by far the most 
certain. If we combine with them the further 
data in Galatians, we obtain a reasonably good 
chronology as far back as the conversion of 
St. Paul. The second visit to Jerusalem in 
Galatians is identical either with the time of the 
famine or with that of the Council. If the 
former, it can be placed in +46, if the latter, in 
+ 48 ; and the conversion was either 14 or 17 years 
before this, according to the exegesis adopted for 
the statements in Galatians; though, owing to 
the ancient method of reckoning, 14 may mean a 
few months more than 12, and 17 a few months 
more than 15. Thus the earliest date for the 
conversion would be A.D. 31, the latest 36. 

It should, however, be remembered that the 
period of 14 years reckoned between the first and 
second visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem depends 
entirely on the reading AIAIAGTOON in Gal 2 1 , 
which might easily have been a corruption for 
A I A AGTOO N ( = ' after 4 years '), and that the 14 
years in question are always a difficulty, as events 
seem to have moved rapidly before and after that 
period, but during it to have stood relatively still. 
The possibility ought not to be neglected that the 
conversion was 10 years later than the dates 
suggested, i.e. in 41 or 46. This is especially 
important, in view of the fact that the evidence 
of Josephus as to the marriage of Herod and 
Herodias suggests that the death of John the 
Baptist, and therefore the Crucifixion, were later 
than has usually been thought (see K. Lake, ' Date 
of Herod's Marriage with Herodias and the Chron- 
ology of the Gospels,' in Expositor, 8th ser. iv. 
[1912] 462). 

LITBRATURB. For literature on the subject see A. Harnack, 
Chronologic, Leipzig, 1897-1904, i. 233-9 ; the art. in H DB on 
'Chronology' by C. H. Turner (older statements are almost 
entirely based on K. Wieseler's Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, 
Hamburg, 184S) ; C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904. 

VII. THE THEOLOGY OF ACTS. The theology 
of Acts is, on the whole, simple and early, showing 
no traces of Johannine, and surprisingly few of 
Pauline, influence. In common with all other 
canonical writings, it regards the God of the 
Christians as the one true God, who had revealed 
Himself in time past to His chosen people the 
Jews ; and it identifies Jesus with the promised 
Messiah, who will come from heaven to judge the 
world, and to inaugurate the Kingdom of God 
on the earth. There is, however, just as in the 
Third Gospel, a noticeably smaller degree of 
interest in the Messianic kingdom than in Mk. 
and Mt., and a proportionately increased interest 
in the Spirit. This may probably be explained 
as due to the fact that the writer belonged to a 
more Gentile circle than those in which Mk. and 
Mt. were written. It is strange that in some 
respects Acts is less ' Gentile ' or ' Greek ' than the 
Epistles. This is partially explained by the fact 
that much of so-called Paulinismus has been read 
into the Epistles ; but, even when an allowance 



28 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



has been made for this fact, the difficulty re- 
mains. The points on which the theology of Acts 
requires discussion in detail are its christology, 
eschatology, attitude to the OT and Jewish 
Law, doctrine of the Spirit, and doctrine of 
baptism. 

1. Christology. In Acts Jesus is recognized as 
the Christ, but the Christology belongs to an early 
type. There is no suggestion of the Logos-Christ- 
ology of the Fourth Gospel, or even of the Epistles 
of the Captivity. ' The Christ ' appears to have 
the quite primitive meaning of ' the king of 
the kingdom of God, who is appointed by God to 
judge the world' (cf. ^ffryaev Ttfutpav tv y /d\\ei 
KpLveiv TTJV obcavfttrqr lv diKaiocrvvg iv dvdpi $ wpurev, 
TTICTTIV irapaffx&v iraviv dvaffTr/ffas a.vrbv (K veicp&v, 17 31 ). 
At what point Jesus became Christ, according to 
Acts, is not quite clear. Harnack (Neue Unter- 
suchungen zur Apostelgesch., p. 75 ff.) thinks that 
Luke regarded the Resurrection as the moment, 
in agreement with one interpretation of Ro I 4 . 
In favour of this view can be cited Ac 13 32f- (St. 
Paul's speech at Antioch in Pisidia), TO.VT-IJV \i.e. 
4vayye\iav] 6 6fbs ticjreirXiripwKev TOIS T^KVOIS rip-Civ 
dvaffTrjffas 'Iijffovv, ws ical iv T$ \f/a\/j.(^ ytypairTai T<$ 
dfvrtpy w6? fj,ov elffu, tyw o"/i/j,epov yeyevvrjKd <re, which, 
strictly interpreted, must mean that Jesus became 
God's Son at the Resurrection, for in the context 
dvcurrricras can be given no other translation. On 
the other hand, it must be remembered that many 
critics think that this same quotation from Ps 2 
is connected with the Baptism in Lk S 22 ,* in which 
case the further quotation in Lk 4 18 , trvev/M Kvpiov 
ir' ifi^, ov e'ivfKev ^xp lff ^ v P e > KT *- > acquires increased 
force, for the connexion of ?xP iffev with X/w<rr6s is 
obvious. This, again, reflects light on Ac 10 38 (us 
fXP iffev ivTbv 6 #eds irvev/jiaTi ayltp Kal Svvdfiei) and the 
similar phrase in 4 27 . It must remain a problem 
for critics how far this difference between Ac 13 32f - 
and 10 38 and & 1 is accidental (or merely apparent), 
and how far it is justifiable to connect it with the 
fact that Ac 13 (which agrees with Ro I 4 ) belongs 
to the Pauline source, while Ac 4 and 10 belong to 
the Jerusalem source A and the closely connected 
or identical Jerusalem-Caesarean source (which 
agree with at all events one interpretation of the 
meaning of the Baptism in Mk 1). 

The possible difference must, however, in any 
case not be exaggerated. The whole of early 
Christian literature outside Johannine influence 
is full of apparent inconsistencies, because Xpto-r6s 
sometimes means ' the person who is by nature 
and predestination the appointed Messiah,' some- 
times more narrowly ' the actual Messiah reigning 
in the Kingdom of God.' In the former sense it 
was possible to say elvai rbv 'KpurTbt>'l7)<rovv f (Ac 18 28 ), 
or that (dei vaBelv rbv Xpia-rdv (17 s ). In the latter 
sense it was possible to speak of Jesus as rbv -n-po- 
Ke\eipurp.tvov vp.lv ~KpiffTov (3 20 ), where, in the light 
of the whole passage, the rbv irpoKex fi P iff P^ vov vp.lv 
most probably has reference to the Resurrection, 
though other interpretations are possible ; or to 
say Kvpiov avTbv Kal TLpiffTbv tiroirjffev 6 6ebs TOVTOV rbv 
'l-rizovv (2 s6 ), which with less doubt may be referred 
to the Resurrection. The point seems to be that, 
on the one hand, Luke wishes to say that Jesus is 
the Christ, and that, on the other, he does not 

* The text_is doubtful : the editors usually give <ri> el 6 vios pot 
o ayaTnjros, iv <roi ijiSoKijcra with N 15 L 33 fam 1, fam 13, and the 
mass of MSS (i.e. the H and K texts, and at least two im- 
portant branches of 7 [J and fl>]), but Harnack prefers to read 
the quotation from Ps 2 with D a b c ff al. Aug. Clemale*- (thus 
possibly the text of / and certainly of a text coeval with I-H-K 
[if such a text existed]) ; probably he is right. 

t This must mean that the Messiah (of whom all men know) 
is Jesus (of whom they had previously not heard) ; and em- 
phasizes the fact that, whereas Christology means to most 
people of this generation an attempt to give an adequate 
doctrinal statement of Jesus, it meant for the earliest genera- 
tion an attempt to show that Jesus adequately fulfilled an 
already existing doctrinal definition of the Messiah. 



wish to say that the life of Jesus was the Messianic 
Parousia or ' Coming,' and does wish to say that 
by the Resurrection Jesus became the heavenly, 
glorious Being who would come shortly to judge 
the world. 

It should be noted, as an especially archaic 
characteristic, that in Acts 'Irjffous X/MCTTOS is not 
used as a name except in the phrase rd 6vo/M 'Ir)<rov 
XpiffTov (2 s8 3 6 4 10 8 12 10 48 15 26 16 18 ) ; elsewhere X/>r7-6s 
is always predicative. In this respect Acts seems 
to be more archaic than the Pauline Epistles. 

The death of the Christ has in Acts but little 
theological importance. In one place only (20 28 
TTJV tKK\r)ffiav TOV Kvpiov [but deov & B vg, a few other 
authorities, and the TR] ty Trepieiron?)ffaro did TOV 
a'tfj-aTos TOV idiov) is there anything which approaches 
the Pauline doctrine, and it is noticeable that this 
passage is from the speech of Paul to the Ephesian 
elders. In the speeches of Peter and Stephen, the 
death of the Christ is regarded as a wicked act of 
the Jews rather than as a necessary part of a plan 
of salvation. The most important passage is 3 17ff - : 
Kal vvv, dde\<pol, olda OTI KO.TO. ayvoiav eirpda.Te, &crirep 
Kal ol apxovTes vp.C)v. b 5k 6fbs & irpoKO.T'fiyyeiXev did 
ffTOfj.a.Tos irdvruv ruv irpotpriT&v ira,6elvTbv XpiffTdv avrov 
tw\fip(i)<rev otfrwj. p.eTa.voijffa.Te ovv, na.1 
irpbs rb ta\ei<p0rjvai v/jiwv Tds dfj.apTLas, oirws dv 
Kaipol dva\j/vi-e<as dirb irpoffdnrov TOV Kvpiov Kal diroffTeiXy 
rbv irpOKexfipifffJ-tvov vp-lv XpiffTdv 'Iijffovv, ov Sei ovpavbv 
pv d^affffai &xpi y_pb v(av diroKaTaffTdcreus irdvTUiv, KT\. 
Here there is a verbal connexion between the suffer- 
ing of the Christ and the blotting out of sins, but 
no suggestion of any causal connexion. The writer 
says that the Jews put the Messiah to death, as 
had been foretold, but they did it in ignorance ; 
and, if they repent, this and other sins will be 
blotted out, and Jesus will come as the predestined 
Messiah. The cause of the blotting out of sins is 
here, as in the OT prophets, repentance and change 
of conduct (tiriffTptyaTf) ; nothing is said to suggest 
that this would not have been effective without 
the suffering of the Messiah. 

2. Eschatology. There is comparatively little 
in Acts which throws light on the eschatological 
expectation of the writer. As compared with 
Mark or St. Paul, he seems to be less eschato- 
logical, but traces of the primitive expectation are 
not wanting. In I 11 the Parousia of the Messiah 
is still expected : ' This Jesus who has been taken 
up into Heaven shall so come as ye have seen him 
go into Heaven ' ; and, though it is not here stated 
that the witnesses of the Ascension shall also live 
to see the Parousia, this seems to be implied. The 
same sort of comment can be made on 3 20 '- and 17 al ; 
but otherwise there is little in Acts to bear on the 
eschatological expectation. This was, indeed, to 
be expected in a book written by Luke, who in 
his Gospel greatly lessened the eschatological 
elements found in Mark and Q. 

3. The OT and Jewish Law. For the writer of 
Acts the OT was the written source of all revela- 
tion. The sufficient proof of any argument or 
explanation of any historical event was to be found 
in the fact that it had been prophesied. Like all 
Greek-writing Christians, he uses the LXX and 
does not stop to ask whether it is textually 
accurate. 

But a distinction must be made between the 
OT as prophecy and the OT as Law. In the latter 
sense tne position taken up in Acts is that the Law 
of the OT is binding in every detail on Jewish 
Christians, but not binding at all on Gentile 
Christians. The most remarkable example of 
this is the picture given in ch. 25 of St. Paul's 
acceptance of the Law in Jerusalem, and the cir- 
cumcision of Timothy. Whether this can be re- 
conciled with the Apostle's own position is a point 
for students of the Epistles to settle ; the present 



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



29 



writer believes that in this respect Acts gives 
a faithful representation of St. Paul's own view 
(see the admirable discussion in Harnack, Apostel- 
gesch . , pp. 8 and 2 1 1-217) . The reason for thinking 
that the Law was still binding on Jews but not on 
Gentiles must be sought in a distinction between 
the Law as source of salvation it was not this for 
any one and the Law as command of God this 
it was for the Jew, but not for the Gentile. ^ 

As prophecies, the OT books are accepted without 
question, and there is no trace of the Jewish con- 
troversy which raised the dispute as to the correct 
exegesis of the OT. This controversy can be traced 
in the Epistle of Barnabas, and found its extreme 
result in the attitude of Marcion, but in Acts it 
cannot be found, and apparently this is because 
the dispute had not yet arisen. (For the best 
summary of this question see Harnack, Apostel- 
gesch.,r>. 8 n.) 

4. The Spirit. It is not <juite clear whether 
Acts regards all Christians as inspired by the Holy 
Spirit, but it is at least certain that it regards this 
as true of all the leaders, and of all who were fully 
Christians. It would appear possible, however, 
from such episodes as that of the Christians in 
Ephesus who had been baptized only in John's 
baptism, that a kind of imperfect Christianity was 
recognized ; these Ephesians are described as fMOirrAs, 
even before they had been baptized. On the other 
hand, the inadequacy of their baptism was dis- 
covered by St. Paul because they had not received 
the Spirit, so that even from this passage it would 
seem that Christians were regarded normally as 
inspired by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is 
usually referred to as rb wev/jui rb Hyiov or rb dyiov 
irvtv/j.0. (21 times), or as rb irceO/xa (9 times), or as 
irvtviM &yu>v (16 times), once as irvevfM xvplov, once 
as rb Trvevfjut Kvpiov, and once as rb irvevpa "IrytroO. 

A problem which has as yet scarcely received the 
attention which it deserves is, whether the Spirit 
was regarded as one or many (or, in other words, 
what is the difference between rb irvevpa and 
irvevfM). The exact meaning of the very import- 
ant phrase rb irvev/M 'Iiyo-oO is also obscure. Was 



it the Spirit which had been in Jesus, with which 
God had anointed ( XP"") Him ? Or was it the 
Spirit-Jesus, as He had become after the Resur- 
rection, in agreement with the Pauline phrase 
'The Lord is the Spirit' (2 Co 3 17 ) ? In any case 
it is clear that the gift of the Spirit was regarded 
as in some sense the work of the exalted Jesus 
(Ac 2 33 ; cf . Lk 24 49 ) but ultimately derived from 
God. 

A further development is found in Acts that 
the gift of the Spirit can be ensured either by 
baptism (see 5) or, more probably, by the ' laying 
on of hands' of the Apostles (tirtOfins x e< -P&v', cf. 
gi7t. 917 196^ though this power, if one may judge 
from 8 17ff -, was not shared by all other Christians. 

This developed doctrine of the Spirit is the 
most marked feature of Acts, and the Lucan 
Gospel is clearly intended to lead up to it. The 
Christians were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and 
the Resurrection and Ascension of the Christ are 
related to this fact, rather than, as seems to be the 
case in Mark, to the coming of the Messianic 
kingdom. It is true that in Ac 2 the gift of the 
Spirit and the consequent glossolalia are explained 
as a sign that the last days are at hand, but the 
whole tendency of the Acts is to look on the 
possession of the Spirit as the characteristic of the 
Church, rather than of an eschatological kingdom, 
and the work of Christ is already regarded as the 
foundation of this inspired Church in the world, 
rather than as the inauguration of the Kingdom 
of God instead of the world. In some respects 
Luke is more archaic than St. Paul, but not in 

this. ** Copyright, 1916, by 



5. Baptism. There is no doubt tbat the writer 
of Acts regarded baptism as the normal means of 
entry into the Christian Church. There is also no 
doubt that he represents an early stage of Christian 
practice in which baptism was 'in the name of 
the Lord Jesus' (or 'of Jesus Christ'), not in the 
triadic formula (Ac 2 38 8 16 10 48 19 5 ). This agrees 
with the practice of St. Paul so far as it can be 
discovered (Ro 6 3 , Gal 3 27 ; cf. 1 Co I 14ff -), with 
Didache 8 (but not 7), Hermas, Sim. ix. 17. 4, and 
the Eusebian text (if that refer, as is probable, 
to baptism) of Mt 28 19 (but not with the usual text 
of this passage, or with the later Christian practice). 
Difficulty is, however, raised by the question 
whether the writer (or his sources) makes the 
gift of the Spirit depend on baptism or on the 
laying on of hands, either invariably or as a general 
rule. It is, on the whole, most probable that he 
regards baptism as a necessary preliminary to the 
gift of the Spirit, but not as the direct means by 
which the Spirit was given, whereas the ' laying on 
of hands' was the direct means of imparting this 
gift ; though, under some exceptional circum- 
stances, the gift was directly conferred by God 
without any ministerial interposition. 

The passages which seem at first to identify 
baptism with the gift of the Spirit are especially 
Ac 2 38 and 19 2 ' 6 - In 2 38 St. Peter says: 'Repent 
and be baptized . . . and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Spirit.' This seems decisive, but in the con- 
text we are not told that those baptized received 
the Spirit only that they were added to the 
Church. Was this the same thing for the writer? 
Or did he mean that after reception into the 
Church they would receive it? In the same way 
in Ac 19 2 ' 6 St. Paul asks the Ephesians whether 
they have not received the Spirit ; and, hearing 
that this is not so, he inquires further into their 
baptism. Nevertheless, in the end, the gift of 
the Spirit in then* case is directly connected with 
the 'laying on of hands.' This conclusion is, of 
course, supported by the other passages in which 
baptism and the gift of the Spirit are distinguished : 
of these 8 12ff - and 10 47 are the most important. (A 
full discussion will be found in ERE ii. 382 ff .) 

LITERATURE. See at the end of the various sections and 
throughout the article. KlRSOPP LAKE. 

**ACTS OP THE APOSTLES (Apocryphal). 
I. INTRODUCTORY. The most important of the 
Apocryphal Acts are the five (Peter, Paul, John, 
Andrew, Thomas) which sometimes are referred to 
as 'the Leucian Acts,' because they are supposed 
to have been composed by a certain Leucius. Before 
they can be discussed separately, it is therefore 
necessary to deal with the problem of the Leucian 
corpus, and inquire whether such a collection ex- 
isted in early times, what was its nature, and how 
far the name of 'Leucian' may be applied to it. 
The direct source of the later tradition that there 
was a Leucian corpus is no doubt a statement of 
Photius (Bibliotheca, cod. 114) : 



/3i/3Ai'ov, at Aeyo/iei'ru Ttov oirotrroXiov rrepioSoi, ev 
as irepieixovro Jrpof f is Hfrpov, 'luidvvov, 'Av&pfov, &ta/j.a, Ilau'Aoir 
ypai^ei. Se auras, wj SrjAoi TO aviTO /3i/3Ai'o>', Aeviaos Xapti'os. 

From this it is plain that Photius had seen a 
corpus of Acts, and interpreted some passage in 
the text to mean that the five Acts were all written 
by Leucius Charinus. It is therefore desirable to 
examine earlier literature for (1) mention of Leucius, 
(2) mention of the five Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, 
Thomas, and Paul, either as a corpus or as separate 
writings. 

1. Keferences to Leucius. i. IN THE EAST. 
Epiphaniua (Panar. li. 6), when speaking of the 
Alogi, mentions as famous heretics Cerinthus and 
Ebion, Merinthus and Cleobius or Cleobulus, 
Claudius, Demas, and Hermogenes, and says they 
Charles Scribner's Sons. 



30 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



were controverted by St. John Kal T&V &/n.<j>l avr6v, 
ACVKIOV Kal &\\uv iroXX&i*. Presumably, therefore, 
Epiphanius was acquainted with some book in 
which Leucius appeared as a companion of St. 
John, but it will be noted that he does not suggest 
that Leucius was in any way heretical, but rather 
that he controverted heretics. Apart from this 
solitary mention there is no trace of Leucius in 
Greek Christian writings until Photius. 

ii. IN THE WEST. It is quite different in the 
West ; here there is a series of witnesses to Leucius. 
(1) Parian (f c. 390), bishop of Barcelona. In Ep. 
iii. 3 Pacian writes to Semp. Novatianus concerning 
the Proclan party of the Montanists, * who claimed 
some connexion with Leucius, which Pacian denied; 
and the natural interpretation of his words seems 
to be that he regarded Leucius as an orthodox 
Christian to whom the Montanists tried to attach 
their origin ; but the passage is obscure : 

'Et primum hi plurimis utuntur auctoribus ; nam puto et 
Graecus Blastus ipsorum est. Theodotus qupque et Praxeas 
vestrps aliquando docuere : ipsi illi Phryges [i.e. Montanists] 
nobiliores, qui se animates mentiuntur a Leucio, se institutes a 
Proculo gloriantur." 

(2) Augustine. In the contra Felicem, ii. 6, 
written ear her in the 5th cent., Augustine says : 

'Habetis etiam hoc in scripturis apocryphis, quas canon 
quidem catholicus npn admittit, vobis autem [i.e. the Mani- 
chseans] tanto graviores sunt, quanto a catholico canone 
secluduntur ... in actibus scriptis a Leucio (codd. 'Leutio') 
quos tamquarn. actus apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum : 
"etenim speciosa figmenta et pstentatio simulata et coactio 
visibilium nee quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed.ex eo 
nomine qui per seipsum deterior factus est per seductionem."' 

As is shown later, Augustine was acquainted 
with the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, Andrew, 
Thomas, John, and Paul, of which the first four 
were accepted only by Manichseans, the last (Paul) 
probably by Catholics also. There is nothing, 
however, to show from which he is quoting here, 
and the passage is not in any of the extant frag- 
ments. Thomas is excluded, as we probably have 
the complete text, and the passage is unlike what 
we possess of the Acts of Peter or Paul. It is there- 
fore probable, as Schmidt argues (Alte Petrusakten, 
p. 50), that he is referring to Andrew or John the 
two Acts for which the Leucian authorship is other- 
wise most probable. But the point is not certain, 
and the possibility remains that he is referring to a 
Manichaean corpus of Acts, collected by Leucius. 

(3) Euodius of Uzala. In the de Fide contra 
Manichceos, ch. 38 (printed in Augustine's works [ed. 
Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. xlii.]) ? written by 
Euodius, the contemporary of Augustine, the Acts 
of Andrew is attributed to Leucius. The full quota- 
tion is given by Schmidt (p. 53), who thinks that it 
probably, though not certainly, implies that Euodius 
also regarded Leucius as the author of a corpus of 
Acts, but argues that this opinion was probably 
based only on an interpretation of the passage of 
Augustine quoted above. However this may be, 
it remains clear that Euodius regarded the Acts of 
Andrew as Manichsean and the work of Leucius. 

(4) Innocent I. Inarescriptof405toExsuperius, 
bishop of Toulouse, Innocent says : 

' Cetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae vel sub nomine 
lacobi minpris, vel sub nomine Petri et Johannis quae a quodam 
Leucio scripta sunt [vel sub nomine Andreae quae a Nexo-; 
charide et Leonida philosophis], vel sub nomine Thomae et si 
qua sunt alia (y.l. talia), non solum repudianda verum etiam 
noveris damnanda.' 

The words enclosed in brackets are probably an 
interpolation (see Zahn, Acta Joannis, 209), and 
Nexocharides and Leonidas the philosophers are 
otherwise unknown persons. The text is certainly 
not quite in order, but Leucius is clearly indicated 
as the author of the Acts of Peter and of John. 

* From pseudo-Tertullian, Refut. omn. Haer. viii. 19, x. 26, 
it appears that some Montanists were Kara UpoK^ov, others 
Kara A.i<r\i.vriv (see Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, p. Ixvi, n. 4). 



(5) The Decretum Gelasianum (6th cent.). After 
rejecting as apocryphal the Acts of Andrew, 
Thomas, Peter, and Philip, the writer goes on to 
give a list of Apocryphal Gospels, and then con- 
tinues : 'Libri omnes quos fecit Leucius discipulus 
diaboli, apocryphi.' __ As there follow several Mani- 
chsean writings, it is tolerably certain that here, 
as elsewhere, 'disciple of the devil' means 'Mani- 
chsean,' but it is not clear to which books reference 
is made. There is a slight presumption that the 
books made by Leucius are not identical with any 
already mentioned, and this would suggest either 
the Acts of John, which are not otherwise men- 
tioned, or possibly the Acts of Pilate, which in the 
Latin version are connected with the name of 
Leucius Charinus. Schmidt, however, while think- 
ing that the Acts of John are certainly intended, 
is inclined to believe that the writer may have 
meant the whole Manichsean collection. 

(6) Turribius of Astorga (c. 450). In a corre- 
spondence with his fellow-bishops, Idacius and 
Creponius, Turribius discusses the literature of 
the Manichseans and Priscillianists. Among 
these he mentions 'Actus illos qui vocantur S. 
Andreae, vel illos qui appellantur S. loannis, quos 
sacrilego Leucius ore conscripsit, vel illos qui 
dicuntur S. Thomae et his similia, etc.' Here 
clearly Leucius is regarded as the author of the 
Acts of John, and presumably not of the others 
though, if a certain laxity of syntax be conceded, 
the Acts of Andrew might be added certainly not 
of the Acts of Thomas. 

(7) Mellitus. The writer of a late Catholic 
version of the Acts, who took to himself the name 
of Mellitus, probably intending to identify himself 
with Melito of Sardis (c. 160-190), says: 'Volo 
sollicitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leucio 
quodam qui scripsit apostolorum actus, loannis 
evangelistae et sancti Andreae vel Thomae apostoli, 
etc.' ; so that he must have regarded Leucius as 
the author of these three Acts, but there is no 
suggestion of the full corpus^ of five. Schmidt 
thinks that he probably derived his knowledge 
from the letter of Turribius and a list of heretical 
writings, which was once annexed to it, though 
it has now disappeared; the letter was probably 
taken up into the works of Leo, with whom Turri- 
bius corresponded (see Schmidt, p. 61). It does 
not appear probable from internal evidence that 
Mellitus had any first-hand knowledge of the 
Apocryphal Acts. 

(8) Further traces of Leucius, under the corrupt 
form of Seleucus, can perhaps be traced in pseudo- 
Hieronymus, Ep. ad Chromatium et Heliodorum, 
and in literature dependent upon it (see Schmidt, 
p. 62) ; but no importance can be attached to this 
late and inferior composition. 

It would appear from these data that (a) the 
earliest traditions connected Leucius with St. John, 
and did not regard him as heretical. (6) A quite 
late tradition regarded him as the author of the 
corpus of five Acts Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, 
and Thomas which the Manichseans used as a 
substitute for the canonical Acts, and the Priscil- 
lianists in addition to the canonical Acts, (c) Ex- 
ternal evidence suggests that Leucius was probably 
the author of the Acts of John, and, with less 
clearness, of Andrew, but not of Peter, Paul, or 
Thomas; and this conclusion is supported by in- 
ternal evidence. 

2. The evidence for the Acts as a collection. 
i. IN THE WEST. (1) Philastrius of Brescia (383- 
391). In his Liber de Hasresibus, 88, we have the 
earliest evidence for a corpus of Apocyrphal Acts. 
He begins by referring to those who use ' apocryfa, 
id est secreta,' instead of the canonical OT and NT, 
and mentions as the chief of those who do this the 
'Manichaei, Gnostici, Nicolaitae, Valentiniani et 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



31 



alii quam plurimi qui apocryfa prophetarum et 
apostolorum, id est Actus separates habentes, 
canonicas legere scripturas contemnunt.' Later 
on he gives more details in a passage where the 
text is unfortunately clearly corrupt : 

'Nam Manichaei apocryfa beati Andreae apostoli, id est 
Actus quos fecit yeniens de Ponto in Greciam [quos] conscrip- 
serunt tune discipuli sequentes beatum appstolum, unde et 
habent Manichaei et alii tales Andreae beati et Joannis actus 
evangelistae beati et Petri similiter beatissimi apostoli et Pauli 
pariter beati apostoli : in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna 
et prodigia, etc.' 

Whatever may be the true text of this passage, 
it clearly implies (a) that the Manicha3ans used a 
corpus of Apocryphal Acts in place of the canonical 
Acts of the Apostles ; (6) that this corpus contained 
the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul ; (c) the 
Acts of Thomas is not mentioned (Schmidt [p. 44] 
thinks that this is merely accidental) ; (d) Leucius 
is not mentioned. 

(2) Augustine. In the controversial writings of 
Augustine against the Manichaeans there are many 
allusions to the Apocryphal Acts. Reference may 
especially be made to (a) the de Sermone Domini 
in Monte (i. 20, 65), in which allusions can be traced 
to the Acts of Thomas ; (b) the contra Adimantum, 
17, where allusions to the Acts of Thomas and 
Acts of Peter can be identified; (c) the contra 
Faustum Manicheum (lib. xiv. and xxx.) ; (d) 
the contra Felicem; and (e) the de Civitate Dei. 
Schmidt (44 ff.) has shown, from the consideration 
of these passages, that the Manichaeans used the 
five Acts of John, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, and 
Paul, while the Catholics rejected the first four, 
but accepted the Acts of Paul. The crucial pass- 
age for this conclusion is c. Faustum, xxx. 4, in 
which Faustus the Manichee says : 

' Mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrum 
et Andream, Thomam et ilium inexpertum veneris inter ceteros 
beatum Johannem . . . sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo, 
quia eos vos [i.e. the Catholics] exclusistis ex canone, facileque 
mente sacrilega yestra daemoniorum his potestis impqrtare 
doctrinas. Num igitur et de Christo eadem dicere poteritis aut 
deapostoloPaulo, quern similiterubiqueconstatetverbo semper 
praetulisse nuptis innuptas et id opere quoque ostendisse erga 
eanctissimam Theclam ? quodsi haec daemoniorum doctrina non 
fuit, quam et Theclae Paulus et ceteri ceteris adnuntiaverunt 
apostoli, cui credi iam poterit hoc ab ipso memoratum, tam- 
quam sit daemoniorum voluntas et doctrina etiam persuasio 
sanctimonii ? ' 

As Schmidt says, it is clear that Faustus gave up 
the use of the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and 
Thomas, because his opponents refused to recognize 
their authority, but relied on a Pauline document 
relating to Thekla. Before the discovery of the 
Acts of Paul it was possible to think that this might 
be the so-called Acts of Paul and Thekla. It is 
now, however, fairly certain that this latter docu- 
ment in its present form is merely an extract from 
the older Acts of Paul ; there is no reason, there- 
fore, to doubt that Augustine and Faustus both 
recognized the Acts of Paul, which had not yet 
been entirely deposed from the Canon. 

(3) Innocent I. and Exsuperius. A correspond- 
ence (in A. D. 405) between Innocent I. and Exsup- 
erius, bishop of Toulouse (see the quotation above), 
shows that the Apocryphal Acts were used in Spain 
not only by Manichaeans but also by Priscillian- 
ists. It is not quite clear to which Acts Innocent 
refers. Besides mentioning the Acts of Peter and 
John (of which certainly the latter and probably 
the former also are ascribed to Leucius), he refers 
to Acts of Matthias and of James the less, which 
do not elsewhere appear in the Manichaean corpus, 
as well as to those of Andrew, which in some texts 
(see Zahn, Gesch. des NT Kanons, Leipzig, 1888- 
92, ii. 244 ff .) are ascribed to Nexocharide (v.l. 
Xenocharide) and Leonidas; Fabricius (Codex 
Apocryphus, ii. 767) thinks that these names are a 
corruption of Charinus and Leucius. 

(4) Leo the Great and Turribius (440-461) . Forty 



years after the time of Innocent, the correspond- 
ence between Leo and Turribius, bishop of Astorga 
in Spain, throws more light on the use of the 
Apocryphal Acts by the Priscillianists. Leo com- 
plains that the Priscillianists 'scripturas veras 
adulterant ' and ' f alsas inducunt .' Turribius found 
that the Priscillianists and Manichaeans were mak- 
ing great progress in Spain, and for this reason had 
elicited a letter of condemnation from Leo. He 
also expressed himself further in his letters to 
Idacius and Creponius, and apparently annexed a 
selection of heretical passages from the Apocryphal 
Acts to justify his disapproval. This selection is, 
however, unfortunately no longer extant, but it is 
plain that he was acquainted with the Acts of 
Thomas, Andrew, and John (for text see above, 
1. (6)). He also refers to a Memoria Apostolorum, 

'in quo admagnam perversitatissuae auctoritatem doctrinam 
domini mentiuntur, qui totam destruit legem veteris Testa- 
ment! et omnia quae S. Moysi de diversis creaturae f actprisque 
divinitua revelata sunt, praeter reliquas eiusdem libri blas- 
phemias quas referre pertaesum est.' 

This Memoria Apostolorum is also mentioned by 
Orpsius (Consultatio ad Augustinum, in Pair. Lai. 
xlii. 667), and Schmidt (p. 50) thinks that it is the 
source of a quotation from a Manichaean writing 
which Augustine could not trace : 

' Sed Apostplis dominus noster interrogantibus de Judaeprum 
prophetia quid sentiri deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid 
cecinisse in praeteritum putabantur, commotus talia eos etiam 
nunc sentire respondit ' Demisiatis vivum qui ante vos est et 
de mortuis fabulamini.'" 

ii. IN THE EAST. (1) Eusebius. In HE iii. 25. 6 
the Acts of John and Andrew are mentioned to- 
gether with 'those of the other apostles,' and are 
regarded as books used by heretics. In iii. 3. 2 the 
Acts of Peter are mentioned, and in iii. 3. 5 and 
iii. 25. 4 the Acts of Paul. The Acts of Thomas are 
not quoted, nor is any reference made to Leucius. 

(2) Ephraim Syrus (c. 360) . In his commentary 
Ephraim says that the apocryphal correspondence 
between Paul and the Corinthians was written by 
the followers of Bardesanes, 'in order that under 
cover of the signs and wonders of the Apostle, 
which they described, they might ascribe to the 
name of the Apostle their own godlessness, against 
which the Apostle had striven. This apocryphal 
correspondence was contained in the Acts of Paul, 
but it also circulated in some Syriac and Armenian 
NT MSS; no doubt it was an excerpt from the 
Acts, but it is not clear whether Ephraim knew 
the Acts or the excerpt. It is, however, ^much 
more probable that Ephraim is here referring to 
the Acts, as the correspondence alone does not 
seem ever to have been regarded by the Syriac 
Church as heretical. 

(3) Epiphanius. In the Panarion Epiphanius 
mentions the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John 
in connexion with the Encratites (Pan. xlvii. 1), the 
Apostoh'ci (ib. Ixi. 1), and other heretics (cf. xxx. 
16, Ixiii. 2). But there is no sign of any con- 
sciousness that there was a Manichaean corpus, or 
that there was any connexion with Leucius. At 
the same time a note in Photius (Bibl. cod. 179) 
states that Agapius used the Acts of Andrew, so 
that the Eastern Manichaeans must have used at 
least some of the Acts. 

