Skip to main content

Full text of "The Acts of the apostles"

See other formats





Crown TTbeolooical 



and Critical Essay. By PAUL LOBSTEIN. 35. 

Vol. III. MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT. Confessions of a 
Preacher. By R. WIMMER. 35. 6d. 

Vol. IV. LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY. Its Origin, Nature, and 
Mission. By JEAN REVILLE. 45. 







Vol. XI. THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Eleven Essays by 
V.irious Writers. 6s. 

logical Study. By L. R. FARNELL. 55. 


Vol. XIV. JESUS. By W. BOUSSET. 4$. 



OTTO. 6s. 


By KARL MARTI. 48. 6d. 

Vol. XX. LUKE THE PHYSICIAN. Being Volume One of 
Dr. Adolf Harnack s New Testament Studies. 6s. 

LAKE. 55. 

By Rev. E. F. SCOTT. 55. 

Vol. XXIII. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. Being Volume two 
of Dr. Adolf Harnack s New Testament Studies. 6s. 

MEN. 55. 



EUCKEN. 58. 

Descriptive Prospectus on Application. 

Bern Cfstamcnt ^tunics 











Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London 







THE two volumes of New Testament studies by 
Professor Harnack, which have already appeared in 
this series, may be said without exaggeration to have 
marked an epoch in New Testament research. The 
third volume, " The Acts of the Apostles," now 
presented in English form, is if anything more 
remarkable than its predecessors. In it Professor 
Harnack develops the position which he has estab 
lished in " Luke the Physician," and subjects the 
Acts of the Apostles to a most searching investiga 
tion from almost all possible points of view. A very 
pleasing feature of this series of studies is the high 
esteem in which the author holds the researches of dis 
tinguished English scholars, such as Sir John Hawkins, 
Dr. Plummer, and Dr. Hobart. To those who, like 
the translator, have long felt that from the standpoint 
of scientific historical criticism it was inconceivable 
that the author of the Lukan writings could have 
been a companion of St. Paul, the conclusions of the 

great German scholar have come with somewhat of a 



shock. And yet the view or rather the peculiar 
psychological solution of the problem of these writings 
now propounded by Dr. Harnack, has had at least 
one champion among English scholars of the so-called 
critical school. The translator calls to mind a con 
troversy many years ago at a meeting of the 
" C.C.C." mystic signs known to the initiated 
when the Rev. Dr. Hastings Rashdall, Fellow and 
Tutor of New College, Oxford, argued almost in the 
words of Dr. Harnack that the difficult account of 
Acts ii. could perfectly well have been written by a 
companion of St. Paul i.e. by one who knew the 
real nature of the phenomenon of " Speaking with 
Tongues."" The translator then denounced such a 
position as unscientific ; he now assures Dr. Rashdall 
of his reluctant yet complete conversion, and begs to 
dedicate to him his own work in rendering these 
notable researches accessible to the English reader. 



INTRODUCTION : The Characteristics of the Acts . . . xiii 


I. The references to contemporary history .... 3 

II. Exact statements of years, months, and days . . 6 

III. References to Festivals 19 

IV. Indefinite dates 22 

Appendix I. The consistency of the form in which 

chronological statements are given in the Acts . 31 
Appendix II. Chronological information to be gained 

from the Acts 34 

Appendix III. The chronological note at the end of the 

Acts 38 

Appendix IV. Special readings of a chronological 

character in the so-called /3-recension ... 44 


I. Terms of more general significance: "Eflw, p. 49; 
Ao6t, p. 50 ; "EXXijpes and EXX^wraf, p. 51 ; E/fyatot, 
p. 52 ; lovSaioi, p. 53 ; I<rpaj\ and IffparjKiTai, p. 
55 ; Bdp)3o/)o, p. 55 ; 01 KaroiKovvrf s, p. 55 ; Trj, 
Xwpa, H Te/>/xw/>oj, II6X<r, Ku>/n;, Ti^ror, p. 56; 

*, p. 64. 




II. Terms of more special significance : (The list of 
nations in chapters ii. 5, 9-11 and vi. 9, p. 65 ; 
Palestine [Galilee, Judaea, the Philistian cities, 
Samaria] and Phoenicia, Ifpoff&\vna and IepowaXTj/x, 
p. 71 ; Syria and Cilicia, p. 87 ; Cyprus, Pamphylia, 
Pisidia, and Lycaonia, p. 92; Phrygia and Galatia 
[Myria, Bithynia, Pontus], p. 97 ; Asia, Mace 
donia, and Achaia, p. 102 ; Italy, p. 110 ; Houses, 
p. 109 ; Special readings of a geographical and 
topographical character in the so-called /3-recen- 
sion, p. 112.) 




The analysis of the second half of the book into the 
we-sections and the remaining elements, and of the 
first half into three bodies of narratives and the 
account of the conversion of St. Paul Pentecost. 


Written or oral sources? Concluding remarks concern 
ing the value of the sources and of St. Luke as a 

Instances of inaccuracy and discrepancy in the we-sec 
tions, p. 203 ; elsewhere in the second half of the 
book, p. 205 ; in chapter i. and the source B (chaps. 
ii. v. 17-42), p. 211; in the source A (Hi. 1-v. 16, viii. 



5-40, ix. 31-xi. 18, xii. 1-23), p. 214. In the Jerusa 
lem- Antiochean source (vi. 1-viii. 4, xi. 19-30, xii. 
25 [xiii. l]-xv. 35), p. 219 ; in chap. ix. i-30, p. 224. 
Instances of consistent inaccuracy and discre 
pancy, p. 225. Written or Oral sources ? Value : 
The we-sections, p. 231. The second half of the 
book, excluding the we-sections, p. 232. The 
source B, p. 238. The source A, p. 241. The 
Jerusalem-Antiochean source, p. 245. The Decree 
of the council of Jerusalem, p. 248. 

EXCURSUS I. Survey of the narratives of St. Luke concern 
ing the Primitive Community and the earlier history 
of St. Paul (Acts i.-xir.), which are confirmed hy the 
Pauline Epistles 264 

EXCURSUS II. On the plan of the Gospel of St. Luke and 

the Acts 275 

EXCURSUS III. St. Luke and Christian joy .... 277 

EXCURSUS IV. St. Luke and the development of Chris 
tianity from the religion of a Jewish sect to a universal 
religion 281 

EXCURSUS V. The date of the Acts 290 



THE magnitude and difficulty of the task which St. 
Luke set himself in his Acts of the Apostles," and 
the ability and skill with which he has mastered this 
task, cannot be easily overrated. In order to esti 
mate what he has performed, let us transport our 
selves into the situation in which he composed his 
work. It was the time of the Flavian Caesars, and 
he a physician probably already well stricken in 
years after many long travels, which had led him 
as far as Jerusalem in the East and Rome in the 
West, had now taken up his abode either in Ephesus 
or in Achaia, or in some other province lying on the 
shores of the Grecian Sea. The Christian movement 
had been in progress in these lands for at least thirty 
to forty years. He himself had taken an active part 
in its propagation, and had stood in personal rela 
tions not only with St. Paul, but also with dis 
tinguished members of the Primitive Community. 
He had received the details of the Gospel history 
from those who could be described as " from the 
beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." 
An overwhelming flood of impressions stormed in 
upon the Hellenic mind of the writer overwhelm 
ing where these concentrated themselves into one 
single impression, overwhelming in their variety and 



paradox. A sacred volume of inexhaustible content 
the portrait of Jesus Christ in a concordia discors 
of testimony, of narrative, and of speculation the 
apostles the churches that multitude of Spirit- 
gifted ones experiencing and working Signs and 
Wonders ! Above this surging sea, whose waves are 
breaking in ever fresh creations in the sphere of 
thought and action, the heavens are dark with the 
storm-cloud of the approaching End and yet at 
the same time the most strenuous efforts are made 
after an accommodation with the world as it is, and 
towards transformation of its life by the new spirit. 
Lastly, everywhere conflict and controversy : the Jew 
and the Greek Paul and the rest of the apostles 
knowledge and the absolute contempt of know 
ledge the spirit and the letter tradition and pro 
phecy speculation opposed to speculation facts 
and their commentaries life and asceticism. In 
such a situation it was that St. Luke seized his 
pen and undertook not only to write history, to 
recount how all that he saw around him had come 
to pass, but also to unite this history as a second 
part with the Gospel story. 

The first part of his intention was a venture which 
cannot be easily interpreted from a psychological 
point of view, unless the writer himself had been in 
direct and personal touch with the facts which he 
wished to describe. Those who regard the author 
simply as an editor of sources only transfer the 
difficulty of the problem to the shoulders of some 
early unknown writer, and those who bring him 
down into a later generation mistake the character 


of the book, in that they cannot see the wood for 
the trees. Direct touch with the recorded facts 
this alone explains such a history as lies before us 
in the " Acts of the Apostles." Even so the per 
formance is quite astounding. What religious move 
ment of that epoch, whether of ancient origin or 
newly born, produced, or even aimed at producing, 
anything similar ? Did the religion of Mithras or 
of Magna Mater ? Had not the author approached 
the task as to a certain extent a biographer of 
St. Paul, qualified thereto by personal knowledge of 
the apostle ; had he not possessed in this knowledge 
a guiding principle of his work, how is it even con 
ceivable that he could have mastered, or even thought 
of mastering, the enormous bulk of unwieldy, chaotic 
material that lay before him ? Even so he was com 
pelled to bring to bear upon his task an unusual 
measure of that glorious gift the birthright of the 
genuine Hellene the sense for form and arrange 
ment, and the art of right selection. 

But the second part of his intention is even more 
astounding. The author, St. Luke, has actually ap 
pended this history of his as a continuation to the 
" Gospel-book " created by St. Mark and modified by 
himself. 1 He therewith elevated his subject to the 

1 It follows from this a thing, indeed, probable in itself that 
this kind of narrative of the history of our Lord was not yet 
formally regarded as " sacred." If I am right, " St. Matthew," 
who does not mention himself, was the first to make the book of the 
Gospel a book of the Church, and accordingly quasi sacred. From 
St. Matthew this sacred character was imparted also to St. Mark and 
St. Luke. " St. Matthew " by his first words, " B/0\oj ytvfoeut 
X/HOTOV," has connected his work with the Old Testament, 


loftiest heights imaginable, and with it his own work 
to the same high level. His daring is equally great 
regarded either from an objective or a subjective 
point of view. To the sacred history of Jesus was 
now added a second part of this history, and side by 
side with the Gospel narrative style, which already 
possessed a fixed type, there was now established the 
type of this new history ! Here the selection of 
material was entirely the work of St. Luke, equally 
so the type of narrative. For the latter the Gospel 
type could scarcely in any point serve as a model ; 
it was necessarily an entirely fresh creation, and 
though many have imitated it, their scope has been 
always more limited, 1 nor have their attempts been 
either happy or successful. 

Thus the new religion, even in its very beginnings, 
entered into the possession of a written history, and 
this written not by a Jewish Christian or a native 
of Palestine, but by a Greek. This was a fact of 
immeasurable significance ! It was the Hellene, scarcely 
yet won to the new religion, who presented Christianity 
with a history, and so compelled her adherents to 
follow him in his selection out of the chaotic mass of 

and the character of his narrative he always has the Christian 
community in view, and his style is liturgical his anonymity and 
his solemn conclusion show that he wished to create a book for 
liturgical use. St. Luke has written under his own name and for 
private use. Acts i. 1 shows that something has fallen out before 
St. Luke i. 1 namely, the address. It seems that the beginning 
of St. Mark has also suffered from correction. This gospel also 
was not originally a liturgical book. 

1 I mean the series of so-called apocryphal Acts, which begins 
with the Acta Pauli; though perhaps we should say with the 
Kerygma Petri. 


traditional material, and to regard as their history 
that which he offered them. In the whole under 
taking and in a hundred of its details he might have 
made shipwreck, and his book might have sunk into 
oblivion either without effect or condemned by 
Christendom. But here it remains. Perhaps only 
faute de mwux? Certainly not! Of course it does 
not satisfy all the requirements of later days, 1 but 
it abides because that which is excellent is certain to 
succeed. 2 

History can be narrated in two ways : one can 
gather together a heap of more or less important 
and characteristic stories Memorabilia ; or one can 
concentrate everything round a central point of in 
terest. This central point can be a personality or an 

1 Even in early days those who gave the book the title of ITpciett 
Tuif AroffT6\wv wished to see in the book a work wherein informa 
tion was preserved concerning the acts and the testimony of all 
the twelve Apostles ; for there was need of such a work as a proof 
of the evangelic truth in opposition to heresy. But the book does 
not satisfy this requirement, or only partially so. The above title, 
which is generally received, and was already known to Irenaeus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the author of the Mura- 
torion Fragment, cannot be original, and yet cannot have been 
given much later than A.D. 150. The title Hpdl-tis is only an 
abbreviation. The name " Commentarius Lucae," which Tertullian 
uses once (De Jejun. 10), though not a bad one, is a free invention 
of Tertullian himself. 

3 In Gentile communities the book, so far as we know, was 
rejected only by the Marcionites (probably also by some Gnostic 
sects), and by the problematical Severians (Euseb., " Hist. Eccl.," 
iv. 29 : these are probably not to be reckoned among Gentile 
Christians, seeing that they rejected 6t. Paul). In spite of Ter 
tullian (Adv. Marc., v. 2, 3, and De Praescr., 22 /) we cannot be 
quite certain whether the book came into the hands of Marcion ; 
there are good reasons both for and against. 



idea, and the idea can be pictured as fixed or as in 
development. What has St. Luke done? He dis 
dainfully refuses to be satisfied with a collection ot 
stories like the fabricators of Acts of the Apostles 
who came after him. Neither has he set up a single 
personality as his central point, though his relations 
with St. Paul and his veneration for that apostle 
must well have suggested to him this procedure. On 
the contrary, he recognised with sure tact that, if 
he wished to place this new history side by side with 
the Gospel history as its second part, no single per 
sonality ought to stand in the centre of interest ; for 
at once the unique character of the Master Jesus 
Christ would be threatened and blurred. It followed 
that he must group his material round an idea. If, 
however, this work was to be regarded as a continua 
tion of the first work, this idea must be derived from 
the active ministry of Jesus Himself. The power of 
the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles manifested in history 
this theme alone seemed to satisfy all requirements. 
Everything worthy of memory in the history of the 
primitive communities could without constraint be 
ranged under this theme ; above all, it would supply 
an excellent criterion of selection, and at the same 
time would connect the whole subject-matter most 
firmly with the first part, with the history of the 
words and actions of Jesus. A genuine inspiration of 
genius ! which loses nothing of its excellence in that 
it seems to us now so very natural. 

The power of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles 
manifested in history here the term Apostle " is 
not yet used by St. Luke with an absolutely narrow 


connotation. The facts themselves, indeed, protested 
against such a restriction. Of the great majority of 
the Twelve St. Luke knew nothing, or there was 
nothing for him to tell about them that passed beyond 
the limits of a simple uneventful ministry. Hence 
the term apostle " must receive a somewhat wider 
connotation, and this would be allowed by the mean 
ing which was at that time still generally attached 
to the word. The ministry of Philip, Barnabas, 
Apollos, but above all of St. Paul, was to be described. 
And now, under the shadow of the general theme 
and in subordination thereto, the two great heroes 
of primitive Christian history, St. Peter and St. Paul, 
could also come into their full rights. The Acts of the 
Apostles is a parte potiori a description of the ministry 
of St. Peter and St. Paul. In its first part St. Peter 
rules almost exclusively, in its second part St. Paul 
is absolutely supreme. Yet no one can describe this 
book as the combination of two apostolic biographies. 
On the contrary, with extraordinary skill, care is taken 
that the biographical element never passes a certain 
limit. Biographical curiosity is not fully satisfied, 
indeed it is compelled to content itself with little or 
no information on very important points. 

St. Peter and St. Paul this combination which in 
the memory of the Church occupies the highest place 
of honour after the Founder Himself was certainly 
not created by St. Luke, but by History herself. Yet 
we may well question whether this combination would 
have impressed itself so exclusively and so firmly upon 
the memory of posterity without the Acts of the 
Apostles. Had the Great Unknown, who at a little 


later period worked in Asia, and there gathered round 
him a circle of presbyters had he found such a bio 
grapher as St. Luke, it is probable that the dual 
monarchy of the two chief apostles in the memory 
of the Church would have been shaken ; and had 
James, the Lord s brother, won to his side an Hellenic 
author, in the Jerusalem of the future this James 
might easily have been regarded as the chief per 
sonality of the Apostolic epoch. Attempts were made 
on behalf of both these personalities, but at too late 
a date and by unqualified persons. Hence, estab 
lished and protected by the Acts of the Apostles, the 
twin apostles St. Peter and St. Paul abide unques 
tioned on their lofty pedestal, whence they can never 
be thrown down. Of the change which in later days 
came over the Church s appreciation of the relative 
importance of these apostles it is not here the place 
to speak. Only let it be said that St. Luke does not 
set either above the other. His narrative of St. Paul 
is of one personally known to himself, while for what 
he says of St. Peter he depends upon information 
from outside this naturally constitutes an important 
difference ; but apart from this insuperable difference 
he speaks of both w r ith equal veneration ; and ques 
tions of rivalry between the two do not lie at all 
within his horizon. If he allows the orbit of St. 
Peter to intersect that of St. Paul once only at the 
climax of his narrative (chap, xv.) while, as we 
learn from Acts ix. 27, Gal. i. 18, 1 Cor. i. 12, these 
orbits often touched one another, this is bound up 
with a definite conception and treatment of his theme 
on the part of the author, a circumstance which, in 


spite of all that has been written on the Acts, has 
hitherto been left out of consideration. 

To demonstrate historically the power of the Spirit 
of Jesus in the Apostles this was the general theme 
of St. Luke. But how indefinite must this theme 
have ever appeared in the face of the crowd of pheno 
mena which presented themselves to the historian ! 
How was he to master them ? where was he to draw 
the limits of subject-matter, of scene, and of actors ? 
If he was to steer a fixed and sure course over this 
boundless ocean he must discover some guiding prin 
ciple. Again his simple solution of the problem 
shows his genius. The power of the Spirit of Jesus 
manifested itself most impressively in the Mission, 
in that victorious progress wherein the proclamation 
of the Gospel was carried from Jerusalem to Home. 
That within a few decades the new religion had 
spread from little Galilee throughout the whole 
empire, that it had won to itself both Greeks and 
barbarians, and had been proclaimed even before 
kings and proconsuls with this fact nothing else 
could be compared, and everything worthy of narra 
tion could be subordinated to this theme. This 
fact, therefore the expansion of the Gospel could not 
but come to the front as the principle of selection 
and exclusion, and as the leading idea which was to 
give form to the whole. At the very beginning of 
the work it is most distinctly proclaimed : " Ye will 
receive the power of the Holy Spirit and will be My 
witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria 
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth " ; and it 
is expressed yet more impressively in the great scene 


of the second chapter, which, in fact, anticipates 
the conclusion of the mighty drama, where, in 
words which sound like a triumphant conqueror s 
list of nations vanquished in a great campaign, 
we read : " Parthians and Medes and Elamites, 
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Asia " 
and the rest. As far as the Roman Imperator 
rules, and farther still beyond the bounds of his 
empire, the world now hears the Evangelic message 
and accepts it ! 