(4) Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 374). At the 
Second Council of Nicaea (787) a quotation was 
read from Amphilochius' lost book irepl T&V \[/ei>5- 
emypd<j><i}v ruv irapb. alperiKois, in which he proposed 
det%o/jiev 5t T A /3i/3Xfa TO.VTO. , & irpo^povcrivrj/juv ol facbara.- 
TO.I TTJS KK\i)fflas, oi>xl T&V diroffr6\(i}i> irpcieis dXXct 
dai/ji6vwv ffvyypdnnaTa. It also appears from the 
Acts of the Council that the Acts of John was 
quoted and condemned. It was resolved that no 
more copies were to be made and those already 
existing were to be burnt. 



32 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



(5) John of Thessalonica (c. 680) .In the preface 
to his recension of the reXe/wcm Maplas (M. Bonnet, 
ZWT, 1880, p. 239 ff.), John explains that the 
Acts of Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John were hereti- 
cal productions, but seems to argue that they made 
use of genuine material, just as had been the case 
with the re\eita<ris. 

From this evidence, which is given with a full 
and clear discussion in his Alte Petrusakten (cf. 
also his Ada Pauli, 112 f .), C. Schmidt draws the 
following conclusion : (a) The Manichseans had 
formed a corpus of the five Acts, but were not them- 
selves the authors of any of them. They used 
this corpus instead of the canonical Acts, -and the 
Priscillianists used it in addition to the Canon. 
(b) In the course of the struggle between the Mani- 
chseans and the Church the view was adopted that 
the corpus was the work of a certain heretical 
Leucius. (c) The name of Leucius originally be- 
longed to the Acts of John alone, and was errone- 
ously attributed to the other books, (d) In this 
way the Acts of Paul, which was originally recog- 
nized as orthodox if not canonical, came to be 
regarded as heretical. 

On the evidence as we have it no serious objec- 
tion can be made to these propositions ; it might, 
however, be a matter for investigation whether the 
corpus of the Manichseans was also used by the 
Eastern Manichseans, or was the peculiar possession 
of the Western branch. 

II. THE INDIVIDUAL ACTS.!. The Acts of 
Paul. By far the most important discovery con- 
cerning the Apocryphal Gospels in recent years 
was the Coptic text of the Acts of Paul found by 
C. Schmidt in the Heidelberg Papyrus 1, and pub- 
lished by him in his Ada Pauli, Leipzig, 1903 (and 
in a cheaper form without the facsimile of the text, 
in 1905). This is not indeed complete, and there 
are still minor problems connected with the order 
of the incidents, but the main facts are now plain ; 
and the general contents of the Acts may be re- 
garded as roughly established, with the exception 
of certain rather serious lacunse, especially at the 
beginning and in the middle. The contents, as we 
have them, can be divided most conveniently as 
follows : 

(1) In Antioch. Paul is in the house of a Jew 
named Anchares and his wife Phila, whose son is 
dead. Paul restores the boy to life, and makes 
many converts ; but he is suspected of magic, and 
a riot ensues in which he is ill-treated and stoned. 
He then goes to Iconium. 

(2) In Iconium (the Thekla-story) . Here the 
well-known story of Thekla is placed, and on the 
way to Iconium we are introduced to Demas and 
Hermogenes, who are represented as Gnostics with 
a peculiar doctrine of an &vdffTa<ns not of the flesh. 
In Iconium Paul was entertained by Onesiphorus, 
and preached in his house on Avda-racris and tjKpd- 
reia, with the result that Thekla, the daughter of 
Theokleia, abandoned her betrothal to Thamyris 
and vowed herself to a life of virginity. Theokleia 
and Thamyris therefore raised persecution against 
Paul and Thekla. Paul was scourged and banished 
from the town ; Thekla was condemned to be 
burnt. From the flames she was miraculously 
preserved, and went to Antioch, where she found 
Paul. In Antioch her beauty attracted the atten- 
tion of Alexander, a prominent Antiochian, and 
her refusal to consent to his wishes led to her con- 
demnation to the wild beasts. A lioness protected 
her, but ultimately, after a series of miraculous 
rescues, she was forced to jump into a pond full of 
seals and committed herself to the water with the 
baptismal formula. Ultimately the protection of 
Queen Tryphsena and the sympathy of the women 
of Antioch secured her pardon. She returned to 
the house of Tryphasna and converted her and her 



servants, and then followed Paul in man's clothing 
to Myrrha. Then she returned to Iconium, and 
finally died in Seleucia. The text of this whole 
story is very defective in Coptic, but it is preserved 
separately in Greek, and enough remains in the 
Coptic to show that the Greek has kept fairly well 
to the original story. 

(3) In Myrrha. Thekla left Paul in Myrrha. 
Here he healed of the dropsy a man named Hermo- 
krates, who was baptized. But Hermippus the 
elder son of Hermokrates was opposed to Paul, 
and the younger son, Dion, died. The text is here 
full of lacunse, but apparently Paul raised up Dion, 
and punished Hermippus with blindness, but after- 
wards healed and converted him. He then went 
on to Sidon. 

(4) In Sidon. On the road to Sidon there is an 
incident connected with a heathen altar, and the 
power of Christians over the demons or heathen 
gods, but there is unfortunately a large lacuna in 
the text. In Sidon there is an incident which 
apparently is concerned with unnatural vice, and 
Paul and other Christians were shut up in the 
temple of Apollo. At the prayer of Paul the 
temple was destroyed, but Paul was taken into 
the amphitheatre. The text is defective, and the 
manner of his rescue is not clear, but apparently 
he made a speech and gained many converts, and 
then went to Tyre. 

(5) In Tyre. Only the beginning of the story- 
is extant, but apparently the central feature is 
the exorcism of demons and the curing of a dumb 
child. After this there is a great lacuna, in which 
Schmidt places various fragments dealing with the 
question of the Jewish law ; and it appears possible 
that the scene is moved to Jerusalem and that 
Peter is also present. 

(6) Paul in prison in the mines. In this incident 
Paul appears as one of those condemned to work 
in the mines (? in Macedonia), and he restores to 
life a certain Phrontina. Presumably he ultimately 
escaped from his imprisonment, but the text is 
incomplete. 

(7) In Philippi. The most important incident 
connected with Philippi is a correspondence with 
the Corinthians, dealing with certain heretical 
views, of which the main tenets are (a) a denial 
of the resurrection of the flesh; (6) the human 
body is not the creation of God ; (c) the world is 
not the creation of God ; (d) the government of 
the universe is not in the hands of God ; (e) the 
crucifixion was not that of Christ, but of a docetic 
phantasm ; (f) Christ was not born of Mary, nor 
was he of the seed of David. 

(8) A farewell scene. The place in which this 
scene is laid cannot be discerned from the frag- 
ments which remain, but it contains a prophecy of 
Paul's work in Rome, placed in the mouth of a 
certain Cleobius. 

(9) The martyrdom of Paul. The last episode 
gives an account of the martyrdom of Paul, and 
the text of this is also preserved as a separate docu- 
ment in Greek. According to it, Paul preached 
without any hindrance, and there is no suggestion 
that he was a prisoner. On one occasion, while he 
was preaching, Patroclus, a servant of Nero, fell 
from a window and was killed. Paul restored him, 
and he was converted. When Nero heard of this 
miracle, Patroclus acknowledged that he was the 
soldier of the /3a<rt\ei>s Irj<rovs Xpwrij. Nero caused 
him and other Christians to be arrested, condemned 
Paul to be beheaded, and the other Christians to 
be burnt. In prison Paul converted the prefect 
Longinus and the centurion Cestus, and pro- 
phesied to them life after death. Longinus and 
Cestus were told to go to his grave on the next 
day, when they would be baptized by Titus and 
Luke. At his execution milk spurted from his 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



33 



neck instead of blood, and afterwards he appeared 
to Nero, who was so impressed that he ended the 
persecution. The narrative ends with the baptism 
of Longinus and Cestus at the grave of Paul. 

The testimony of early writers to the Acts of 
Paul. Since the discovery of the Coptic Acts, 
which show that the 'Acts of Paul and Thekla' 
is an extract fcdm the Acts of Paul, there is no 
justification for doubting that Tertullian refers to 
the Acts of Paul in de Baptismo, 17 : 

'Quodsi qui Pauli perperam inscripta legrunt, exemplum 
Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tinguendique defendunt, 
sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui earn scripturam construxit 
quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum 
se id amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse.' 

This statement is extremely valuable, because it 
gives us clear evidence as to the provenance of the 
Acts, proves that it is not later than the 2nd 
cent., and shows that it was composed in the 
great Church, not in any heretical or Gnostic 
sect. 

Origen quotes the Acts in de Principiis, i. 2, 3, 
and in in Johannem, xx. 12. In both cases he 
gives the Acts of Paul definitely as the source of 
his quotation, but neither passage is found in the 
extant texts. He apparently regards the Acts as 
only slightly inferior to the Canonical Scriptures. 

Eusebius in HE iii. 25 ranks the Acts of Paul, 
with the Shepherd of Hermas, Ep. of Barnabas, 
the Apoc. of Peter, the Didache, and possibly the 
Johannine Apocalypse, as among the vt>6a.. But 
he does not appear to place it with the Acts of 
Andrew and John and 'the other apostles' (per- 
haps the Acts of Peter and Thomas) which are 
&TOTTO. irdiri) teal dv<r<repi]. Hence he probably did 
not regard the Acts of Paul as heretical. 

In the Claromontane list of books of the OT 
and NT the Acts of Paul comes at the end in the 
company of ' Barnabae epistula, Johannis revelatio, 
Actus Apostolorum, Pastor, Actus Pauli, Revela- 
tio Petri,' which suggests somewhat the same judg- 
ment as that of Eusebius. 

From the Commentary of Hippolytus on Dn 3' 
it seems clear that he regarded the Acts of Paul 
as definitely historical and trustworthy. Com- 
bating those who doubted the truth of the story of 
Daniel in the lions' den, he says : 

el yap irt<rrevo/aev on ITavAov eis firjpi'a KaToocptSeiTOS a^e 
cir' avrbv 6 Ae'tov eis TOVJ 7ro6a? a.va.ire<riav jrepie'A.eix 6 *' ainov, ir<os 



This incident is not extant in the Coptic texts, 
but a full account, stated to be taken from the 
UeptoSot UatiXov, is given by Nicephorus Callistus 
(cf . Zahn, Gesch. d. NTKanons, ii. 2. p. 880 ff.), and 
there is therefore no doubt but that Hippolytus re- 
garded the Acts of Paul as little less than canonical. 

Finally, the passage quoted above from Augus- 
tine, c. Faust, xxx., makes it clear that in the 
Church of Africa, as late as the time of Augustine, 
the Acts of Paul was accepted as authoritative 
and orthodox, even if not canonical. 

The date of the Acts of Paul. The testimony oi 
early writers furnishes a safe terminus ad quern 
The Acts must be earlier than Tertullian's de 
Baptismo. The precise date of this tractate is 
uncertain, but at the latest it is only a few years 
later than A.D. 200, so that the Acts must at al" 
events belong to the 2nd century. The question 
is whether it is a great deal or a very little 
earlier. Schmidt is influenced by the frequent use 
of the canonical Acts and the Pastoral Epistles to 
choose a date not much earlier than 180 ; on the 
other hand, Harnack thinks that the complete 
silence as to the Montanist movement, or anything 
which could be construed as anti-Montanist po- 
lemics, points to a date earlier than 170. Between 
these two positions a choice is difficult t probably 
we cannot really say more than that between 160 
VOL. i. 3 



and 200 is the most likely period for the compo- 
ition of the Acts of Paul. (See especially C. 
Schmidt, Ada Pauli, 176 ff., where the whole 
question is thoroughly discussed, and reference 
made to the literature bearing on the subject.) 

The theology of the Acts of Paul. From the theo- 
ogical point of view the Acts of Paul has excep- 
;ional value as giving a presentment of the ordinary 
Christianity of Asia at the end of the 2nd cent., 
undisturbed by polemical or other special aims. 

So far as the doctrine of God is concerned, the 
reaching of the Acts is quite simple it is that 
there is one God, and his Son, Jesus Christ,' 
which is sometimes condensed into the statement 
:hat there is no other God save Jesus Christ alone, 
tt is thus in no sense Arian or Ebionite, but at 
;he same time distinctly not Nicene. It is also 
definitely not Gnostic^ for the Supreme God is also 
the Creator, and the instigator if not the agent of 
redemption. The general view which is implied is 
that the world was created good, and man was 
;iven the especial favour of being the son of God. 
This sonship was broken by the Fall, instigated 
by the serpent. From that moment history be- 
came a struggle between God, who was repairing 
the evil of the Fall, through His chosen people 
Israel and through the prophets, and the prince 
of this world, who resisted His efforts, had pro- 
claimed himself to be God (in this way heathen re- 
ligion was explained), and had bound all humanity 
to him by the lusts of the flesh. The result of 
this process was the existence of dyvaxria. and ir\dvi) 
followed by tf>0opd t &Ka.6ap<rla, fjSov^ J and Bdvaros, and 
the need of an ultimate judgment of God, which 
would destroy all that was contaminated. But 
in His mercy God had sent His Holy Spirit into 
Mary, in order in this way, by becoming flesh, to 
destroy the dominion of evil over flesh. This Holy 
Spirit was (as in Justin Martyr) identical with the 
spirit which had spoken through the Jewish 
prophets, so that the Christian faith rested through- 
out on the Spirit, which had given the prophets to 
the Jews and later on had been incarnate in the 
Christ who had given the gospel. It should be 
noted that there is no attempt to distinguish be- 
tween the Logos and the Spirit. 'Father, Son, 
and Spirit' is a formula which seems to mean 
Father, Spirit or Logos, and the Son or Incarnate 
Spirit. It is clear that this is the popular theolo-jy 
out of which the Sabellian and Arian controversies 
can best be explained. For the reconstruction of 
late 2nd cent. Christology in popular circles the 
Acts of Paul is of unique value. There is also 
a marked survival of primitive eschatological 
interest : the expectation of the coming of Christ, 
and the establishment of a glorious kingdom in 
which Christians will share, is almost central. 
The means whereby Christians ensure this result 
are asceticism and baptism. The latter is prob- 
ably the necessary moment, and is habitually 
called the <r<pa7/j; but asceticism is equally 
necessary, and involves an absolute abstinence 
from all sexual relations, even in marriage. 
There is no trace of any institution of repentance 
for sin after baptism; for this reason, baptism 
appears usually to be postponed, and in these re- 
spects the Acts of Paul agrees more closely with 
Tertullian than with Hermas. ^The Eucharist is 
primarily a meal of the community, and the theol- 
ogy underlying it is not clearly expressed : the 
most remarkable feature is that here, as in all the 
other Apocryphal Acts, water takes the place of 
wine. This feature used to be regarded as Gnostic, 
but in view of more extended knowledge of the 
Acts as a whole this opinion is untenable. 

Far the best statement of the theology of the Acts is in C. 
Schmidt's Acta Paidi, 183 ff. This also gives full references to 
earlier literature. 



34 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



2. The Acts of Peter. The Acts of Peter is 
no longer extant in a complete form. ' But, apart 
from late paraphrastic recensions, which re-edit 
older material in a form more agreeable to Catholic 
taste, three documents exist, two of them in a 
fragmentary form, which probably represent por- 
tions of the original Acts. These are (1) a Coptic 
text of a Ilpdfeiy Hirpov, (2) the Codex Vercellensis, 
or A d us Petri cum Simone, and (3) a Greek text of 
the Martyrium Petri. 

(1) The Coptic IIpdeis Tltrpov. This fragment 
was found by C. Schmidt at the end of the Gnostic 
Papyrus P. 8502 in the Egyptian Museum at 
Berlin (Sitzungsber. d. K. Preuss. Akad. xxxvi. 
[1896] 839 ff .), and published by him in Die alien 
Petrusakten, Leipzig, 1903. This relates the story 
of Peter's paralyzed daughter. At the beginning 
of the incident, Peter, who had been twitted with 
the paralysis of his daughter in spite of his powers 
of miraculous healing, cured her for a short time, 
and then restored her paralytic condition. Having 
thus shown his power, he explained that she had 
originally been paralyzed in answer .to his own 
prayer, in order to preserve her virginity, which 
was threatened by a certain Ptolemaeus. By this 
miracle Ptolemseus had been converted to Christi- 
anity, and dying soon afterwards left land to 
Peter's daughter, which Peter sold, giving the 
proceeds of it to the poor. 

(2) The Codex Vercellensis (Bibliothec. capitul. 
Vercellensis, cviii. 1). This MS contains either an 
extract from or a recension of the last part of the 
Acts. It begins by describing Paul's departure from 
Rome to Spain, and the arrival of Simon Magus, 
who makes Aricia his headquarters. Meanwhile, 
however, Peter, who had finished 'the twelve years 
which the Lord had enjoined on him' (on this 
legend see esp. Harnack's Expansion of Christian- 
ity, i. [1904] 48 n.) ? was directed to go to Rome to 
oppose Simon. Simon, who was first in Rome, 
perverted Marcellus, a convert of Paul; and, as 
soon as Peter arrived, a contest was waged for his 
faith on the question of the respective powers of 
Simon and Peter to raise the dead. In this con- 
test, which is long drawn out, Peter was successful, 
and Simon retreated. Later on, the latter made 
an effort to restore his reputation by flying in the 
air, but the prayer of Peter caused him to fall and 
break his thigh. He was carried to Aricia and 
thence to Terracina, where he died. 

The story then relates the events which led up 
to the martyrdom of Peter. The main reason was 
the decision of the converted concubines of Agrippa 
the prefect to refuse any further intercourse with 
him, and the similar conduct of Xanthippe the 
wife of Albinus, a friend of Nero, and of many 
other wives who all left their husbands. Peter 
was warned of the anger of Agrippa, and at first 
was persuaded by the Christians to leave Rome. 
At this point the Codex Vercellensis is defective, 
but the missing incidents can be restored from the 
Martyrium Petri, which overlaps the Codex Ver- 
cellensis. From this it appears that Peter on his 
departure from Rome was arrested by a vision of 
Christ going to Rome and saying, 'I am going to 
Rome to be crucified.' Peter therefore applied 
this vision to himself, and went back to Rome, 
where he was crucified by the orders of the prefect 
Agrippa. Here the Codex Vercellensis is again 
extant, and runs parallel with the Martyrium to 
the end. Peter at his own request was crucified 
head downwards, in order to fulfil the saying of 
the Lord, 'Si non feceritis dextram tamquam 
sinistram, et sinistram ut dextram, et quae sunt 
sursum tamquam deorsum, et quae retro sunt tam- 
quam ab ante, non intrabitis in regna coelorum' 
a saying which is also found in the Gospel of 
the Egyptians. After Peter's death Marcellus took 



down his body and buried it in his own tomb, after 
costly embalming. But Peter appeared to him in 
a vision and rebuked him for not having obeyed the 
precept ' Let the dead bury their dead.' Finally, 
the narrative explains that Nero was angry with 
Agrippa because he wished to have inflicted worse 
tortures on Peter, but, while he was planning 
further persecution of the Christians, he was de- 
terred by a vision of an angel, so that Peter was 
the last martyr of that persecution. The Codex 
ends with the obviously corrupt line 'actus Petri 
apostoli explicuerunt cum pace et Simonis amen.' 
Lipsius (Acta Apocrypha, p. 103) suggests with 
great probability that 'et Simonis' is a misplaced 
gloss. In this case the 'actus P. apostoli explicu- 
erunt. Amen,' would be the conclusion of the 
original Acts of Peter, of which the Codex Ver- 
cellensis is an extract, giving the Roman episode 
and martyrdom. 

(3) The Martyrium Petri. The text of this early 
extract from the Acts of Peter is preserved in two 
MSS. (a) Cod. Patmiensis 48 (9th cent.). .This 
was copied by C. Krumbacher in 1885 and published 
by Lipsius in 1886 in the Jahrbucher fur Protest. 
Theologie, pp. 86-106. (6) Cod. Athous Vatoped. 
79 (lOth-llth cent.). This was copied by Ph. 
Meyer and published by Lipsius in his Ada 
Apocrypha. There are also Slavonic and Coptic 
(Sahidic) versions, the latter preserved directly in 
three fragments and indirectly in Arabic and 
Ethiopic translations (see further Lipsius, Act. 
Apocr. h'v f.). Lipsius thinks that the Patmos 
MS is the best. The contents of the Martyrium 
are the same as the second part of the Codex 
Vercellensis, beginning with Simon's flight hi the 
air, and from the comparison of the Codex with 
the Greek Martyrium it is possible that the 
original form of this part of the ancient Acta can 
be reconstructed with some probability. 

The place of origin of the Acts of Peter. There 
is no unanimity among critics as to the community 
in which the Acts of Peter was first produced. 
There is of course a natural tendency to consider 
in the first place the possibility that the document 
is Roman. In favour of this view the most com- 
plete statement is that of Erbes (' Petrus nicht in 
Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben,' ZKG xxii. 
1, pp. 1-47 and 2, pp. 161-231). He lays special 
emphasis on the fact that the writer is acquainted 
with the entrance to Rome both from the sea and 
by road, and knows that the paved way from 
Putepli to Rome is bad to walk upon and jars the 
pilgrims who use it. He also emphasizes the 
correctness of the narrative in placing the contest 
between Peter and Simon Magus in the Forum 
Julium, on the ground that, according to Appian 
(de BeUo Civili, ii. 102), this forum was especially 
reserved for disputes and closed to commerce. He 
makes other points of a similar nature, but not of 
so striking a character. 

Against this it is urged by Harnack (AUchristl. 
Lilteraturgesch. ii. 559) and Zahn (Gesch. des NT 
Kanons, ii. 841) that the local references to Rome 
are really very small, and do not give more know- 
ledge than was easily accessible to any one in the 
2nd or 3rd century. For instance, that Aricia and 
Terracina are towns not far from Rome is a fact 
which must have been quite generally known. 

Other arguments seem to point to Asia rather 
than Rome for the composition of the Acts. Apart 
from the OT and NT, the books which clearly 
were made use of by the redactor of the Acts of 
Peter are the Acts of Paul and the Acts of John. 
Now we know with tolerable certainty that the 
Acts of Paul was written in Asia, and it is usually 
thought that the Acts of John came from Ephesus 
or the neighbourhood. It is, therefore, not im- 
probable that the Acts of Peter came from the 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



35 



same district. Other possibilities are Antioch or 
Jerusalem, but there is less to be said in favour of 
these than either Rome or Asia. 

The date of the Acts of Peter. The terminus ad 
quern is some time earlier than Commodian the 
African Christian poet, who was clearly acquainted 
with both the Acts of Paul and the Acts of Peter, 
probably in a Latin version, and appears to have 
regarded them as undoubted history (cf. esp. 
Commodian, Carmen Apologeticum, 623 ff .) . Com- 
modian is generally supposed to have written c. 
A.D. 250, so that some years earlier than this (to 
allow for the spread of the Acts, their translation, 
and the growth of their prestige) is the earliest 
possible date. The terminus a quo is more diffi- 
cult to find. It is generally conceded that the 
date 165 adopted by Lipsius (Apokr. Apostel- 
gesch., ii. 1, p. 275) is too early, and opinion usually 
fixes on the decennium either side of the year 200 
as the most probable for the writing of the Acts. 
Harnack thinks that early in the 3rd cent, is the 
most probable time (Altchr. Lit., ii. 553 ff .), but 
Erbes and C. Schmidt incline rather to the end of 
the 2nd century. The most important argument 
is concerned with the compassionate attitude to- 
wards the lapsi, which is very marked in the 
Acts. Harnack thinks that this is not intelligible 
until 230, while Erbes and Schmidt maintain that 
in the light of the Shepherd of Hermas a much 
earlier date is possible. Obviously this sort of 
reasoning is somewhat tentative, and it is ap- 
parently not possible at present to say more than 
that 180-230 seems to be the half-century within 
which the composition ought probably to be placed. 

The sources used by the Acts of Peter. Apart 
from the OT and NT, both of which the writer 
uses freely and accepts as equally inspired, the 
use can clearly be traced of the following books, 
(a) The Acts of Paul. Apart from various smaller 
points of contact, the whole account of the martyr- 
dom of Peter is clearly based on the martyrdom 
of Paul. The whole subject is worked out in 
full detail by C. Schmidt in his Petrusakten 
(p. 82 ff .) ; but it should be added that there is per- 
haps still room for doubt whether that portion 
of the Codex Vercellensis which deals with Paul 
really belongs to the Acts of Peter, and is not an 
addition made by the redactor who formed the 
excerpt, rather than by the author of the Acts 
itself. The fullest statement of this possibility is 
given by Harnack (TU xx. 2 [1900], p. 103 ff .), 
and a discussion tending to negative his conclu- 
sions is to be found in Schmidt's Petrusakten, 82 f . 
(6) The Acts of John. The frequent verbal 
dependence of the Acts of Peter on the Acts of 
John is demonstrated by the long list of parallel 
passages given by M. R. James in Apocrypha 
Anecdota, ii. p. xxivff. James, however, thought 
at that time that this list proved the identity of 
authorship of the two books; but Schmidt has 
shown conclusively that the facts must be ex- 
plained as due to dependence rather than to 
identity of authorship. His most telling argument 
is the large use of the OT and NT made by the 
Acts of Peter as contrasted with then 1 very limited 
use in the Acts of John. (c) Schmidt also argues 
that the Acts used the K-f/pvyfM Hh-pov. Probably 
he is right, but our knowledge of the TL-fipvy/M is 
too small to enable the question to be satisfactorily 
settled. 

The theology of the Acts of Peter. In general 
the account given above of the theology of the 
Acts of Paul will serve also for the Acts of Peter. 
But in some passages which depend on the Acts of 
John there is an appearance of a pronounced 
Modalism or almost of Docetism. Lipsius and 
others, who believed, with Zahn and James, that 
the Acts of Peter was written by the author of 



the Acts of John, used to think that these passages 
pointed to a heretical and Gnostic origin. But 
Harnack (Altchr. Lit. ii. 560 ff.) and Schmidt 
(Petrusakten, p. Ill ff.) have argued very forcibly 
that this is not the case, and that the Acts of 
Peter represents the popular Christianity of the 
end of the 2nd cent, rather than any Gnostic 
sect. 

No complete edition of the text exists : the Codex Vercellensia 
and the Greek text of the Martyrium are critically edited by 
R. A. Lipsius in Acta Apocrypha, i. [Leipzig, 1891] ; the Coptic 
IIpa eis IleTpou by C. Schmidt, Die alien Petrusakten (TU xxiv. 
1) , Leipzig, 1903. Very important is the treatment of Harnack 
in his Chronologie, 1897, i. 559 ff., and the article of Erbes in 
ZKO xxii. 1, p. 1 ff. and 2, p. 161 ff. under the title 'Petrua 
nicht in Rom, sondern in Jerusalem gestorben.' 

3. The lets of John. Recent research has 
added much to our knowledge of the Acts of John ; 
and, though the text is fragmentary and uncertain, 
it is now possible to reconstruct the greater part 
of the original. No single MS is complete, put, 
from the comparison of many, the following inci- 
dents can be arranged : 

(1) In Ephesus. John comes from Miletug to 
Ephesus and meets Lykomedes, with whom he 
lodges. Here Cleopatra, the wife of Lykomedes, 
dies, and her husband also falls dead from grief, 
but John raises both to life. Lykomedes obtains 
a picture of the Apostle, and worships it in bis 
room until John discovers it and shows him his 
mistake. The next episode at Ephesus is in the 
theatre, where John makes a long speech and 
heals many sick. John is then summoned to 
Smyrna, but determines first to strengthen the 
Ephesian community. On the feast day of Artemis 
he goes to the Temple, and after a speech inflicts 
death on the priest. He then encounters a young 
man who has killed his father because he had 
accused him of adultery. John raises the father, 
and converts both father and son ; he then goes to 
Smyrna. 

(2) Second visit to Ephesus. John returns to 
Ephesus to the house of Andronicus, who had 
been converted during his first visit. Drusiana, 
the wife of Andronicus, dies from the annoyance 
caused her by a young man Kallimachus. but 
after her burial John goes to the tomb and sees 
Christ appear as a young man ; he is instructed to 
raise up Drusiana and also a young man, Fortun- 
atus, who has been buried in the same place. 
Fortunatus is, however, not converted, and soon 
dies again. 

(3) The most important fragment of the Acts is 
that which seems to follow upon the episode of 
Drusiana, as she remains one of the chief persons. 
This was discovered in 1886 by M. R. James in 
Cod. Vind. 63 (written in 1324) and published in 
1897 in TS v. 1. It gives a long and extremely 
Docetic account of the Passion of Christ, and of a 
revelation which the true Christ made to the 
disciples while the phantasmal Christ was being 
crucified, and includes a hymn which was used, 
among others, by the Priscillianists (Augustine, 
Ep. 237 [253]). 

(4) The death of John. During the Sunday 
worship John makes a speech, and partakes with 
the brethren of the Eucharist. He then orders his 
grave to be dug, and after prayer, and emphasis 
on his virgin life, lies down in the grave and either 
dies or passes into a permanent trance. 

The testimony of early writers, and the date of 
the Acts of John. The earliest writer to use the 
Acts of John is Clement of Alexandria. In the 
Adumbrationes to 1 Jn I 1 (ed. Potter, p. 1009) he 
says: 

' Fatur ergo in traditionibus quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus 
quod erat extrinsecus tangens manum suam in profunda 
misisse et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam ease sed 
locum 111:1 imi tribuisse disciouli.' 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



This is a certain reference to the Acts of John (ed. 
Bonnet, 195 f.), and these Latin ' adumbrationes ' 
are generally recognized as derived from the 
Hypotyposes. A similar reference, but less cer- 
tain, is in Strom, vi. 9. 71 : 



aAV jri p.ev TOV <r<uTT)pos rJ> trwjjia a 
ayicouas iiTrrjpeeri'as eis Sai/j.ovrii' ye'Atos av 
' * 



v ()5 <r<o|sux rr av- 
<J>ayei/ yap ov Sia. TO 

\iJ.vov ayt'a, aAA* ws fiij rovy (TWOi^ra? aAAws 
irepl avrov </>pOfeip {iireio-eAOot, ixnrep ane'At ticrrepoj' SoKiJirei Tivc? 

CLVTOl' TT$Ht.Vpti)tJ'0<H. VTTt'Aa/SoV, CLVTO? OC CtTTa^dTrAaJS CtTTCt^T^S TfP tS 

Sp ou^ei- TrapenriueTai K(.Vi)/j.a iradijTiKOC, KxA. 

Perhaps later than Clement, but probably early 
in the 3rd cent., is the writer of the Monarchian 
Prologues, in which the statement as to John, 
'qui virgo electus a Deo est quern de nuptiis 
yolentem nubere vocavit Deus,' clearly refers to 
the Acts of John (ed. Bonnet), p. 212 : 6 0f\ovri poi 
tv vfbrrfTi yfj/Mi lir travels ical elp-rjicdis /, Xpi/fw ffov, 
'Iwdwrj. It is noteworthy that neither Clement 
nor the author of the Prologues seems to have any 
consciousness that he has used a source of doubtful 
orthodoxy. 

Later on, Augustine and other writers against 
the Manichaeans make tolerably frequent mention 
of the Acts ; a full collection of all the quotations 
is given by Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. i. 83 ff. 
Here, of course, there is no longer any doubt as to 
the heterodoxy of the book, which is condemned 
together with the other Acts, with the sole excep- 
tion of the Acts of Paul. 

The evidence of Clement is the chief, if not the 
only, testimony as to the date of the Acts of John. 
It proves that it belongs to the 2nd cent., but 
there is really no evidence to say how much earlier 
than Clement it may be. Twenty years either 
side of 160 seem to represent the limits. 

The provenance of the Acts of John. This 
remains quite uncertain. The only evidence is 
that the centre of the Acts is Ephesus, and this 
points to Asia as the place of origin. _ Nor is there 
any serious argument against this view, for there 
is certainly no connexion between the destruction 
of the temple of Artemis by the Goths in 282 and 
the attack on this temple attributed to John and 
his friends in the Acts. Probably, therefore, 
Ephesus, or more generally Asia, may be taken as 
the place of composition, but not much should be 
built on this view. 

The theology and character of the Acts. The 
theology of the Acts appears to be markedly 
Docetic and Gnostic. It represents Jesus as 
possessing a body which varied from day to day 
in appearance, and was capable even of appearing 
to two observers at the same time in quite different 
forms. His feet left no mark on the Aground. 
This certainly seems Docetic, but it is curious that 
Clement of Alexandria quotes part of this passage 
as historical without any hesitation in accepting 
it, and Clement was not a Docete. The fact that 
at the moment of the Crucifixion Jesus appears to 
John on the Mount of Olives is also prima fade 
Docetic, but it is hard to say where mysticism 
ends and Docetism begins. 

The Gnosticism of the document is chiefly 
supported by the reference in the great hymn to 
an Ogdoad and a Dodecad, but it is not certain 
that this is really a reference to a Gnostic system. 
The Ogdoad is sun, moon, and planets, and the 
Dodecad is the signs of the zodiac. The distinc- 
tion between Gnosticism and Catholicism was not 
that one believed in an Ogdoad and the other did 
not, but in the view which they took of it. In 
just the same way the Valentinians and others 
explained that the Demiurge had made seven 
heavens above the earth, and while Irenaeus re- 
sisted this teaching, he never denied the existence 
of the seven heavens, as is shown by his ' Apostolic 
Preaching.' 



The best statement of the case against the Gnostic theory is 
in C. Schmidt, Petrusakten, 1 19 fi. The case for a Gnostic origin 
is best given, though very shortly, by M. R. James in Apocrypha 
Anecdota, ii. (TS y. 1), Cambridge, 1897, p. xviii ff., and for a 
definitely Valentinian origin, by Zahn (NKZ x. 211 ff.). 

Apart from the suspicion of Docetism and 
Gnosticism, the theology of the Acts is not unlike 
that of the Acts of Paul. Especially noticeable is 
the ascetic objection to marriage; in this respect 
the Acts of John is quite as stern as the Acts of 
Paul or of Thomas. But in other respects the Acts 
of John seems to come from a far higher mystical 
religion, and is altogether finer literature than 
the Acts of Paul. Some of the mystical passages 
reach a magnificent level, and may be ranked 
with the best products of 2nd cent, religion. 

The Acts of John may be studied best in Lipsius and Bonnet, 
Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 1, Leipzig, 1898. This is the 
only complete text of all the known fragments. See also M. R. 
James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. (TS v. 1) ; Th. Zahn, Ada 
Joannis, Erlangen, 1880, and E. Hennecke, Neutest. Apok- 
ryphen, Tubingen, 1904, and Handbuch zu den Neutest. 
Apokr., do. 1904. Especially important is the section on the 
Acta of John in C. Schmidt, Die alien Petrusakten (TU 
xxiv. 1), Leipzig, 1903, p. 120 ff. 

i. The Acts of Andrew. No MS is extant which 
gives even as good a representation of the original 
Acts as^ is found in the other early Acts. We 
possess in quotations of Euodius of Uzala (end of 
the 4th cent.) some valuable fragments, of which 
traces are also found in Augustine; from these, 
and on the grounds of general resemblance to the 
Acts of John, it appears probable that a fragment 
in Cod. Vatican. Gr. 808 (lOth-llth cent.), deal- 
ing with Andrew in prison, belongs to the early 
Acts ; and from a variety of sources it is also 
possible to reconstruct with some accuracy the 
story of the martyrdom of Andrew. 

The text of the fragment in Cod. Vat. 808 begins 
in the middle of a speech of Andrew, who is in 
prison in Patras. The general situation is that 
the Apostle is being prosecuted by a certain 
^Egeates which is perhaps 'an inhabitant of 
^Egea' rather than a personal name because he 
perverted his wife Maximilla by Encratitic doctrine 
against married life. A prominent part is also 
played by Patrocles the brother of ^Egeates but 
a friend of the Apostle. The fragment ends, as it 
begins, abruptly in the middle of a speech by 
Andrew. 

The death of Andrew was by crucifixion, but 
the legend ascribing an unusual shape to the cross 
used seems to be of later origin. For three days 
and three nights he remained on the cross exhort- 
ing the multitude ; at the end of this time a crowd 
of 20,000 men went to the proconsul to demand 
that Andrew should be released. ^Egeates was 
obliged to comply, but Andrew refused, and prayed 
that having once been joined to the cross he might 
not be separated from it. He then died, and was 
buried by Stratolles and Maximilla. 

The date and provenance of the Acts of Andrew. 
These points depend largely on the view taken 
of the authorship of the Acts. If, as is usually 
thought, the Acts of Andrew is really Leucian, 
i.e. written by the same author as the Acts of 
John, Asia is the most probable place for its 
origin, and the end of the 2nd cent, the most 
probable date. If this view be given up, Greece, 
in which the scene of the Acts is laid, becomes 
the most probable place, and the date must be 
decided by internal evidence, for the Acts 
appears not to be quoted before the time of Origen 
(Eus. HE iii. 1). At present the Leucian hypothesis 
perhaps holds the field (see esp. James, Apocrypha 
Anecdota, ii. pp. xxixff.), but it is not at all 
certain. 

The theology of the Acts. So far as the frag- 
ments preserved enable us to discover, the theology 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



37 



of the Acts of Andrew resembles most closely that 
of the Acts of John, and thus supports the Leucian 
theory. There is the same emphasis on asceticism 
even in marriage, and the cross also plays a large 
part. 

The text is given in Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apocrypha, 
ii. 1, and valuable discussions are given in Harnack, Chronol. ii. 
175, and by M. R. James in Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. p. xxix ff. 
Somewhat out of date, but still valuable in some respects, ig 
R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, Brunswick, 
1883-87, i. 543 ff. 

5. The Acts of Thomas. (1) Contents. Judas 
Thomas is sold by Jesus to the messenger of an 
Indian prince. At the wedding-feast of the 
daughter of the king of Andrapolis he is dis- 
covered to be an inspired person and forced by 
the king to pray over the bride and bridegroom. 
On entering the inner room Jesus is found sitting 
with the bride. He explains to the bridegroom 
that He is not Thomas, and converts the couple 
to a complete abstinence from sexual relations 
(Act i.). Thomas is ordered by his master, King 
Gundaphorus, to build a palace. Spending the 
money on alms, he erects a palace in heaven which 
is shown to the disembodied soul of the king's 
deceased brother, who is afterwards restored to 
life and receives the Eucharist with his brother, 
both being 'sealed' with oil by the Apostle. On 
this occasion the Lord appears as a youth bearing 
a lamp. Having preached to the people, Thomas 
is ordered by the Lord to depart (ii.). Thomas 
finds a youth killed by a dragon, which forthwith 
appears, acknowledging Thomas as 'twin of the 
Christ,' and professes to be the serpent from para- 
dise. The dragon is summoned to suck the venom 
again out of the body, after doing which it 
perishes. The youth is restored to life, and says 
that he saw Thomas as a double person : one 
exactly like him standing by and telling him to 
resuscitate the body (iii. ) . While this happens, the 
colt of an ass addresses the Apostle as the 'twin 
of the Christ,' and invites him to ride on its back 
to the town (iv.)- A woman is delivered from a 
demon that had been doing violence to her for five 
years. To protect her for the future, she is 
'sealed' and partakes of the Eucharist (v.). At 
this moment a young man's hands are withered in 
the act of taking the Eucharistic bread. He con- 
fesses that he has murdered a woman for repudiat- 
ing him after her conversion by Thomas. Restored 
to life, she recounts horrible visions from the lower 
world. After a general conversion, Thomas's final 
words culminate in an exhortation to abstinence 
from marriage and in emphasis on the permanence 
of spiritual possession (vi.). All India being evan- 
gelized, a general of king Misdseus visits Thomas 
and prays him to deliver his wife and daughter 
from a cruel pair of demons (vii.). On the road 
the Apostle asks the general to command some 
wild asses to draw his carriage. One of these is 
afterwards ordered by the Apostle to summon the 
demons from the house. In the courtyard this 
same ass preaches a sermon to the multitude, and 
exhorts the Apostle to give the bodies of the 
women back to life, since they had died as the 
demons were leaving them (viii.). Mygdonia, a 
relative of the royal family, comes to hear Thomas 
preaching. The same night her husband Charisius 
has a dream which contains a foreboding of the 
consequences of this preaching for the married 
life. On the next day and night this comes true. 
His wife flees from his embraces. In the morning 
Thomas is arrested, and while in prison sings the 
' Hymn of the Soul.' At home, however, Charisius 
finds his fervent supplications again scorned. His 
wife escapes to receive the 'seal,' and encounters 
Thomas on her way proceeding as a prince with 
many Ii ghts (ix . ) . Thomas follows her and returns 



to prison, having administered the sacraments 
to her and her foster-mother. That morning 
Mygdonia preaches a sermon to her husband on 
Jesus as the heavenly bridegroom. Thomas is 
now ordered by the king and besought by Charisius 
to make Mygdonia alter her conduct ; but his 
feeble commands are refuted by her from his own 
teaching (x.). Tertia the queen pays a visit to 
Mygdonia and returns convinced (xi. ) . Thomas is 
again imprisoned, and converts Vazanes the king's 
son. An attempted torture being miraculously 
frustrated, he is conducted back and speaks a long 
prayer (xii.). Jesus, mostly in the form of Thomas, 
leads the converts and with them Mnesara, the 
wife of Vazanes, to the prison. They enter 
Vazanes' house, where they are 'sealed' and 
baptized by Thomas. After the Eucharistic meal, 
Thomas returns to the prison (Martyrium). The 
Apostle, followed by a multitude, is taken to 
a mountain and there pierced with swords. On 
the mountain Sifor the general and Vazanes 
receive orders as presbyter and deacon (xiii.). 

(2) Original language. After Schroter (ZDMG, 
1871, p. 327 ff .), Noideke (ib. 670-679 and in Lipsius, 
Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2 [1884] 423^25), and 
Macke (Th. Quartalschr., 1874, pp. 3-70), Burkitt 
has settled the question (JThSt i. [1900] 280-290). 
The existence of a Syriac original is proved by a 
series of errors in the Greek arising from Syriac 
idioms or writing. 



(3) Text.- (a) The Syriac (ed. Wright, Apocr. Acts, Lond. 1871, 
i. 172-333, text ; ii. 146 ff., translation) is preserved in Br. Mus. 
Syr. Add 14645 (A.D. 936). Another MS is at Berlin : Sachau 
222, a double of this at Cambridge (P. Bedjan, Act. Mart, and 
Sanct. iii. Paris, 1892, gives variants from the Berlin MS). 
Fragments from the 6th cent, in a Sinai palimpsest, Syr. Sin. 30, 
have been published by Burkitt(<S<ud.Sira., Cambridge, 1900, vol. 
ix. app. 7). Search should be made in the East for MSSof this 
text and its Oriental and Greek versions. Our present text is 
not always superior to the Greek version. On the text of the 
hymns (in Acts i. andix.), cf. A. A. Bevan, 'The Hymn of the 
Soul,' TS v. 3 [1897] ; Hoffmann, ZNTW, 1903, pp. 273-309 ; 
E. Preuschen, Zwei gnost. Hymnen, Giessen, 1901 ; but see 
Burkitt, TViT.Leyden, 1905,pp. 270-282 ; Duncan Jones, JTASf 
vi. [1905] 448-451. 

(6) The Greek version (ed. Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr., ii. 2, 
Leipzig, 1903). The 13 'Acts' + the Martyrium exist as 
a whole in two MSS. The best text is Cod. U (Rome, 
Vallicell. B 35, llth cent.). This is the only Greek MS of the 
' Hymn of the Soul' (Actix.chs. 108-113). On the text of this 
Hymnin Nicetas of Salonica, cf . Bonnet, Preface, p. xxiii. The 
other complete MSis P (Paris, grsec. 1510, 12th or 13th cent.). 
The (19) other MSS give but selections. We must, therefore, 
review separately the MSS for part (A) = Acts i.ii., part (B) = 
Actsiii.-xii., part (C) = Act xiii. -\-Martyrium. Besides UP, 15 
copies preserve (A), of which CXBHTG have no trace of (B) or 
(C), while V gives here only the exordium of (A) ; 9 copies 
preserve (B), of which VYRD have no selections beyond Act 
viii., while SFQZL give here no more than the 'prayers ' of Act 
xii., which, against the order of these MSS and P, Bonnet has 
inserted here, following U + Syr. ; 11 copies preserve (C), of 
which KOM omit (A) and (B) altogether, while Q gives here 
only the exordium of Act xiii. Identical selections : FRCX 
(pp. 99-146 20 Bonnet), BH (99-145 24 ), SFZL (251 1 -258 a) , see 
Pref. p. xxii), SFZ (275>-288). The genealogy is still obscure. 
In part (A) Bonnet distinguishes two types of text : T and A. 
The r text=GHZ and B (1st half). The A text =A (Paris, 
grsec. 881, 10th cent.) + fam. * ( = the rest of the MSS, U andP 
i ncluded). Both types have several unimportant variationsin 
common, which must derive from a not very distant ancestor. 
But, as they more often differ on serious points, the tradition 
of the Greek text appears to be not very reliable. In part (C) 
again two types occur, viz. A + fam. O ( = KORUV) and P + 
fam. 2 ( = FLSZ) . All these MSS belonged to the A text in part 
(A), Z only excepted (Petersb. imp. 94, 12th cent.) ; cf. 'identi- 
cal selections' above. In part (B) the MSS are grouped on their 
textual merits and in a descending order : U VYR, P, D. On the 
MSS neglected by Bonnet cf . _Pref . p. xxiv ff . A Brussels MS 
(ii. 2047) might be of some interest. Several MSS are still 
hidden in Smyrna, Jerusalem, Athos (the catalogues of the 
most important libraries, Lavra and Vatopedi, are still un- 
published) . Bonnet's text might be improved. Only from pp. 
197-250 could due influence be allowed to the Syriac and its 
ally, Cod. U, Burkitt having then convinced the editor that 
the Greek was but the version of a Syriac original (Pref. p. xxi) . 

(c) The Armenian version should be better known. A MS exists 
at Paris (Bibl. nat. fonds arm. 46 III), which Vetteris expected 
to publish in the Or. Christ. The ' Hymn of the Soul ' is not in it. 
Preuschen (Hennecke, Neutest. Apokr. ii. 563) was impressed 
by its variations, not by the quality of its text. In Conybeare's 
opinion the Arm. version derives from the Syriac (op. cit. i. 475). 



38 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



(d) Of other versions, the Ethiopia is wholly, the Latin not 
entirely, useless (cf. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. NT-, Hamburg, 1903, 
ii. 687 f. ; Bonnet, Acta Thomas, 1883, p. 96 ff.). 

(4) Provenance and date. For the history of 
opinion, cf. Harnack, Altchr. L/it., ii. 1 (1897), 545 
549 with ii. 2 (1904), 175-176. Early Gnostics and 
Eastern Christianity have appeared to differ less 
in vocabulary than in other regards. Moreover, 
several coincidences with Gnostic phraseology have 
been intensified in the Greek, or are even due to 
wrong translation. The intellectual pursuits of 
the Gnostic mind are absent, while the rigoristic 
ethics have close parallels in early Syriac Christi- 
anity. All this exactly suits Bardesanes (A.D. 
154-222) and his school (see Burkitt, Early Eastern 
Christianity, London, 1904, pp. 170 n., 199, 205 ff., 
and Nau, Diet. Theol. Cath., Paris, 1907, ii. 391- 
401, artt. 'Bardesane' and 'Bardesanites'; also 
Kriiger, GGA, 1905, p. 718, and Noldeke, #>. p. 82). 
The language (with the proper names) points to 
Syria, the figure of Thomas to Edessa, the char- 
acter and style ('Acts' ixf., the 'Hymn of the 
Soul' in thia 'Act') to the literary capacities 
of Bardesanes' environment. R. Reitzenstein 
(Hellenist. Wundererzdhlungen, Leipzig, 1906, p. 
104 ff .) raises the question whether the material of 
the story was created in Edessa or imported. He 
points out that miracle-stories (' aretalogies') were 
a literary genre, spread by several petites religions 
from Egypt on the waves of universal syncretism. 
The pagan theology of Hermetic monotheism has 
left its traces among the mediaeval Sabians of 
Carrhse (near Edessa). It seems, however, that 
he is over-stating the importance of the existing 
analogies. 

The date of the Acts is fixed by Lipsius (LCBl, 
1888, no. 44, p. 1508, Apokr. Apostelgesch., ii. 2, 
p. 418 note [on i. p. 225 f .]) as the time of the 
translation of the relics of Thomas to Edessa (A.D 
232). It is impossible to clench this argument, 
but it is certain that one of the component parts 
of Act ix., the 'Hymn of the Soul,' was composed 
before the rise of the Sasanid power in A.D. 226, 
since 'Parthian kings' are mentioned in 1. 38 (ed. 
Bevan, TS v. 3). Therefore we must not go much 
beyond that time, and may reserve the middle 
quarters of the 3rd cent, as the latest probable 
date for the whole. 

(5) Integrity. Suspicions are raised by the fact 
that most MSS of the Greek version give but 
selections. If this should occur also in the Oriental 
tradition, our collection of 13 Acts might seem the 
result of a process of agglomeration. Noldeke 
(GGA, 1905, p. 82) suspects interpolations and 
detects a nucleus in Acts i. and ii. (except the 
Andrapolis episode) . He supposes a rather intricate 
genesis for pur collection. Following this line of 
literary criticism, the vigorous style of Acts ix.-xii. 
causes them to stand out as another unit. Acts 
iii.-viii. and the remaining parts might come in as 
later accretions. It seems, however, unsafe to in- 
dulge much in literary criticism before a more ade- 
quate knowledge of the original text is available. 
Reitzenstein has emphasized (op. tit.) the proba- 
bility of literary sources. One author may have 
composed the whole by adapting pagan stories to 
Thomas's name. In this case the different shades 
of style may be due to close adherence to or free 
expansion of such sources. Future criticism may 
even see its way to combine this point of view 
with the first. Possible sources certainly de- 
serve serious consideration (cf . Gutschmid, Kleine 
Schriften, ii. [Leipzig, _ 1890] 332 ff ., advocating 
Buddhism ; Preuschen in Hennecke, i. 477, Parsi- 
ism; Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1904, p. 240, Persian 
influences). 

(6) Hymns. The Bridal 'Ode' (ch. 7, 1st Act) 
is in our Syriac a mystic song of the Church. It 



is not safe to abandon this ancient exegesis, since 
its Gnostic astrology and scenery do not differ in 
degree from the rest of the Acts. It does not even 
go much beyond the Apocalypse or the Patristic 
comments on the Song of Songs. Excision from 
its context is impossible without leaving scars. 
The 'Hymn of the Soul' (Greek, 'Psalm') in chs. 
108-113 (and also a long doxology after ch. 113; 
only Syriac and for the largest part omitted by 
Sachau 222 ; cf. Hennecke, i. 592-594) is omitted 
in most MSS. It is a document of the religious 
life, not of the metaphysics of Gnosticism (Bevan, 
p. 7). An orthodox bishop of Salonica, Nicetas, 
explained it in the llth cent, without any suspicion 
(cf . above (3) and Burkitt, Early East. Christianity, 
p. 227). This proves that its character is not 
obtrusively Gnostic. Preuschen (op. tit., but cf. 
recensions in ThT and JThSt, quoted under (3)) 
defines the character of both hymns as Ophite or 
Sethian. Apart from this should be considered 
his exegesis of the 'psalm' of chs. 108-113 as a 
'Hymn of the Christ.' Reitzenstein supports his 
views (for the Bridal Ode with less decision : op. 
tit. 142). He explains its curious implications 
Christ cheated by demons, defiled by communion 
with them, serving the Lord of this world, plunged 
in a sleepy forgetfulness of His heavenly origin 
and supreme task by assuming a 'fast ratselhaft' 
strong influence of pagan literature (op. tit. 122). 
On the 'sleepy forgetfulness' cf. Conybeare, JThSt 
yi. 609-610. Identification of the soul and Christ 
is present in the Odes of Solomon. Hilgenfeld 
(ZWT, 1904, pp. 229-241) advocates a Greek 
original ('the Son of the King and the Pearl') 
sprung from a pagan Gnostic movement in the 
new Sasanid empire. 

All critics with this last exception, but Preu- 
schen included (cf., however, his art. in Hennecke, 
i. 479), agree in ascribing the 'Hymn of the Soul' 
to Bardesanes or to his school. Bevan (op. tit. p. 
5 f .) has shown that it contains just those ' heresies ' 
for which Bardesanes, according to Ephraim, was 
excluded by the Edessene Church. With regard 
to its inclusion in the Acts, Burkitt remarks (Early 
Eastern Christianity, p. 212 note) : 

' I_ cannot help expressing a private opinion that the Hymn 
was inserted by the author himself, just as he used the Lord's 
Prayer in a later prayer of Judas Thomas. That the Hymn 
itself is independent of the Acts is certain, but it is not so 
clear that the Acts is independent of the Hymn. It may, in 
fact, have become a part of the recognised teaching of the sect 
to which the author of the Acts belonged (cf. Ephraim's Com- 
mentary on 3 Corinthians, p. 119).' 

(7) Theology of the Acts. The Acts presupposes 
the universal acceptance of a theology counting 
only the supernatural world as real, and individual 
salvation as the chief end of man. Asceticism, 
especially abstinence from sexual relations even in 
marriage, is urged as self-evident. Even before 
meeting the Apostle, Vazanes had seen this (Act 
xiii.). Mygdonia shows a firmer grasp of the 
implications of his doctrine than Thomas himself 
(Act x.). The supernatural world is not described : 
the Gnostic cosmogonies and esoteric doctrines are 
absent. Against this fact coincidences in phrase- 
ology seem to carry little weight. Perhaps it is 
only its reckless Puritanism which separates the 
Acts of Thomas from the B'nai Q'yama, Aphra- 
ates.and other leaders of early Syriac Christianity 
(cf. Burkitt, Early East. Christianity, pp. 118-154; 
Schwen, Afrahat, Berlin, 1907, pp. 96-99, 130-132). 

The Church and its dignitaries are practically 
absent (cf. Acts v. vi. and the Martyrium). The 
sacraments are much in evidence as the only means 
of attaining to the life among the inhabitants of 
the world of light (chs. 121, 132, 158). Baptism 
immediately followed by the Eucharist is the rule. 
It occurs in the story of the woman in Act v. (ch. 
49), Mygdonia, Act x. (ch. 121), Siphor, Act x. 



ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 



ADAM 



39 



(ch. 132), Vazanes, Act xiii. (chs. 153-158). In 
the story of Gundaphorus and Gad, Act ii. (chs. 
25-27), the Greek and Syriac differ ; both omit the 
Eucharist. 

(8) Ritual. (a) Instruction (132) ; (b) prayer (25, 
156) ; (c) consecration of the oil (157) ; (d) imposi- 
tion of hands (49) ; (e) outpouring of oil on the 
head (27 Gr. et rell.) ; (f) unction (27 Gr. 157) ; 
(g) prayer over the unction (27 Gr. 121, 157) ; (h) 
immersion (27 Syr. 121, 132, 157) ; (i) chrism (27 
Syr.) ; (j) prayer over the chrism (27 Syr.) ; (k) 
prayer for the Eucharist (49, 121, 132, 158) ; (0 
allocution before partaking (49, [121], 132, 158) ; 
(m) partaking of the bread (49, 121, 132, 158) ; (n) 
of the cup (121, 158). A response from heaven 
occurs in ch. 121, and a Christophany in chs. 27, 
153. The fullest* acc9unt is that of chs. 153-158. 
The whole act of unction and immersion is called 
'sealing' (121), therefore in chs. 49 and 27 (Gr.) 
the immersion may have been omitted. Outpour- 
ing and unction constitute a double act (157). 
Unction may have extended to more parts of the 
body for exorcistic purposes (cf. ch. 5 and JThSt, 
i. 71; F. E. Brightman, The Sacramentary of 
Serapion of Thmuis, p. 251 ; Hennecke, Neutest. 
Apokr. ii. 565). While the Greek in 27 has a 
double unction (JThSt i. 251) or, perhaps, unction 
and chrism, the Syriac has baptism followed by 
chrism. Elsewhere the Eucharist seems always to 
occupy the place of the last part of later baptismal 
ritual, viz. the confirmation and 'sealing' by the 
chrism. Renunciation in a formal way is absent, 
renunciation from sexual intercourse is understood 
(promised, 152). Consecration of the water is not 
found, though running water is but once used 
(121). Trinitarian formulae and Logos-terminology 
are used rather indiscriminately. Gnostic phrase- 
ology occurs side by side with it. The baptismal 
formula is always Trinitarian. Ordinary bread 
and water appear as Eucharistic elements. The 
bread seems to be more essential (body and blood 
in ch. 158). 

(9) The most impressive element in the Acts is 
Thomas's character as a twin of the Christ (see 
above (1)). W. Bauer (Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter 
der neutest. Apokr., Tubingen, 1909, p. 445, note 3) 
takes this as proof that the Acts wishes to reduce 
the Virgin birth ad absurdum, and quotes ch. 2 : 
'I, Jesus, son of Joseph the carpenter.' ^This 
would be quite a solitary cloud of scepticism in an 
atmosphere saturated with syncretistic thought. 
Reitzenstein seems to open a field where Rendel 
Harris (The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends, 
London, 1903, and Cult of the Heavenly Twins, 
Cambr., 1906) had already found a way. That, in 
fact, Dioscuric attainments are ascribed to Thomas 
is evident, and just here a parallel between Bar- 
desanian literature and our Acts comes in (cf. 
Burkitt, 170 note and 199) . The name Thomas = 
'twin' has been the point de depart, the cult of 
Aziz (the morning star) a presupposition. Prob- 
ably it was this Dioscuric god, whose month of 
free-markets (cf. Harris, Cult of the Heavenly 
Twins, p. 158) and whose place as a patron of 
Edessa Thomas was honoured with (cf . Jn 1 1 16 20 24 ; 
Pauly-Wissowa, i. 2644 [Cumont] ; R. Duval, His- 
toire politique, relig. et litt. d'Edesse, Paris, 1892, 
p. 74 ff .). The ways and by-paths of syncretistic 
monotheism are still obscure to us, but research 
in this field is certainly destined to cast light on 
the dark places of the Acts of Thomas. 



u\e neuenisnscnen jtiysierienrengtonen, i^eipzig, j.iu, aisc 
Poimandres Stud. z. griech.-agypt. u. frilhchristl. Lit., do. 




* The sacramental usage in the Acts is not fixed: the 14 points 
occur in various combinations. 



1904 ; F. J. Dolger, Sphragis, eine altchr. Taufbezeichnung in 
ihren Beziehungen zur prof, und relig. Kultur des Altertums, 
Paderborn, 1911 ; F. Haase, Zur bardesanischen Gnosis, 
Leipzig, 1910. 

6. Later Acts. Besides the five Apocryphal 
Acts which have been discussed, there are several 
others of later date, but they are comparatively 
unimportant. The most valuable is the 'Acts 
of Philip,' which is edited by Bonnet in Ada 
Apocrypha, ii. 2. It describes the adventures of 
Philip in Phrygia, Asia, Samaria, etc., in the 
company of his sister Mariamne. It may be as 
early as the 3rd cent., and belongs either to a 
mildly Gnostic sect or to the same Modalistic 
Christianity as the Acts of Peter. It is discussed 
by Lipsius in Die apok. Apostelgeschichten, Supple- 
ment, pp. 65-70, and by Zahn, Forschungen, 
vi. 18-24. Besides this a series of Acts, growing 
ever^shorter and less valuable, can be found 
attached to the name of every Apostle or Teacher 
in NT times in the Ada Sanctorum, arranged 
under the date assigned in the calendar to the saint 
in question. 

7. Catholic recensions. In the course of the 
Manichsean controversy the view was adopted 
that the miracles in the 'Leucian' Acts were 
genuine, but that the doctrine connected with 
them was heretical. This view finds its clearest 
expression in the Prologue of pseudo-Mellitus : 

' Volp sqllicitam ease f raternitatem vestram de Leucio quodam 
qui scripsit Apostolorum actus, Ipannis evangelistae et sancti 
Andreae vel Thomae apostoli qui de virtutibus quidem quae 
per eos dominus fecit, plurima vera dixit, de doctrina vero 
multa mentitus eat.' 

The result was a series of Catholic recensions 
which left out, speaking generally, the speeches, 
and preserved or even added to all the miracles. 
Of these Catholic recensions, which are very 
numerous, the most famous are the 'Prochorus' 
edition of the Acts of John (the text is best given 
by Zahn, Ada Joannis, Erlangen, 1880), and the 
so-called 'Abdias' collection. The disentangle- 
ment of various recensions of the separate Acts is 
very difficult, and not very profitable. 

The materials for a more detailed statement of the Catholic 
recensions can be found in Harnack, Geschichte der altchrist- 
lichen Litteratur, Leipzig, i. [1893] p. 123 ff ., and in R. A. Lipsius, 
Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten, 1883-87. 

KIRSOPP LAKE and J. DE ZWAAN.* 
ADAM ('ASd/a). Adam was the lirst man (D = 
man) and the parent of the human race. 1. When 
the writer of Jude (v. 14 ) thinks it worth noting 
that Enoch (q.v.) was 'the seventh from Adam' 
(/35o/ow>j dirb 'ASdfj.), he probably has in mind the 
sacredness of the number seven. It seems to him 
an interesting point that God, who rested from 
His work on the seventh day, found a man to 
walk in holy fellowship with Him in the seventh 
generation. 

2. In 1 Co H 9f - and 1 Ti 2 13f - the doctrine of the 
headship of man and the complete subjection (ird<ra 
vworay-^) of woman is based upon the story of 
creation. Man was not created for woman, but 
woman for man; Adam was created first and 
sinned second, Eve was created second and sinned 
first ; therefore let woman ever remember that she 
is morally as well as physically weaker than man, 
and let her never attempt either to teach or to 
have dominion over him (aMftnelv dv8p6s). With 
the premisses of this argument one may compare 
the words of Sirach (25 24 ) : ' From a woman was 
the beginning of sin (d-n-6 ywaiKbs dpx'h afutprias), 
and because of her we all die.' St. Paul did not 
take pleasure in this quaint philosophy of history, 
as many of the Rabbis did ; but, with all his 
reverence for womanhood, he felt that the accepted 

* The section on the Acts of Thomas is from the pen of 
de Zwaan ; the rest of the art. is by Kirsopp Lake. 



40 



ADAM 



ADAM 



belief in woman's creation after and her fall before 
man's clearly established her inferiority. It was 
not a personal and empirical, but a traditional and 
dogmatic, judgment. 

3. St. Paul had, and knew that many others 
had, a religious experience so vivid and intense 
that ordinary terms seemed inadequate to do it 
justice. It was the result of a Divine creative act. 
If any man was in Christ, there was ' a new crea- 
tion' (Kaivi) KTiins) ; old things were passed away; 
behold, they were become new (2 Co 5 17 ). Not 
legalism or its absence, but 'a new creation' 
(Gal 6 1B ) was of avail. Reflexion on this profound 
spiritual change and all that it involved convinced 
the Apostle that Christ was the Head and Founder 
of a new humanity; that His life and death, 
followed by the gift of His Spirit, not merely 
marked a new epoch in history, introducing a new 
society, philosophy, ethics, and literature, but 
created a new world. ' Bliss was it in that dawn 
to be alive.' As St. Paul brooded on the stupen- 
dous series of events of which Christ was the cause, 
on the immeasurable difference which His brief 
presence made in the life of mankind, there inevi- 
tably took shape in his mind a grand antithesis be- 
tween the first and the second creation, between the 
first and the last representative Man, between the 
intrusion of sin and death into the world and 
the Divine gift of righteousness and life, between 
the ravages of one man's disobedience and the 
redemptive power of one Man's perfect obedience 
' 



It is to be noted that the Apostle does not 
advance any new theory of the first creation. He 
knew only what every student of Scripture could 
learn on that subject. He had no new revelation 
which enabled him either to confirm or to correct 
the account of the beginning of things which had 
come down from a remote antiquity. He no doubt 
regarded as literal history the account of the origin 
of man, sin, and death which is found in Gn 2-3. 
He did not imagine, like Philo, that he was read- 
ing a pure allegory ; he believed, like Luther, that 
Moses 'meldet geschehene Dinge.' It is remark- 
able, however, with what unerring judgment he 
seizes upon and retains the vital, enduring sub- 
stance of the legend, while he leaves out the 
drapery woven by the old time-spirit. He says 
nothing of a garden of Eden, a miraculous tree of 
life, a talking serpent, an anthropomorphic Deity. 
But he finds in the antique human document these 
facts : the Divine origin and organic unity of the 
human race ; man's affinity with, and capacity for, 
the Divine ; his destiny for fellowship with God 
as an ideal to be realized in obedience to Divine 
law ; his conscious freedom and responsibility ; the 
mysterious physical basis of his transmitted moral 
characteristics ; his universally inherited tendency 
to sin ; his consciousness that sin is not a mere 
inborn weakness of nature or strength of appetite, 
but a disregard of the known distinction between 
right and wrong ; the entail of death, not as the 
law obeyed by all created organisms, but as the 
wages of his sin. The narrative which blends 
these elements in a form that appealed to the 
imagination of primitive peoples has a 'depth of 
moral and religious insight unsurpassed in the OT ' 
(Skinner, Genesis [ICC, 1910] 52). 

The teaching of St. Paul with regard to sin and 
death does not materially differ from that of his 
Jewish contemporaries and of the Talmud, in 
which the same sense of a fatal heredity is con- 
joined with a consciousness of individual responsi- 
bility. 'O Adam, what hast thou done? For if 
thpu hast sinned, thy fall has not merely been 
thine own, but ours who are descended from thee' 
(2 Es T 48 ). Yet 'Adam is not the cause of sin 
except in his own soul ; but each of us has become 



the Adam of his own soul ' (Bar 54 lfl ). According 
to the Talmud, 'there is such a thing as trans- 
mission of guilt, but not such a thing as transmis- 
sion of sin' (Weber, System d. altsyn. palastin. 
Theol., Leipzig, 1880, p. 216). 

The ' immortal allegory ' of Genesis cannot now 
be regarded as literal history. ' The plain truth, 
and we have no reason to hide it, is that we do 
not know the beginnings of man's life, of his 
history, of his sin ; we do not know them histori- 
cally, on historical evidence ; and we should be 
content to let them remain in the dark till science 
throws what light it can upon them' (Denney, 
Studies in Theol., London, 1894, p. 79). Science 
knows nothing of a man who came directly from 
the hand of God, and it cannot accept the pedigree 
of Adam as given by Moses or by Matthew. Its 
working hypothesis is that man is 'a scion of a 
Simian stock,' and it is convinced that man did 
not make society but that society made man. Be- 
yond this it has not yet done much to enlighten 
theology. ' We do not know how Man arose, or 
whence he came, or when he began, or where his 
first home was ; in short we are in a deplorable state 
of ignorance on the whole subject ' (J. A. Thomson, 
The Bible of Nature, Edinburgh, 1908, p. 191). 

4. Art has made it difficult to think of our first 
parents without adorning them with all graces and 
perfections. ' But when we get away from poetry 
and picture-painting, we find that men have drawn 
largely from their imaginations, without the war- 
rant of one syllable of Scripture to corroborate the 
truth of the colouring' (F. W. Robertson, Cor- 
inthians, 242). To St. Paul (1 Co 15 48 - 49 ) the 
primitive man was of the earth, earthy (xoi'/cis), a 
natural as opposed to a spiritual man, crude and 
rudimentary, with the innocence and inexperience 
of a child. ' The life of the spirit is substantially 
identical with holiness ; it could not therefore 
have been given immediately to man at the time 
of his creation ; for holiness is not a thing imposed, 
it is essentially a product of liberty, the freewill 
offering of the individual. God therefore required 
to begin with an inferior state, the characteristic 
of which was simply freedom, the power in man to 
give or withhold himself (Godet, Corinthians, ii. 
424). St. Paul's conception is that, while ' the 
first man Adam,' as akin to God, was capable of 
immortality -potuit non mori his sin made him 
subject to death, which has reigned over all his 
descendants. Cf. 2 Es 3 7 : ' And unto him (Adam) 
thou gavest thy one commandment : which he 
transgressed, and immediately thou appointedst 
death for him and in his generations.' Formally 
as a deduction from the story of Adam, but really 
as his own spiritual intuition, the Apostle thus 
teaches the unnaturalness of human death. This 
is apparently opposed to the doctrine of science, 
that death is for all organisms a natural law, 
which reigned in the world long before the ascent 
of man and the beginning of sin a debt which, as 
it cannot be cancelled, man should pay as cheer- 
fully as possible. And yet his sense of two things 
his own greatness and God's goodness convinces 
him that it is radically contra rerum naturam. 

' He thinks he was not made to die, 
And Thou hast made him, Thou art just ' 

(Tennyson, In Memoriam). 