It is wonderful how firmly, exclusively, and con 
sistently St. Luke throughout the whole book has 
kept the idea of the Mission and expansion of Chris 
tianity in his eye, and has scarcely anywhere allowed 
himself a digression. 1 Even the long narrative of 
the particular stages of the trial of St. Paul, and 
of the perils of the last voyage up to the final arrival 
in Rome, scarcely forms an exception ; for that trial 
is a grand confession of Christianity before the whole 
world and its rulers, represented by the Roman 
governor and King Agrippa ; while the voyage and 
shipwreck tend to intensify the suspense of the 
reader as he wonders whether after all the Gospel 
will be proclaimed in the metropolis of the world 
through the preaching of St. Paul. " And so we 
arrived at Rome" (/ecu OVTCOS V Tqv Pco/zjyv yXBajmev, 
note the article) with these words the conclusion 
of the book is introduced, and the conclusion of 
the conclusion runs : " And Paul preached (there) 
the kingdom of God, and taught concerning the 

1 Only one single subsidiary aim is to be discerned the defence 
of St. Paul against Judaistic calumnies. 


Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding 

But this victorious progress had a dark side which, 
LO the historian St. Luke, is scarcely less important 
than the bright side : the Jewish nation, among 
whom Jesus Christ had appeared and from whom the 
whole movement had taken its origin, had not only 
rejected their Messiah, but had more and more 
hardened themselves against the preaching of the 
Gospel, had everywhere attempted to throw the 
greatest obstacles in the way of its progress among 
the Gentiles, and with increasing energy of intrigue 
had stirred up persecutions against the Christians. 
Through the malicious machinations of this wretched 
nation the history which St. Luke has to write be 
comes a drama, and thus it is that he presents it. 
Moreover, not only must he describe these machina 
tions, but he must also show that, in spite of all 
the ceaseless and sincere attempts of the Apostles 
of St. Paul also to bring the Jews to a better 
mind, they nevertheless became only more and more 

But why ? Is it not a sign of the weakness of 
the Gospel that it could not gain over the Jews, 
and must therefore pass on to the Greeks and the 
Barbarians ? No thought is more alien to St. Luke 
than this which so easily suggests itself to us ! He 
turns its point in the opposite direction, in that with 
St. Paul he sees in the Jews 1 rejection of the Gospel 
and their hostile attitude to the Mission the pre 
destined arrangement and the foreordained judgment 
of God. The divine rejection of the Jews had indeed 


been already foretold by the Prophets ; now it was 
being fulfilled, in that the Gentiles were being called. 
Thus the seal is set to the legitimacy of Christianity, 
the new religion is even thereby shown to be the 
fulfilment of the Old Testament, and for the future 
it seizes upon this book also as its own. This nega 
tive theme, which runs like a scarlet thread through 
the whole book, is summarised once again with im 
pressive emphasis in the antepenultimate verse of the 
Acts : " Be it known therefore unto you that this 
salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles ; they will 
also hear." 

The Jew is in a sense the villain in this dramatic 
history, yet not as in the Gospel of St. John and 
the Apocalypse the Jew in the abstract who has 
almost become an incarnation of the evil principle, 
but the real Jew without generalisation and exaggera 
tion in his manifold gradations of Pharisee, Sadducee, 
aristocrat, Jew of Palestine or of the Dispersion. 
Where St. Luke knows anything more favourable 
concerning particular sections or persons among the 
Jews he does not keep silence, and so sacrifice truth 
to his theology of history. He tells us that very 
many Jewish priests had entered the new community ; 
he speaks of converted Pharisees ; he reports the 
prudent counsel of Gamaliel ; he does not conceal 
from us that the whole Jewish colony in Beroea 
accepted the teaching of St. Paul with great good 
will, and that even among the Jews of Rome some 
were won over by the Apostle. This impartiality of 
the narrative, in a point where there was such an 
extraordinary temptation to partiality, is a valuable 


proof of the careful sense of justice of the historian 
St. Luke. 1 

1 Different stages are to be traced in the anti-Semitism (anti- 
Judaism) of the early Gentile-Christians. St. Luke marks the first 
stage ; for St. Paul was never anti- Judaistic ; of coarse the early 
Church soon forgot Rom. xi, 25-32, if it ever really gave heed to 
this passage. St. Luke himself has adopted from St. Paul the 
theory of the hardening of Israel without Rom. xi. 25 ff; yet he 
regards the religion and piety of the Old Testament with the 
deepest reverence ; he still joys over every Jew who is converted, 
and does not in the least place the individual under the ban of 
his general theory. "St. John" marks the next stage. Here the 
Jews are already almost always mentioned only in terms which 
imply the Divine Rejection, and are treated as massa proditionis 
et perditionis ; yet the author, looking back to the pre-Christian 
epoch, suffers them to stand in their privileged position (iv.22 : 
i] ffurrjpia. in rCiv lovSaiuv tarlv, i. 47 : fdf aXydus IffpaifXeirijt, iv 
$ 56Xos OVK tariv, x. 8 is to be confined to false Messiahs). The 
third stage is marked by the Apologists, who, agreeing with St. 
Luke and St. John in the theory of Israel s hardening, regard 
the ordinances revealed to the Jews in the Old Testament as a 
means of discipline and punishment; who, by forced interpreta 
tion, deprive the Jews of all the promises referring to their nation, 
and separate the men of God of the Old Testament from con 
nection with the Jewish people. The fourth stage is characterised 
by the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, the author of which rejects, 
together with the Jewish nation, the whole cultus and all the 
legal ordinances of the Old Testament as a diabolical misrepre 
sentation of the truth, and accordingly admits the Old Testament, 
which he claims exclusively for Christianity, only under an alle 
gorical interpretation. The fifth and last stage is given in Marcion 
and the Gnostics. Here, together with the Jewish nation and 
Judaism, the whole Old Testament is thrown overboard, either as 
a book of the devil or of the Demiurge ; either as a complicated 
work composed of utterly different elements, or as a book full of 
absurd myths and lying invention. All these standpoints have their 
roots in Paulinism, and their champions sought to establish them by 
appealing to the teaching of St. Paul This fact is perhaps the 
strongest proof that St. Paul was a writer essentially incompre 
hensible to his age, however well he must have been understood 


Moreover, it is not only the regard paid to the 
conduct of the Jews that brings the play of action 
and reaction into the narrative of the Acts ; this is 
also brought about in the first part of the Acts by 
the open acknowledgment of the fact that at the 
beginning not only was there no mission to the 
Gentiles in existence, but that at first no one had 
even thought of such a mission, and that it was only 
through a slow process of development that this 
mission was prepared for and established. Practic 
ally all that lies written in the Acts between the 
sixth and the fifteenth chapters, thus more than a 
third part of the book, is dedicated to the demon 
stration of the historical problem, how it came 
about that there was a mission to the Gentiles at all. 

The longer I study the work of St. Luke the 
more am I astonished that this fact has not forced 
his critics to treat him with more respect than they 
show him. but not a few of them treat their own 
conceits in regard to the book with more respect 
than the grand lines of the work, which they either 
take as a matter of course, or criticise from the 
standpoint of their own superior knowledge. Yet 
it was by no means a matter of course that the 

as the great pioneer missionary. As a theological thinker he came 
out of another generation of long ago, and passed over into another 
generation far in the future. He was and he remained a Jew, and 
yet he anticipated, with his doctrine of freedom bound by Faith 
alone, the development of a whole epoch. The great region lying 
between these extreme points, with its gradual ascent, did not 
exist for him. His contemporaries, however, only knew this 
region. Like all natures of true genius, he lived in the past 
and in the future. 


author should have raised the question : " How is it 
that within the Christian movement, originally 
Jewish, there arose a mission to the Gentiles ? " nor 
that he should have at once treated it as a problem 
of the first importance and have exerted himself 
to give it an historical solution. Who else in the 
early Church except St. Luke, whether of his 
contemporaries or of a later generation, even pro 
posed this problem ? And when it was proposed, 
who has treated it otherwise than dogmatically with 
the worthless and absolutely fallacious explanation 
that the mission to the Gentiles was already foretold 
in the Old Testament, and had, moreover, been 
expressly enjoined by our Lord ? What other idea 
than this is given by the Apostolic Fathers and the 
Apologists ? Or to say nothing of these what else 
do we learn from St. Matthew and St. Mark (chap, 
xvi.) ? Thus, the very fact that St. Luke has raised 
this question, and has made its consideration a chief 
point of his historical work, shows an amount of 
historical insight which claims the highest apprecia 
tion. It is, moreover, a proof that St. Luke himself 
had in some way taken part in this great historical 
development, or at least stood in some pretty close 
relationship to it, for what in the wide world could 
make a Greek of about the end of the first century 
feel that he ought to explain how the Gospel came 
to be preached to the Gentiles ; how could he have 
even proposed to himself such a question whose 
answer seemed given in the short and simple lan 
guage of accomplished fact a question which was 
indeed no longer a problem for consideration, but a 


dogmatic postulate unless he had been in personal 
touch with the development of days gone by ? 

But in far higher measure than for the statement 
of this problem, St. Luke deserves recognition for 
the manner in which he has answered it. It has, 
of course, always been thought necessary to criticise 
with especial rigour this aspect of St. Luke s narra 
tive ; here, however, the critics have both overlooked 
points in his narrative which are undoubtedly correct, 
and also have set themselves to assail historical 
positions which upon closer investigation they neces 
sarily would have found to be unassailable. We have 
in the first place to note what answers he has not 
given. He has ascribed the beginnings of the 
mission to the Gentiles neither to St. Paul as it 
would have been so natural for him to do nor to 
the Twelve, nor to St. Peter, indeed he has expressly 
described the course of events in such a way as to 
show that St. Peter after receiving an isolated Divine 
command to baptize a Gentile, did not for years 
draw therefrom any further practical conclusion. 
Therefore the representation which is given in the 
Acts of the Apostles is not one that has been manu 
factured in favour of the Apostles. Again, what 
St. Luke tells us of the Christian Hellenists in Jeru 
salem and their conflict with the Christian Hebrews; 
of the Hellenist Stephen who prophesied the de 
struction of the Temple and the change of the 
ordinances given by Moses ; of the Evangelist Philip 
who first preached the Gospel among the Samaritans 
and baptized the eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia ; 
of the unnamed men of Cyprus and Cyrene who first 



preached the Go.spel to Greeks and formed them 
into a Christian community; of the college of Elders 
at the head of the Church in Jerusalem who made 
no protest when Christians from Jerusalem went to 
distant Antioch and demanded that the Gentile 
Christians in that city should be circumcised ; lastly, 
of that same college of Elders who found themselves 
compelled to recognise the Gentile mission in the 
face of the grand fait accompli which St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas had brought about in South-eastern 
Asia Minor J all these records bear the stamp of 
historical truth. And if towards the close of his 
narrative he remarks by the way that the great 
majority of Christians in Jerusalem were still zealous 
of the Law, and needed to be protected from the 
danger of yielding credence to calumnious charges 
against St. Paul how can he be accused of con 
cealing the true course of events ? Though he may 
indeed have erred elsewhere in this or in that par 
ticular point, he cannot be charged with a definite 
bias or with a want of knowledge obscuring his 
whole presentation of the history. If he is silent 
upon many points on which we to-day would gladly 
have information, this surely cannot be justly 
reckoned to his discredit ! 