Christianity confirms his instinctive feeling that 
death is in his case a dark shadow that should 
never have been cast upon his life. Acknowledg- 
ing that it is not the mere natural fate of a 
physical organism, but the wages of sin, the 
Christian believes that it is finally to be abolished. 
'In Christ shall all be made alive.' 'The last 
Adam,' having vanquished death, 'became a life- 
giving spirit' (1 Co 15 22 ' 48 ). See also artt. LIFE 
AND DEATH, SIN. 



ADJUEE 



ADOPTION 



41 



LITERATURE. B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, 1882-83, 
i. 331 ff., 409 ff. ; W. Beyschlag, NT Theology, 1894-96, ii. 48 ff. ; 
C. v. Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, 1894-95, i. 149 ff. ; G. B. 



tion of Christ, 1897, p. 86 ff. ; Sanday-Headlam, Romans^, 1902, 
p. 136 ff. ; A. Deissmann, St. Paul, 1912, pp. 59, 107, 155 ff. ; H. 
Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 1911, p. 

ii2ft. JAMES STRAHAN. 

ADJURE. See OATH. 

ADMINISTRATION. The word occurs in the 
AV in two places, 1 Co 12 5 and 2 Co 9 12 , in both 
of which the RV has substituted 'ministration,' 
just as in 2 Co 8 19f - 'administer' (AV) has given 
place to ' minister ' (RV ; Gr SiaKovtu). In 1 Co 
12 5 and 2 Co 9 12 the word is the tr. of Gr. SiaKovla, 
which originally means ' the service (or duty) 
rendered by a SiAxovos,' i.e. a servant, particularly 
a waiter at table (Lat. minister), who pours out 
wine to the guests individually. In 1 Co 12 the 
aspect alluded to is especially that of practical 
service rendered to a master [including that of 
' deacon ' rendered to our ' Lord '], whereas in 
2 Co 9 12 it is particularly the concrete form of that 
service which is intended, in its Godward and man- 
ward aspects. 

The administration of the Roman Empire is 
never directly referred to in the NT, and is best 
considered under its various aspects (CAESAR, 
PROCONSUL, etc.). A. SOUTER. 

ADMONITION. Obedience to God's law and 
submission to His will are essential for progressive 
spiritual life. Human nature being what it is, 
there is need for constant admonition (2 P I 10 ' 21 ). 
In the NT reference is made to this subject in its 
family, professional, and Divine aspects. 

1. vov0Tc'<i> and vovSeo-ia (a later form for vovOf- 
r-rjffis) are not found in the NT outside the Pauline 
Epp., except in St. Paul's speech, Ac 20 31 . For 
the former see Ro 15 14 , 1 Co 4 14 , Col I 28 3 18 , 
1 Th 5 12 - 14 , 2 Th 3 15 ; for the latter 1 Co 10", Eph 6 4 , 
Tit 3 10 ; cf. Is 8 16 30 8ff -, Hab 2 21 -, Dt 31 19ff -. The 
terms are used in classical Greek (e.g. Aristoph. 
Ranee, 1009), but are more common in later Greek 
(Philo, Josephus). The root idea is ' to put in mind ' 
(ff T ? rifftvai), to train by word, always with 
the added suggestion of sternness, reproof, remon- 
strance, blame (cf. vEsch. Prom. 264 ; Aristoph. 
Vesp. 254 ; Plato, Gorg. 479A). The implication is 
' a monitory appeal to the vovs rather than a direct 
rebuke or censure ' (Ellicott). To admonish is the 
duty of a father or parent (Eph 6 4 ; cf. Wis II 10 , 
Pss.-Sol. 13 8 ), or brother (2 Th 3 15 ). The object 
and reason of such admonition must be realized if 
it is to be a means of moral discipline. The ad- 
monition and teaching of Col I 28 correspond to the 
' repent and believe ' of the gospel message. 

2. irapaive'w signifies 'recommend,' 'exhort,' 'ad- 
monish ' (Ac 27 9 - 22 ; cf . 2 Mac 7 25 - - 6 , 3 Mac 5 17 7 12 A). 
This word is common in classical Greek, and is also 
found in the Apocrypha. St. Luke would be familiar 
with it as a term used for the advice of a physician. 
Its presence in a ' We ' section is suggestive. St. 
Paul as a person of position and an experienced 
traveller gives advice in an emergency, as a skilled 
doctor would admonish a patient in a serious ill- 
ness (see Hawkins, Horce Synopticce, 1899, p. 153). 

3. xP T l( AaT ' w i n the active signifies 'transact 
business ' (xpij^a), ' give a Divine response to one 
consulting an oracle,' ' give Divine admonition ' 
(cf. Jer 25 30 31 2 , Job 40 s ). The passive is used of 
the admonition given (Lk 2^ ; cf. xP /t 1/ J - aTlff f JI -6s, 
Ro II 4 , 2 Mac 2 4 ), and of the person thus admon- 
ished (Mt 2 12 - 22 , Ac 10 22 ; cf. II 26 and Ro 1 s where 
'called' is the translation; He 8 5 II 7 ; cf. 12 25 ). 
This meaning of ' Divine oracle ' is found chiefly 



in the NT, with the underlying idea that the mind 
and heart must be suitably prepared for its re- 
ception. For private and public exhortation by 
preachers, teachers, and communities, see Gal 2 14 , 
1 Th 2 2 , 1 Ti 4 13 , 2 Ti 4 2 . See also CHASTISEMENT 
and DISCIPLINE. H. CARISS J. SIDNELL. 

ADOPTION 1. The term. The custom of 
adopting children is explicitly alluded to by St. 
Paul alone of biblical writers ; he uses the word 
'adoption' (vloQeala, Vulg. adoptio Jiliorum, Syr. 
usually simath b e naya) five times : Ro 8 18 - ^ 9 4 , 
Gal 4 5 , Eph I 6 . This Greek word is not found in 
classical writers (though 6erbs vl6s is used for ' an 
adopted son ' by Pindar and Herodotus), and it 
was at one time supposed to have been coined by 
St. Paul ; but it is common in Greek inscriptions of 
the Hellenistic period, and is formed in the same 
manner as voftoOeo-ta, 'giving of the law,' 'legisla- 
tion' (Ro 9*; also in Plato, etc.), and bpoSecrla., 
'bounds,' lit. 'fixing of bounds' (Ac 17 26 ). It i? 
translated 'adoption' in Rom., but 'adoption of 
sons ' in Gal., ' adoption as sons ' (RV ; AV ' adop- 
tion of children ') in Ephesians. The classical Greek 
word for ' to adopt ' is eio-iroie'iffOai, whence elffvolijffis, 
' adoption.' 

2. The custom. St. Paul in these passages is 
alluding to a Greek and Roman rather than to a 
Hebrew custom. Its object, at any rate in its 
earliest stages, was to prevent the dying out of a 
family, by the adopting into it of one who did not 
by nature belong to it, so that he became in all 
respects its representative and carried on the race. 
But, though the preventing of the extinction of a 
family was thought important by the Israelites, 
and though adoption was a legal custom among 
the Babylonians (Box, in ERE i. 114), it was not 
in use among the Hebrews. With them childless- 
ness was to some extent met by the levirate, or in 
the patriarchal period by polygamy (cf. Gn 16 lff> ), 
or at a later date by divorce. The few instances of 
adoption in the OT (e.g. Moses by Pharaoh's daughter, 
Esther by Mordecai) exhibit a different reason for 
the act from that stated above, and are the result 
of foreign surroundings and influence. On the 
other hand, the custom was very common among 
both Greeks and Romans. It was at first largely 
connected with the desire that the family worship 
of dead ancestors should not cease a cultus which 
could be continued only through males (Wood- 
house, in ERE i. 107 and 111). In Greece it dates 
from the 8th cent. B.C. It was afterwards used as 
a form of will-making. If a man had a legitimate 
son, he could not make a will ; but, if he had no 
legitimate son, he often adopted one that he might 
secure the inheritance to him rather than to rela- 
tives, who would otherwise be heirs. The adopted 
son at once left his own family and became a mem- 
ber of that of his adopter, losing all rights as his 
father's son. If he was adopted while his adopter 
was still living, and sons were afterwards born to the 
latter, he ranked equally with them ; he could not be 
disinherited against his will. Roman adoption was 
founded on the same general ideas ; it was called arro- 
gatio if the person adopted was suijiiris, but adoptio 
if he was under his own father's potestas (Wood- 
house, loc. cit. ). In the latter case he came under the 
adopter's potestas as if he were his son by nature. 

It appears, then, that St. Paul in the five pass- 
ages named above is taking up an entirely non- 
Jewish position ; so much so that some have 
doubted whether a Jew, even after he had become 
a Christian, could have written Epistles which con- 
tained such statements (cf. Ramsay, Galatians, p. 
342). This, however, is one of the many instances 
of the influence of Greek and Roman ideas on St. 
Paul. W. M. Ramsay has endeavoured to show 
that, in so far as these differed from one another 



ADOPTION 



ADOPTION 



in the matter under discussion, it is to Greek 
custom rather than to ' the Roman law of adoption 
in its original and primitive form ' that the Apostle 
refers in dealing with Gal 3 6ff -, but that he uses a 
metaphor dependent on Roman law when writing 
to the Romans in Ro 4 11 (ib. pp. 339, 343 ; see also 
art. HEIR). But this has been disputed. 

3. St. Paul's metaphor of adoption. The Apostle 
applies the metaphor to the relation of both Jews 
and Christians to the Father, (a) Somewhat em- 
phatically he applies it to the Jews in Ro 9 4 . The 
adoption, the glory [the visible presence of God], 
the covenants [often repeated], the giving of the 
Law, the service [of the Temple], the promises, the 
fathers, all belonged to the Israelites, ' my kinsmen 
according to the flesh,' of whom is Christ concern- 
ing the flesh a passage showing the intense Jew- 
ish feeling of St. Paul, combined with the broader 
outlook due to his Greece-Roman surroundings 
(see above, 2). Here the sonship of Israel, for 
which see Ex 4- 2 (' Israel, my son, my first-born'), 
Dt 14 1 32 s - 19f -, Ps 68 8 103 18 , Jer 31 9 , Hos II 1 , 
Mai 2 10 , etc., is described as 'adoption.' It is 
noteworthy that the adoption is before the Incar- 
nation, although it could only be ' in Christ.' 
Lightfoot (on Gal 4 5 ) observes that before Christ's 
coming men were potentially sons, though actually 
they were only slaves (v. 8 ). Athanasius argues 
that, since before the Incarnation the Jews were 
sons [by adoption], and since no one could be a son 
except through our Lord [cf. Jn 14 8 , Gal S 26 , 
Eph I 5 , and see below, 5], therefore He was a Son 
before He became incarnate (Orat. c. Arian. i. 39, 
iv. 23, 29). 

(b) But more frequently St. Paul applies the 
metaphor of adoption to Christians. ' Sonship in 
the completest sense could not be proclaimed be- 
fore the manifestation of the Divine Son in the 
flesh' (Robinson, Eph., p. 27 f.). We Christians 
' received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, 
Abba, Father,' for 'we are children of God' 
(Ro 8 15fi ). It was not till the fullness (rb 



for the word see Robinson, pp. 42, 255) of the time 
came that God sent forth His Son that we might 
receive adoption (Gal 4 4t ). In its highest sense 
adoption could not be received under the Law, but 
only under the Gospel. The context in these 
passages shows that the Spirit leads us to the 
Father by making us realize our sonship ; He 
teaches us how to pray, and puts into our mouth 
the words ' Abba, Father ' (cf. Kpa^ov Gal 4 6 with 



Ro 8 15 ). We notice that St. Paul, though 
addressing those who were not by any means all 
Jewish Christians, but many of whom, being 
Gentiles, had come directly into the Church, yet 
seems at first sight to speak as if Christ's coming 
was only to give adoption to those whom, being 
under the Law, He redeemed. But, as Lightfoot 
remarks (Com. in loc.), the phrase used is TOI>S birt> 
v6fj.oi>, not 71-6 rbv vofjiov ; the reference is not only 
to those who were under the Mosaic Law, but to 
all subject to any system of positive ordinances 
(so perhaps in 1 Co 9*). The phrase 'redeem . . .' 
is thought to reflect the Roman idea that the 
adopter purchased a son from the father by nature ; 
adoption was effected before a praetor and five 
witnesses, by a simulated sale. 

(c) Just as the adoption of Jews was inferior to 
that of Christians, so that of Christians is not yet 
fully realized. Adoption is spoken of in Ro 8^ as 
something in the future. It is the redemption 
(dTroXirr/jwcm) of our body, and we are still waiting 
for it ; it can be completely attained only at the 
general resurrection. The thought closely re- 
sembles that of 1 Jn 3 2 ; we are now the children 
of God, but ' if he shall be manifested, we shall be 
like him ' ; the sonship will then be perfected. 

4. Equivalents in other parts of NT. Although 



no NT writer but St. Paul uses the word ' adop- 
tion,' the idea is found elsewhere, even if expressed 
differently. Thus in Jn I 12ft those who 'receive' 
the Woru and believe on His name are said to be 
given by Him the right to become children of God. 
On this passage Athanasius remarks (Orat. c. 
Arian. ii. 59) that the word ' become ' shows an 
adoptive, not a natural, sonship ; we are first said 
to be made (Gn I 28 ), and afterwards, on receiving 
the grace of the Spirit, to be begotten. As West- 
cott observes (Com., in loc.), 'this right is not in- 
herent in man, but "given" by God to him. A 
shadow of it existed in the relation of Israel to 
God.' This passage is closely parallel to Gal 3 26 , 
where we are said to be all sons of God, through 
faith, in Christ Jesus. So in 1 Jn 3 1 , it is a mark 
of the love bestowed upon us by the Father that 
we should be called children of God [the name 
bestowed by a definite act K\t]dG>fj.et>, aorist] ; and 
(the Apostle adds) 'such we are.' The promise 
of Rev 21 7 to ' him that overcometh ' equally im- 
plies adoption, not natural sonship : ' I will be his 
God, and he shall be my son ' ; and so (but less 
explicitly) do the sayings in He 2 10 12 9 that Jesus 
'brings many sons unto glory' (see below, 5), 
and that Goa deals with us 'as with sons.' The 
figure of adoption appears as a 're-begetting' in 
1 P I*- 38 ; we are begotten again unto a living 
hope by 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ by means of the resurrection of Jesus (see 
below, 8), and therefore call on Him as Father 
(v. 17 ). And, indeed, our Lord's teaching implies 
adoption, inasmuch as, while He revealed God as 
Father of all men, He yet uniformly (see next 
section) differentiates His own Sonship from that 
of all others. 

5. A Son by nature implied by the metaphor. 
The use by St. Paul of the figure of adoption in 
the case of Jews and Christians leads us by a 
natural consequence to the doctrine that our Lord 
is the Son of God by nature. In the same con- 
text the Apostle speaks of Jesus as God's 'own 
Son ' (rbv iavrov vl6v), sent in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, therefore pre-existent (Ro 8 3 ; cf. v. 82 TOV 
ISlov vlov). In Gal 4 4f - he says that God sent forth 
His Son (rbv vlbv afrrov) . . . that we might receive 
adoption; Jesus did not receive it, because He 
was God's own Son. And so our Lord explicitly 
in Jn 20 17 makes a clear distinction between His 
own sonship (by nature) and our sonship (by adop- 
tion, by grace): 'my Father and your Father,' 
' my God and your God.' He never speaks of God 
as 'our Father,' though He taught His disciples 
to do so. Athanasius cites the ordinary usage of 
our Lord in speaking of ' My Father ' [it is so very 
frequently in all the Gospels, and in Rev 2 OT 3 s ; 
cf. also Mk 8 s8 ] as a proof that He is ' Son, or 
rather that Son, by reason of whom the rest are 
made sons' (Orat. c. Arian. iv. 21 f.). The same 
thing follows from the language of those NT 
writers who use phrases equivalent to those of St. 
Paul. If Christians become children of God ( Jn I 12 ; 
see 4 above), Christ is the Only-begotten Son of 
God, who was sent into the world that we might 
be saved, or live, through Him (Jn 3' 6 " 18 , 1 Jn 4 9 ). 
If we are the sons brought to glory by Jesus 
(He 2 10 ), He is emphatically 'a Son over [God's] 
house' (He 3 6 RVm ; cf. Nu 12 7 ). St. Peter speaks 
of God as the Father of Jesus in the very verse in 
which he speaks of our being begotten again by 
Him (IP I 8 , see 4 above). It is this distinction 
between an adoptive and a natural sonship which 
gives point to the title ' Only-begotten ' (q.v.) ; had 
Jesus been only one out of many sons, sons in the 
same sense, this title would be meaningless (for 
endeavours to evacuate its significance see Pearson, 
On the Creed*, art. ii. notes 52, 53). The distinc- 
tion of Jn 20 17 is maintained throughout the NT. 



ADOKNLNG 



ADEIA 



43 



As Augustine says (Exp. Ep. ad Gal. [4 B ] 30, 
ed. Ben. iii. pt. 2, col. 960), St. Paul 'speaks of 
adoption, that we may clearly understand the 
only-begotten (unicum) Son of God. For we are 
sons of God by His lovingkindness and the favour 
(dignitate) of His mercy; He is Son by nature who 
is one with the Father (qui hoc est quod Pater).' 

6. Adoption and baptism. We may in conclu- 
sion consider at what period of our lives we are 
adopted by God as His sons. In one sense it was 
an act of God in eternity ; we were foreordained 
unto adoption (Eph I 8 ). But in another sense St. 
Paul speaks of it as a definite act at some definite 
moment of our lives : ' Ye received ( Ad/3rre : aorist, 
not perfect) the spirit of adoption ' (Ro 8 1B ). This 
points to the adoption being given on the admis- 
sion of the person to the Christian body, in his 
baptism. And so Sanday - Head lam paraphrase 
v. 1 * thus : 'When you were first baptized, and the 
communication of the Holy Spirit sealed your ad- 
mission into the Christian fold,' etc. We may 
compare Ac 19 2 RV : ' Did ye receive (Adhere) the 
Holy Ghost when ye believed (irwreifo-avrej)?' a 
passage in which the tenses 'describe neither a 
gradual process nor a reception at some interval 
after believing, but a definite gift at a definite 
moment ' (Rackham, Com. , in loc. ; cf . Swete, Holy 
Spirit in NT, 1909, pp. 204, 342). The aorists can 
mean nothing else. In the case of the ' potential ' 
adoption of the Jews (to borrow Lightfoot's 
phrase), it is the expression of the covenant be- 
tween God and His people, and therefore must be 
ascribed to the moment of entering into the cove- 
nant at circumcision, the analogue of baptism. 
Yet in neither case is the adoption fully realized 
till the future (above, 3 (c)). In view of what 
has been said, we can understand how ' adoption ' 
came in later times to be an equivalent term for 
'baptism.' Thus Payne Smith (Thesaur. Syr., 
Oxford, 1879-1901, ii. 2564) quotes a Syriac phrase 
to the effect that 'the baptism of John was of 
water unto repentance, but the baptism of our 
Lord [i.e. that ordained by Him] is of water and 
fire unto adoption.' And in the later Christian 
writers vloQeaLa. became a synonym for ' baptism ' 
(Suicer, Thes.*, 1846, s.v.). 

LITERATURE. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, passim 
(the general subject of this magnificent work is the Sonship of 
Christ) ; J. Pearson, On the Creed (ed. Burton, Oxford, 1864), 
art. i. p. 49, art. ii. note 57, p. 250 ; W. M. Ramsay, Hist. 
Com. on the Galatians, London, 1899, xxxi. ; G. H. Box, in 
ERE, art. 'Adoption (Semitic)' ; W. J. Woodhouse, ib., artt. 
' Adoption (Greek) ' and ' Adoption (Roman) ' ; J. S. Candlish, 
in HDB, art. 'Adoption'; H. G. Wood, in SDB, art. 'Adop- 
tion.' See also J. B. Lightfoot, Com. on Galatians (1st ed., 
1865, many subsequent edd.) ; Sanday- Headlam, Com. on 
Romans (1st ed., 1895); J. Armitage Robinson, Com. on 
Ephesians (1st ed., 1903). A. J. MACLEAN. 

ADORNING. Simplicity of personal attire has 
been no infrequent accompaniment of moral and 
religious earnestness, even when not matter of pre- 
scription. Two passages of the NT (1 Ti 2 9 - 10 , 
1 P 3 s - 4 ) warn Christian women against excessive 
display in dress, fashion of the hair (see the art. 
HAIR), and use of ornaments, and contrast it with the 
superior adornment of the Christian virtues. At 
the end of the 2nd cent, both Clement Alex. (Peed. 
ii. 10 f. [Eng. tr. 11 f.]) and Tertullian (de Cultu 
Feminarum) found it necessary to protest in much 
detail against the luxurious attire, etc., prevalent 
even amongst Christians of their day. The better 
adornment is frequently named in the intervening 
literature. The righteous, like their Lord, are 
adorned with good works (1 Clem, xxxiii. 7), and 
with a virtuous and honourable life (ii. 8). Ignatius 
contrasts the adornment of obedience to Christ with 
that of a festal procession to some heathen shrine 
(Eph. ix.). 

The reference to the subject in 1 P 3*- * has some 



psychological interest. The adornment which is 
praised is that of 'the hidden man of the heart,' 
the meek and quiet spirit which is precious in God's 
sight, and incorruptible. This use of ' man ' in the 
sense of personality suggests the well-known Pauline 
contrast between the inner and the outer man (2 Co 
4 16 ; cf . Ro 7 22 , Eph 3 16 ), and may be a further 
example of that dependence of 1 Peter on Pauline 
writings which is now generally recognized (Moflatt, 
LNT*, p. 330). It has often been maintained (e.g. 
by Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der NT Theol. ii. 14, 15) 
that this contrast is aproduct of Hellenistic dualism. 
But it can be adequately explained from that Heb- 
rew psychology which is the real basis of the Pauline 
and Petrine ideas of personality. The heart (or, 
in Pauline terminology, the ' mind ' [Ro 7 23 ]) is the 
inner personality, as the apparelled members are 
the outer personality. Both are necessary, accord- 
ing to Hebrew thought, to make the unity of the 
whole man. See further on this point the article 
MAN. H. WHEELER ROBINSON. 

ADRAMYTTIUM ('Adpantmov ; in the NT only 
the adjective ' A5pa/j.vrTT)t>6s [Ac 27 2 ] is found ; WH 
'Adpapwrqvds). This flourishing seaport of Mysia 
was situated at the head of the Adramyttian Gulf, 
opposite the island of Lesbos, in the shelter of the 
southern side of Mt. Ida, after which the Gulf was 
also called the ' Idaean.' 

Its name and origin were probably Phoenician, but Strabo 
describes it as ' a city founded by a colony of Athenians, with 
a harbour and roadstead* (xin. i. 61). Rising to importance 
under the Attalids, it became the metropolis of the N.W. 
district of the Roman province of Asia, and the head of a 
conventus juridicus. Through it passed the coast-road which 
connected Ephesus with Troy and the Hellespont, while an 
inland highway linked it with Pergamoa. 

It was in ' a ship of Adramyttium ' larger than 
a mere coasting vessel probably making for her own 
port, that St. Paul and St. Luke sailed from Caesarea 
by Sidon and under the lee (to the east) of Cyprus 
to Myra in Lycia, where they joined a corn-ship 
of Alexandria bound for Italy (Ac 27 2 * 8 ). The 
modern town of Edremid, which inherits the name 
and much of the prosperity of Adramyttium, is 5 
miles from the coast. 

LITERATURE. Conybeare-Howson, St. Paul, 1877, ii. 881 f. ; 
J. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul*, 1880, p. 62 ff. ; 
W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman 
Citizen, 1895, p. 316. JAMES STRAHAN. 

ADRIA (6 'Adplas [WH'Afyfej], ' the Adrias,' RV 
' the [sea of] Adria'). The name was derived from 
the important Tuscan town of Atria, near the 
mouths of the Padus, and was originally (Herod, 
vi. 127, vii. 20, ix. 92) confined to the northern 
part of the gulf now called the Adriatic, the lower 
part of which was known as the ' Ionian Sea.' In 
later times the name ' Adria ' was applied to the 
whole basin between Italy and Illyria, while the 
' Ionian Sea' came to mean the outer basin, south 
of the Strait of Otranto. Strabo, in the beginning 
of our era, says : ' The mouth (strait) is common 
to both ; but this difference is to be observed, that 
the name " Ionian" is applied to the first part of 
the gulf only, and " Adriatic " to the interior sea 
up to the farthest end ' (vn. v. 9). Strabo, how- 
ever, indicates a wider extension of the meaning 
by adding that ' the name "Adrias " is now applied 
to the whole sea,' so that, as he says elsewhere, 
' the Ionian Gulf forms part of what we now call 
" Adrias " ' (II. v. 20). Finally, in popular usage, 
which is followed by St. Luke (Ac 27 27 ), the term 
'Adria 'was still further extended to signify the 
whole expanse between Crete and Sicily. 

This is confirmed by Ptolemy, who wrote about the middle of 
the 2nd cent. A.D. 'With the accuracy of a geographer, he 
distinguishes the Gulf of Adria from the Sea of Adria ; thus, in 
enumerating the boundaries of Italy, he tells us that it is 



44 



ADULTERY 



JEON 



bounded on one side by the shores of the Gulf of Adria, and 
on the south by the shores of the Adria (iii. 1) ; and that Sicily 
is bounded on the east by the Sea of Adria (4). He further 
informs us that Italy is bounded on the south by the Adriatic 
Sea (14), that the Peloponnesus is bounded on the west and 
south by the Adriatic Sea (16), and that Crete is bounded on the 
west by the Adriatic Sea (17)' (Smith, Voyage and Shipurreck oj 
St. Paul*, 163 f.). 

The usage current in the tirst and second 
centuries is similarly reflected by Pausanias, who 
speaks of Alpheus flowing under Adria from 
Greece to Ortygia in Syracuse (viii. 54. 2), and of 
the Straits of Messina as communicating with the 
Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Sea (v. 25. 3). Pro- 
copius (Bel. Vand. i. 14) makes the islands of 
Gaulos and Melita (Gozo and Malta) the boundary 
between tlie Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Sea. 
The meaning of the term 'Adria' was the debat- 
able point of the once famous controversy as to 
whether St. Paul suffered shipwreck on the lllyrian 
or the Sicilian Melita, i.e. on Meleda or Malta 
(see MELITA). His ship was ' driven through 
Adria' (dia<f>epofj.evwv i]/jiwt> ev T<$ 'Adpla, Ac 2T 27 ) ; 
perhaps not ' driven to and fro in the sea of Adria ' 
(RV) (unless St. Luke made a landsman's mistake), 
but slowly carried forward in one direction, for 
probably ' she had storm sails set, and was on the 
starboard tack, which was the only course by 
which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis ' 
(Smith, op. cit. 114). An interesting parallel to St. 
Paul's experience is found in the life of Josephus, 
who relates that his ship foundered in the midst 
of the same sea (xarA neaov rbv 'Adpiav), and that 
he and some companions, saving themselves by 
swimming, were picked up by a vessel sailing 
from Gyrene to Puteoli ( Vit. 3). 

LITERATURE. J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. 
Paul*, 1880, p. 162 ff. ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller 
and the Roman Citizen, 1895, p. 334. 

JAMES STRAHAN. 
ADULTERY. See MARRIAGE. 

ADVENT. See PAROUSIA. 

ADVERSARY. This renders three Greek words 
in the NT : 1. avrfSiicos, properly an adversary in 
a lawsuit, and used of an earthly adversary in 
Mt 5, Lk 12 58 18 s all these with a legal reference. 
It is used of an enemy of God in 1 S 2 10 (LXX), 
and in 1 P 5 8 of ' the enemy,' Satan ; in this last 
passage didfioXos is anarthrous, as a proper name, 
while dvrldiKos has the article (see DEVIL and 
SATAN). 

2. dvTtKifivos, used in Lk 13 17 of our Lord's 
Jewish opponents, and in 21 18 of all adversaries of 
the disciples, is employed by St. Paul to denote 
those who oppose the Christian religion, probably 
in all cases with the suggestion that the devil is 
working through them. Such are the ' adversaries ' 
of 1 Co 16 9 , Ph I 28 ; in 1 Ti 5 14 Chrysostom takes 
the ' adversary ' to be Satan, the ' reviler ' (cf. v. 15 ), 
or he may be the human enemy as prompted by 
Satan. In 2 Th 2 4 ' he that opposeth ' (6 dvTiKtl/j.evos) 
is Antichrist (q.v.), whose parousia is according to 
the working of Satan (v. 9 ) ; and it is interesting to 
note that the letter of the Churches of Vienne and 
Lyons (Euseb. HE V. i. 5) uses this expression 
absolutely of Satan, or of Antichrist, working 
through the persecutors, and ' giving us a fore taste 
of his unbridled activity at his future coming.' 

3. virevavrios is used in He 10 27 of the adver- 
saries of God, apostates from Christ, probably with 
reference to Is 26 11 , where the LXX has the same 
word. A similar phrase in Tit 2 s is ' he that is of 
the contrary part,' an opponent, 6 <? tvavrias. In 
Col 2 14 the word virevavrlos is used of an inanimate 
object : ' the bond . . . which was contrary to us.' 

A. J. MACLEAN. 
ADVOCATE. See PARACLETE. 



JENEAS (A.lveas). The name occurs only once in 
the NT (Ac 9 s3 - 34 ). The person so called was a 
dweller in Lydda or Lod, a town on the plain of 
Sharon about ten miles south of Joppa, to which 
many of the Christians had tied after the persecu- 
tion which dispersed the apostles and the church 
of Jerusalem. On a visit of St. Peter to tSe place, 
^Eneas, who had for eight years been confined to 
bed as a paralytic, was healed by the Apostle. 
The cure seems to have had a very remarkable 
influence in the district, causing many of the 
dwellers in Sharon and Lydda to accept Christi- 
anity. Nothing further is known of the man. 
Probably he became a Christian at the date of his 
cure. W. F. BOYD. 

JEON (a.l(S>v, alwves, 'age,' 'ages'). There is 
some uncertainty as to the derivation of the word 
aldjv. Some relate it with &r)fj.i, ' to breathe,' but 
modern opinion connects it with del, aiet ( = alF&v), 
and finds as other derivatives the Latin cevum 
and the English 'aye.' In the LXX aiuv is used 
to translate cViy in various forms, as o^iyo, Gn 6 4 ; 
D^iy ny, 1 K I 31 '; oViy "?x, Gn 21 s3 ; nViyn, Ec3". It is 
of frequent occurrence in the NT. The instances 
number 125 in TR, and 120 in critical editions. 
Following these, it is noteworthy that in the 
Gospels and Acts, where it occurs 34 times, it is 
only once used in the plural (Lk I 33 ). In the rest 
of the NT the use of the plural predominates (54 
out of 86 instances). In Rev. the word occurs with 
great frequency (26 times). In every case it is 
used in the plural, and, except in two places, in the 
intensive formula els robs alwvas T&V aiwvuv a form 
which is never found in the Gospels or Acts, aluv 
is variously translated as ' age,' ' for ever,' ' world,' 
'course,' 'eternal.' It expresses a time-concept, 
and under all uses of the word that concept remains 
in a more or less definite degree. 

1. It expresses the idea of long or indefinite past 
time, dir alwvos, ' since the world began ' (EV ; Lk I 70 , 
Ac 3 21 15 18 ; cf. oV-iyD, Gn 6 4 , Is 64 4 , tic rov alwvos, Jn 
9 s2 ). In these instances, the phrases express what 
we mean when, speaking generally and indefinitely 
of time past, we say ' from of old ' or ' from the 
most ancient time.' 

2. The common classical use of aidiv for ' lifetime' 
is not found in the NT ; but there are instances 
where the phrase els rbv aluva seems to have that 
significance ; e.g. ' The servant abideth not in the 
house for life, but the son abideth for life,' Jn 8 s5 
(also Mt 21 19 , Jn 13 8 , 1 Co 8 13 ). 

3. Tlie phrase els rbv alCiva. or robs al&vas is 
frequently found in the NT as a time-concept for 
a period or 'age' of indefinite futurity, and may 
be translated 'for ever.' Strictly speaking, in 
accordance with the root idea of al&v, the phrase 
indicates futurity or continuance as long as the 
' age ' lasts to which the matter referred to belongs. 
The use of the intensive form els TOVS aldvas ru>v 
aMvuv (Gal I 5 , Eph 3 21 , He 13 21 , and Rev. passim) 
indicates the effort of Christian faith to give 
expression to its larger conception of the ' ages ' as 
extending to the limits of human thought, by- 
duplicating and reduplicating the original word. 
The larger vision gave the larger meaning; but it 
cannot be said that the fundamental idea of ' age,' 
as an epoch or dispensation with an end, is lost. 
In the Fourth Gospel the phrase is sometimes 
employed as a synonym for ' eternal life ' ( Jn 6 S1> M ). 

4. The plural aiuwes expresses the time-idea as 
consisting of or embracing many ages aeons, 
periods of vast extent ' from all ages' (RV, Eph 
3 9 ), ' the ages to come ' (Eph 2 7 , etc.). Some of these 
' ages ' are regarded as having come to an end ' but 
now once in the end of the world ( ' at the end of the 
ages' RV) hath he appeared to put away sin' (He 
9'-' 6 ). The idea of one age succeeding another as 



AGABUS 



45 



under ordered rule is provided for in the suggestive 
title 'the king eternal' (EV ' the king of the ages') 
(1 Ti 1" ; cf. D^iy ^x, Gn 21 83 ). In He I 2 ' through 
whom also he made the worlds' (ages), and He II 3 
'the worlds (ages) were made by the word of God,' 
we have the striking conception of the ' ages ' as ' in- 
cluding all that is manifested in and through them ' 
(Westcott,(7om. inloc. ). ( In Wis 13 9 there is a curious 
instance of aidv as referring to the actual world, 
' For if they were able to know so much that they 
could aim at the world [ffTOX<iffa<r8ai rbv aluva], how 
did tliey not sooner find out the Lord thereof?') 

5. There is also attached to the word the signifi- 
cance of ' age ' as indicating a period or dispensa- 
tion of a definite character the present order of 
'world-life' viewed as a whole and as possessing 
certain moral characteristics. It is unfortunate 
that there is no word in English which exactly 
expresses this meaning. The general translation 
in AV and RV is ' world,' though ' age ' appears 
always in RVm and in the text at He 6 5 . There is 
undoubtedly at times a close similarity of connota- 
tion between aluv and /c6<r/tos as indicating a moral 
order. In the Gospel and Epp. of John aldiv is 
never used in this sense, but K6<r/j,os is employed 
instead : e.g. ' Now is the judgment of this world ; 
now shall the prince of this world be cast out ' 
(Jn 12 3i , also 15 19 etc.), 'If any man love the 
world' (1 Jn 2 15 etc.). They are almost, if not 
altogether, synonymous in ' Where is the disputer 
of this world ('age,' al<!>v)'. Hath not God made 
foolish the wisdom of this world (Kooyxos) ? ' (1 Co I 80 ). 
That St. Paul recognized a distinction between 
them is evident from the phrase /card rbv alwva rov 
Kofffj.ov TOI'TOV, which is translated both in AV and 
in RV ' according to the course of this woi'ld ' 
(Eph 2 2 ). Plainly aldiv describes some quality of 
the Koo-pos. We have no term to express it exactly, 
but our phrase ' the spirit of the age ' comes very 
near to what is required. 