And the less so seeing that he has confined 
himself strictly to the theme which he had marked 
out for himself. The seeming gaps in his narra 
tive become no gaps for us so soon as we realise 

1 Chapters xiii. and xiv. are simply written to prepare for 
chapter xv., and what they relate must be interpreted in the 
light of that chapter. 


the task he set himself. What this was is clear 
from what we have already said ; it was to show 
how the power of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles 
founded the Primitive Community, called into being 
the mission to the Gentiles, conducted the Gospel 
from Jerusalem to Rome, and set the receptive Gentile 
world in the place of the Jewish nation, which hard 
ened its heart more and more against the appeal of 
Christianity. From these main lines upon which the 
work was planned, and which were abstracted in the 
happiest way from the actual situation of events, St. 
Luke scarcely ever deviates. If one keeps this fact 
well in view, one will no longer wonder that he tells 
us so little about the Churches, and that he scarcely 
touches upon the inner life of individuals even of 
St. Paul and of the Christian community. 1 When 
he conducts the missionaries to a new scene of action 
he only asks himself: how it was that they came 
there ? what reception they found among the Jews ? 
what among the Gentiles ? and, if any material was 
to hand on this point, how they were received by 
the Roman authorities of the place ? about how 
long they stayed there ? and what was the manner 
of their departure ? If in his narrative he gives 
anything more than bald answers to these ques 
tions, it must be because of specially important 
personages and events in which the power of the 
Spirit manifested itself in extraordinary ways. There 
is also no justification for charging him with a 
distinctly politico- apologetic bias. The dedication 

i We should, however, here remember the limitations of ancient 
historical literature. 


of the work shows that it was addressed to a man 
who was an instructed Christian, and there are no 
indications that St. Luke had heathen readers in 
his mind as he wrote. We need not assume that 
he excluded these, but they were not distinctly in his 
view. If in spite of this he has laid so much stress 
upon showing that the Gospel was proclaimed before 
magistrates, proconsuls, and kings, and that these 
adopted towards it on the whole a not unfriendly 
attitude, this fact does not necessarily imply some 
political tendency of a special character on the part 
of the author. With every new religious movement 
the attitude of the public very quickly becomes a 
question of the deepest interest, and the public is in 
the first line represented by the authorities. In this 
case, moreover, the interest must have been deepened 
by the contrast between the behaviour of the Roman 
authorities and those of the Jews. What St. Luke 
tells us in this connection simply answered to the 
facts ; and if, beginning with Pilate, he regards 
hostile behaviour on the part of the Roman autho 
rities as far more pardonable than similar behaviour 
on the part of the Jewish authorities, surely no 
Christian could judge otherwise. Besides he is as 
far from suppressing instances of unfriendliness and 
hostility on the part of the Roman and civic police 
authorities as he is, on the other hand, from keeping 
silence concerning friendly behaviour on the part of 
the Jews (vide supra). 

Whilst the first half of the first part of the Acts 
(chaps, i.-v.) captivates the reader with its record of 
the mighty deeds and the great sermons by which 


the foundation of the Primitive Community was firmly 
laid, the second half of the first part (chaps, vi. xv.), 
with its thronging abundance of facts of the most 
varied character yet all pointing towards and pre 
paring for the triumphant appearance of the mission 
to the Gentiles, holds him in a dramatic suspense. 
This suspense would be well-nigh intolerable if the 
author had not understood how to temper it by his 
skill in narrative and by a style which has about it 
something of the epic full of life, and yet not 
unrestful. Though Stephen is martyred, though St. 
Paul after his first appearance again vanishes from 
the scene of action, though St. Peter draws no further 
practical conclusion from the Divine vision, though 
unbidden guests from Jerusalem seek to trouble the 
Gentile Church in Antioch yet they find one 
another at last, Jerusalem and Antioch, the Gospel 
and the Gentile world. 

The second part of the book lacks a special theme 
of such vivacious character as that of the first. 
There now remained only to describe the extension 
of the gospel to Rome. 1 What means has St. Luke 
here employed to ensure the continued interest of his 
readers ? In the first place, the " we "-narrative 
now makes its appearance, and gives to several long 
passages vivacity and a distinct charm. In the 
second place, throughout the first half of this part 
the interest of the reader is kept alive by the rapid 
progress of the narrative, by the variety of important 

1 The line of division quite plainly comes after xvi. 5 ; but 
xv. 3t>-xvi. 5 forms the transition from the first to the second 
part. The first part closes with xv. 35. 


events, by the change of scene (Philippi, Thessalonica, 
Beroea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), finally by the 
culmination in the long abode in Ephesus and in the 
great and significant farewell discourse pronounced 
before the Ephcsian elders. 1 At the close of this 
third quarter of the work Home now appears on the 
horizon and remains the goal of the last quarter of 
the narrative. Just as the central point of interest 
in the second quarter of the book is this whether 
the Gospel and the Gentile world will ever meet, so now 
in the fourth quarter the sole subject of enthralling 
interest is this whether St. Paul will ever succeed in 
carrying the Gospel to Rome. Hindrance follows 
hindrance yet each affords St. Paul an opportunity 
for giving noble testimony finally sea and storm-wind 
seem to have conspired together against his undertak 
ing ; and yet he succeeds his desire, his appropriate 
destiny is fulfilled ; he brings the Gospel to Rome. But 
in this last section St. Luke perhaps is influenced 
by yet another interest allied to that of the second 
quarter (the question of the origin and legitimacy 
of the mission to the Gentiles). St Paul and his 
work must be set forth in their pure nobility and 
grandeur, i.e. his mission to the Gentiles must be 
shown to have been legitimate (there are three narra 
tives of his call !) The Gospel was brought to the 
Gentile world by no unworthy minister, but by a 
vas electionis." He was no destroyer of the Jewish 
religion, but the most powerful and strenuous affirmer 

1 In order to avoid repetition and not to weaken the impression 
of continued progress, the narrative is so skilfully managed that 
the reader scarcely notices St. Paul s second visits to these places. 



of its hopes ; he was no revolutionary, " neither in 
respect to the Jewish Law nor to the Temple nor 
to Caesar." Here, however, the emphasis this is 
worthy of note ! is laid upon his relationship to the 
Jewish religion (not to Csesar), and this is a further 
proof that St. Luke still stood in very close personal 
touch with the primitive times ; for what Hellene has 
ever treated the Jewish religion and the Old Testa 
ment piety, existing side by side with Christianity, 
with such tender, indeed to us almost unintelligible, 
respect as the author shows here and elsewhere in his 
work ! It is not till we reach Irenaeus that the 
sympathy of the Gentile Church with Old Testament 
piety becomes again awakened ; and this was an 
artificial awakening, the exciting cause of which was 
the conflict with Gnosticism. 

There is another very important question which 
presents itself in connection with the subject-matter 
of the work Why is it that St. Luke in working 
out his theme, the extension of the Gospel to Rome, 
has confined himself so exclusively to the ministry of 
St. Paul ? He must surely have known of several 
provinces, wherein in his times Christians were found, 
that had not been converted by St. Paul (he him 
self notes by the way that Apollos was won over to 
Christianity in Alexandria). He must also have 
known that the Gospel was not first brought to Rome 
by St. Paul. In my opinion, the question can only 
be answered by assuming that St. Luke s conception 
of the term "Apostle," though not absolutely narrow, 
was yet already very definite, and that in his narra 
tive of the propagation of the Gospel he is satisfied 


with describing only its progress across the world 
from Jerusalem to Rome. The latter procedure was 
certainly wise ; for his narrative would have exceeded 
all bounds if he had aimed at even approximate 
fulness in geographical statistics. If the former 
assumption is true, it necessarily resulted in the 
glorification of St. Paul ; for the Twelve never took 
part in the mission to the Gentiles, and St. Luke 
scarcely regards such persons as Stephen, Philip, 
Silas, Priscilla and her husband, and Apollos as 
standing to a certain degree on a level with the 
Twelve. Accordingly, he was left with Paul and 
Barnabas. Men like Mark and Timothy might have 
felt hurt, yet note how St. Luke refers to his own 
missionary activity in only the most modest terms. 
The title Apostle had already received an exclusive 
connotation, and it was the apostle alone who really 
legitimised the mission. If even for people like 
St. Luke, holding " spiritual " gifts in such high 
regard and really so spiritually free, the office of 
apostle had so quickly attained to an exclusive 
authority, what a multitude of unauthorised mis 
sionaries preaching " Jesus "" must even at that time 
have been carrying on their work in the provinces 
of the Empire ! Moreover, though St. Peter during 
the time of St. Paul s ministry not only visited 
Antioch, but may also not improbably have paid a 
passing visit to Corinth, the silence of the Acts 
concerning him is sufficiently explained by the 
purpose of the book, which did not admit the 
narration of the experiences of any church after its 


Of the ancient historian s liberty to insert speeches 
at appropriate places in his work, whether reports 
of speeches actually made or free compositions, St. 
Luke has made an extensive and a happy use. Just 
as in the Gospel we find a succession of actions and 
sayings of our Lord (Acts i. 1, irepi TTGLVTUIV &v ^p^aro 
It]<rovs TTOieiv re KOI SiSd(TKeii ), so also in the second 
part of his work he must report both actions and 
discourses. The discourses predominate in the first 
and in the last quarters of the Acts ; while in the 
second and third quarters, though occupying less 
space, they are only the more weighty in substance. 
The highest level, according to our taste and perhaps 
also according to the taste of the first readers, is 
reached in the speeches of chapters xv., xvii., and xx. ; 
but the speeches at the beginning of the work are 
really fundamental in their Christology, and those 
at the close assure the readers that their great 
missionary St. Paul was the divinely appointed 
instrument of the mission, and the great witness for 
Christ before governors and kings. 

During the last decade ever deeper insight has 
been gained into the language in which St. Luke 
has composed his work, and in consequence hasty 
generalisations of old standing have been corrected. 
In this connection Blass deserves specially high credit. 
A very large portion of the supposed Semitic idioms 
have vanished the " Koivrj " already included these 
Semitisms nor as a rule should they be so regarded, 
but rather as natural productions of the Kom; that 
more or less accidentally coincide with Semitic forms. 
Some, of course, are still left, especially in well-marked 


divisions of the work, and it remains to be investi 
gated just as in the case of the Gospel whether 
these divisions are not translated from Aramaic 
sources. In general St. Luke^s style very nearly 
approaches that of the Septuagint, more particu 
larly that of the books of the Maccabees (but this 
itself is nothing but the style of the spoken language 
of educated men). Non-classical words and words 
of the vulgar idiom are comparatively rare. The 
syntax and certain stereotyped syntactical formulae 
aie "vulgar" and non-classical; but it is probable 
that these also had already gained a recognised place 
in the more refined literary version of the language 
of the people. It is now also recognised that St. 
Luke was a master of language who, with careful 
purpose, has accommodated his style in different 
portions of his work to the scene of action and the 
dignity of his subject-matter. Just as in the Gospel 
he has so treated the stories of the Infancy that one 
might imagine that one was reading a piece of 
history from the Septuagint, so also in the Jerusalem 
sections of the Acts, especially at the beginning, he 
retains this style; and so long as the scene of action 
remains in Palestine he holds fast, in vocabulary, 
syntax, and style, to the type of narrative which he 
has followed in the Gospel. Very gradually he passes 
over to a freer and at the same time more classical 
type of narrative. The style becomes, so to say, 
more profane, and even thereby more cosmopolitan, 
yet without detracting from the dignity of the narra 
tive. In the last quarter of the book, although the 
scene again lies for the most part in Palestine, the 


later style is still preserved, for the new movement 
is no longer simply Palestinian, but now plays out its 
part on the stage of the world. The author intended 
that this fact should here find expression even in his 
style. It is, however, most remarkable that St. Luke, 
in spite of all the variety which he has introduced 
into the form of his narrative, has understood how 
to preserve the stylistic unity of his work. In 
reading one receives no impression of patchiness or 
of want of organic connection. The style also is 
free from all suspicion of pose, and there is a com 
plete absence of vain and empty rhetoric. Scarcely 
ever does the writer use a single superfluous word. 
He is ever concerned only with the root of the 
matter in hand, he knows how to tell a very great 
deal in a few words, and he never tries to bribe 
his readers with tricks of oratory. In respect of 
its style this work can be compared with the best 
literary productions of the Hellenico-Roman period. 
Read the descriptions of the Pentecostal scene, of 
the conversion of St. Paul, of that apostle s mission 
in Athens, of the shipwreck, and many another 
passage ! 

And now where are to be found the weak points 
of this author? We cannot say that he is on the 
whole either credulous or uncritical. Credulous and 
uncritical writers of those days produced works of 
an entirely different character from his ! Again, 
for the larger half of the work we possess in the 
epistles of St. Paul a test of the accuracy of the 
historian than which we can scarcely imagine a more 
stringent. That these epistles were creations of the 


moment, the offspring of a personality of the most 
marked subjectivity, only increases the stringency of 
the test. And yet it is only the over-scrupulous and 
the dividers of hairs who cannot recognise that in 
dozens of important and unimportant passages the 
Acts of the Apostles has stood the test imposed upon 
it by the Pauline epistles. Leaving out of account 
a few minute details, the descriptions of the Council 
of Jerusalem and of St. Paul s apology in the last 
speeches, in fact the whole account of his attitude 
towards the Jews at his last visit to Jerusalem, alone 
remain questionable. In reference to the latter point, 
it seems to me that what St. Luke records may be 
very easily harmonised with the character and 
theology of St. Paul as set forth in the epistles, if 
one only does not confine oneself narrowly and 
rigidly to the Epistle to the Galatians, as of course 
every one still does. And in reference to the Council 
of Jerusalem, it remains to be proved whether such 
serious mistakes occur in the Acts as to render its 
authorship by St. Luke inconceivable. His real weak 
nesses as an historian seem to me to lie elsewhere 
in the first place, in his credulity in reference to 
cases of miraculous healing and of " spiritual " gifts ; 
secondly, in a tendency to carelessness and inaccuracy, 
often of a very far-reaching influence in his narrative, 
which may be partly due to his endeavour after 
brevity ; lastly, in a tendency to work up important 
situations. The last failing, measured by the 
standards of ancient historians, can scarcely be 
regarded as a fault in method, and in reference to 
the first, we must take into consideration that, as 


is the case in every enthusiastic religious movement, 
" wonders and signs " really occurred, and especially 
that class of phenomena with which what is to-day 
called " Christian Science " is concerned. But only 
he that is acquainted with the religious charlatanism 
of that age and the extravagancies of its productions 
can know from what a mass of esoteric rubbish, of 
fraudulent magic, and pious absurdity the author has 
kept himself free. All these things we know found 
their way even into Christianity at that time or 
soon afterwards. From these St. Luke, however, kept 
himself free. 

We must also in this connection remember the 
fact that St. Paul (Col. iv. 14) calls St. Luke 
expressly, and in a context where the epithet has 
doubled weight, " the physician, the beloved." He 
had therefore tried him and approved him as a 
physician and a friend, and from his experience of 
St. Luke he is impelled to give him this public 
testimony. If one now compares how modestly and 
yet with what firm assurance St. Luke cursorily 
mentions his successful cures (Acts xxviii. 910 . . . 
eOepcnrevovTo, ol Kai TroAAcu? Ti/uai$ eri/mjcrav ///? 
Ilamsay has justly laid stress upon the fact that in 
verse 8 the word used of St. Paul is /acraro), one 
by no means receives the impression of some wild 
enthusiast who cured diseases, but of a man who 
continued to practise his profession of physician with 
success, and who in it had earned the permanent 
esteem of a man of such high temper as St. Paul. 
That he took account also of cures in answer to 
prayer, that his attitude towards them was uncritical, 


that in fact he has no clear knowledge of the 
boundary-line separating science from magic what 
special reason is there here for surprise ! And lastly, 
as to the instances of carelessness and inaccuracy in 
his narrative, we must indeed keep these closely in 
view, for he has suffered from them more than 
anything else in that they have laid him open to 
the exaggerated calumnies of those who would 
blacken his literary character. Against these vul 
nerable points the critics hurl themselves in order 
to tear down and to scatter in pieces. And yet 
these many instances of inaccuracy, which are 
easily discerned as such just because they are a 
constant quantity, are as a rule harmless and un 
fitted to serve as a base for far-reaching critical 

The account which we have here given of the char 
acter of the Acts of the Apostles and of its author 
St. Luke does not yet enjoy universal acceptance; rather 
it is entirely, or almost entirely, rejected by numerous 
critics. With them the book passes as a compara 
tively late patchwork compilation, ijj which the part 
taken by the editor is insignificant, yet in all cases 
detrimental ; the " we "-sections are not the property 
of the author, but an extract from a source, or even 
a literary fiction ; historical errors are as numerous 
as gaps and ill-disguised joinings ; the portrait of 
St. Paul is drawn with bias, or in ignorance ; the 
description given in the first chapters is scarcely 
anywhere other than pure fancy Peter is Pauline, 
Paul is Petrine ; but who can number the objections 
that have been raised against this book ! If they 



were only objections that one could take hold of! 
But after no small number of these has been finally 
refuted, one has to deal not so much with definite 
objections, as with an attitude of general mistrust in 
the book, with airy conceits and lofty contempt ; 
most of all, however, with the fruits of that vicious 
method wherein great masses of theory are hung 
upon the spider s thread of a single observation, 
wherein a writer of the New Testament is allowed 
no weakness, no possibility of ignorance, wherein 
instances of such failing are used as powder to blow 
the whole book into the air. In the first volume of 
this series, entitled " Luke the Physician " (Crown 
Theological Library, 1907), I have therefore tried in 
the first place to prove the identity of the author of the 
" we "-sections with St. Luke, and at the same time to 
refute some of these objections and critical vagarities 
not by means of the more or less subjective apologetic 
of the harmonist, but by assiduous attention to, and 
exhibition of, facts and observations that confirm one 
another. In the following pages I continue these 
investigations in order to arrive at a more assured 
judgment as to how far the book is homogeneous, as 
to its sources and its degree of trustworthiness, and 
by this means to prove afresh the identity of the 
author of the " we "-sections with the author of the 
whole work. In an age wherein critical hypotheses, 
once upon a time not unfruitful, have hardened 
themselves into dogmas, and when if an attempt is 
made to defend a book against prejudice, misunder 
standing, and misrepresentation, scornful remarks are 
made about "special pleading," it is not superfluous 


to declare that the method which is here employed 
is influenced by no prepossession of any kind. It 
is of course disgraceful that the circumstances of 
criticism at the present day make such a declaration 



IN the prologue to his twofold historical work St. 
Luke has announced that he wishes to write down 
everything " KaOe^s" This word, as well as the 
synonym " e/9," occurs in the New Testament only 
in the Lukan writings (St. Luke i. 3 ; viii. 1 ; Acts 
iii. 24; xi. 4; xviii. 23; e^tjs : St. Luke vii. 11; 
ix. 37; Acts xxi. 1; xxv. 17; xxvii. 18). 2 The 
word does not necessarily denote a chronological 
arrangement, though as a rule it means this, and its 
use in the other places suggests that this signification 
is to be understood here. We have not in all cases 
the means of judging how far St. Luke has succeeded 
in establishing a correct chronological arrangement. 
In his gospel it is obvious that he does not come up 
to an even moderate chronological standard ; but in 
the Acts every one allows that he had the oppor 
tunity of doing, and has done, better things. His 
procedure in regard to chronology in the Acts, so 
far as I know, has not yet been subjected to a 

1 This chapter was read at a meeting of the Prussian Academy, 
and was published in their reports (Sitzunysberichten, 25th April 
1907). It appears here in a somewhat different and more developed 

2 Throughout this book the numbers in bolder type denote 
passages hi the " we "-sections. 



thorough and connected investigation. And yet 
more accurate knowledge on this point is of interest 
in two respects, both in relation to the question of 
the trustworthiness of the work (or of the literary 
conscientiousness of the author) and in relation to 
the question of its unity. 