6. This ' world ' or ' age ' as a moral order includes 
the current epoch of the world's life. It is an 
epoch in which the visible and the transitory have 
vast power over the souls of men, and may become 
the only objects of hope and desire. It is described 
simply as atwv, ' the world ' (Mt 13 22 , Mk 4 19 ), and 
its end is emphatically affirmed (Mt l3=.-< 24 3 
28 20 ). But more frequently it is referred to as in 
contrast to a coming age. It is described as 6 aiwv 
ofo-os, ' this world ' (Mt 12 32 , Lk 16 8 , Ro 12 2 , 1 Co 
I 20 , etc.) ; as 6 vvv aliLv (1 Ti 6 17 , etc.) ; as 6 alwv 6 
tveffrws, ' the present . . . world ' (Gal I 4 ). The 
future age is described as 6 aluv fj.t\\uv, ' the world 
to come' (Mt 12 3 '\ He 6 5 ) ; 6 tpx^evos, 'the world 
to come' (Mk 10 30 , etc.) ; and as 6 al&v ^Ketvos, ' that 
world' (Lk 20 38 ). The present 'age' has its God 
(2 Co 4 4 ), its rulers and its wisdom (1 Co 2 s ' 8 ), its 
sons (Lk 16 8 ), its fashion (Ro 12 2 ), and its cares 
(Mt 13 22 ). Men may be rich in it (1 Ti 6 17 ), and 
love it (2 Ti 4 10 ). It is an evil age (Gal I 4 ), yet it 
is possible to live soberly, righteously, and godly 
in it (Tit 2 12 ), and it has an end (Mt 13 40 ). In the 
future 'age' there is 'eternal life' (Mk 10 30 , Lk 
18 30 ). Those who are counted worthy of it ' neither 
marry nor are given in marriage, neither can they 
die any more' (Lk 20 35f -). It has 'powers' that 
may be ' tasted' in the present age (He 6 B ). 

The contrast is regarded as that which is de- 
scribed in Jewish writings as mn ahty and Kjn oViy, 
'this age' and 'the age that is to come.' These 
are identified with the age before and after the 
coming of the Messiah. There is much uncertainty 
as to the time when this contrast first arose. 
Dalman says that ' in pre-Christian products of 
Jewish literature there is as yet no trace of these 
ideas to be found' (The Words of Jesus, p. 148). 
It is difficult to believe that a nation which ex- 
pected so much from the advent of the Messiah did 



not form some idea, at a date before the days of 
Jesus Christ, of the vast changes which would be 
produced when He did come, and look upon the 
age which was so marked as one to be contrasted 
with the age in which they were living. We can- 
not follow Dalman when he says : ' It is not un- 
likely that in the time of Jesus the idea of "the 
future age," being the product of the schools of 
the scribes, was not yet familiar to those He 
addressed ' (ib. p. 135). Dalman apparently doubts 
whether Jesus used the term Himself, but says : 
' The currency of the expressions "this age," " the 
future age," is at all events established by the end 
of the first Christian century.' He makes the 
reservation that ' for that period the expressions 
characterised the language of the learned rather 
than that of the people' (ib. p. 151). 

7. Among the Gnostics (see GNOSTICISM) the 
^Eons were emanations from the Divine. But this 
meaning of the word belongs to a time when the 
Gnostic ideas and terminology were more fully 
developed than in the first century of the Christian 
era. It is enough to quote the opinion of Hort in 
his Judaistic Christianity, ' There is not the faint- 
est sign that such words as ... alwv . . . have 
any reference [in the NT] to what we call Gnostic 
terms '(p. 133, also p. 146). 

LITERATURE. G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. tr. 
Edinburgh, 1902, pp. 147ff., 162 if. ; HDD, art. 'World'; 
Westcott, Com. on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in loeis ; F. Ren- 
dall, Expositor, 3rd ser., vii. [1888] 26-278 ; Wilke-Grimm, 
Clavig Novi Testamenti, s.v. ; ERE, artt. ' ^Eons ' and ' Ages of 
the World ' ; F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, Cambridge 
and London, 1894, pp. 133, 146; H. B. Swete, Gospel according 
to St. Hark, London, 1902, pp. 65, 217; J. T. Marshall, ExpT, 
x. [1898-99] 323 ; Ligrhtfoot, Com. on Colossians and Philemon*, 
London, 1879, p. 73 ff.; C. Geikie, Life and Words of Christ, 
do. 1877, p. 625 ; J. Agrar Beet, Last Things, do. 1913, pp. 70 f., 
132 f. ; Sanday-Headlam, Romans* (ICC, 1902). 

JOHN REID. 
AFFLICTION. See SUFFERING. 

AGABUS ("Ayapos, a word of uncertain deriva- 
tion). The bearer of this name is mentioned on 
two separate occasions in the Acts (II 27 - 30 21 10 ' 11 ) 
and also by Eusebius (HE ii. 3). He is described 
as a prophet who resided in Jerusalem, and we 
find him in A.D. 44 at Antioch, where he predicted 
that a great famine (q. v.) would take place 'over 
all the world,' i.e. over all the Roman Empire. 
The immediate effect of this prediction was to call 
forth the liberality of the Christians of Antioch 
and lead them to send help to the poor brethren 
of Judaea (Ac II 29 ). The writer of the Acts tells 
us that this famine took place in the reign of 
Claudius. Roman historians speak of wide-spread 
and repeated famines in this reign (Sueton. 
Claudius, xviii. ; Dion Cass. Ix. ; Tac. Ann. xii. 
43), and Josephus testifies to the severity of the 
famine in Palestine and refers to measures adopted 
for its relief (Ant. III. xv. 3, XX. ii. 5, v. 2). 
Though Syria and the East may have suffered 
most on this occasion, the whole Empire could not 
fail to be more or less affected, and it is hyper- 
critical to accuse the author of the Acts of 
' unhistorical generalization ' for speaking of a 
famine 'over all the world,' as is done by Schurer 
(GJV* i. [1901] 543, 567 ; cf. Ramsay, 'St. Paul, 
1895, p. 48 f., and Was Christ born at Bethlehem ?, 
1898, p. 251 f.). 

Again in A.D. 59 we hear of Agabus at Csesarea, 
where he met St. Paul on his return from his 
third missionary journey. Taking the Apostle's 
girdle, he bound his own hands and feet, and in 
the symbolic manner of the ancient Hebrew 
prophets predicted that so the Jews would bind 
the owner of the girdle and hand him over to the 
Gentiles (Ac 21 10 ' 11 ). The prophecy failed to move 
St. Paul from his resolve. There is no means of 
ascertaining whether Agabus was a prophet in the 



46 



AGE 



AIR 



higher NT sense a preacher or forth-teller of the 
Word ; or whether he was merely a successful 
soothsayer. It is difficult to see what good end 
could be served by the second of his recorded 
predictions. Tradition makes him one of the 
' seventy ' and a martyr at Antioch. 

W. F. Bo YD. 

AGE. The general significance of ' age ' is a 
period of time, or a measure of life. Specially, it 
expresses the idea of advancement in life, or of 
oldness. Several Greek words are employed in 
NT for 'age.' (1) al&v (see ^EoK). (2) yevea, 'a 
generation, loosely measured as extending from 
30 to 33 years. In Eph 3 s - a RV rightly puts 
' generations ' for 'ages.' (3) TAeios, 'full -grown' 
or ' perfect.' In He 5 14 for AV 'to them that are 
of full age ' the RV substitutes ' fullgrown ' in the 
text, and 'perfect' in the margin (cf. 1 Co 2 s , 
where the R V has ' perfect ' in the text, and ' full- 
grown ' in the margin). (4) T)\uda. is the most 
exact Greek term for ' age,' and especially for full 
age as applied to human life. It includes also the 
ideas or maturity or fitness, and of stature, as 
when a person has attained to full development of 
growth. In Eph 4 18 ' the measure of the stature 
of the fulness of Christ ' (EV) is somewhat diffi- 
cult to interpret. The phrase is co-ordinate with 
the words 'a perfect (or fullgrown, rAeios) man,' 
which precede it in the text. Both phrases 
describe the ultimate height of spiritual develop- 
ment which the Church as the body of Christ is to 
reach. The latter phrase explains what the former 
implies. The general line of interpretation is that 
the whole Church as the body of Christ is to grow 
into ' a fullgrown or perfect man,' and the standard 
or height of the perfect man is the stature of Christ 
in His fullness (see Comm. of Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott, 
in loc. ; Field, Notes on the Tr. of the NT, 1899, p. 
6 ; Expositor, 7th ser., ii. [1906] 441 ff.). In Gal I 14 , 
where the compound awtjXtKitlrras is used, the word 
has its primary meaning of 'age' ( = ' equals in 
age'). 

The question of age was of importance as regards 
fitness for holding office in the Church (see NOVICE). 
In later times the canonical age varied, but in 
general it was fixed at thirty (see Cathol. Encyc. 
art. ' Age '). It was also considered in relation to 
the dispensing of the charity of the Church, at 
least in the case of widows. In 1 Ti 5 9 it is said : 
' Let none be enrolled as a widow under threescore 
years old.' The question naturally arises, Were 
only widows of advanced years eligible for assist- 
ance ? It is possible that younger widows might 
be in greater need of help. Because of this it is 
supposed by some (Schleiermacher, etc.) that the 
reference is to an order of deaconesses a supposi- 
tion that becomes an argument for a late and un- 
Pauline date for the Epistle. Others think that 
the reference is to an order of widows who had 
duties which somewhat resembled those of the 
presbyters (Huther, Ellicott, Alford). De Wette 
believes that probably there were women who 
vowed themselves to perpetual widowhood, and 
performed certain functions in the Church ; but 
evidences of such an order belong to a later date in 
the Church's history. On the whole, and especially 
if the Epistle belongs to an early date, it is best to 
regard the instruction as a direction about widows 
who were entirely dependent on the charity of the 
Church. Younger widows would receive help 
according to their need, but were not enrolled like 
the older widows as regular recipients of the 
Church's charity. The age limit for an old age 
pension is not a new idea. It is impossible to 
determine if the widows who were enrolled were 
bound to give some service in return for the 
assistance which they received. The probability 
is that they were not, assuming, of course, the early 



date of the Epistle (see H. R. Reynolds, in Expos., 
1st ser., iii. [1880] 382-390; HDB, art. 'Widows'). 

The dispensing of charity to widows was a great 
and grave problem in the early Church. The rule 
about enrolment only when the threescore years had 
been reached was evidently intended to restrict 
the number of those who were entitled to receive 
regular help. Nestle calls attention to ' the 
punning observation in the Didascalia ( = Const. 
Apost. iii. 6) about itinerant widows who were so 
ready to receive that they were not so much x%>cu 
as Trrjpai' (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, p. 109, note). The pun may be rendered in 
English as ' not so much " widows " as " wallets." ' 

In 1 Ti 5 1 and 1 P 5 8 'elders' (wpefffiijTcpoi) has 
the primitive signification of ' men of advanced 
age.' Cf. also the following article. 

JOHN REID. 

AGED. In Philem'the writer speaks of himself 
as IlaOXos irpeo-jStfnjj (AV and RV ' Paul the aged,' 
RVm 'ambassador'). In strictness the transla- 
tion 'ambassador' requires irpeo-jSeuriJs, a word 
which does not occur in the NT. The two forms 
may have been confused in transcription or in 
common use. The translation 'ambassador' is 
more fitting because Philemon, as father of Archip- 
pus, who was old enough to hold some 'ministry* 
in the Church (Col 4 17 ), must have been the equal, 
or nearly the equal, of St. Paul in age ; and there 
would be little or no ground for an appeal based 
on considerations of age. It is also to be noticed 
that the phrase ' ambassador and . . . prisoner of 
Jesus Christ' is practically repeated in Eph 6 20 , 
'an ambassador in bonds.' Taking the word as 
meaning 'ambassador,' the appeal would have in 
it a note of authority. It is not a relevant objec- 
tion to say that St. Paul is beseeching Philemon 
'for love's sake' (v. 9 ). It is the peculiarity of 
the Christian ambassador that he beseeches those 
whom he addresses. Love and authority are com- 
mingled in his mission, as in 2 Co 5 14 - 20 . The 
likelihood of 'ambassador' being the right trans- 
lation is strengthened by the fact that here as 
elsewhere (2 Co 5 20 , Eph 6 20 ) St. Paul uses a verbal 
and not a noun form to express his position as an 
ambassador. See J. B. Lightfoot, Com. on Col. and 
Philemon 3 , 1879, in loc. ; and cf. art. AMBASSADOR. 

JOHN REID. 

AGRIPPA. See HEROD. 

AIR. The apostles, like other Jews of their 
time, regarded the air as a region between earth 
and the higher heavens, inhabited by spirits, 
especially evil spirits. In Eph 2 2 the air is the 
abode of Satan (see below) ; in Eph 6 1S ' the 
heavenlies' (rd, tirovpdvia) a vague phrase used 
also in Eph 1 s - * VP 3 10 to denote the neavenly or 
spiritual sphere, the unseen universe* is where 
the wrestling of the Christian against the spiritual 
hosts of wickedness takes place, and is apparently 
in this case equivalent to 'this darkness' (ci. 
Lk 22 s3 , Col I 18 'power of darkness,' i.e. tyranny 
of evil). In Rev 12 7 the war between Michael and 
the dragon is in 'heaven.' This can hardly refer 
to the first rebellion of Satan, nor yet can we with 
Bede interpret ' heaven ' as the Church ; but rather 
the fighting is in the heavens, a struggle of Satan 
to regain his lost place, ended by his final expul- 
sion. ' As the Incarnation called forth a counter- 
manifestation of diabolic power on earth, so after 
the Ascension the attack is supposed to be carried 
into heaven' (Swete, Com. in loc.). But the con- 
ception is not unlike that of St. Paul as noted 
above. 

There are several parallels to these passages in 
that class of literature which is thought to be a 

The Peshitta renders It in heaven,' except in <P* where it 
significantly has ' under heaven.' 



AKELDAMA 



ALEXANDRIA 



Christian rehandling of Jewish apocalyptic writ- 
ings. In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs 
(q.v.) we read of the ' aerial spirit Beliar ' (Benj. 3). 
In the Ascension of Isaiah (q.v.) there is described 
an ascent ' into the firmament,' where were 
Sammael and his powers, and there was a great 
fight (vii. 9) ; Christ descends from the lowest 
heaven to the firmament where was continual war- 
fare, and takes the form of the angels of the air 
(x. 29). In the Slavonic Secrets of Enoch the 
apostate angels are suspended in the second heaven 
awaiting the Last Judgment ( 7 ; see Thackeray, 
Relation of St. Paul to Contemp. Jewish Thought, 
London, 1900, p. 176 f.). These works in their 
present form probably date from the latter part 
of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd cent. A.D. 
The ideas seem to have had much currency among 
Christians, for we find Athanasius (de Incarn. 25) 
speaking of the devil having fallen from heaven 
and wandering about 'our lower atmosphere,' 
'there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits . . .,' 
' while the Lord came to cast down the devil, and 
clear the air and prepare the way for us up into 
heaven.' 

The prince of the power of the air (Eph 2 2 ) is 
Satan. That he had authority over the evil spirits 
whose abode is in the air was the general Jewish 
belief, except among the Sadducees. St. Paul 
does not, however, here say 'powers of the air,' 
i.e. evil spirits, but the ' air-power' or ' air-tyranny ' 
(for this meaning of Qowrla see Lightfoot's note on 
Col I 13 ). Satan is the arch-tyrant whose abode is 
in the air. 

LTTBRATURB. See art. DBMON. A. J. MACLEAN. 



AKELDAMA ('AiceXSa^x WH, 'AiccX5aAi TR). 
Akeldama is said to be equivalent to xwpiov afyiaroj 
in Ac I 19 , and to d-yp6y ai/taros in Mt 27 8 : in that 
case the word represents Aram, xzpn 'jpq and the 
final x (which is retained also in the best Vulg. 
text, acheldemach) transliterates K (which is only 
rarely so found). It has, therefore, been suggested 
as possible that the second part of the word repre- 
sents Aram. TKH = Koin-ynfipiov, 'cemetery,' which 
accords better with St. Matthew's explanation, 
though not with St. Luke's. It is difficult to 
avoid the conclusion that we have here an instance 
of the occasional discrepancies and inaccuracies 
which have from an early period crept into the 
text of the NT. It would certainly seem as if the 
explanation of the title 'field of blood' given in 
Mt 27 8 is radically different from that suggested 
in Ac I 19 , and that the former is more in accord- 
ance with the facts, though still an incorrect trans- 
lation of the Aram, title, while it is probable that 
the whole section w. 18 - 19 (with or without v. 20 ) of 
the latter passage is not part of St. Peter's speech, 
but a comment or gloss either by the author of 
the book (St. Luke) himself or even by some later 
editor or transcriber, who has incorporated a less 
trustworthy tradition in the text. 

The site of Akeldama is the modern ffakk ed- 
Dumm, on the south side of the Valley of Hinnom. 
See, further, art. t.v. in HDB and DC'G. 

C. L. FELTOE. 

ALEXANDER flMEfcyfaa* 'helper of men'). 
This name is found in the NT in five different 
connexions, and possibly designates as many 
different individuals. 

1. The son of Simon of Gyrene, who bore the 
cross to Calvary (Mk 15 21 ), and the brother of 
Piuf us. In all probability Alexander and his brother 
were well-known and honoured men in the Church 
of Rome (cf. Ro 16 U and art. RUFUS), to which 
the Gospel of Mark was addressed, as St. Mark 
identifies the father by a reference to the sons. 
We may regard the allusion as an interesting in- 
stance of the sons being blessed for the father's sake. 



2. A leader of the priestly party in Jerusalem 
at the period subsequent to the death of Christ. 
After the healing of the impotent man we are told 
that Alexander was present at a meeting of the 
Jewish authorities along with Annas, Caiaphas, 
and John, and ' as many as were of the kindred of 
the high priest' (Ac 4"). It is probable, though 
not quite certain, that this indicates that Alex- 
ander belonged to the high-priestly class ; and it is 
impossible to identify him with Alexander the 
' alabarch ' of Alexandria and brother of Philo. 

3. A leading member of the Jewish community 
at Ephesus (Ac 19 33 ), who was put forward by the 
Jews at the time of the Ephesian riot to clear 
themselves of any complicity with St. Paul or his 
teaching, but whom the mob refused to hear. He 
may have been one of the ' craftsmen,' though en 
the whole it is unlikely that a Jew would have 
any connexion with the production of the symbols 
of idolatry. There are, however, slight variations 
in the MSS of Ac 19 33 , and different views have 
been taken with regard to Alexander and the in- 
tention of the Jews. Meyer holds that Alexander 
was a Jewish Christian who was put forward 
maliciously by the Jews in the hope that he might 
be sacrificed (cf. Com. in loco). The omission of 
T, ' a certain,' before his name has been regarded 
as an indication that Alexander was a well-known 
man in Ephesus at the time. 

4. A Christian convert and teacher, who along 
with Hymenaeus (q.v. ) and others apostatized from 
the faith, and was excommunicated by the Apostle 
Paul (1 Ti I 19 - 20 ). 

5. Alexander the coppersmith, who did St. Paul 
much evil and whom the Apostle desires to be 
rewarded according to his worts (2 Ti 4 14 * 18 ). This 
Alexander has been identified with both 3 and 4. 
We are able to gather certain facts regarding him 
which would seem to connect him with 3. (1) His 
trade was that of a smith (see COPPERSMITH), a 
worker in metal, originally brass, but subsequently 
any other metal, which might associate him with 
the craftsmen of Ephesus. (2) The statement re- 
garding him was addressed to Timothy, who was 
settled in Ephesus. On the other hand, we are 
told that Alexander greatly withstood St. Paul's 
words a reference which seems to indicate a bitter 
personal hostility between the two men, as well as 
controversial disputes on matters of doctrine which 
might rather connect him with 4, the associate of 
Hymenaeus. It is possible that 3, 4, and 5 may 
be the same person, but Alexander was a very 
common name, and the data are insufficient to 
allow of any certain identification. Those who 
hold the Epistles to Timothy to be non-Pauline 
regard the statement in Ac 19* 3 as the basis of the 
references in the Epistles, but the only thing in 
common is the name, while there is no indication in 
Acts that Alexander had any personal connexion 
with St. Paul. 

LITKRATURK. R. J. Knowling-, EOT,' Acts,' 1900 ; Comm. of 
Meyer, Zeller, Holtzmann ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul, 1895, 
p. 279 ; artt. in HDB and EBi. W. F. BOYD. 



ALEXANDRIA (' AXe^dvSpta). The city of Alex- 
andria almost realized Alexander the Great's dream 
of ' a city surpassing anything previously exist- 
ing' (Plutarch, Alex. xxvi.). Planned by Dino- 
crates under the king's supervision, and built on a 
neck of land two miles wide interposed between 
the Mediterranean Sea and Lake Mareotis (Mariut), 
about 14 miles from the Canopic mouth of the 
Nile, it became successively the capital of Hellenic, 
Roman, and Christian Egypt, ' the greatest mart 
in the world' (fidyurrov ifLvitpiov TTJS olKovfutvi)*, Strabp, 
xvn. i. 13), and next to Rome the most splendid 
city in the Empire. About 4 miles long from E. 
to W., nearly a mile wide, and about 15 miles in 



48 



ALEXANDRIA 



ALEXANDRIA 



circumference, it was quartered like so many of 
the Hellenic cities of the period by two colon- 
naded thoroughfares crossing each other at a great 
central square, terminating in the four principal 
gates, and determining the line of the other streets, 
so that the whole city was laid out in parallelo- 
grams. The three regions into which it was divided 
the Regio Judceorum, Brucheium, and Rhacutis 
corresponded generally with the three classes of 
the population Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians 
while representatives of nearly all other nations 
commingled in its streets (Dio Chrys. Orat. 32). 
Diodorus Siculus, who visited it about 58 B.C., 
estimates (xvii. 62) its free citizens at 300,000, and 
it probably had at least an equal number of slaves. 

Its fine air,' says Strabo, is worthy of remark : this results 
from the city being on two sides surrounded by water, and 
from the favourable effects of the rise of the Nile,' one canal 
joining the great river to the lake, and another the lake to the 
sea. 'The Nile, being full, fills the lake also, and leaves no 
marshy matter which is likely to cause exhalations ' (xvii. i. 7). 

The name of the city does not occur in the NT, 
but ' Alexandrian,' as noun and adj. ('A\ea'5pe!5s, 
' A\eavdpLv6s), is found 4 times in Acts. There 
was a synagogue of Alexandrians in Jerusalem 
(6 9 ), fanatical defenders of the Mosaic faith, roused 
to indignation by the heresies of Stephen. Apollos 
was ' an Alexandrian by race, a learned man (arty 
\oyios ; AV and RVm, 'eloquent'), mighty in the 
scriptures' (18 24 ). In one Alexandrian ship St. 
Paul was wrecked at Melita (27 8 ), and in another 
he continued his voyage to Puteoli (28 11 ). Here 
are references to the three most striking aspects of 
the life of Alexandria her religion, culture, and 
commerce. We invert the order. 

1. Commerce. Alexandria was built on a site 
uniquely adapted for maritime trade. Served on 
her northern side by the Great Harbour and the 
Haven of Happy Return * (ftivoa-ros), which were 
formed by a mole seven stadia in length the Hepta- 
stadium flung across to the island of Pharos, t and 
on her southern side by the wharves of Mareotis, 
Alexandria entered into the heritage of both Tyre 
and Carthage, and drew to herself the commerce 
of three continents. Under the Ptolemys Egypt 
largely took the place of the lands around the 
Euxine as a grain-producing country, and ' corn in 
Egypt ' became as proverbial as it had been in the 
days of the Pharaohs. 

'The corn which was sent from thence to Italy was con- 
veyed in ships of very great size. Prom the dimensions given 
of one of them by Lucian, they appear to have been quite as 
large as the largest class of merchant ships of modern times ' 
(Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul*, 1880, p. 71 f. ). 

The cruisers and coasters of Alexandria traded 
with every part of the Mediterranean, and it was 
an ordinary occurrence to find vessels bound for 
Italy in the harbours of Myra and Malta (Ac 27 s 
28 n ). Seneca gives a vivid picture of the arrival 
of the Alexandrian fleet of merchantmen at Puteoli 
(Ep. 77). The trade which came to Lake Mareotis 
from the Nile and the Red Sea was equally im- 
portant. 

' Large fleets,' says Strabo (xvii. L 13), are dispatched as 
far as India and the extremities of Ethiopia, from which places 
the most valuable freights are brought to Egypt, and are thence 
exported to other places, so that a double amount of custom is 
collected, arising from imports on the one hand, and from ex- 
ports on the other.' 

2. Culture. It was the great ambition of the 
Ptolemys to make their capital not only the com- 
mercial but the intellectual centre of the world. 
Alexandria really succeeded in winning for herself 
the crown of science, and was for centuries the 
foster-mother of an international Hellenic culture. 

* Its inner basin, Kibotos, greatly enlarged, forms the modern 
harbour. 

t On the eastern point of the island was the famous Light- 
house, one of the ' Seven Wonders ' of the world. 



The proofs of her devotion to letters were seen in 
the Brucheium, or central quarter of the city, which 
contained not only the mausoleum * of Alexander, 
the palaces of the Egyptian kings, the Temple of 
Poseidon, and, at a later date, the Csesarium t in 
which divine honours were paid to the Roman 
emperors, but the Museum, which in many ways 
resembled a modern university, with lecture halls 
and State-paid professors, and the Library, in 
which were accumulated the books of Greece, Rome, 
Egypt, and India, to the number (according to 
Josephus, Ant. XII. ii. 1) of more than half a 
million. In this home of endowed research the 
exact sciences flourished ; Alexandria had on her 
roll of fame the names of Euclid in geometry, 
Hipparchus in astronomy, Eratosthenes in geo- 
graphy ; and her physicians were the most cele- 
brated in the world. For literature her savants 
did a noble work in collecting, revising, and classify- 
ing the records of the past. On the whole, how- 
ever, her literary school was imitative rather than 
creative ; her poets trusted more to learning than 
to imagination, and the muses rarely visited the 
Museum. The artificial atmosphere of literary 
criticism, which was the breath of life to gram- 
marians, philologists, and dialecticians, chilled 
rather than fostered original genius. Alexandria's 
most brilliant scholars, detached from the realities 
of life, immured in academic cloisters, were con- 
noisseurs, not writers, of classics. 

In the Roman period ' numerous and respectable labours of 
erudition, particularly philological and physical, proceeded from 
the circle of the savants "of the Museum," as they entitled 
themselves, like the Parisians "of the Institute"; but ... it 
was here very clearly apparent that the main matter was not 
pensions and rewards, but the contact ... of great political 
and great scientific work' (Mommsen, Provinces 2 , ii. 271 f.). 

3. Religion. While the eclecticism of Alex- 
andrian religion was represented in its pagan 
aspect by the cultus of the Serapeum, the most 
famous of the city's temples, in which the attempt 
was made to blend the creeds of Greece and Egypt, 
the grafting of Judaism on Hellenism flowered into 
a system which had far more influence upon the 
permanent thought of the world. The migration 
of the Jews to Egypt, which began at the time of 
the downfall of Jerusalem (Jer 42 14 ), increased 
rapidly under the Ptolemys, who welcomed them 
as colonists, giving them equal civic rights with 
the Macedonians and Greeks rights which both 
Julius Caesar and Augustus confirmed to them. 
Occupying their own quarter of the city the 
north-eastern and forming, under their ethnarch 
or 'alabarch,'a community within a community, 
they were yet profoundly influenced by their en- 
vironment, and developed not only a genius for trade 
but a passion for learning. In the beginning of 
our era they amounted to an eighth part of the 
population, and nowhere else was the scattered 
race so wealthy, so cultured, or so influential. 
Alexandria became the greatest of Jewish cities, 
the centre of Semitism as well as of Hellenism (q. v. ). 
Naturalized in a foreign city and inevitably breath- 
ing its spirit, the Jews showed themselves at once 
pliant and stubborn. Glorying in the retention of 
their monotheistic faith, they yet dropped their 
sacred Hebrew language. Their Scriptures, trans- 
lated into Greek $ for their own use, came into the 
hands of their Hellenic neighbours, who gave them 

* Near the centre of the city, perhaps represented by the 
present mosque Nebi Daniel. 

t Near it were ' Cleopatra's Needles,' one of which is now in 
London, and the other in New York. 

J The legend of the composition of the Septuagint, contained 
in the Letter of Aristeas, is probably based on facts. The ini- 
tiative seems to have been taken by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who 
doubtless wished to promote the use of Greek among the Jewish 
population of the city. The Law was translated in the 3rd 
cent. B.C., the Prophets (probably) in the 2nd, and most of the 
' Writings ' in the 1st, while Ecclesiastes and Daniel were not 
translated till the 2nd cent. A.D. 



ALEXANDRIANS 



ALIEN 



in exchange the classics of Athens. Alexandria 
thus became the meeting-place of Eastern and 
Western ideals. Both races were sensitive to im- 
pressions : while the Jews felt the subtle influence 
of a rich civilization and a lofty philosophy, the 
Greeks were attracted by a strange note of assur- 
ance regarding God. In an eclectic age and city, 
the endeavour was consequently made to harmonize 
the religion of Moses with that of Plato. Mommsen 
remarks that they were the clearest heads and the 
most gifted thinkers who sought admission either 
as Hellenes into the Jewish, or as Jews into the 
Hellenic, system (Provinces 2 , ii. 167). With perfect 
sincerity, if by faulty exegesis, the Jewish men of 
culture made their Scriptures yield up the doctrines 
of the Academy and the Stoa. The literary ex- 
ponent of this spiritual rapprochement is Philo(g r .v. ), 
who probably did little more than give expression 
to the current opinions of his countrymen in the 
time of our Lord. While not a little of his Neo- 
Judaism must, on account of his persistent allegor- 
izing, be regarded as pseudo-Judaism, he had the 
supreme merit of combining the highest Eastern 
with the highest Western view of the universe ; of 
identifying the Hebrew ' wisdom ' with the Greek 
' reason ' ; of developing Plato's conception of the 
world as the 6eiov yevvjjrdv, the elK&v rov iroiifrov, the 
fj-ovoyev-^s (the Divine Child, the Image of its Maker, 
the Only- begotten) into that of the KoVitoj voijrds or 
\6yos, which is the Invisible God's irparbyovos or 
TT/jwroYo/cos, His airatiycurfjui or x a P aKT ^P 5 and of thus 
facilitating that fusion of Hellenism and Hebraism 
out of which so much Christian theology has 
sprung. Alexandrian thought provided the cate- 
gories in themselves cold and speculative into 
which Christianity, as represented by the writers 
of Colossians, Hebrews, and the Fourth Gospel, 
poured the warm life-blood of a historic and 
humane faith. And if the Alexandrian exegetical 
method was often unscientific as Avhen it made 
Moses identify Abraham with understanding, 
Sarah with virtue, Noah with righteousness, the 
four streams of Paradise with the four cardinal 
virtues yet the writer of Hebrews could scarcely 
have built a bridge between Judaism and Christi- 
anity unless he had been trained in a school which 
taught its disciples to pass from symbols to ultimate 
realities. Apollos (q.v.), the learned and eloquent 
(Xctyios, Svvarb? iv rats ypa<f>ais), was a true Alex- 
andrian, not impossibly ' of the Museum ' ; and 
Luther was happily inspired in suggesting that he 
may have been the writer who used the Hebrew- 
Hellenic theology of Egypt to interpret the manger 
of Bethlehem. See also the following article. 

LITERATITRK. Art. 'Alexandria' in HDB, SDB, EBi, and in 
Pauly-Wissowa ; H. Kiepert, Zur Topog. des alien Alex- 
andria,, Berlin, 1872; J. P. Mahaffy, Alexander's Empire, 
London, 1888, and The Silver Age of the Greek World, do. 
1906 ; T. Mommsen, Prov. of Rom. Emp.^, 2 vols., do. 1909 ; J. 
Drummond, Philo -Judceus, 2 vols., do. 1888; cf. also 
W. M. Ramsay's art. 'Roads and Travel (in NT)' in HDB, 

v. 375 a. JAMES STRAHAN. 

ALEXANDRIANS. Among the active opponents 
of St. Stephen were 'certain of them that were 
of the synagogue called the synagogue ... of the 
Alexandrians ' (' A\f%av8p<,>v, Ac 6 9 ). 

Grammatically the sentence is not in good form, and admits 
of a variety of interpretations. Some exegetes (Calvin, Bengel, 
O. Holtzmann, Kendall) assume that the Libertines, Cyrenians, 
Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asiatics residing in Jerusalem all 
worshipped in one synagogue. Others (Wendt. Zockler, Sanday, 
Knowling, Winer-Moulton) think that the first three classes of 
Jews had one synagogue and the last two another an idea 
favoured by the riav . . . rStv after rives. T. E. Page groups 
the Libertines in one place of worship, the men of Alexandria 
and Cyrene in a second, and those of Cilicia and Asia in a third. 
Finally, some scholars (Schiirer, Meyer, Weiss, Hackett) be- 
lieve that each of the five classes had its own distinctive syna- 
gogue in the holy city. A synagogue of the Alexandrians in 
Jerusalem is mentioned in Jerus. Alegilla, 73d, where it is also 
said that there were in all no fewer than 425 synagogues in the 
VOL. I. 4 



city a statement which Schiirer (HJP 11. ii. 73) dismisses as an 
insipid Talmudic legend, but which Renan (The Apostles, Eng. 
tr., 113) is disposed to accept as ' by no means improbable.' 

The Jews of Alexandria (q.v. ) were in a very 
different position from the people of any modern 
Ghetto. They were amongst the most opulent and 
influential citizens. They formed a distinct muni- 
cipal community, and possessed extensive political 
privileges. At the foundation of the city Alexander 
gave them equal rights with the Greeks (I5w;ce rb 
neroiKeiv Kara r^v ir6\w ifforifj-tas irpbs "EXA^pas), and 
the Diadochoi permitted them to style themselves 
Macedonians (Jos. BJ II. xviii. 7). Of the five 
quarters (fioipai) of the city, named after the first 
five letters of the alphabet, two were called 
'Jewish' ('lovda'iKal \tyoi>rai [Philo, in Flac. 8]). 
While one quarter, known as Delta, was entirely 
peopled by Jews (BJ II. xviii. 8), many more of the 
race were scattered over all the other parts (iv rais 
fiXAcuj oi>K 6\lyoi ffiropddes [Philo, loc. cit.]), and none 
of them were without their house of prayer (Philo, 
Leg. ad Gaium, 20). The special Regio Judceorum 
lay in the N.E. of the city, beyond the promontory 
of Lochias, in the neighbourhood of the royal palace. 
Till the time of Augustus the Jews were presided 
over by an ethnarch, who, according to Strabo 
(quoted by Josephus, Ant. XIV. vii. 2), ' governs the 
people and administers justice among them, and 
sees that they fulfil their obligations and obey 
orders, just like the archon of an independent city.' 
Augustus instituted a council or senate (yepowla), 
which was entrusted with the management of 
Jewish affairs, and over which a certain number 
of apxovres presided. The reign of Caligula was 
marked by the first rude interruption of the policy 
of toleration. The governor Flaccus issued an 
edict in which he termed the Jews of Alexandria 
'strangers,' thus depriving them of the rights of 
citizenship which they had enjoyed for centuries. 
He ordered 38 archons to be scourged in the 
theatre, and turned the Jewish quarters into 
scenes of daily carnage (Philo, in Flac. 6-10). 
But one of the first acts of Claudius was to re-affirm 
the earlier edicts, and Josephus states that in his 
own day (c. A.D. 90) one could still see standing in 
Alexandria 'the pillar containing the privileges 
which the great Ceesar (Julius) bestowed upon the 
Jews' (rty onfXiji' . . . rh diKaiu/jura irepifyovo-av a 
Kaiffap 6 jnyas rots 'lovdaiois l-duicev [c. Apion. ii. 4 ; 
cf. Ant. XIV. x. 1]). Some Alexandrian Jews held 
responsible positions as ministers of the Ptolemys, 
and others were in the service of the Roman 
Emperors (c. Apion. ii. 5). Philo's brother Alex- 
ander and others filled the office of ' alabarch ' (see 
Schiirer, HJP II. ii. 280). 

For a time the 'Alexandrians' were doubtless 
bilingual, but ultimately they forgot their Hebrew 
or Aramaic, and adopted Greek as the language of 
the home and the synagogue as well as of the 
market. Living in a great university town, many 
of them became highly educated ; the school of 
Philo in particular assimilated many elements of 
Greek philosophy ; and the Judaism of Egypt was 
gradually differentiated from that of Palestine. 
Even before becoming a Christian, the Alexandrian 
Apollos had doubtless a breadth of sympathy, as 
well as a richness of culture, which could not have 
been attained among the Rabbis of Jerusalem. 
Yet in the great mass of the ' Alexandrians,' as 
throughout the Dispersion generally, the Jewish 
element predominated, and it need occasion no 
surprise that those of them- who chose to reside in 
the Holy City were as zealous for the Mosaic 
traditions, and as strenuously opposed to innova- 
tions, as any Hebrew of the Hebrews. 

LITERATURE. See list appended to preceding article. 

JAMES STRAHAN. 
ALIEN. See STRANGER. 



50 



ALLEGORY 



ALPHA AND OMEGA 



ALLEGORY. The word is derived from the 
Greek d\\i]yopla, used of a mode of speech which 
implies more than is expressed by the ordinary 
meaning of the language. This method of inter- 
preting literature was practised at an early date 
and among different peoples. When ideas of a 
primitive age were no longer tenable, respect for 
the ancient literature which embodied these ideas 
was maintained by disregarding the ordinary im- 
port of the language in favour of a hidden meaning 
more in harmony with contemporary notions. The 
word ' allegory ' has come to be used more particu- 
larly of a certain type of Scripture interpretation 
(q.v. ) current in both Jewish and Christian circles. 
Its fundamental characteristic is the distinction 
between the apparent meaning of Scripture and a 
hidden meaning to be discovered by the skill of the 
interpreter. In allegory proper, when distinguished 
from metaphor, parable, type, etc., the veiled 
meaning is the more important, if not indeed the 
only true one, and is supposed to have been 
primary in the intention of the writer, or of God who 
inspired the writer. Jewish interpreters, particu- 
larly in the Diaspora, employed this means of 
making the OT acceptable to Gentiles. They 
aimed especially at showing that the Jews' sacred 
books, when properly interpreted, contained all 
the wisdom of Greek philosophy. This interest 
flourished chiefly in Alexandria, and found its 
foremost representative in Philo (q.v.), who wrote 
early in the 1st cent. A.D. His Allegories of the 
Sacred Laws is one of his chief works, though all 
his writings are dominated by this method of 
interpretation. Similarly Josephus (q.v.), a half- 
century or so later, says that Moses taught many 
things ' under a decent allegory' (Ant. Procem. 4). 
Allegory was used freely also by Palestinian inter- 
preters, though less for apologetic than for horni- 
letic purposes. They were less ready than Philo to 
abandon the primary meaning of Scripture, but 
they freely employed allegorical devices, particu- 
larly in the Haggadie midrasMm. 

When Christians in the Apostolic Age began to 
interpret Scripture, it was inevitable that they 
should follow the allegorical tendencies so prevalent 
at the time. Yet the use of this method is far less 
common in the NT than in some later Christian 
literature, e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas (q.v.). St. 
Paul claims to be allegorizing when he finds the two 
covenants not only prefigured, but the validity of his 
idea of two covenants proved, in the story of Hagar 
(q.v.) and Sarah (Gal 4 2 *- 80 ). Allegorical colouring 
is also discernible in his reference to the muzzling 
of the ox (1 Co 9 91 -), the following rock (10 4 ), and 
the veil of Moses (2 Co 3 13ff -). The Epistle to the 
Hebrews is especially rich in these features, which 
are much more Alexandrian in type than the 
writings of St. Paul (e.g. 8 2 - 8 Q 23 10* II 1 - 8 12 27 '-)- 
Certain Gospel passages also show allegorical traits, 
where in some instances the allegorical element 
may have come from the framers of tradition in 
the Apostolic Age (e.g. Mk 4 liW =Mt 13 18 - 2B =Lk 
8 u-i5. M k i2 1 - 1 2=Mt21 83 - 46 =Lk20 9 - 18 ; Mt IS 24 ' 30 - a*- 43 , 
Jn lO 1 ' 16 15 1 " 8 ). 
LITBRATCRB. See list appended to art. INTERPRETATION. 

S. J. CASK. 
ALMIGHTY. See GOD. 

ALMS. The duty of kindliness to and provision 
for the poor is constantly taught in the OT ; 
in the later Jewish literature, and especially in 
Sirach and Tobit, it is even more emphatically 
asserted. It is clear that our Lord and the Apos- 
tolic Church taught this as a religious obligation 
with equal force. In the Sermon on the Mount, 
almsgiving is assumed to be one of the duties of 
the religious life (e.g. Mt 6 1 -*), and in several places 
the principle is expressed directly. Our Lord says 



to the rich young ruler, ' Sell whatsoever thou hast, 
and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure 
in heaven' (Mk 10 a ) ; in the parable of the Judg- 
ment, the place of men is decided on the ground 
that they have or have not helped and relieved the 
Lord's brethren (Mt 25 s4 ' 46 ), and in St. Luke our 
Lord is reported as saying : ' Sell that ye have, 
and give alms ; make for yourselves purses which 
wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth 
not'(Lk 12 33 }. 

We find the same principles assumed in the 
literature of the Apostolic Church. In the Acts 
we read of the Church of Jerusalem : ' All that 
believed were together, and had all things common ; 
and they sold their possessions and goods, and 
parted them to all, according as any man had 
need ' (Ac 2 44 - ; cf. 4 s2 - }. What relation this 
may have to the community of goods is considered 
elsewhere (see art. COMMUNITY OF GOODS) ; but it 
is at least clear that the Church in Jerusalem 
recognized the paramount obligation of the main- 
tenance of the poor brethren, and it is worthy of 
notice that the first officers of the Christian com- 
munity of whose appointment we have direct 
mention are the Seven who were appointed to 
carry out the ministrations of the Church to the 
poor widows of the community (Ac 6 1 " 4 ). 

In the letters of St. Paul we have frequent refer- 
ences to the obligation of helping the poor (e.g. 
Ro 12", Eph 4*. 1 Ti 6 18 ), and in certain letters we 
find him specially occupied with the collections 
which were being made for the poor Christians in 
Jerusalem (Gal 2 10 , Ro 15 25 - *, 1 Co 16 1 - 2 , 2 Co 8 
and 9). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
speaks of such deeds of charity as being sacrifices 
well-pleasing to God (He 13 16 ). It is in the First 
Epistle of St. John, however, that the principle of 
the responsibility of Christian men for the main- 
tenance of their brethren is most emphatically 
expressed : ' Whoso hath this world's goods, and 
beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his 
compassion from him, how doth the love of God 
abide in him?' (1 Jn 3 17 ). For St. John the notion 
that any man can love God without loving his 
brother is a falsehood (1 Jn 4 20 ). 

The Christian literature of the end of the 1st 
cent, carries on the same principles. The Teach- 
ing of the Twelve Apostles (iv. 8) says : ' Thou 
shalt not turn away from him that is in need, but 
shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt 
not say that they are thine own : for if ye are 
sharers in that which is immortal, how much more 
in those things which are mortal.' The Epistle 
of Barnabas contains almost exactly the same 
phrases. We have thus in the NT and the sub- 
apostolic literature the clearest enunciation of the 
principle whose effect and practical applications 
we have to study in the history of the Early 
Church and of Christian civilization. There can 
be no doubt that our Lord and the writers of the 
NT looked upon the maintenance of the poor as a 
primary obligation of the Christian life. 

LITERATURE. Art. 'Almsgiving' in HDB; 'Alms' in EBi 
and Smith's DB* ; 'Charity, Almsgiving: (Christian)' in ERE; 
G. Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church, Eng. tr., 
Edinburgh, 1883; A. Harnack, Expansion of Christianity^, 
London, 1908, i. 147; A. F. W. Ingram, Banners of the 
Christian Faith, London, 1899 ; W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels 
of Faith and Practice, do. 1894; B. F. Westcott, The Incar- 
nation and Common Life, do. 1893; J. L. Davies, Social 

A. J. 



Questions, do. 1886. 



CARLYLE. 



ALPHA AND OMEGA. These are the first and 
last letters of the Gr. alphabet ; cf. Heb. 'Aleph to 
Tau ' ; Eng. ' A to Z.' The title is applied to God 
the Father in Rev I 8 21 6 , and to Christ in Rev 22 U 
(cf. 2 s ). The ancient Heb. name for God, m,T, has 
been very variously derived, but its most probable 
meaning is the ' Eternal' One' I am that I am' 



ALTAR 



ALTAE 



51 



(Ex 3 U ). This idea of uie Deity, further emphasized 
in Is 41 4 43 1U 44 6 , is expressed in the language of the 
Apocalypse by the Greek phrase ' A and Q,' which 
corresponds to a common Heb. expression 'Aleph 
to Tau,' of which the Talmud and other Rabbinic 
writings furnish many examples. 11. H. Charles 
adduces similar phrases in Latin (Martial, v. 26) 
and Greek (Theodoret, HE iv. 8) to express com- 
pleteness. To those who believe in a Jewish 
original for the NT Apocalypse, its presence there 
will cause no surprise, and its application to Christ 
will constitute an instance of the Christian re- 
modelling which that book has undergone. More- 
over, Jewish writers (e.g. Kohler) have given 
another explanation of its use as a title for God, 
calling it the hellenized form of a well-known 
saying, ' The Seal of God is Emeth (ncg = ' truth'), 
a word containing first, middle, and last letters of 
the Heb. alphabet (cf. Gen. Rab. Ixxxi. ; Jerus. 
Sank. i. 18a ; Sank. 64a ; Yoma 696). Josephus 
(c. Apion.) probably refers to this saying (cf. also 
Dn 10 21 rc 3n??, ' the writing of truth'). Similar 
is the use of Justin (Address to Greeks, xxv.). 
Whatever may be the origin of the phrase, its 
chief significance for Christians lies in its constant 
application to Christ, of which this passage in the 
Apocalypse supplies the first of countless instances. 
Charles and Miiller agree that Patristic comment- 
ators invariably referred all these passages to the 
Son, and in so doing they plainly claimed the 
Divine privilege of eternity for the Person of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and established the claim set 
forth in the later creeds that ' the Word of God 
was equal with God.' 

Not only was this the universal opinion of the 
earliest commentators, as of the Christian author 
or editor of the Apocalypse ; it was an opinion 
deeply rooted in the convictions of the Christian 
congregations. We hear of no attempt to dispute 
it ; and, relying on this as an established fact, the 
Gnostic teachers sought to deduce by various means 
and numerical quibbles the essential identity 
of all the Persons of the Trinity (cf. Iren. adv. 
Hcer. I. xiv. 6, xv. 1). Among others, Tertullian 
(Monog. v.), Cyprian (Testimon. ii. 1, 6), Clem. 
Alex. (Strom, iv. 25, vi. 16), Ambrose (Exp. in septem 
Vis. i. 8), emphasized this view of the matter ; and, 
before the last persecution of Diocletian was over, 
many inscriptions had been put up on tombstones, 
walls of catacombs, etc., in which these two letters 
stood for the name of Christ. At a subsequent 
period the practice became universal all over the 
Christian world, and countless examples are still 
extant to prove the general popularity of this 
custom. 

In most cases the letters are accompanied by 
other symbols and titles of the Master, e.g. 
yjf' ; in a few examples they stand alone as a 
reverent way of representing the presence of the 
Redeemer. Most numerous in the period from 
A.D. 300-500, they decline in number and import- 
ance during the early Middle Ages, and are rare, at 
least in the West, after the 7th and 8th centuries. 
It is significant to note that in none of those 
hundreds of examples do the letters (often rudely 
scrawled by poor peasants) refer to any one but 
Jesus Christ. It is hard to conceive of any fact 
more suited to emphasize the deep-rooted belief of 
the early Christians in the true Divinity of their 
Lord and Master, who had created the world, 
existed from the beginning, and was still alive and 
ready to succour His faithful followers. 

LITERATURE. R. H. Charles, art. in EDB ; B. W. Bacon, 
art. in DCG ; K. Kohler, art. in JE ; W. Miiller in PR2 
(full account of extant inscriptions); C. Schoettjren, Hor. Heb., 
Leipzig, 1733. L. ST. ALBAN WELLS. 

ALTAR. In the NT, as in the LXX, the usual 



term for ' altar ' is dwiaffTripiov a \vord otherwise 
confined to Philo, Josephus, and ecclesiastical 
writers while PU/J.OS, as contrasted with a Jewish 
place of sacrifice, is a heathen altar. The most 
striking example of the antithesis is found in 1 Mac 
I 54 ' 5 ". Antiochus Epiphanes erected a small altar 
to Jupiter ' the abomination of desolation ' (v. 64 ) 
upon the 0vffia<rr^piov of the temple, and ' on the 
twenty-fifth day of the month they sacrificed upon 
the idol-altar (^wyttoj) which was upon the altar 
of God (6v<ria<rTripioi>).' The NT contains only a 
single distinct reference to a pagan altar the 
^w/xos which St. Paul observed in Athens bearing 
the inscription 'AyvuffTy Gey (Ac 17 23 ). 

1. The altar on which sacrifices were presented 
to God was indispensable to OT religion. Alike in 
the simple cultus of patriarchal times and the ela- 
borate ritual of fully developed Judaism, its posi- 
tion was central. The altar was the place of 
meeting between God and man, and the ritual of 
blood the supposed seat of life was the essence 
of the offering. Whatever details might be added, 
the rite of sprinkling or dashing the blood against 
the altar, or allowing it to flow on the ground at 
its base, could never be omitted. The Levitical 
cultus was continued in Jerusalem till the destruc- 
tion of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70, and 
the attitude and practice of the early Jewish- 
Christian Church in reference to it form an interest- 
ing and difficult problem. It has been generally 
assumed that, when our Lord instituted the New 
Covenant in His own blood (Mk 14 24 , Lk 22 20 ), He 
implicitly abrogated the Levitical law, and that, 
when His sacrifice was completed, the disciples 
must at once have perceived that it made every altar 
obsolete. But there is not wanting evidence that 
enlightenment came slowly ; that the practice of 
the Jewish-Christian Church was not altered sud- 
denly, but gradually and with not a little misgiving. 
Hort observes that ' respecting the continued ad- 
herence to Jewish observances, nothing is said 
which implies either its presence or its absence' 
(Judaistic Christianity, 42). But there are many 
clear indications that the first Christians remained 
Jews McGitfert (Apostol. Age, 65) even suggests 
that they were ' more devout and earnest Jews 
than they had ever been ' continuing to worship 
God at the altar in the Temple like all their 
countrymen. ' They had no desire to be renegades, 
nor was it possible to regard them as such. Even 
if they did not maintain and observe the whole 
cultus, yet this did not endanger their allegiance. 
. . . The Christians did not lay themselves open to 
the charge of violating the law' ( Weizsacker, Apostol. 
Age, i. 46). They went up to the Temple at the 
hour of prayer (Ac 3'), which was the hour of sacri- 
fice ; they took upon themselves vows, and ottered 
sacrifices for release (21 ao - 21 ) ; and even St. Paul, 
the champion of spiritual freedom, brought sacri- 
fices (irpoff<popfa) to lay on the altar in the Holy City 
(24 17 ). The inference that the New Covenant left no 
place for any altar or Mosaic sacrifice is first expli- 
citly drawn by the writer of Hebrews (see TEMPLE). 

2. Apart from a passing allusion to the altars 
which were thrown down in Elijah's time (Ro II 3 ), 
St. Paul makes two uses of the dva-iaa-T^piov in the 
Temple. (1) In vindicating the right of ministers of 
the gospel to live at the charge of the Christian 
community, he instances the well-known Levitical 
practice : ' those who wait upon the altar have their 
portion with (<rvfj./j.eplfoi>Tai) the altar ' (1 Co 9 13 ), part 
of the offering being burnt in the altar tire, and part 
reserved for the priests, to whom the law gives the 
privilege 'altaris esse socios in dividenda victima' 
(Beza). Schmiedel (in loc.) thinks that the refer- 
ence may be to priests who serve ' am Tempel der 
Heiden wie der Juden,' but probably for St. Paul 
the only Owiaffrfyiov was the altar on which sacrifice 



52 



AMBASSADOR 



AME:N T 



was offered to the God of Israel. (2) In arguing 
against the possibility of partaking of the Eucharist 
and joining in idolatrous festivals, St. Paul appeals 
to the ethical significance of sacrifice, regarded not 
as an atonement but as a sacred meal between God 
and man. The altar being His table and the sacri- 
fice His feast, the hospitality of table-communion 
is the pledge of friendship between Him and His 
worshippers. All who join in the sacrifice are par- 
takers with the altar (KOIVUVOI TOV 6vffia.ffTr)plov), one 
might almost say commensals with God. ' Accord- 
i ng to antique ideas, those who eat and drink together 
are by the very act tied to one another by a bond 
of friendship and mutual obligation ' ( W. R. Smith, 
Rel. Sem. 2 , 247). How revolting it is, then, to pass 
from the altar of God or, by parity of reasoning, 
from the rpairtfa TOV Kvpiov, to the orgies of pagan 
gods, the Tpairefa Saifj-oviuv. 

3. The writer of Hebrews refers to the old Jewish 
altar and to a new Christian one. (1) Reasoning 
somewhat in the manner of Philo, he notes the 
emergence of a mysterious priest from a tribe which 
has given none of its sons to minister at the altar, 
and on this circumstance bases an ingenious argu- 
ment for the imperfection of the Levitical priest- 
hood, and so of the whole Mosaic system (He 7 13 ). 
(2) Against those Christians who occupy themselves 
with (sacrificial) meats the writer says : ' We have 
an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who 
serve the tabernacle ' (13 10 ). Few sentences have 
given rise to so much misunderstanding. '"Exojw 
can only denote Christians, and what is said of them 
must be allegorically intended, for they have no ry 
ffKijvy \arpevovTes, and no Ovciacrr^piov in the proper 
sense of the word ' (von Soden). The point which 
the writer seeks to make is that in connexion with 
the great Christian sacrifice there is nothing corre- 
sponding to the feasts of ordinary Jewish (or of 
heathen) sacrifices. Its TI/ITOS is the sacrifice of the 
Day of Atonement, no part of which was eaten by 
priest or worshipper, the mind alone receiving the 
benefit of the offering. So we Christians serve an 
altar from which we obtain a purely spiritual ad- 
vantage. Whether the writer actually visualized 
the Cross of Christ as the altar at which all His 
followers minister, like \eirovpyoi in the Tabernacle, 
as many have supposed is doubtful. Figurative 
language must not be unduly pressed. 

The writer of Rev., whose heaven is a replica of 
the earthly Temple and its solemn ritual, sees 
underneath the altar the souls of martyrs the 
blood poured out as an oblation (cf. Ph 2 17 , 2 Ti 4 6 ) 
representing the life or ^i/x^? and hears them cry- 
ing, like the blood of Abel, for vengeance (Rev 
6 9 - 10 ; cf. En. 22 5 ). In 8 3 and 9 13 the tfi/o-icKmfciov is 
not the altar of burnt-offering but that of incense 
(see INCENSE). In 14 18 the prophet sees an angel 
come out from the altar, the spirit or genius of fire, 
an Iranian conception ; and in 16 7 he personifies 
the altar itself and makes it proclaim the truth and 
justice of God. 

LITERATURE. I. Benzinger, Heb. Arch., Freiburg, 1894, p. 
378 f. ; W. Nowack, Heb. Arch., Freiburg, 1894, ii. 17 f . ; 
A. Edersheim, The Temple, its Ministry and Services, London, 
1874; Schurer, HJP, 11. i. 207 f. ; W. R. Smith, Rel. Sern.2, 
London, 1894 ; J. Wellhausen, Regie arab. Heidenthums, 
Berlin, 1887, p. 101 f. ; A. C. McGiffert, Apostol. Age, Edinb. 
1897, p. 36 f.; C. v. Weizsacker, Apostol. Age, 2 vols., London, 
1894-95, L 43ff. JAMES STRAHAN. 

AMBASSADOR. Although this word occurs 
twice (2 Co 5 20 and Eph 6 20 ) in the EV of the NT, 
the corresponding Greek noun (irp(cr^evr^s) occurs 
nowhere. Instead, we find the verb irpffffievu, ' to 
be an ambassador,' while the cognate collective 
noun (RV 'ambassage') is used in Lk 14 32 19 14 .* 

* >rpe(r/3<rv'ui and jrpeo-0evr>J9 were the recognized terms in the 
Greek East for the Legate of the Roman Empire (Deissmann, 
Light from the Ancient East*, 1911, p. 379). 



In the OT the idea behind the words translated 
' ambassador ' (generally mal'dkh) is that of going 
or being sent, and of this the etymological 
equivalent in the NT is not ' ambassador ' but 
'apostle' (&w6o-To\os, 'one sent forth'); but both 
the OT terms and the NT oTroVroXos have to be 
understood in the light of use and context rather 
than of derivation. In this way they acquire a 
richer content, of which the chief component ideas 
are the bearing of a message, the dealing, in a re- 
presentative character, with those to whom one is 
sent, and the solemn investiture, before starting 
out, with a delegated authority sufficient for the 
task (cf. Gal I 15 '"). 

The representative character of ambassadorship 
is emphasized by the repeated virtp, ' on behalf of,' 
in 2 Co 5 20 , with the added ' as though God were 
intreating by us.' The same preposition (inrtp) 
occurs in Eph 6 20 ; thus irpeo-pevu is never found 
in the NT without it. So also in Lk 14 32 19 14 the 
context shows that the irpeo-pela. is representative. 

There is no very marked difference between 
'ambassador' and 'apostle.' irpeo-pevu, having 
n-pto-fivs (' aged') as its stem, does suggest a certain 
special dignity and gravity, based on the ancient 
idea of the vastly superior wisdom brought by 
ripeness of years. Probably, however, St. Paul 
was not thinking of age at all, for irpeo-pevu had 
lived a life of its own long enough to be independ- 
ent of its antecedents. His tone of dignity and of 
pride springs not so much from his metaphor as 
direct from his vividly realized relation to God : 
inrtp is more emphatic than irpeo-ftevu. It is in 
exactly the same tone that he claims the title 
'apostle' (see, e.g., Gal I 1 , 1 Co 9 1 IS 9 ' 10 ) ; cf. Gal 
I 15 '-, where his ' separation to preach ' expresses the 
same thought in yet another form. Nevertheless, 
his is a humble pride, for only grace has put him 
in his lofty position (cf. 1 Co 15 9 *-). Moreover, his 
commission is not to lord it over others, but to 
' beseech ' them ; nay, God Himself only ' intreats ' 
(2 Co 5 20 ). It is He who seeks ' arrangements for 
peace' with men (cf. Lk 14 32 ). On the n-peo-^vT-rjy 
of Philem 9 (AV and RV 'the aged,' RVm 'an am- 
bassador') see art. AGED. C. H. W ATKINS. 

AMEN. The lack of a common language has 
always been a barrier to the mutual knowledge and 
intercourse of the great nations of mankind, all the 
more that the days when the educated men of 
all European nations were wont to converse in 
Latin have long since passed away. To a certain 
extent the gulf has been bridged for men of science 
by a newly-invented vocabulary of their own, and 
a general use of Latin and Greek names for all the 
objects of their study. In the world of religion 
it still remains a great obstacle to all attempts to 
realize a truly catholic and universal Church. The 
Latin of the Roman Catholic missal, which seems 
so unintelligible to the mass of the worshippers that 
a sign language (of ritual) is largely the medium 
by which they follow the services when not ab- 
sorbed in the reading of devotional manuals in 
their ow r n mother tongue, is but a caricature of 
such a general medium of interpretative forms of 
worship. It is, therefore, a matter of great interest 
to study the use of those few words of ancient 
origin which have taken root in the religious lan- 
guage of so many great Christian nations, and 
have come to convey, in all the services where they 
are used, the same or a similar meaning. Of these, 
perhaps the most familiar are the words ' Amen ' 
and ' Hallelujah.' These old Heb. phrases were 
taken, of course, from the Bible, where, save in 
the case of Luther's edition and the LXX version 
of the earlier books of the OT, no attempt has been 
made to replace them by foreign equivalents. 
They have a deep interest for Christians, not 



AMEN 



AMEN 



53 



merely as a reminder of their essential unity and 
their ancient history, and as a recollection of the 
debt which we owe to a race so often despised, but 
as a reminiscence of the very words which came 
from our Lord's own mouth, in the days when He 
was sowing the seed of which we are reaping the 
fruits. 

A brief examination of the history of the word 
' Amen ' will be sufficient to prove the meaning 
which it had, the way in which it acquired this 
meaning, and the certainty that it was one of the 
very words which fell from the Master and had 
for Him a message of rare and unusual signifi- 
cance. The original use of the word (derived from 
a Heb. root JDK, meaning ' steadfast,' and a verb, 
' to prop,' akin to Heb. nag, ' truth,' Assyr. tenienu, 
'foundation,' and Eth. amena, 'trust' [Arab, ami- 
nun=' secure ']) was intended to express certainty. 
In the mouth of Benaiah (1 K I 36 ) and Jeremiah 
( Jer 28 6 ) it appears as first word in the sentence, 
as a strong form of assent to a previous statement. 
It was not till after the Exile that it assumed its 
far commoner place as the answer, or almost the re- 
frain in chorus, to the words of a previous speaker, 
and as such took its natural position at the close 
of the five divisions of the Psalms. It is uncertain 
how far this formed part of the people's response 
in the ritual of the Temple, but it is certain that 
it acquired a fixed place in the services of the syna- 
gogues, where it still forms a common response of 
the congregation. This was sometimes altered 
later, in opposition to the Christian practice, and 
' God Faithful King ' was used instead. The ob- 
ject of this use of ' Amen ' was, in Massie's words, 
'to adopt as one's own what has just been said' 
(HDR i. 80), and it thus finds a fitting place in the 
mouth of the people to whom Nehemiah promul- 
gated his laws (Neh 5 13 ). To express emphasis, 
in accordance with Hebrew practice the word was 
often doubled, as in the solemn path of Nu 5 22 (cf. 
Neh 8 s ). This was further modified by the inser- 
tion of ' and ' in the first three divisions of the 
Psalter. ' Amen ' later became the last word of 
the first speaker, either as simple subscription as 
such it stands appended to three of the Psalms 
(41, 72, 89), and in many NT Epistles, after both 
doxologies (15 times) and benedictions (6 times in 
RV) or as the last word of a prayer (RV only 
in Prayer of Manasses ; but 2 others in Vulgate, 
viz. Neh 13 31 , To 13 18 ). In two old MSS of Tobit 
(end), as in some later MSS of the NT, it appears by 
itself without a doxology. The later Jews were 
accustomed to use ' Amen ' frequently in their 
homes (e.g. after grace before meals, etc. ), and laid 
down precise rules for the ways of enunciating and 
pronouncing it. These are found in the Talmudic 
tract B e rakhoth ('Blessings'), and are intended to 
guard against irreverence, haste, etc. So great 
was the superstition which attached to it that 
many of the later Rabbis treated it almost as a 
fetish, able to win blessings not only in this life 
but in the next ; and one commentator, Eliezer ben 
Hyrcanus, went so far as to declare that by its 
hearty pronunciation in chorus the godless in 
Israel who lay in the penal fires of Gehenna might 
one day hope for the opening of their prison gates 
and a free entrance into the abode of the blessed, 
though Hogg suggests that this sentiment was 
extracted from a pun on Is 26 2 (Elijahu Zutta, xx. ; 
Shab. 1196; Siddur B. Amram, 136; cf. Yalk. ii. 
296 on Is 26 2 ). 

' Amen ' would naturally have passed from the 
synagogues to the churches which took their rise 
among the synagogue-worshippers, but the Master 
Himself gave a new emphasis to its value for Chris- 
tians by the example of His own practice. In this, 
as in all else, He was no slavish imitator of con- 
temporary Rabbis. He spoke ' as having authority 



and not as the scribes' (Mk I 22 ), and in this capa- 
city it is not surprising that He found a new use 
for the word of emphasis, which neither His pre- 
decessors nor His followers have ventured to imi- 
tate, though the title applied to Him in Rev 3 14 is 
founded upon His own chosen practice. In His 
mouth, by the common evidence of all the Gospels 
(77 times), the word is used to introduce His own 
words and clothe them with solemn affirmation. 
He plainly expressed His dislike for oaths (Mt 5 s4 ), 
and in Dalman's view (Words of Jesus, 229) and 
no one is better qualified to speak on the subject 
He found here the word He needed to give the 
assurance which usually came from an oath. But 
in doing this ' He was really making good the word, 
not the word Him,' and it is therefore natural that 
no other man has ever ventured to followHis custom. 
That it was His habitual way of speaking is doubly 
plain from a comparison of all four Gospels, even 
though St. Luke, who wrote for men unacquainted 
with Hebrew, has sought where possible to replace 
the word by a Greek equivalent (dXijfltDj, etc. ). St. 
John has always doubled the word, probably for 
emphasis, since Delitzsch's explanation from a 
word 'DK= ' I say ' is shown by Dalman (p. 227 f.) 
to be wrong and based on a purely Babylonian 
practice. 

The rest of the NT presents examples of all the 
older uses of the phrase, though the earliest is 
found only in the Jewish Apocalypse (Rev 7 12 19 4 ) 
which has probably been worked up into the Chris- 
tian Book of ' Revelation,' and in one passage 
(22 30 ) christianized from it. Here it is perhaps a 
conscious archaic form, brought in to add to the 
mysterious language of the vision, which may 
originally, like the Book of Enoch or Noah, have 
been ascribed to some earlier seer. The language 
of St. Paul in 1 Co 14 16 shows that the synagogue 
practice of saying ' Amen ' as a response early be- 
came habitual among the worshippers of ' the 
Nazarene,' even if we had not been led to infer 
this by the growing reluctance of the Jews to em- 
phasize this feature of their service. The use 
(? Jewish) in Rev 5 14 corresponds with this custom 
(cf. Ps 106 48 ). It is plain that the complete abserce 
of the word in Acts itself a link with the Third 
Gospel must be ascribed to the peculiar style and 
attitude of the author, and not at all to the actual 
practice in the churches. 

Twice in the NT (2 Co I 20 , Rev 3 14 ) the word 
' Amen ' is used as a noun implying the ' Faithful 
God,' but it is hard to tell whether this is to be 
understood as a play on words based on Is 65 16 
(nag, 'truth,' being read as JEN, 'Amen'), or 
whether it is connected w r ith the manner in which 
the Master employed the phrase as guaranteed by 
His own authority and absolute ' faithfulness.' 

The Church of the Fathers made much of the 
word ' Amen ' in all its OT uses, and introduced it 
into their services, not only after blessings, hymns, 
etc. (cf. Euseb. iv. 15, vii. 9), but after the reception 
of the Sacrament a custom to which Justin refers 
in his [the earliest] account of the manner in 
which this service was conducted (Apol. i. 64, 66). 
This is confirmed by Ambrose. The practice is 
still in vogue in the Eastern Church, was adopted 
in the Scottish Liturgy of 1637, and dropped only 
in the 6th cent, by the Western Church. Some- 
times the 'Amen' was even repeated after the 
lesson had been read. From the Jews and the 
Christians it passed over to the Muhammadan 
ritual, where it is still repeated after the first two 
suras of the Qur'an, even though its meaning is 
wholly misunderstood by the Muslim imams who 
guess at various impossible explanations. In the 
Book of Common Prayer it appears in various 
forms as the end of the priest s prayer, as the 
response of the people, or as the unanimous assent 



54 



AMETHYST 



ANANIAS 



of both priest and people. Curiously enough, 
among Presbyterians it is said by the minister 
only. One relic of the Gospel language is retained 
in the Bishops' Oath of Supremacy, which com- 
mences almost in the style of one of Christ's 
famous declarations. In legal terminology the 
term has been introduced to strengthen affirmation, 
and formed an item in the ' style ' of proclamations 
until the 16th century. Hogg notes that in Eng- 
lish, as in Syriac, it has come to mean ' consent,' 
and has been enabled thus to acquire the sense of 
'the very last,' even though it commenced its 
career as first word in the sentence. 

The foregoing remarks may enable the reader 
to judge of the strange changes to which the mean- 
ing of this word has been subjected, the important 
part it has played, and the historical interest which 
attaches to its every echo. 