In the first place, the book is disappointing in so 
far as it gives evidence of no trace of a connected 
chronological framework. The construction of such 
a framework, for at least the principal part of the 
narrative, could not have presented special difficulties 
to a man with the author s culture and access to 
sources of information, even if he were not the com 
panion of the Apostle. 1 He must, therefore, have 
regarded it as of no importance, and have used 
KdOeffi not in this sense. In this attitude he, 
moreover, shows himself an adept in the historical 
writing of those days which, especially if it aimed 
at edification or amusement, set up no chronological 
framework and was sparing in the use of definite 
dates. So also St. Luke is content to refer to con 
temporary history in only a few passages where such 
reference seemed to him fitting -if these few passages 
may be so understood elsewhere he only gives rela 
tive dates. Even the passages where the succession of 
years is mentioned are few in number ; on the other 
hand, the author shows interest in times of festivals, 
in days, and in hours again in accordance with the 
custom of writers of his day. These references are 
intended to give life to the narrative, i.e. to the narra- 

1 And yet all chronological systems of those days were wanting 
in connection, in clearness, and exactitude. 


tive of particular events. He does not, as a rule, place 
the reader in a position to judge whether he repre 
sents events in their correct order ; his desire is 
rather that the reader should simply trust him in 
this matter. But for this very reason, because he 
has not thought of consistently dating events by the 
year in which they occurred, nor of a chronological 
framework for his work, the passages wherein he 
produces chronological material have special value ; 
for they do not belong to a system, but are scattered 
throughout the book apart from any tendency what 
ever. Let us consider in order the chronological 
expedients of which the writer has availed himself, 
distinguishing the while his use of them in connection 
with the history of Christianity in Palestine, from 
his use of them in connection with the history of 
Christianity in the Diaspora. 

I. Chronological References to Contemporary History. 

As concerns the history in Palestine, apart from 
a few references to the past, 1 and to person- 

i Our Lord executed under Pilate and Herod Antipas (iv. 27, 
&c.) ; in the days of "the enrolment" (v. 37); Theudas (v. 36); 
Judas the Galilaean (v. 37) ; the " Egyptian " (xxi. 38). Here let 
it be noted by the way that St. Luke gives us certain informa 
tion, nowhere else recorded, concerning the relationship of Herod 
Antipas and his court to Christ and the new religion. He ex 
pressly refers to this Herod when giving the date of the public 
appearance of our Lord (St. Luke hi. 1); he records (viii. 3) that 
among the women who followed our Lord was to be found one 
Joanna, the wife of a steward of Herod (cf. xxiv. 10), and (Acts 
xiii. 1) that among the spiritual leaders of the Primitive Community 
of Antioch was a " syntrophos" (confidential friend) of Herod, 


ages l of note whose date was known or could easily be 
ascertained, the only information that the author gives 
us is that the general famine foretold by Agabus, the 
prophet from Jerusalem, actually came to pass " under 
Claudius " (xi. 28), and that at the same time 2 (xii. 1) 
a persecution of the Christians was set on foot by 
King Herod Agrippa I. (the name of Herod tempts 
the author to a digression concerning the circumstances 
under which Herod died soon afterwards : the quarrel 
with the people of Tyre and Sidon ; Blastus the 
chamberlain ; the presumptuous pride of the king ; 
mors persec utoris ! xii. 2023). The former chrono 
logical note is due simply to the author s desire to 
bear witness to the fulfilment of the prophet s pre 
diction ; the latter notice arises in the natural course 
of events, seeing that Herod himself (in order to 
please the Jews) had thrown himself in the path of 

Manaen by name. He hands down to us an utterance of our Lord 
concerning Herod (St. Luke xiii. 32), otherwise unknown, and he 
relates that our Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod for judgment 
(xxiii. 7 /. ). 

1 Gamaliel (v. 34 ; xxii. 3) ; the chief priests Annas and 
Caiaphas, and John (Jonathan) and Alexander (iv. 6) ; the high- 
priest Ananias (xxiii. 2; xxiv. If.); the procurator Felix (xxiii. 6, 
&c.); Brasilia the wife of Felix (xxiv. 24) ; the procurator Festus 
(xxiv. 27, &c.) ; the king Agrippa II. and Bernice (xxv. 13, &c.). 
In mentioning the Ethiopian queen Candace, St. Luke does not 
give us an indirect chronological reference, seeing that at that 
time and afterwards all the Ethiopian queens were called by that 

2 KO.T tKtivov rbv Kaip&v. Weiss describes the expression as 
chronologically incorrect, because he regards it as referring to 
the time of the first origin of a Gentile Christian community, a 
time which was far in the past. But it really refers to the time of 
the Famine, or rather to the time of the journey of St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas to Jerusalem, and is therefore not incorrect. 


the youthful Church. Neither in the one case nor in 
the other can we therefore trace any real chrono 
logical interest on the part of the author. 

As concerns the history in the Diaspora, here again 
Claudius is the only emperor mentioned by name, 
and his name forms the sole directly chronological 
notice. When St. Paul came to Corinth he found 
there one Aquila with Priscilla his wife, who had 
lately come from Italy ; they had been compelled to 
leave their place of abode Sia TO ^tareTa^evai K\av$iov 
^(t)pi(e(rQai Trarra? TOV? lou^a/ou? OTTO rrjs Pu>/$ 
(xviii. 2). 1 Here again this information is not given 
for the sake of chronology, but quite casually. That 
St. Luke knows of the edict of Claudius, and records 
it, shows that he interested himself in the fortunes 
and doings of the Jews in the Diaspora. Besides this 
piece of information mention is made of a few 
notable persons, such as the pro-consul Sergius Paulus 
in Cyprus (xiii. 7), and the pro-consul Gallio in 
Corinth (xviii. 12 /!). Here again the names are 
mentioned in the natural course of the narrative ; 
there is nothing that is intentionally chronological. 2 

1 In both cases (here and xi. 28) St. Luke has omitted all titles, 
and gives only the name of the emperor. Even in this point the 
consistency of his style is remarkable. Orosius gives the date of 
the edict of Claudius. We do not know where he got his informa 
tion ; there is, however, no reason for doubting its accuracy. 

* For further references to general history and matters connected 
with heathen cultus, cf. the Chiliarch Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26), 
the centurion Julius (xxvii. 1) ; the aire ipa IroXt/c^ (x. 1), and the 
ffiretpa. Ze/icwTTj (xivii. 1) note the coincidence; the Epicureans 
and Stoics (xvii. 18 ; we are surprised that no mention is made of 
the Academicians ; did the author intend to represent them as not 
opposed to St. Paul ?) ; the Areopagus (xvii. 19) ; Dionysius tho 


It cannot therefore be shown that St. Luke was 
influenced by a chronological interest in any of the 
few passages wherein he produces what is practically 
chronological material from contemporary history. 
Such a passage as St. Luke in. 1, wherein the chrono 
logical situation is scientifically determined, is to be 
found nowhere in the Acts of the Apostles. More 
over, there is no difference here between the treatment 
of the history of Christianity in the Diaspora and 
in Palestine. 

II. Exact statements of years, months, and days. 

Dates of years and months occur only in the 
following passages : l 

xi. 26. St. Barnabas and St. Paul abide a full year 
(eviavrov o\ov) in Antioch (fostering the youthful 

xvii. 2. On three Sabbath days (enl a-a(3(3ara. rpta) 
St. Paul preached in the synagogue at Thessalonica, 
and was therefore nearly a month in that city. 

xviii. 11. St. Paul on his first visit to Corinth 
remained there a year and six months (eviavrov KOI 

Areopagite (xvii. 34) ; the ffTparriyol in Philippi (xvi. 20) ; the 
politarchs in Thessalonica (xvii. 6) ; the Asiarchs (xix. 31) ; the 
school of Tyrannus (xix. 9) ; the ypafinaTevs (xix. 35) ; the ayopaioi 
KO.L avdviraroi (xix. 38) ; and the IPVO/^OJ ^KKX-rjaia in Ephesus 
(xix. 39) ; Zeus and Hermes (xiv. 12) ; the great Artemis (xix. 27) ; 
the TriXis vewicdpos (xix. 35) ; Dike (xxviii. 4) ; the Dioscuri (xxviii. 
11) ; the Unknown God in Athens (xvii. 23). Each trait is correct 
and true to its situation. 

1 Passages wherein the years of duration of disease are given 
are left out of consideration. Vide iv. 22 and ix. 33. 


xix. 8. St. Paul on his visit to Ephesus taught for 
three months (eVI /x^ra? r^ef?) in the synagogue 
there, and then 

xix. 10. he taught for two years (eVt em $uo) in 
the school of Tyrannus in the same city. These two 
periods together are described in 

xx. 31. as making up a period of three years 

xx. 3. St. Paul made a second stay of three 
months (7ro/o-a? /iJ/ra? rpei?) in Greece (Corinth). 

[xxiv. 10. Felix at the time that St. Paul first 
appeared before him had been procurator in Judaea 
for many years (e/c TTO\\WV ero>i/).] 

[xxiv. 17. St. Paul, after the lapse of several years 
((V erwv TrXe(ojwi ), had again returned to Jerusalem, 
bringing alms.] 

xxiv. 27. After two years (StcTias TrXrjpwOela-t]^ 
reckoned from St. Paul s first hearing Felix was 
replaced by Festus. 1 

1 Wellhauscn (Nachr. d. K. Geselhch. d. Wissensch. z. Gdttiiigen,12. 
Jan. 1907, s. 8/. ) makes the following remarks on this passage: 

" Aiert a is generally referred to the stay of St. Paul in Jerusalem 
(read : Cajsarea), and as a necessary consequence it is considered 
characteristic of the narrative of St. Luke that out of a period of 
the apostolic ministry of St. Paul, lasting more than two years, he 
should only have been able to tell us of the progress of the trial 
of the Apostle. The hypothesis of a cessation of two years in the 
consecutive and consistent course of the trial, which naturally and 
necessarily forms the proper subject of the narrative, is however 
rather characteristic of the exegetes, who one and all hang on 
like bulldogs to only a single exegetical possibility. It is just as 
possible that the words quoted refer to the departure of Felix from 
office at the end of two years. This interpretation is indeed the 
first that suggests itself, and has the advantage of disposing of 
the absurd hiatus in the trial of St. Paul. The exegetes have 


XXViii. 11. After three months (/xera rpeis 
St. Paul left the island of Malta. 

xxviii. 30. St. Paul abode in Rome two full years 
(Sierlav oXyv) in his own hired lodging. 

We have in addition the following dates by days : 

i. 3. Our Lord manifested Himself for forty days 
(Si ) jfji.p(Jov rea-arapaKOVTo) after His Resurrection. 

[ix. 9. Saul was blind for three days 
Tpcis*) after Christ had appeared to him.] 

x. 30. Cornelius had the vision three days (OLTTO 
rerdprtis y/uepas) before St. Peter s visit to him. 