LITERATES. The artt. in HDB, DOG, EBi, and JE; G. 
Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. tr., Edinb. 1902, p. 226 ff. ; 
H. W. Hogg, in JQR ix. [1896] 1-23; Oqf. Heb. Lex., s.v. 
JDK; Grimm-Thayer, s.v. a^v, artt. in ExpT viiL [1897] 190, 
by Nestle, and xiii. [1902] 563, by Jannaris. 

L. ST. ALBAN WELLS. 

AMETHYST (d/^0wrros, Rev 21 20 ). A variety 
of quartz of rock-crystal, of purple or bluish violet 
colour. Derived from d, 'not,' and p^dvaKeiv, 'to 
intoxicate,' it was regarded as a charm against the 
effects of wine. Quaffed from a cup of amethyst, 
or by a reveller wearing an amulet of that sub- 
stance, the vine-juice could not intoxicate. This 
wa^s doubtless a case of sympathetic magic, wine 
being amethystine in colour. In the LXX (Ex 28 19 , 
etc. ) ' amethyst ' stands for ahlamah, a stone which 
was regarded as a charm against bad dreams. The 
amethyst was used as a gem-stone by the ancient 
Egyptians, and largely employed in classical an- 
tiquity for intaglios. Naturally it was often en- 
graved with Bacchanalian subjects. Being com- 
paratively abundant, it is inferior in price to true 
gems, and is not to be confounded with the oriental 
amethyst, a variety of corundum, or sapphire of 
amethystine tint, which is a very valuable gem of 
great brilliancy and beauty. JAMES STRAHAN. 

AMOMUM (Afitafj-ov, perhaps from Arab, hamma, 
' heat '). An aromatic balsam used as an unguent 
for the hair, made from the seeds of an eastern 
plant which has not been identified with certainty. 
Josephus (Ant. XX. ii. 2) speaks of Harran as 'a 
soil which bare amomum in plenty,' and Vergil 
(Eel. iv. 25) predicts that in the Golden Age 
'Assyrium vulgo nascetur amomum.' The word 
came to be used generally for any pure and sweet 
odour. In Rev 18* 3 AV (with B K c ) omits the word ; 
RV (with X *AC) accepts it and translates 'spice' 
(RVm ' Gr. amomum '). The term is now applied 
to a genus of aromatic plants, some species of which 
yield cardamoms and grains of paradise. 

JAMES STRAHAN. 

AMPHIPOLIS (A.n<t>liro\u). This Macedonian 
city played an important part in early Greek 
history. Occupying an eminence on the left bank 
of the Strymon, just below the egress of the river 
from Lake Cercinitis, 3 miles from the Strymonic 
Gulf, it commanded the entrance to a pass leading 
through the mountains into the great Macedonian 
plains. It was almost encircled by the river, 
whence its name ' Amphi-polis.' 

Thucydides (i. 100) says that the Athenians 
' sent 10,000 settlers of their own citizens and the 
allies to the Strymon, to colonize what was then 
called the "Nine Ways" ("EiWa odoi), but now 
Amphipolis.' It was the jewel of their empire, 
but they lost it in 422 B.C., and never recovered 
it. It was under the Macedonian kings from 360 
till the Roman conquest of the country in 167 B.C. 
The Romans made it a free city and the capital of 



the first of four districts into which they divided 
Macedonia. It lay on the Via Egnatia, which 
connected Dyrrachium with the Hellespont. From 
Philippi it was 32 miles to the south-west, and 
1 this was one of the most beautiful day's journeys 
Paul ever experienced ' (Renan, Saint Paul, Eng. 
tr., p. 91). The Apostle and his fellow-travellers 
evidently remained in Amphipolis over night, and 
next day went on to Apollonia (Ac 17 1 ). It is now 
represented by Neochori. 

LITERATURE. W. M. Leake, Northern Greece, London, 1836, 
iii. 181 f. ; G. Grote, Hist, of Greece, new ed., do. 1870, iii. 284 ff. ; 
Conybeare-Howson, St. Paul, do. 1872, i. 374 ff. 

JAMES STRAHAN. 

AMPLIATUS ('A/MrXtaTos [Ro 16 8 X ABFG], a com- 
mon Lat. name of which AV Amplias ["A/uirXfas, 
DELP] is a contraction). Saluted by St. Paul and 
described as ' my beloved in the Lord ' (rbv ayairrtrov 
fj.ov iv Kvplip). The only other persons described in 
Ro 16 as ' my beloved ' are Epaenetus (v. 6 ) and 
Stachys (v. 9 ). A woman is saluted perhaps with 
intentional delicacy as ' Persis the beloved ' (v. u ). 
The precise phrase ' my beloved in the Lord ' does 
not occur again in the NT. The special term of 
Christian endearment might suggest that Ampli- 
atus was a personal convert of St. Paul's or closely 
associated with him in Christian work. Such 
friends, however, are referred to as ' beloved child ' 
(Timothy, 1 Co 4"), ' beloved brother ' (Tychicus, 
Eph6 21 ), 'beloved fellow-servant' (Epaphras, Coll 7 ), 
etc. (cf . art. BELOVED). Nothing whatever is known 
of Ampliatus beyond this reference. 

Assuming the integrity of the Epistle and the 
Roman destination of these salutations, he was 
perhaps a Roman, whom St. Paul had met on one 
of his missionary journeys, and who was known by 
the Apostle at the time of writing to be residing 
in or visiting Rome. It is interesting to find the 
name Ampliatus several times in inscriptions be- 
longing to the Imperial familia or household (see 
Lightfoot, Philippians*, 1878, p. 174, and Sanday- 
Headlam, Romans 6 , 1902, p. 424). Sanday-Headlam 
also refer to a Christian inscription in the catacomb 
of Domitilla belonging to the end of the 1st or 
beginning of the 2nd cent, in which the name 
occurs, possibly as that of a slave or freedman 
prominent in the Church. If the view be held 
that the salutations in Ro 16 were part of a letter 
to the Church of Ephesus, Ampliatus must have 
been a Roman, resident in Ephesus, with whom 
St. Paul became acquainted during his long stay 
in that city. It is possible that he was a Jew 
who had taken a Latin name (cf . the names Paulus, 
and Lucius a 'kinsman,' i.e. a Jew, Ro 16 21 ). 

T 15 -Alii \voTiTFrv 

ANANIAS (Gr. 'Avavtas ; Heb. ' Jjn, ' Jahweh' is 
gracious'). A very common name in later Jewish 
times, corresponding to Hananiah or Hanani of the 
OT. We find it occurring frequently in the post- 
exilic writings and particularly in the Apocrypha. 
In the history of the Apostolic Church, we meet 
with three persons bearing this name. 

1. An early convert to Christianity, best known 
as the husband of Sapphira (Ac 5 1 ' 5 ). Along with 
his wife, Ananias was carried into the early Church 
on the wave of enthusiasm which began on the 
day of Pentecost, but they were utterly devoid of 
any understanding or appreciation of the new 
religion they professed. In this period of early 
zeal many of the Christians sold their lands and 
handed the proceeds to the community of be- 
lievers (cf. BARNABAS, COMMUNITY OF GOODS). 
Ananias and his wife, wishing to share in the 
approbation accorded to such acts of generosity, 
sold their land and handed part of the price to the 
community, pretending that they had sacrificed 
all. When St. Peter rebuked the male offender 
for his duplicity, Ananias fell down dead, and was 



ANANIAS 



ANATHEMA 



55 



carried out for burial ; his wife also came in and 
was overtaken by the same fate. The narrative 
does not indicate that the two were punished 
because they had in any way violated a rule of 
communism which they had professed to accept. 
The words of St. Peter, ' Whiles it remained, did 
it not remain thine own, and after it was sold, was 
it not in thine own power ? ' (Ac 5 4 ) at once dispose 
of any view of the incident which would regard 
communism as compulsory in the early Church. 
The sin for which Ananias and Sapphira were 
punished is described as 'lying unto God' (v. 4 ). 
It was, says Knowling, ' much more than mere 
hypocrisy, much more than fraud, pride or greed 
hateful as these sins are the power and presence 
of the Holy Spirit had been manifested in the 
Church, and Ananias had sinned not only against 
human brotherhood, but against the Divine light 
and leading which had made that brotherhood 
possible. . . . The action of Ananias and Sapphira 
was hypocrisy of the worst kind,' an attempt to 
deceive not only men but God Himself. Most 
critics admit the historicity of the incident (e.g. 
Baur, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Spitta), while it is 
undoubted that in the narrative the cause of death 
is traced to the will and intention of St. Peter, 
and cannot be regarded as a chance occurrence or 
the effect of a sudden shock brought about by the 
discovery of their guilt. Much has been written 
on the need in the infant Church of such a solemn 
warning against a type of hypocrisy which, had 
it become prevalent, would have rendered the 
existence of the Christian community impossible. 

LITERATURE. F. C. Baur, Paulus, Leipzig, 1866, i. 28 ff. ; 
A. Neander, Planting of Christianity, ed. Bohn, i. [1880] 27 ff. ; 
C. v. Weizsacker, Apostol. Age, i. [1894] 24 ; R. J. Knowling, 
EGT, 'Acts,' 1900, in loco; Comm. of Meyer, Zeller, Holtz- 
mann, Spitta. 

2. A Christian disciple who dwelt in Damascus, 
and to whom Christ appeared in a vision telling 
him to go to Saul of Tarsus, who was praying and 
had seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming 
in and laying his hands on him that he might 
receive his sight (Ac 9 10 ' 17 ). On hearing this com- 
mand, Ananias, knowing the reputation of Saul 
as a persecutor, expressed reluctance, but was 
assured that the persecutor was a chosen messenger 
of Christ to bear His name to the Gentiles and 
kings and the children of Israel. Thus encouraged, 
Ananias went and laid his hands on Saul, who 
received his sight and was baptized. In his speech 
before the multitude at Jerusalem (Ac 22 12 '* 8 ) St. 
Paul describes Ananias as ' devout according to 
the law,' and as one ' to whom witness was borne 
by all that dwelt ' at Damascus. 

Later tradition has much to say regarding Ananias. He is 
represented as one of the ' Seventy,' and it is possible he may 
have been a personal disciple of Jesus. He is also described as 
bishop of Damascus, and reported to have met a violent death, 
slain by the sword of P61, the general of Aretas, according to 
one authority (Book of the Bee, by Solomon of Basra [1222], 
ch. xxix., ed. Wallis Budge), or, according to another (see Acta 
Sanctorum, Jan. 25 [new ed. p. 227]), stoned to death after 
undergoing torture at the hand of Lucian, prefect of Damascus. 
His name stands in the Roman and Armenian Martyrologies, 
and he is commemorated in the Abyssinian Calendar. 

3. The high priest who accused St. Paul before 
Claudius Lysias in Jerusalem (Ac 23 lff- ), and who 
afterwards appeared among the Apostle's enemies 
before Felix at Caesarea (Ac 24 lff> ). He is not 
to be identified or confused with Annas (q.v.) 
of Ac 4 6 , Lk 3 2 , or Jn 18 13 . He was the son of 
Nedebseus, and is regarded by Schiirer (GJV* ii. 
272) as the twenty-first high priest in the Roman- 
Herodian period. He retained his office, to which 
he had been appointed by Herod of Chalcis, for 
about twelve years (A.D. 47-59). During the time 
of his administration, bitter quarrels broke out 
between the Jews and the Samaritans, which led 
to a massacre of some GalUseans by Samaritans 



and to the plundering of Samaritan villages by 
Jews. Ananias was summoned to Rome and tried 
for complicity in these disturbances, but, at the 
instigation of Agrippa the younger, was restored 
to office. He ruled in Jerusalem with all the 
arbitrariness of an Oriental despot, and his violence 
and rapacity are noted by Josephus (Ant. XX. ix. 
2), while his personal wealth made him a man of 
consideration even after he was deprived of his 
office. He did not scruple to make frequent use 
of assassins to carry out his policy in Jerusalem, 
and his Roman sympathies made mm an object of 
intense hatred to the national party. When the 
war broke out in A.D. 66, he was dragged from his 
place of concealment in an aqueduct and murdered 
by the assassins whom he had used as tools in the 
days of his power (Josephus, BJ II. xvii. 9). 

LITERATURE. Josephus, Ant. xx. ix. 2, BJ n. xvii. 9 ; E. 
Schiirer, GJV* ii. [1907] 256, 272, 274. 

W. F. BOYD. 

ANATHEMA. The transliteration of a Gr. word 
which is used in the LXX to represent the Heb. 
herem, 'a person or thing devoted or set apart, 
under religious sanctions, for destruction' (Lv 
2728. 2 } j os 6i7) 4 i^ i s ca pable of use in the good 
sense of an offering to God, but was gradually 
confined to the sense of ' accursed,' which is the 
rendering adopted in AV in all NT passages except 
1 Co 16 22 . Around the Heb. term there gathered 
in course of time an elaborate system of excom- 
munication, with penalties varying both in amount 
and in duration, the purpose being sometimes 
remedial of the offender and sometimes protective 
of the community ; but these developments are 
mainly later than our period. They may have 
suggested lines on which a system of official 
discipline in the Christian Church was afterwards 
constructed, but it would be an anachronism to 
read them into the simpler thoughts of the aposto- 
lic literature. In patristic times the word de- 
noted some ecclesiastical censure or form of 
punishment, for which a precedent may have been 
sought in the teaching or practice of St. Paul. 
To the Apostle, the OT allusion would be predomin- 
ant, and his chief, if not his only, thought would 
be that of a hopeless spiritual condition, from 
which emergence could be effected, if at all, only 
with extreme difficulty and by special forbearance 
on the part of God. 

In the Pauline Epistles the word 'anathema' 
occurs four times, once in reference to the Apostle 
himself, and on the other occasions in reference 
to the maltreatment of his Lord. 

1. The personal passage is Ro 9 s , where there 
is no serious difficulty to those who do not look 
for strict reasoning in the language of the heart. 
St. Paul has just expressed (8 39 ) his belief that 
nothing conceivable could separate him from the 
love of God ; and now, in his yearning over his 
fellow-countrymen, he announces that for their 
sakes he would be willing, if it were possible, 
to be even hopelessly separated from Christ. 
Clearly ' anathema ' need not, and does not here, 
carry any sense of formal excommunication ; it 
denotes a spiritual condition of which the two 
features are exclusion from the redemption in 
Christ and permanent hopelessness. 

2. Greater difficulty attaches to Gal I 8 , where 
the Apostle, again under strong emotion, impre- 
cates anathema upon others. The case he imagines 
is one that would warrant extreme indignation, 
though the language is that of justifiable passion 
and not to be interpreted literally. St. Paul 
would be the last of Christian teachers to with- 
draw all hope from a man, and it is possible that 
in this case he thought of anathema as being 
remedial and temporary. He was the bond- 
servant of Christ, and as such he resented entirely 



56 



ANATHEMA 



ANCHOE 



any conduct or teaching that dishonoured his 
Lord. That such teaching reflected also on him- 
self would be a matter of little consequence ; but 
Christ was sacred to him, and the preacher of 
another gospel, whether one of his own colleagues 
or even ' an angel from heaven,' was not to be 
tolerated. His teaching made and proved him a 
person set apart for destruction ; but whether 
that destruction was final or only corrective would 
depend upon the man's impenitence or reform. 
Free association with him would be no longer 
possible, and to that extent the beginnings of a 
system of discipline may be traced in the phrase, 
as in 1 Ti I 20 and 1 Co 5 5 , where the ultimate 
restoration of the man is distinctly in view. But 
the reference to ' an angel from heaven ' is suffi- 
cient to prove that ecclesiastical censure, carry- 
ing finality with it, was not the main thought. 

3. and 4. Twice in 1 Cor. the word ' anathema ' 
occurs in the course of the sharp conflict excited 
by the extreme party among converted proselytes 
to Judaism ; and the great idea is that everything 
in the religion of a professed Christian is deter- 
mined by his real relationship to Christ. Over 
against the party of which the watchword was 
' Jesus is Lord,' was a party whose irreligion was 
manifested by their cry 'Jesus is anathema' 
(1 Co 12 s ). They were in a sense within the 
Christian community, and conscious therefore of 
certain obligations to Christ ; but they were so 
provoked by the attempt to set Jesus on the same 
level with the supreme God, and by the apparently 
absolute incompatibility of that belief with their 
fundamental conviction of the unity of God, that 
they were prepared to renounce Jesus and even to 
denounce Him rather than to confess His Godhead 
and submit to His claims. Or, introduced into 
the Church from some form of paganism, they had 
been so familiar with the evil inspiration that 
swept them along to the worship of ' dumb idols ' 
( 12 2 ) as to be disposed to plead inspiration for any 
tongues or doctrines of their own, to whatever 
extent Jesus was degraded therein. In response 
St. Paul sets up the great antithesis between real 
inspiration and counterfeit. The Spirit of God is 
the author of any confession that Jesus is Lord ; 
ecstasy or even demoniac possession may be pleaded 
for the assertion that Jesus for His teaching is 
destined to Divine destruction, but never the 
breath of the Holy Spirit. Between those two 
extremes there are many halting-places, and the 
insecurity of each of them is in proportion to its 
remoteness from the confession or Jesus Christ as 
Lord. So much is the Apostle affected by this 
dishonour done to his Lord, that it recurs to his 
memory as the Epistle is being closed, and suggests 
the footnote of 1 Co 16 22 . He adopts the word 
used by the men of whom he was thinking, and 
condenses his indignation into a curt dismissal, 
' If any one loveth not the Lord, let him be 
anathema. Maran atha.' In such a place again 
the word cannot denote official ecclesiastical cen- 
sure. It is really an antithesis to the prayer for 
grace in Eph G 24 , the handing over of the unloving 
man to Satan, the refusal to have anything more 
to do with him until at least some signs of a 
newborn love for Christ are given. 

As to the addition of Maran atha, both the 
meaning of the words and their relation to the 
context have been subjects of controversy. For a 
discussion of the Aramaic phrase, with related 
questions, see HDB iii. 241 ff. It is either an 
assertion, ' Our Lord cometh' (so RVm), or, more 
probably, an ejaculatory prayer, ' O Lord, come,' 
with parallels in Ph 4 s , 1 P 4 7 , Rev 22 20 , devotional 
rather than minatory in its character and inten- 
tion. If it be taken as an assertion, it may mean, 
' Let those who do not love the Lord fear and be 



quick to amend, for He is at hand in triumph,' 
though the expected Parousia is not a recurring 
feature of the Epistle. Or the idea may be, ' The 
Lord is coming soon, and there is no need to trouble 
further with these men, for with greater wisdom 
thought may be given to Him.' But the term is 
better detached entirely from the reference to 
anathema, and considered simply as a little prayer, 
in which the normal yearning of the Apostle 
expresses itself, before he closes a letter or group 
of letters, in the writing of which his pastoral 
heart must have been pained again ana again. 
The sudden way in which the expression is intro- 
duced suggests that it had already become a 
popular form of something like greeting in common 
use among the disciples, and had supplanted the 
earlier ' The Lord is risen,' unless both were 
used, the one on meeting and the other on parting. 
That would explain the absence of any attempt to 
translate it from the vernacular, and is confirmed 
by the usage of the next generation; cf. Didache, 
x. 6, where also the word follows a warning ; and 
Apost. Constitutions, vii. 26, where any thought 
of enforcing a penalty is rendered impossible by 
the jubilant tone of the section. 

In course of time 'anathema' came to mean 
excommunication, for which sanction was found 
in the Pauline use of the word, which again was 
carried back to our Saviour's teaching (Mt 18 17 ). 
Such men as are referred to in 1 Co 16 22 would of 
necessity find themselves excluded from associa- 
tion with disciples, and rules for their treatment 
were prescribed (1 Co 5 9 , Tit 3 10 , 2 Jn 10 - 11 ), and 
eventually expanded in great detail. But, while 
this kind of ostracism was a natural accompani- 
ment of anathema from the beginning, the word 
itself implied a certain relation to God, a spiritual 
condition with which God alone could deal, and 
with which He would deal finally or remedially. 
Execration and not official discipline is the dominant 
idea, with the censure of the Church as a corollary. 
See also artt. DISCIPLINE, EXCOMMUNICATION. 

LITERATURE. See artt. ' Curse,' ' Excommunication,' ' Mara- 
natba,' in HDB; Grimm-Thayer and Cremer, s.v. avaQt^a.; 
and the NT Conim. on the passages cited. 

R. W. Moss. 

ANCHOR (figurative).' In He 6 19 the writer 
describes the hope set before the Christian, to 
which he has just referred in the preceding verse, 
as ' an anchor of the soul.' The use of an anchor 
as a figure of hope was not new, for it is found in 
pre-Christian Greek and Latin authors, and an 
anchor appears on ancient pagan medals as an 
emblem of hope. The figure would naturally 
suggest itself to any one who reflected on the 
nature and power of the faculty of hope. For it 
is of the essence of hope to reach into the future 
and lay hold of an invisible object, as an anchor 
drops into the sea and catches hold of the unseen 
bottom. Hope has power to keep the soul from 
wavering in times of storm and stress, just as an 
anchor by its firm grip keeps the ship from drift- 
ing with the winds and tides. But Christian hope 
reaching out towards the eternal world is some- 
thing much greater than our familiar human hopes 
of blessings yet unrealized ; and the use which this 
writer made of an anchor to represent the hope of 
the Christian soul at once transformed the figure 
(as the Catacombs bear witness) into one of the 
dearest symbols of the Christian religion. 

Simple and beautiful as the figure is, however, 
some exegetical difficulties have to be faced in 
determining the extent of its application in the 
passage. These difficulties are reflected in the 
various renderings of AV and RV. In the original 
the word 'hope of v. 18 is not repeated in v. 19 . 
Strictly rendered, the verse runs, ' which we have 
* For anchor in the literal sense see art. SHIP. 



AKDKONICUS 



ANGELS 



57 



as an anchor of the soul both sure and stedtast 
and entering into that within the veil ' a state- 
ment which has been understood in two different 
ways. AV, by supplying ' hope ' at the beginning 
of the verse, makes ' sure and stedfast ' apply to 
the anchor, and by introducing a comma at this 
point leaves it doubtful whether the anchor is also 
to be thought of as entering within the veil. RV, 
by inserting ' a hope ' immediately after ' soul,' 
limits the figure to a declaration that hope is an 
anchor of the soul, and makes the three epithets 
' sure,' ' stedfast,' and ' entering ' apply to hope 
itself and not to its symbol the anchor. The most 
obvious construction of the Gr. vindicates RV in 
making the three epithets hang together as all 
relating to one subject. On the other hand, AV 
is so far supported by the fact that dirQaXrj and 
Pepalav (lit. 'not failing' and 'firm') suggest that 
the idea of an anchor was immediately in the 
writer's mind. It is probably right, therefore, to 
conclude that he means to say that the anchor is 
sure, steadfast, and entering into that which is 
within the veil, viz. the Holy of Holies. This is 
really a mixture of metaphors the metaphor of 
an anchor entering into the unseen world to which 
Christian hope clings, and another metaphor by 
which the Holy of Holies becomes a type of that 
world unseen. But, in view of what the writer 
says at a later stage about the Most Holy Place 
with its ark of the covenant and cherubim of glory 
overshadowing the mercy-seat (9 4t ) as a pattern of 
heaven itself where Christ appears before God on 
our behalf (v. 24 ), the figurative faultiness of the 
language is more than atoned for by its rich 
suggestiveness as to the Christian's grounds of 
hope with regard to the world to come. It is the 
appearance of our great High Priest ' before the 
face of God for us,' he means to say, that is the 
ultimate foundation of the Christian hope. Cf. 
John Knox on his death-bed calling to his wife, 
' Go read where I cast my first anchor ! ' with 
reference to our Lord's intercessory prayer in Jn 17. 
Cf. also his answer, when they asjced him at the 
very end, ' Have you hope ? ' ' He lifted his finger, 
"pointed upwards with his finger," and so died' 
(Carlyle, Heroes, 1872, p. 140). 

LITERATURE. The Comm. on Hebrews, esp. A. B. David- 
son's ; Expotitor, 3rd set. x. 45 fl. J. C. LAMBERT. 

ANDRONICU8 fAvSpoVt/cos, a Greek name). 
Saluted by St. Paul in Ro 16 7 , his name being 
coupled with that of Junias or Junia.* (1) The 
pair are described as ' my kinsmen ' (TOI>J ffvyyeveTs 
pov), by which may be meant fellow-Jews (Ro 9 s ), 
possibly members of the same tribe, almost cer- 
tainly not relatives. This last interpretation has 
given rise to one of the difficulties felt in deciding 
the destination of these salutations. Another 
' kinsman ' saluted is Herodion (v. 11 ), and saluta- 
tions are sent from three 'kinsmen' in v. 21 . The 
only relative of St. Paul known to us is a nephew 
(Ac 23 16 ). 

(2) Andronicus and Junia(s) are also described 
as 'my fellow-prisoners' (o-waix/J-a^drovs /not;, lit. 
' prisoners of war '). The meaning may be that 
they had actually shared imprisonment with St. 
Paul (the only imprisonment up to this time known 
to us was the short confinement at Philippi [Ac 
16 23 , but see 2 Co II 23 ]). Possibly they may not 
have suffered imprisonment with the Apostle at 
the same time and place ; but, as enduring persecu- 
tion for Christ's sake, they were in that sense 
' fellow-prisoners.' The only other mention of 
' fellow- prisoner ' is in a description of Aristarchus 
(Col 4 10 ) and Epaphras (Philem }. The meaning in 
these cases is evidently literal, both sharing the 

* It is impossible, as this name occurs in the accus. case, to 
determine whether it is masculine or feminine. See art. JUNIAS. 



Apostle's captivity at Rome, whether compulsorily 
or voluntarily. 

(3) The pair are further described as ' of note 
among the apostles' (&r(<n)/*oi tv rots a.Troffr6\ois). 
Two interpretations of this phrase are possible : 
(a) well-known and honoured by the apostles, (b) 
notable or distinguished as apostles. The latter, 
although a remarkable expression (and all the more 
so if the second name is that of a woman ), is probably 
to be preferred. This makes Andronicus and 
Junia(s) apostles in the wider sense of delegated 
missionaries (see Lightfoot, Gal. 6 , 1876, p. 92 ft', and 
note on p. 96). 

(4) Lastly, Andronicus and Junia(s) are said to 
have been ' in Christ before me ' (oJ ica.1 irpb ^toO 
ytyovav iv Xpior<p), i.e. they had become Christians 
before the conversion of Saul. Seniority of faith 
was of importance in the Apostolic Church. It 
brought honour, and it may have also brought 
responsibility and obligation to serve on behalf of 
the community (cf. Clement, Ep. 42 ; and see 1 Co 
16 1M - ; also art. Ep^NETUS). Note the prominence 
given to Mnason (q.v.) as an 'early' or 'original' 
disciple in Ac 21 16 . 

The name Andronicus occurs in inscriptions be- 
longing to the Imperial household (see Sanday- 
Headlam, Romans 6 , 1902, p. 422). 

T. B. ALLWORTHY. 

ANGELS. 1. The scope of this article. The 
passages in the apostolic writings in which angels 
are mentioned or referred to will be examined ; 
some of them are ambiguous and have been inter- 
preted in various ways. The doctrine of the OT and 
of the apocryphal period on the subject has been 
so fully dealt with in HDB that it is unnecessary 
to do more than refer incidentally to it here ; and 
the angelology of the Gospels has been treated at 
length in DCG (see Literature below). But the 
other NT writings have not been so fully examined, 
and it is the object of this article to consider them 
particularly. Of these the Apocalypse, as might 
be expected from the subject, calls for special 
attention ; no book of the OT or the NT is so full of 
references to the angels, and it is the more remark- 
able that the other Johannine writings have so few. 
The Fourth Gospel refers to angels only thrice 
(li 12 29 20 12 ; 5 4 is a gloss [see below, 5 (b)]), and the 
three Epistles not at all. There are frequent refer- 
ences to the subject in Hebrews, and occasional 
ones in the Pauline and Petrine Epistles and in 
Jude. 

2. The literal meaning of ayyeXos. &yye\os= 
' messenger,' is found only once in the NT outside 
the Gospels : in Ja 2 20 , it is used of Joshua's spies 
(in Jos 6 2B [LXX], which is referred to, we read 
TOVS KaraffKOTrevffdvras oOj 4ar4ffrei\ev'Ii]ffovs), In the 
Gospels &yye\os is used of John Baptist in Mt 
lli, Mk I 2 , Lk 7 27 (from Mai 3 1 but not from LXX, 
which, however, also has tfyyeXos), of John's mes- 
sengers in Lk 7 M , and of Jesus' messengers to a 
Samaritan village in Lk 9 s2 . In Ph 2 215 , 2 Co S 28 
dir6ffTo\os is translated 'messenger.' 

3. The angels as heavenly beings. From the 
earliest times the Israelites had been taught to 
believe in angels, but after the Captivity the doc- 
trine greatly developed. Yet some of the Jews 
rejected all belief in them, and this sharply divided 
the Pharisees from the Sadducees, who said ' that 
there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit ' ; 
the Pharisees confessed both (Ac 23 s ). 

Angels are creatures, as the Jews had always 
taught (Thackeray, Relation of St. Paul to Jewish 
Thought, p. 150). They were created in, through, 
and unto Christ (Col I 16 ), who is the beginning as 
well as the end of all things (cf. 1 Co 8 8 ). They are 
not inferior deities, but fellow-servants (fftvdov\oi) 
with man (Rev 19 10 22 9 ). Therefore they may not 
be worshipped (ib.) ; the worship of angels was 



58 



ANGELS 



ANGELS 



one of the grave errors at Colossae (Col 2 18 ). So 
idolatry is described as a worshipping of demons 
(Rev 9 s "). 

Much emphasis is laid, lest it should be thought 
that angels were of the same degree as our Lord, 
on the fact that Jesus is immeasurably higher than 
they ; as in He I 4 *- (no angel is called ' the Son ' ; 
angels worship the Firstborn), I 13 (no angel set at 
the right hand of God), 2 6 (the world to come is not 
made subject to angels, but to man v. 8f - shows 
that the Representative Man is meant, who con- 
descended to be, in His Incarnation, made a little 
lower than the angels). In 1 P 3 22 ' angels and 
authorities and powers' are made subject to the 
ascended Christ ; and so in Eph I 21 . In Col 2 15 
(an obscure verse), we may understand either that 
our Lord, putting off His body, made a show of 
the principalities and the powers, triumphing over 
them in the cross (so the Latin Fathers) ; or, with 
the Greeks, that He, having stripped off and put 
away the principalities, made a show of them, etc. 
i.e. that He repelled their assaults. Here the evil 
angels are spoken of. But the complete subjection 
of the powers of evil to Jesus will not take place 
till the end of the world (1 Co IS 23 *-)- 

Angels are spirits (He I 7 - 14 ); cf. Rev 16 14 , ' spirits 
of demons.' In Ac 23 sf - they seem to be differen- 
tiated from 'spirits' ('no resurrection, neither 
angel, nor spirit . . . what if a spirit hath spoken 
to him or an angel?'). But this is not so. The 
'angel' is the species, the 'spirit' the genus 
(Alford). All angels are spirits, though all spirits 
are not angels. In v. 8 the Pharisees are said to 
confess ' both,' i.e. both the resurrection and angel - 
spirits ; only two categories are intended. We 
must also remember that in v. 9 non-Christian Jews 
are speaking. 

But, though they are spirits, angels are not 
omnipresent or omniscient, for these are attributes 
of Deity. For their limited knowledge cf. Eph 3 10 
(whether good or bad angels are there spoken of) ; 
it is implied in 1 P I 12 (the angels desire to look 
into the mysteries of the gospel) and in 1 Co 2 6ff -, 
if ' rulers of this world ' are the evil angels (see 
DEMON). It is explicitly stated in Mt 24 s6 , Mk 13 32 . 
The limitation of the angels' knowledge is also 
stated in Ethiopia Enoch, xvi. 3 (2nd cent. B.C. ?), 
where the angels who fell in Gn 6 2 (so ' sons of God ' 
are interpreted) are said not to have had the hidden 
things yet revealed to them, though they knew 
worthless mysteries, which they recounted to the 
women (ed. Charles, 1893, p. 86 f. ). In the Secrets of 
Enoch (Slavonic), xxiv. 3 (1st cent. A.D. ?), God says 
that He had not told His secrets even to His angels. 
Ignatius says that the virginity and child-bearing 
of Mary and the death of the Lord were hidden 
from (tXadev) the ruler of this age (Eph. 19 ; for this 
idea in the Fathers see Lightfoot's note). 

The good angels are angels of light, as opposed 
to the powers of darkness (2 Co II 14 ; ct. Eph 6 12 ) ; 
so, when the angel came to St. Peter in the prison, 
a light shone in the cell (Ac 12 7 ). The name 
' seraph ' perhaps means ' the burning one,' though 
the etymology is doubtful ; cf. also Ps 104 4 . 

They neither marry nor are given in marriage ; 
and so in the resurrection life there is no marrying, 
for men will be 'as angels in heaven' (Mt 22 30 , 
Mk 12 25 ), 'equal to angels' (lffdyye\oi, Lk 20 36 ). 
Some have thought that they have a sort of counter- 
part of bodies, described in 1 Co lo 40 as ' celestial 
bodies' (Meyer, Alford), though this is perhaps im- 
probable ; St. Paul's words may refer to the 
' heavenly bodies ' in the modern sense (Robertson- 
Plummer), or to the post-resurrection human 
bodies (cf. v. 48 ) ; not to good men as opposed to bad 
(Chrysostom and others of the Fathers). 

They are numberless (Rev 5 11 [from Dn 7 14 ], 
He 12 22 , ' myriads ' ; in the latter passage they are 



perhaps described as a ' festal assembly ' [RVm, 
d-yyAwv ira.vriyvpeC\). 

The unfallen angels are holy (Rev 14 10 , Mk 8 s8 , 
Lk 9 26 , and some MSS of Mt 25 31 ; so perhaps 
1 Th 3 13 , Jude 14 [see below, 5(a)J; cf. Zee 14 8 'all 
the holy ones '). This is the meaning of ' elect ' 
angels in 1 Ti 5 21 not angels chosen to guard the 
Ephesian Church ; they are mentioned here be- 
cause they will accompany our Lord to judgment 
or (Grimm) because they are chosen by God to rule. 