XX. 6. Within five days (a^pi t]/j.epwv Treyre) we 
came from Philippi to Troas. 

XX. 6. Seven days (ij/uepas eTrrct) we abode in 

probably allowed themselves to be led away by the TroXXa fry of 
xxiv. 10. As if St. Luke in his discourses cared for historical 
exactitude and not rather for anything that suited his purpose! 
lie constantly contradicts himself even when his speakers give 
a rhetorical summary of events described in the narrative (? ?). 
In xxiv. 10, however, there is no need to suppose that he thought 
of xxiv. 27. It is not my business to investigate whether Felix 
was really superseded so early as the end of 54 or the beginning 
of A.D. 55." 

So far as I know, Wcllhausen has had no predecessor in his 
interpretation which in my opinion will not stand investigation; 
for (1) St. Paul, not Felix, is here the principal figure. It would 
be singular, and it is not suggested by the context or by the 
general procedure of St. Luke, that the author should have 
thought it necessary to state the time during which a procurator 
held office. (2) The preceding words, 616 KCU 6 <?7Xi irvKvbrepov 
rbv llavXov /j.fTaire[j.ir6/j.evos ufj.t\fi avrf form an excellent intro 
duction to the statement that this lasted for a somewhat long 
time, while they are out of any connection with the supposed 
statement concerning the length of Felix s term of office. (3) 


XXi. 4. Seven days (tjfiepa? eTrra) we abode in 

XXi. 7. One day (fj/jiepav niav) we abode in 

xxiv. 1. After five days (/xera TreVre ^epa?), 
reckoned from the conveyance of St. Paul to Caesarea, 
the high-priest Ananias came thither. 

xxiv. 11. There are not more than twelve days (ov 
TrAe/cuy eicriv /not rj/j.fpai <5<*)<Wa), says St. Paul, since 
I came to Jerusalem. 

xxv. 1. Three days after his entry into office (/uera 
^oa?) Festus came to Jerusalem. 

xxv. 6. After not more than eight to ten days 
ov TrXe/ou? OKTO) r] Sena) Festus returned back 
to Casarea. 

XXVii. 27. The fourteenth night 
Kdrt] vvQ in the raging storm (XXVii. 33). 

Felix was in office longer than two years there can be no doubt 
upon this point and St. Luke himself says as much a few verses 
previously. It is somewhat out of place to charge him unneces 
sarily with such an extraordinary instance of discrepancy. Moreover, 
(4) Sieria cannot be regarded as the general technical expression 
for the term of office of a procurator (so that Ster/as wX^pw Ma-jji 
would simply mean "after the end of his term of office"); for 
the term of office was not at that period fixed (vide Hirschfeld, 
Die kaiserl. Verwaltungsbcamtcn, 2 Aitfl., 1905, 8. 445 ff. ), and 
Sitria is found a few chapters later (xxviii. 30) in its ordinary 
sense. (5) There is no justification for speaking of an absurd 
hiatus in the trial of St. Paul as being implied by the traditional 
interpretation, for when St. Luke gives a date in years he never 
tells us what details occurred within this period, but leaves it 
to the reader to derive this information from the context, that is, 
from his general statement concerning the situation of the 
Apostle. Therefore the statement in xxiv. 27, when referred to 
St. Paul, is in conformity with the other statements giving the 
years of the Apostle s stay in great cities (vide supra). 


XXViii. 7. For three days (rpei? q/uiepas) Publius 
entertained St. Paul at Malta. 

XXViii. 12. For three days (rpets f]/j.epa<i) we abode 
at Syracuse. 

XXViii. 13. After one day (/uera /xtW fj/Jiepav) we 
sailed from Rhegium. 

XXViii. 13. In two days (SevrepatoC) we came to 

XXViii. 14. For seven days (fifiepas CTTTOL} we abode 
with the brethren in Puteoli. 

xxviii. 17. Three days after his arrival in Rome 
(yuera r/fJiepas rpeis) St. Paul invited the leaders of 
the Jews in that city to an interview. 

We add lastly the passages in which the next day is 
mentioned : 

x. 9 ... 

x. 23 ... 

x. 24 . . . 

xiv. 20 . . . 

xx. 7 ... 

xxi. 8 ... 

xxii. 30 ... 

xxiii. 32 ... 

xxv. (5 ... 

xxv. 23 ... 

iv. 3 . . . 

iv. 5 . . . 

[xxiii. ]5]. . . . [ TJ atipicv (ijtitpa) 

xxiii. 20 . . . 

xxv. 22 ... 

[vii.2G] ... .^1 

xvi. 11 .... I 

xx. 15 . . . . f 7) tTriovcri) (also with rj/j.^pa or n ) 

xxi. 18 . . . 
xxiii. 11 


xx. 15 ... -1 

xxi. 26 .... I Tj ^x ^"^ ( xx ^ 26 with r]/j.fpa, xiii. 44 
[xiii. 44. Heading j with <rdppa.Tov) 
uncertain] . J 

x1 i] irjt wtpa (in xxvii. 18 followed 

From these lists we derive the following con 
clusions : 

1. Exact statements of longer periods of time 
occurring in this book refer exclusively to the dura 
tion of the stay or the ministry of St. Paul in some 
important place : St. Paul was a full year in Antioch, 
nearly a month in Thessalonica, eighteen months in 
Corinth, two years and three months (thus a rpteria) 
in Ephesus, three months in Greece (on his second 
visit), two years (Sieria) in Csesarea in prison, [three 
months in Malta], and two full years (Sieriav 6\t]v) 
in Rome. 1 The duration of the ministry of the 
Apostle in these places was so important to St. Luke 
that he has expressly mentioned it. For questions 
connected with the inner development of the Christian 
communities, so far as these had nothing to do with the 
Jews and heathen, he in his book evidently betrays no 
interest ; but the length of time during which these 
communities had the good fortune to see the Apostle 
in their midst is a matter in which he had, and he 

i The two instances which I have included above among the 
years and months, but in brackets, do not come into account ; for 
in xxiv. 10, 17 only passing mention is made of " several years " 
without any closer determination of the periods, 


shows, the most lively interest. For ascertaining the 
absolute chronology of the Acts these exact statements, 
together with the references to contemporary history, 
afford almost the only material we can use. 

With these ten notices concerning a lengthy ministry 
of St. Paul in definite localities are connected the five 
notices of similar character wherein it is a question 
only of a period of days : seven days we abode in 
Troas, seven days in Tyre, a day in Ptolemais ; ten 
days was the length of St. Paul s last visit to Jeru 
salem ; seven days we abode in Puteoli (brethren 
were found in all these places). 

2. But of these five notices, four and of the 
ten, one belong to another connection, namely, to 
the diary of the " we "-account. Here in twenty- 
one instances dates are given in days (including one 
instance of like character the stay in Malta where 
the duration is given in months vide supra), and 
within this " we "-account the times spent in the 
different stages of the journey are to the author seem 
ingly of equal importance with the times spent in 
visits at various places. 1 From chap. XX. 6 until 
the arrival in Jerusalem it is possible to make a 
connected calculation of the time spent. According 
to XX. 6 the start was made from Philippi after 
the days of unleavened bread, and St. Paul wished 
to be in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. He 
had therefore about 44 days for his journey. The 

1 The passage, chap, xxvii. 12, should also be added to the 
chronological passage of the " we "-account. We are here told 
that it was at the beginning of winter that the ship touched at 
Crete on the voyage to Rome. 


journey from Philippi to Troas occupied 5 days, 
7 days were spent in Troas, x days in the voyage to 
Mitylene, 1 day at Chios, 1 day to Sanios, 1 day to 
Miletus, x days in Miletus, 1 day to Cos, 1 day to 
Rhodes, x days to Patara, x days from Patara 
to Tyre, 7 days in Tyre, 1 day to Ptolemais, 1 day 
in Ptolemais, 1 day to Csesarea, " several " days in 
Cassarea, x days in the journey from Caesarea to 
Jerusalem. Thus a period of 27 days is given, while 
about 17 days are left for the six indefinite periods. 
The voyage from Troas to Mitylene would probably 
last one day ; in Miletus also St. Paul probably halted 
for only one day, otherwise he could have gone him 
self to Ephesus ; from Rhodes to Patara would take 
one day ; from Patara to Tyre the voyage would last 
at least five days (Chrysostom), from Caesarea to 
Jerusalem would be a journey of two days. Thus six 
to seven days are left for the stay in Caesarea. We 
are not, of course, expressly told that St. Paul really 
reached Jerusalem in time for the feast ; but we may 
assume this as probable (Weiss contests this point; 
but in this case would it have been thought worth 
while to mention St. Paul s plan in the narrative ?). 
In Jerusalem St. Paul stayed scarcely a week, then he 
was conveyed to Ca\sarea. It is, moreover, worthy of 
note that St. Luke did not himself count up the days, 
otherwise he would not have left so many items of 
the sum indefinite. 

3. In addition to these two great groups of chrono 
logical statements there still remains two smaller 
groups, namely, the four dates by days in the story 
of Cornelius (chap, x.) these are insignificant and 


belong to the type of narrative l and the fourteen 
(13) important dates by days referring to the (last) 
stay in Jerusalem and in Caesarea (xxi. 26 xxvi. 32). 
4. The following isolated chronological statements 
are found in the book . (1) that our Lord allowed 
Himself to be seen for forty days after His Resurrec 
tion (i. 3) ; (2) that St. Peter and St. John remained 
in prison until the next morning (iv. 3, 5) ; (3) that 
St. Paul was blind for three days after his vision 
(ix. 9) ; (4) the notice of the next Sabbath and the 
next day in xiii. 44 and xiv. 20 ; (5) the information 
that St. Paul invited the leaders of the Jews in Home 
to an interview three days after his arrival (xxviii. 
17). Of these (2), (3), and (4) are unimportant ; 
(5) is closely connected with the dates by days in the 
" we "-account, which directly precedes it ; (1), which 
is found nowhere else in the contemporary literature 
its occurrence in later literature is dependent upon 
this passage can only be derived from Messianic 
legend, and is certainly manufactured, but not by 
St. Luke himself. 2 

1 When one carefully compares the style of this narrative with 
the narratives of occurrences in Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and 
other places, one cannot but notice that St. Luke is in the latter 
cases writing as an eye-witness or at very good second-hand ; 
whereas in the former case he follows a tradition that had been 
already worked up and had already lost many concrete traits, 
though some here and there had still been preserved. 