4. Ranks of the angels. There was a great 
tendency in later Jewish writings to elaborate the 
angelic hierarchy. In Is G 2 - B we had read of sera- 
phim ; in Ezk 10 of cherubim. But in Eth. Enoch, 
Ixi. 10 (these chapters are of the 1st cent. B.C. ?), 
the host of the heavens, and all the holy ones 
above, the cherubim, seraphim, and ophanim 
( = ' wheels'; cf. Ezk I 15 ), angels of power, angels of 
principalities, are mentioned (cf. Ixxi. 7) ; in the 
Secrets of Enoch (20) we read of archangels, incor- 
poreal powers, lordships, principalities, powers, 
cherubim, seraphim, 'ten troops.' The 'gene- 
alogies ' of 1 Ti I 4 and Tit 3 9 are thought by some 
to refer to such speculations. St. Paul shows some 
impatience at the Colossian fondness for elaborat- 
ing these divisions ; yet in the NT we find traces of 
ranks of angels. In Jude 9 the archangel (Michael) 
is mentioned ; so in 1 Th 4 16 , where Michael is 
doubtless meant. In Romans, Colossians, and 
Ephesians no organized hierarchy is mentioned ; 
and sometimes the reference seems to be to the 
whole angelic band, sometimes to the evil angels, 
when principalities, powers, dominions, thrones are 
referred to (Col I 16 6p6voi, Kvpibnfres, dpxai, ov<rlai ; 
2'- 15 dpxt, etowria ; Eph I 21 apxt, tfrvela, d6va/us, 
Kvpi6r-r)s ; 3 10 6 12 dpxai, ti;ov<rlai ; Ro 8 s8 S-yyeXoi, dpxai, 
8w6.iJ.eis ; 1 Co 15 24 apxtf, t&vala, dvva/Ms). In the 
passages in Col. and Eph. St. Paul takes the ideas 
current in Asia Minor as to the ranks of the angels, 
but does not himself enunciate any doctrine ; in- 
deed, in Eph I 21 he adds, ' and every name that is 
named [dco/ctdfercu, i.e. reverenced] both in this age 
and in that which is to come.' Some have thought 
that he refers to earthly powers ; but, though 
these may perhaps in some cases be included, there 
can be little doubt that he is speaking primarily of 
angelic powers, good and bad. ' Whatever powers 
there may be, Christ is Lord of all, far above them 
all.' In Eph 3 10 only evil angelic powers are re- 
ferred to they are in the heavenly sphere (tv rols 
tTTovpaviois) ; and so in 6 12 , where they are contrasted 
with ' flesh and blood ' (see also below). With 
these passages we may compare 1 P 3 22 ' angels and 
authorities and powers'; and possibly 2 P 2 10 '-, 
where the 'lordship' (RV 'dominion'), 'glories' 
('dignities'), and angels are thought by some to 
refer to ranks of angels ; if so, the highest rank is 
'angels,' who are 'greater in might and power' 
than the 'glories.' The cherubim of the ark 
(Ex 25 18 ) are mentioned in He 9 5 . 

The Christian Fathers and the heretical teachers 
greatly elaborated the angelic hierarchy ; of these 
perhaps the writer who had most influence was 
pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (de Ccel. Hier. 
vi.-ix., c. A.D. 500), who divided the heavenly host 
into three divisions, with three subdivisions in 
each: (1) thrones, cherubim, seraphim ; (2) powers 
(^ovffiai), lordships (Kiy>i6r7rres), mights (dvvdfieis) ; 
(3) angels, archangels, principalities (dpxai). On 
the analogy of this list, the Syriac-speaking 
Churches divided the Christian ministry into three 
classes, each with three sub-classes. For other 
divisions of angels in post-apostolic times see 
Lightfoot's note on Col I 1 *. 

Very few names of angels occur in the NT. Of 
the holy angels only Gabriel (Lk I 19 - M ) and Michael 
(Jude 9 , Rev 12 7 ) are named (from Dn 8 16 9 21 10 18 - ?1 
12' ). We also have the proper names Satan (thirty- 



AtfGELtt 



ANGELS 



59 



one times, nineteen outside the Gospels), Beelzebub 
(Gospels only, six times), and Belial or Beliar (2 Co 
& 15 ). See DEVIL, BELIAL. In the Apocrypha we 
have Raphael in To 12 1B , Uriel in 2 Es 4* 5 20 10 28 , and 
Jeremiel in 2 Es 4 s6 (the last book perhaps is to be 
dated c. A.D. 90). Many other names are found in 
Jewish writings ; see D. Stone, Outlines of Chr. 
Dogma, London, 1900, p. 38 ; Edersheim, Life and 
Times, App. xiii. ; Eth. Enoch, 20 (Uriel, Rafael, 
Raguel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel ; the Gr. frag- 
ment [Charles, p. 356 i.] has Sariel for Saraqael, 
and adds Remiel [ = Jeremiel]). 

5. Function of the angels. The NT represents 
the angels as having a double activity, towards 
God and towards man. Both these aspects are 
found in He I 14 (see below), as in Is 6 1 ' 7 , where the 
seraphim worship before God, and one of them is 
sent to the prophet, and in Lk I 19 , where Gabriel 
is said to stand in the presence of God, and to be 
sent to Zacharias. 

(a) Towards God. The angels are 'liturgic spirits' 
(\eirovpyiKo. irve<j/j.aTa, He I 14 ; cf. Dn 7 10 tXeirovp- 
yow avTip [Theodotion ; the version in our Gr. OT] 
for nxv3V\, ' ministered unto him ' ; the Chigi LXX 
has eOepdirevov avr6v) ; their ministry is an ordered 
one, before the throne of God : ' the whole host of 
His angels . . . minister (\eirovpyovffiv) unto His 
will, standing by Him ' (Clem. Rom. Cor. 34 ; cf. 
the 4th cent. Ignatian interpolator, Philad. 9, 'the 
liturgic powers of God '). They worship God in 
heaven (Rev 5 11L 7" 8 1 ' 4 ; cf. Job I 6 2 1 ), and on 
earth (Lk 2 13f -) ; they worship the Firstborn when 
He is brought into the world (He I 6 ), and are 
witnesses of the Incarnation (1 Ti 3 18 'seen of 
angels' but Grimm interprets dyy\ois here as 
the apostles, witnesses of the risen Christ, and 
Swete thinks the reference is to the Agony in 
Gethsemane [Ascended Christ, 1910, p. 24]). To this 
heavenly worship there seems to be a reference in 
1 Co 13 1 'tongues of angels.' In Jewish thought 
there were 'angels of the presence,' the highest 
order of the hierarchy, who stood before the face 
of God, within the veil (Edersheim, Life and Times, 
i. 122 ; To 12 15 ; Eth. Enoch, 40). There may be 
a reference to these in Rev I 4 ' the seven spirits 
which are before his throne ' (Swete interprets this 
of the sevenfold working of the Holy Spirit) ; 8 a 
' the seven angels which stand before God (cf. v. 4 ) ; 
Mt 18 10 ' in heaven [the little ones'] angels do always 
behold the face of my Father which is in heaven ' ; 
and in Lk I 19 (see above). 

They will attend on the Son at the Last Judg- 
ment (1 Th 4 16 , 2 Th I 7 , Rev 3 s ) ; and this seems to 
be the most probable reference in 1 Th 3 13 'with 
all his saints ' (or ' holy ones ' TWV aytuv afrrov) and 
in Jude 14 'with ten thousands of his holy ones' (or 
'with his holy myriads,' 4v ayiais fj.vpia.viv atirov), 
where the words are quoted from Enoch, i. 9, the 
text of the latter in the Gizeh Greek fragment 
being <riiv TOIS (sic) pvpidviv ai/roO KO.I rots ayiois a&rov. 
The words in Jude are certainly to be understood 
of the angels, and this makes the similar interpre- 
tation of 1 Th 3 13 more likely. But Milligan (Com. 
in loc. ) thinks that the latter reference is to ' just 
men made perfect,' who are said to judge, or to be 
'brought with' Jesus at the Judgment (1 Th 4 14 , 
Mt 19 28 , Lk 22 30 ; cf. Wis 3 8 ; for 1 Co 6 3 see 7 
below). No doubt the saints will rule with Christ 
(Rev 2 26f< 20 4 etc.) ; but, as all men will them- 
selves be judged (Ro 14 10 , 2 Co 5 10 ), the interpre- 
tation of the above passages as implying that the 
saints will themselves be judges at the Last Day 
is somewhat doubtful. The attendance of the 
angels on the Great Judge is mentioned in all four 
Gospels (Mt 13 41 16 27 24 31 25 31 , Mk S 38 13 27 , Lk 9* 
12*S and Jn I 81 [where the reference is to Gn 28 12 ]). 
(b) Towards man. The angels do service 
to man as heirs of salvation (He I 14 ). 



They ministered to our Lord on earth, in His 
human nature, after the Temptation in the wilder- 
ness (Mt4 u , Mk I 13 , not in || Lk.), and at Gethsemane 
(Lk 22^ : this may not be part of the Third Gospel, 
but is certainly part of a 1st cent, tradition ; it 
could not have been invented by the scribes [see 
"VVestcott-Hort, NT in Greek, ii. App., p. 67]. The 
present writer has argued for its being older than 
Lk., and reflecting the same stage of thought as 
Mk. [DCG ii. 124 b J). In Mt 26 s3 Jesus says that 
angels would have ministered to Him, had He so 
willed, when Judas betrayed Him. 

The angels are spectators of our lives : 1 Co 4 9 ' a 
spectacle (Otarpov) to angels ' ; 1 Ti 5 21 ' in the 
sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels ' ; 
1 P I 12 , the angels ' look into ' ' glance at,' or 
perhaps 'pore over' (see Bigg, Com. in loc.) the 
Church and its Gospel ; they rejoice over the 
sinner's repentance (Lk 15 10 ). 

They are messengers to man. This is the office of 
angels which is mos t prominent in the NTjseeAc? 38 - 38 
(Moses) 8 28 (Philip) 10 3 - 7 - ** (Peter, Cornelius) II 13 
(Peter) 12 7 ' 11 (Peter in prison) 23 9 (Paul) 27 23 (Paul 
on his voyage), He 13 2 (reference to Abraham, Gn 
18), and frequently in Rev. (e.g. I 1 22). St. Paul 
alludes to this work of the angels in Gal I 8 , which 
suggests that they must be proved, as spirits must 
be (1 Co 12 10 , 1 Jn 4 1 , etc. ; see DEMON, 2), to see 
whether they are true or false, and in Gal 4 14 , 
where there is a climax : ' as an angel of God, 
nay, as one who is higher than the angels, as 
Christ Jesus himself.' For this function in the 
Gospels see Mt I 20 2 13 - 19 28 2 - 8 , Mk 16 8 ' 7 , Lk 
jii. 6. i. 28. so. 35 2 . 21 24^ Jn 12 29 20 12 ; here we 
note that the ' angel of the Lord ' in the NT is not 
the same as the ' angel of Jahweh ' in the OT : it 
merely means an angel sent by God. This office 
of the angels does not exclude the Divine message 
coming directly to man (Ac 9 s 22 s 26 14 , Gal I 12 ). 

They are helpers of our worship. They offer the 
' prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar ' 
(Rev 8 3f -)- Their presence at Christian worship is 
a reason for decorum and reverence (1 Co II 10 : a 
woman should be veiled in the assembly of the 
faithful ' because of the angels ' ; this seems to be 
the meaning, not ' because of the clergy who are 
present,' as Ambrose, Ephraim Syrus, Primasius, 
nor ' because of the evil angels,' with a reference 
to Gn 6"-, as Tertullian [de Virg. Yd. 7 ; cf. 17], 
nor yet ' because the angels do so,' i.e. veil them- 
selves before their Superior [Is 6 2 ] ; see Robertson- 
Plummer, Com. in loc.). For the presence of angels 
at worship cf. Ps 138 1 LXX and Vulg., To 12 la - 16 , 
Three . 

They fight for man against evil, under Michael 
(Jude 9 , Rev 12 7f - 19 14 - la 20 1 - 8 ); they are 'armies' 
(urpa.Tfiina.Ta., Rev 19 14 ) and a ' host ' (ffrparid, Lk 2 13 ; 
not in He 12 2a RV where pvpidffiv is translated 
'innumerable hosts'). They are the 'armies ' sent 
out by the King in the Parable of the Marriage of 
the King's Son (Mt 22 7 ). 

They were the mediators of the Law (Ac 7 68 , 
Gal 3 1B , He 2 2 ) ; i.e. they assisted at the giving of 
the Law. St. Paul and the writer of Hebrews 
argue from this the superiority of the Gospel as 
being given without the interposition of created 
beings (Lightfoot on Gal 3). The presence of 
angels is not mentioned in Ex 19, but cf. Dt 33 2 , 
Ps 68 7 ; it was emphasized by the Jews as extolling 
the Law (see Thackeray, op. cit. p. 162), and this 
is perhaps the meaning in Ac 7 s3 . 

At death the angels carry the faithful departed 
to Abraham's bosom (Lk 16 22 ). This was a common 
Jewish belief (DCG i. 57 a ). 

At the Judgment they will be the reapers of the 
harvest (Rev 14 17 ' 19 , Mt 13 39 - ). 

They are messengers of punishment (Ac 12 a 
[Herod], Rev 14 10 ), and of judgment (Rev 8 6ff ' 



60 



ANGELS 



ANGELS 



19 11 ' 14 ; cf. the pouring out of the bowls, 16 1 ' 17 , and 
the seven angels having seven plagues, 15 1 ). In 
1 Co 10 10 the ' destroyer ' (6\o8pevT^s) is not Satan, 
but the angel sent by God to smite the people (the 
reference is to Nu 16, where no angel is mentioned ; 
but cf. Ex 12 23 , 2 S 24 16 ). Satan is sometimes 
called 'the destroyer' (airoXXtiw, Rev 9 11 ), but 
oXodpevrfy is not used elsewhere in the Bible (see 
Robertson-Plummer on 1 Co 10 10 ). 

They intervene on earth to help man : an ' angel 
of the Lord ' releases the apostles (Ac 5 19 ) and 
Peter ( 12 7 ) ; and, according to an ancient gloss, 
probably African, originating before the time of 
Tertullian, who quotes it (de Bapt. 5), ' an angel of 
the Lord ' also ' troubled ' the water of Bethesda 
(Jn 5 4 ). (Tertullian applies this text to Christian 
baptism, over which he says an angel presides.) 
Generally, the angels guard men from evil. This 
leads us to the question of guardian angels. It is 
an ancient idea that each human being, or even 
every creature animate and inanimate, has allotted 
to it one or more special angelic guards. This 
idea is to some extent confirmed by the words 
of our Lord about the 'angels of the little ones' 
in Mt 18 10 . It was a popular belief that these 
guardians took the form of the person guarded, 
and the people assembled in the house of Mary the 
mother of Mark thought that Peter, when escaped 
from prison, was 'his angel' (Ac 12 1S ). This 
Jewish conception was long retained by the Chris- 
tians. Tertullian thought that the soul had a 
'figure,' a certain corporeity, an 'inner man, differ- 
ent from the outer, but yet one in the twofold 
condition' (de Anima, 9); this is not quite the 
same idea, but we find it more clearly in the 4th 
cent. Church Order, the Testament of our Lord (i. 
40), where all men have 'figures of their souls, 
which stand before the Father of Light,' and which 
in the case of the wicked ' perish and are carried 
to darkness to dwell.' Similarly there are angels 
of fire (Rev 14 18 ), of water (16 3ff - ; cf. 7 lf - and Jn 
5 4 ), of winds (Rev 7 1 ; cf. Ps 104 4 ), of countries 
(Dn 10 13 ' 20 ; cf. Sir 17 17 ) ; and the angel of the abyss, 
Abaddon (q.v.) or Apollyon (Rev 9 11 ; cf. 20 1 ). For 
Rabbinical ideas see Thackeray, op. cit. p. 168, and 
Edersheim, op. cit. App. xiii. 

6. Angels of the Churches. In Rev I 20 2 1 - 8 - 12 - 18 
31. 7. 14 ^1^ g e ven Churches are said each to have 
an ' angel.' These angels represent the Churches ; 
what is said to them is said to the Churches (3 22 ; 
cf. I 4 ) ; things done by the Churches are said to be 
done by them. Various interpretations have been 
offered, (a) They are said to be angels as in the 
rest of the book. The strongest arguments for 
this view are the writer's usage elsewhere, and the 
mention of Jezebel (2 20 : ' thy wife ' in some MSS), 
which is clearly symbolic. The difficulty is the 
sin ascribed to these angels, as in any case a good 
angel must, if this interpretation be taken, be 
meant ; if so, the meaning must be that the angels 
bear the sins of the Churches as representing and 
guarding them, (b) They are thought to be earthly 
representatives of the Churches, either delegates 
to Patmos or the bishops or presbyters of the 
Churches. This view accords better with the later 
than with the earlier date assigned to Rev., with 
the time of Domitian than with that of Nero. 
(e) They are thought to be ideal personifications 
of the Churches. On the whole the first view 
seems to be the most probable. Compare and con- 
trast the following article. 

7. Fallen angels. In the NT both good and evil 
angels are mentioned ; but when the word ' angel ' 
occurs alone, a good angel is to be understood 
unless the context requires otherwise, though 
perhaps 1 Co 6 s is an exception (see below). The 
fall is mentioned in Jude 6 , 2 P 2 4 ; and probably 
in 1 Ti 3 s , where it is ascribed to pride (see DEVIL, 



2). The Incarnation was not intended to help 
the angels. Jesus did not ' take hold ' of, to help, 
the angels (or, as AV, did not take hold of their 
nature) ; see Westcott on He 2 16 . Yet in Col I 20 
God is said to reconcile through (the death of) 
Christ ' all things ' to Himself the whole universe 
material and spiritual (Lightfoot) ; but it was not 
by delivering them from death (Alford) : the fallen 
angels are not saved by Christ's death. Accord- 
ing to some interpretations, St. Paul says that 
angels will be judged by men (1 Co 6 s ). Robertson- 
Plummer interpret this verse, tentatively, as mean- 
ing that, as Christ judges, i.e. rules over, angels, 
so will saints, who share in that rule ; but, if the 
Last Judgment is intended, then fallen angels 
must be meant here, for good angels, not having 
fallen, cannot be judged. For 1 Th 3 13 see above, 
5 (a). In the end Satan is bound, and Babylon 
falls (Rev 18 and 20) ; nothing is said of his angels, 
but the inference is that his angels fall with him, 
and this is expressly said in Mt 25 41 . See further, 
ADVERSARY, AIR, BELIAL, DEMON, DEVIL. 

Metaphorically the 'stake in the flesh' is called 
an angel (messenger) of Satan (2 Co 12 7 ). See art. 
PAUL. 

8. Comparison of apostolic and other teaching. 
(a) Comparison with that of our Lord. Oesterley 
(SDB, 32) contrasts Jesus' teaching with that of the 
Evangelists and other NT writers, and says that 
our Lord taught that the abode and work of the 
angels are in heaven, not here below, while His 
disciples taught (as the Jews did) that they are 
active on earth. On the other hand, Marshall 
(DCG i. 54 a ) maintains the complete identity of 
teaching between Jesus and the Evangelists. To 
the present writer the latter view seems to be the 
right one. It is true that in our Lord's words the 
work of angels on earth is not prominent. But in 
Jn I 01 (our Lord is speaking) the order ' ascending 
and descending' shows that the angels are ' already 
on earth, though we see them not' (Westcott, Com. 
in loc.). The account of the angelic ministry at 
the Temptation, like that of the Temptation itself, 
could by its very nature have come only from our 
Lord's own lips. Moreover, in Jesus' teaching, 
the angels come to the earth to fetch Lazarus' soul 
(Lk 16 22 ) and to reap the Harvest (Mt 13 39 - ). 

(b) Comparison with the doctrine of false teachers. 
In Colossians we find an elaborate angelology, 
taught by professing Christians whom St. Paul 
attacks. Their heresy was partly Jewish, partly 
Gnostic, though some think that two different 
sects are meant. The Gnostic element shows it- 
self in the tendency to put angels as intermediaries 
between God and man, and to make angels emana- 
tions from God with an elaborate hierarchy of 
powers, dominions, etc. Against such teaching St. 
Paul asserts that Christ is the only mediator (Col 1 18 ~ 22 
2 9 ' 15 ), and forbids the worship of angels because it 
denies this. In the unique mediation of our Lord 
lies the significance of the repeated phrases ' in the 
Lord,' ' unto the Lord ' (3 18 - ^ a ). Jesus is the one 
apx^i, or ' beginning' (I 18 ; cf. Rev 3 14 ), of creation, as 
against the idea of angelic intermediaries when 
the world was made (see Lightfoot's essay on the 
Colossian heresy [Col., p. 71 ff.]). Perhaps also in 
the assertion of the unique mediation of Christ 
lies the significance of the rhetorical passage in 
which St. Paul says that no heavenly powers, 
good or bad, can separate us from the love of God 
(Ro S 38 ). Passages in Eph. (above, 4) seem to show 
that the Colossian heresy was known also on the 
Asian seaboard. 

A later stage of angelological error is found at 
the end of the 1st cent, in Cerinthus' teaching, 
which resembled that of the Colossian heretics. 
Cerinthus (q.v. ) taught that the world was not 
made by God, but by an angel, or by a series of 



ANGELS 



ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES 61 



powers or angels, who were ignorant of God ; the 
Mosaic Law was given by them (cf. above, 5 (&)). 
Cerinthus is the link between the Gnosticism at 
Colossse and the developed Gnosticism of the 2nd 
century (for his doctrine see Irenseus, Hcer. i. 26 ; 
Hippofytus, Refut. vii. 21, x. 17). He claimed to 
have had angelic visions, and was a millenarian 
of the grossest sort (Caius in Eusebius, HE iii. 28). 
See also Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 106 ff. 

Speculations such as those attacked by St. Paul 
found a congenial soil in ' Asia ' and Phrygia. 
Even in the 4th cent, at the Council held at the 
Phrygian Laodicea (c. A.D. 380), Christians are 
forbidden to leave the Church of God and invoke 
(6i>o/jLdfeiv) angels (can. 35 ; see Hefele, Councils, 
Eng. tr., iii. 317). It is the proper jealousy for the 
One Mediator, on the other hand, which has led 
many moderns to reject the doctrine of the exist- 
ence of angels altogether. But both heavenly and 
earthly beings can help man without being medi- 
ators, as we see when one man helps another by 
intercessory prayer. The NT teaching about 
angelic helpers, so potent an antidote to material- 
ism, in no way asserts that we are to pray to God 
through the angels, or contradicts the doctrine 
that Christ is the only Mediator between God and 
man. 

(c) Comparison with current Jewish teaching and 
that of the later Rabbis. The apostolic teaching 
is quite free from the wild speculations of Jewish 
angelology. (For differences between it and cur- 
rent Jewish ideas see Edersheim, op. cit. i. 142 
and App. xiii.) Of Jewish speculations the most 
elaborate were those of the Essenes (q.v.), which 
had a decided Gnostic tinge. This Jewish sect had 
an esoteric doctrine of angels, and its members 
were not allowed to divulge their names to out- 
siders (Jos. BJ H. viii. 7 ; Lightfoot, Col., p. 87 ; 
Edersheim, i. 330 f.). A few Jewish speculations 
may be mentioned. It was thought that new 
angels were always being created an idea derived 
from a wresting of La S 23 (Thackeray, op. cit. p. 
150). The angels taught Noah medicine (Book of 
Jubilees, 10). The righteous will become angels 
(Eth. Enoch, li. 4). An angel troubled the waters of 
Bethesda for healing (gloss in Jn 5 4 ). An elaborate 
hierarchical system and numerous names were in- 
vented for them (above, 4). Contrasted with these 
ideas, we have in the NT a wise reserve, which 
refuses to go beyond the things which are written. 

One Jewish speculation must be noticed more 
fully. The Rabbis taught that none of the angels 
was absolutely good, that they opposed the crea- 
tion of man and were jealous of him (Edersheim, 
ii. 754). Thackeray (p. 151 f.) considers that St. 
Paul also makes them all antagonistic to God. If 
so, he contradicts the teaching both of our Lord 
and of the other NT writers (above, 3). But this 
view, based on St. Paul's language about princi- 
palities, powers, etc., and on the idea that all the 
angels are the enemies who must be put under 
Christ's feet (1 Co 15 25 ), appears to be untenable. 
St. Paul, while affirming that some ' powers ' are 
evil, does not say that they all are so. See 
above, 4. 

9. Nature of NT angelophanies. It is unprofit- 
able to ask whether angels took material bodies 
when they appeared to men or whether they 
merely seemed to do so. At any rate, they took 
the form of men to the mind, though in some cases 
there was something about them that produced 
wonder or fear (Lk I 12 , Mt 28 4 , etc.). The accounts 
of the angels who were seen after the Resurrection 
vary. In Mt 28 2 the angel who rolled away the 
stone was like lightning, his raiment white as snow. 
In Mk 16 s we read only of a young man in a white 
robe. In Lk 24 4 there are two men in dazzling 
apparel (cf. v. 28 'vision of angels'). In Jn 20 12 



there are two angels in white, sitting. In Ac I 10 
there are 'two men ... in white apparel.' To 
Cornelius the angel was 'a man ... in bright 
apparel ' (Ac 10 30 ). Stephen's face was filled with 
superhuman glory, ' as it had been the face of an 
angel ' (Ac 6 1S ; so we reflect, as in a mirror, the 
glory of the Lord, 2 Co 3 18 ). For an argument that 
the appearance of the angels was 'objective' see 
Plummer on Lk I 11 ; but this is largely a matter of 
definition. At the death of Herod (Ac 12 23 ) no 
appearance of an angel is necessarily intended. 

10. The immediate successors of the apostles. 
Angelology was a favourite topic of the time ; 
but, the literature of the sub-apostolic period 
being very scanty, the references are few. For 
Clement of Rome see above, 3 (a). Ignatius says 
that the knowledge of angelic mysteries was given 
to martyrs (Trail. 5) : ' heavenly things and the 
dispositions (ro7ro0e<rtas) of angels, and musterings of 
rulers (o-vo-rdo-eis apxovriicds), seen and unseen' (cf. 
Col I 16 ). The ' dispositions ' would be in the seven 
heavens. The apxovres, 'rulers,' would be St. 
Paul's dpxai, i.e. angels (Lightfoot, Ign. ii. 165). 
In Smyrn. 6 it is said that the angels, if they 
believe not in the blood of Christ, are judged ; 
this seems to imply that their probation is not yet 
ended. See also above, 3. Papias (quoted by 
Andreas of Csesarea, in Apoc., ch. 34, serm. 12 ; 
Lightfoot-Harmer, Apostol. Fathers, p. 521) says 
that to some of the angels God ' gave dominion over 
the arrangement (Sia/cooT^o-ews) of the universe . . . 
but their array (rdit>) came to naught, for the 
great dragon, the old serpent, who is called the 
Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole earth, 
was cast down, yea, was cast down to the earth, 
and his angels ' (quotation from Rev 12 9 ). Papias 
seems to date the fall of the angels after the 
creation of the world. Hermas (for his possibly 
early date see Salmon, Introd. toNT, xxvi.) describes 
the building of the tower [the Church] upon the 
waters by six young men (cf. Mk 16 s ), while 
countless other men bring the stones ; and the 
former are said to be the holy angels of God, who 
were created first of all ; the latter are also holy 
angels, but the six are superior to them (Vis. iii. 
1, 2, 4). In the Martyrdom of Poly carp, 2, martyrs 
are said to become angels after death (see above, 
8). In the Epistle to Diognetus, 7, God is said to 
have sent to men a minister (virT)pn}v) or angel or 
ruler (apxovra). Justin interprets Ps 24 7 - 9 [LXX] 
as addressed to the rulers appointed by God in the 
heavens (Dial. 36). To angels was committed the 
care of man and of all things under heaven, but 
they transgressed through the love of women (Apol. 
ii. 5, referring to Gn 6 lff< ). Angels, like men, 
have free will (Dial. 141). 

LITERATURE. A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the 
Messiah^, London, 1897, i. 142, ii. 748 (Appendix, xiii.), etc. ; 
H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary 
Jewish Thought, do. 1900; A. B. Davidson in HDB, art. 
'Angel' (almost entirely for OT); W. Fairweather in HDB, 
voL v., art. ' Development of Doctrine in the Apocryphal 
Period,' iii. ; J. T. Marshall in DOG, art. ' Angels ' ; and the 
Commentaries, esp. H. B. Swete, Apocalypse of St. John, 
London, 1906; B. F. Westcott, Hebrews*, do. 1906; G. 
Milligran, Thessalonians, do. 1908 ; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians 
and Philemon, do. 1900 (1st ed. 1875) ; A. Robertson and A 
Plummer, 1 Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1911. 

A. J. MACLEAN. 
ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. The 

general practice of NT writers points to the con- 
clusion that the word ' angels,' used in this con- 
nexion, is employed to denote superhuman and 
celestial personalities. We are not, however, 
without examples of its being used to indicate 
ordinary 'messengers' (cf. Lk7 24 9 B2 , Ja 2 25 , etc.). 
In this case it would be equivalent to the dir6<rro\oi. 
iKK\i)ffi!av (2 Co S 28 ; cf. Ph 2 s5 ), who were in some 
sense the official, if temporary, delegates of one 
Church to another. The fact that in the Apocalypse 



62 ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES 



ANGER 



these ' angels ' are to such a degree the recipients 
of praise and blame would seem to put both these 
simple interpretations out of court. 

Many ingenious attempts have been made to 
employ the expression as a collateral or subsidiary 
proof that episcopacy had already been established 
within the lifetime of the Johannine author. The 
passages adduced from the OT in support of this 
view are certainly irrelevant ; for, while it is con- 
ceivable that the chief minister of a Church should 
be styled AyyeXos Kvpiov (cf. Hag I 18 and Mai 2 7 ; 
see also Is 44 s88 and Mai 3 1 ), it is difficult to under- 
stand the application to him of the designation 
&yye\os tKK\Tjffias (Rev 2 1 , etc.). Nor, again, can the 
contention be sustained that the expression had 
its origin in the office of the sh f liah zibbur, the 
messenger or plenipotentiary of the synagogue 
for, as Schiirer has pointed out, these ' messengers ' 
were not permanent officials (see HJP II. ii. 67), 
but persons chosen for the time by the ruler to 
pronounce the prayer at public worship (cf. Light- 
foot, Dissertations on Apostol. Age, 1892, p. 158). 

In supporting the contention that by the ' angels ' 
of the Churches are meant the bishops, the strange 
conclusion has been maintained that in the words 
rty ywaiKa [<rov] ' lefd^eX (Rev 2 20 ) the author is re- 
ferring to the Thyatiran bishop's wife (see Grotius, 
Annotationes in Apoc., ad loc.). It ought to be 
pointed out that this theory is as old as Jerome, 
who in his commentary on 1 Ti 3 2 adopts a similar 
interpretation ; and Socrates (HE iv. 23) describes 
Serapion as ' the angel of the church of the 
Thmuitae' (cf. Jerome, de Vir. illustr. 99, where 
he mentions Serapion as ' Thmueos Egypti urbis 
Episcopus '). The same conception is attached to 
the expression by the 6th cent, commentators, 
Primasius the African (Com,, in Apoc.) and Cassi- 
odorus the Italian ( Complexiones in Apoc. ) in their 
reflexions on Rev I 20 . 

An examination of the use of the word &yye\os 
in the NT Apocalypse, apart from its connexion 
with the Churches, shows that the author invari- 
ably employs it to describe a spiritual being 
attached to the service of God or of Satan. We 
are, therefore, confronted with the difficulty of 
accounting for its presence here in a sense so 
completely different as the episcopal theory in- 
volves. There is, indeed, no valid reason to sup- 
pose that the author, even in a work as highly 
symbolical as this is, attaches an essentially differ- 
ent idea to the word when he speaks of ' the 
Angels of the Seven Churches.' 

If we can accept the textual purity of the Ascen- 
sion of Isaiah, iii. 15, there is a remarkable parallel: 
' the descent of the angel of the Christian Church, 
which is in the heavens, whom He will summon in 
the last days.' Even on the supposition that the 
Ethiopia version, supported by some Greek MSS, 
is a correct translation of the original, and the 
simple word ' Church ' is substituted for ' angel of 
the Christian Church,' we are confronted by the 
primitive identification of the Church and its angel 
(see Charles, Asc. of Isaiah, ad loc.). 

Perhaps the most curious feature of the letters 
to the Asian Churches is the way in which the 
writer expresses himself in terms of stern reproof 
or of encouragement to their 'angels.' The objec- 
tion to this difficulty is considered by Origen, 
who finds cause for marvel at the care shown by 
God for men : ' forasmuch as He suffers His angels 
to be blamed and rebuked on our behalf ' (horn, in 
Num. xx. 3 ; cf. in Luc. xiii. ). 

As we have already seen, however, it is difficult 
to suppose that the writer intended the words to 
be understood as referring literally to angels who 
presided over the Churches. There is, no doubt, 
a natural inclination to see in his use of the phrase 
a reminiscence of the ' princes ' of the Apocalypse 



of Daniel (6 &px<av fjcunXelas TLepv&v, Dn 10 13 ; cf. 
Mtx a ^A o fiyyeXos, v. 21 ). A similar belief with re- 
spect to the guardianship of individuals is referred 
to incidentally as held by Jesus (Mt 18 10 ), and we 
need not be surprised to find it applied to Churches 
in their corporate capacity by a writer whose 
teaching on the activity and functions of angels is 
so advanced. 

Taking into account the symbolism of the whole 
book and the obviously symbolic mention of Jeze- 
bel (Rev 2* ; cf. Milligan on Rev 10 1 ' 3 in SchatFs 
Pop. Com. on the NT), there seems to be no inter- 
pretation more in harmony with the spirit of the 
writing than that which sees in this expression the 
personification of the characteristic spiritual tone 
and genius of each Church. 

If we accept this conclusion as being most con- 
sonant with the general trend of thought through- 
out the writing, it may not be amiss to refer to the 
remarkable parallel in the fravashis, or ' doubles,' 
of Parsiism. Whatever the connexion between 
Persian and Jewish angelology and it is not 
necessary to insist on a direct borrowing it seems 
to be certain that, in the period immediately sub- 
sequent to the Captivity, Parsi influence shaped, 
at least indirectly and remotely, the development 
of Hebrew thought. 'Thefravashi of a nation or 
community is a conception found in three Avestan 
passages. . . . The fravashi is no longer a being 
necessarily good, but becomes a complete spiritual 
counterpart of the nation or the church, and cap- 
able therefore of declension and punishment ' (HDB 
iv. 991 b ; cf. JThSt iii. 520 ff.). The nexus may be, 
and probably is, not so mechanical and direct as 
J. H. Moulton seeks to establish. On the other 
hand, it seems as if a relationship of some kind 
between the allied forces of Magianism and Zoro- 
astrianism, as they were refracted by the medium 
of Hellenistic culture and Hebrew thought, must 
be regarded as inevitable. It is enough to say 
that the ' angel ' is the personified embodiment of 
the spiritua