2 The manner in which St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. xv. of the visions 
of the Risen Christ, including among them that to himself, makes 
it quite improbable that he knew of or, if he did, believed in this 
period of forty days ; his record is, moreover, quite opposed to 
St. Luke s statement: " iv TroXXoZj TeK/nypioLS dtrrai Ofj.fvo^ avroa /ecu 
\tyuv ra Kfpl rrjs /Scto-iXe/as rov 0eoD." " Forty days " is a significant 
sacred number (cf. the "forty days" of temptation in the wilder 
ness). One only wonders that the period was not extended to 


As we now survey all these chronological state 
ments, grouped as we have placed them, they impress 
us most favourably, and show that from the stand 
point of the chronologist this historical work can 
scarcely be put on a level with the apocryphal Acts 
and other such books of fables. 1 Where St. Luke 
was not himself present, and therefore could not give 
dates in days, he contents h nnself with ascertaining and 
recording the length of St. PauPs stay in the centres of 
his activity by years and months. Otherwise he refrains 
almost entirely from giving direct chronological informa 
tion. The only exception is formed by the dates by 
days in the description of the last stay in Jerusalem 
and in Caesarea; but (1) it is possible that St. Luke 
himself was here an eye-witness; (2) these items of 
information give no cause for objection. If St. Luke 
himself was not present which is to me probable 2 
then for this period he must have had excellent 
records at his disposal. 8 As for the information con- 
Pentecost (vide infra), so that an hiatus might have been avoided. 
We may assume that underlying the tradition of the forty days 
there is this amount of truth, namely, that within this period (or 
just at its close) the return of the disciples from Galilee to Jeru 
salem really took place. The visions at Jerusalem, which occurred 
after this but before Pentecost, were transferred by later legend 
into the Easter octave. 

i Therefore also the " we " of the Acts of the Apostles has nothing 
whatever to do with the artificial stylistic " we " in the later Acts 
of Apostles and martyrs. In particular instances the former " we" 
may have served as a model for this class of novels with a religious 

* Except that St. Luke came again to Cassarea during the time 
of Festus. 

* This naturally does not cover the trustworthiness of the dis 
courses, which are especially numerous in this section of the work, 
and of several other details. 


cerning the duration of the longer visits to the chief 
centres presupposing careful investigation on the part 
of St. Luke we can only here and there, and that 
inadequately, control its accuracy from the Epistles 
of St. Paul. 1 So far, however, as the test can be ap 
plied, all the chronological statements pass muster. 2 
All of them, or almost all of them, refer to the times 
of the author s partnership with St. Paul in the 
mission and to the periods lying between. In the 
former he reckons by days, in the latter by years and 
months ; elsewhere i.e. in the whole first half of 
the book he almost entirely refrains from giving 
dates. What condition of things could we wish for 
that would inspire us with greater confidence in the 
writer ? 3 

1 Still less are we able to exercise control over the dates given 
in the " we "-account ; however, their whole character is such as 
to render control unnecessary. 

2 Some would conclude from the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
that St. Paul must have stayed in the capital of Macedonia for a 
longer time than is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. But even 
here there is no compelling reason for questioning the statement 
of the Acts. 

3 For completeness sake let us cast another glance over the 
reference to days and hours. The information that the events 
recorded happened in the night was self-evident in the case of 
visions in dreams, xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, and xxvii. 23 (dia rfjs 
VVKTOS, ev vvKTl, rfj eTTiovar) vvKri and Tavrfj ry wart) ; in the case of 
the miraculous occurrences in prison, v. 17, xii. 6, and xvi. 25, 33 
(5icl TT)S WKT6s, rrj WKrl ^Kelvy, Kara rb fj.e<rovuKTiov, and ei> ^Kfivy r-g 
Hipq. rrfs VVKTOS) ; and in the case of the secret arrangements in 
Damascus, ix. 25 (VVKTOS), xvii. 10 in Thessalonica (5ia VVKTOS), and 
xxiii. 23, 31 in Jerusalem (dirb rpiTTjs &pas 1-175 VVKTOS and dia. vvKr6s). 
Elsewhere it is only in the " we "-account (the story of the ship 
wreck) that mention is made of the fourteenth night and midnight 
(xxvii. 27, Kara. p.taov TTJS VVKTOS), and that we are told concerning 


But now for the other side of the picture ! From 
this condition of things no manufactured dates ! 
it follows that the history of the Primitive Com 
munity of Jerusalem and of the earliest period of 
the mission in Palestine is practically destitute of 
chronology. Only two points stand out in this desolate 
chronological plain, and are therefore worthy of special 
notice and consideration. These are the date of St. 
Paids first and fundamentally important visit to Antioch? 

St. Paul s sermon in Troas that it lasted ^XP 1 ufaowKrlov (xx. 7), 
indeed even &xpt avy-fjs (xx. 11). In xxviii. 23 we are informed that 
the meeting in Rome in which St. Paul delivered his apology before 
the Jews lasted a-rrb irpwi ws iffirtpas ; in xxii. 6 and xxvi. 13 it is 
recorded that St. Paul saw the vision of Christ irepi fj.ctrijfj.ftptav and 
yfjitpas /ifVijs respectively (this detail does not occur in ix. 3) ; and 
in iv. 3 we hear that the imprisonment of the Apostles took place in 
the evening ; lastly, in v. 21, that the Apostles when set free entered 
into the Temple inrb TOV 6p0pov both statements almost necessarily 
follow from the context. As for the hours, upa is used pleonastically, 
or at least not in a strictly technical sense, in x. 30 (fj-txp 1 TO^TT;? TTJJ 
W/HZJ), xvi. 18 (01)75 TTJ upa), xvi. 33 (t> tue ivy rrj upa), and xxii. 13 
(avrrj TJJ upa). Signifying hour of prayer, upa occurs in iii. 1 (tirl 
T. upav T. irpofffvxfjs T. Ivvdr^v), x. 3, 30 (uffel upav ivvo.rt\v r. -fyu^oaj 
and ivo.TT)v respectively), and x. 9 (irepi wpav SKT^V). Otherwise only 
in four places, namely, ii. 15 (the Pentecostal miracle happened at 
the third hour of the day ; this is expressly recorded in order to 
refute the calumnious charge that the Apostles were intoxicated), 
v. 7 (Sapphira s act of deceit and her sudden death followed three 
hours after that of her husband), xix. 34 (the Ephesians cried out, 
M upas 5i o), and xxiii. 23 (this passage is given above). These 
accounts certainly are not all of them quite trustworthy ; yet there 
is in them no trace of systematic tendency, nor, where they have 
something of the conventional about them, do they go beyond the 
literary expedients of which the best historical writers of antiquity 
availed themselves. 

1 The fact that this notice is unique in the first half of the book 
suggests that the account of the mission in Antioch, in regard to 
its source, either belongs to the accounts of the second half or is 
not inferior to them in value. 



and the reference to the famine under Claudius together 
with the reference to Herod Agrippa. 1 We have, there 
fore, no certainty whether the author has been able 
to give us the events of the first period in their 
correct order, 2 and it is most difficult to discover the 
actual date of each occurrence. In regard to the 
chronological order one for instance may, indeed 
must, question whether the election of an apostle (if 
it took place at all and in the manner recorded in 
the Acts) fell within the first forty days ; whether the 
different accounts of the imprisonment of apostles are 
to be distinguished from one another ; when it was 
that the conversion of St. Paul took place ; when the 
conversion of the Samaritans (we are told that whole 
villages were to a great extent Christianised, viii. 25) ; 
when the mission of St. Philip to the coastland ; 
when it was that Cornelius was converted ; when it 
was that the first Gentile Christian community was 
founded in Antioch ; and above all, whether the 

1 This notice affords us the best datum for the absolute chrono 
logy of the first half of the Apostolic epoch. The persecution of 
the Apostles by Herod Agrippa (king of Judea A.D. 41-44), which 
was shortly followed by the death of the king, took place not long 
before the year A.D. 44, the year of Herod s death. At that time 
the Apostles left Jerusalem. Now a very ancient tradition (see my 
Chronologic, I. s. 243 /.) reports that the Apostles remained twelve 
years in Jerusalem in accordance with a command given by our 
Lord. The command was undoubtedly invented in order to justify 
the departure of the Apostles in the twelfth year. It brings us to 
the year A.D. 42, a calculation which is confirmed by Acts xii. 1 ff. 
17: "Peter departed to another place"; while in viii. 1 stress is 
laid upon the fact that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem during 
the first persecution. 

2 In v. 36 (Theudas) there probably lies a gross chronological 


journey of St. Paul to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25) is 
rightly distinguished from the journey of chap. xv. 
But even if in these cases there is more that is 
questionable or erroneous than the average critic is 
accustomed to assume, 1 the author would not therefore 
be deserving of severe blame ; for he has not pre 
tended to more knowledge than he possesses, but has 
clearly told us where alone in his narrative dates 
stood at his disposal. Before, however, we can give 
a h nal verdict on his chronological procedure, it is 
also necessary both to examine the instances where he 
refers to Festivals, and to investigate his chronological 
statements of an indefinite character. 

III. References to Festivals. 

From the chronological point of view it is the 
greatest paradox in the Acts of the Apostles that 
in this book, written by a Greek for another Greek 
of high position, 2 it not infrequently occurs that 
Jewish feasts are referred to, and are presupposed as 
well known. These references do not come from the 
sources of the work, or at least only in part, for they 
are just as numerous in the second half as in the first 
half of the Acts, and are not absent even from the 
" wc-sections." We are therefore led to conclude 

1 In my opinion this is not the case. 

1 That this Greek noble bore the name of Theophilus from his 
birth is possible, but not probable. Either St. Luke in the address 
has given to him a lofty spiritual title side by side with his high 
worldly title " Kpdria-rot," or he himself as a Christian had taken 
the name " Theophilus," just as a few decades later the Christian 
Ignatius took the name " Theophorus." 


that St. Luke had already, before his conversion to 
Christianity, come into close touch with the Judaism 
of the Diaspora, 1 and that he could presuppose a like 
acquaintance in the person to whom he addressed his 
work and in the majority of his readers. This tends to 
confirm a statement once made by Renan that in the 
Apostolic epoch there could have been only a few 
Gentile Christians who, before they became Christians, 
had not come into touch with Judaism. 

The passages which here come under consideration 
are the following : 2 

i. 12. Distance is given in terms of a " Sabbath 
day s journey " ; the knowledge of the length of this 
standard is therefore presupposed. 

XX. 7. The Christian sacred day is called 17 
T)V arapftdrwv (is thus named by reference to the 
Jewish sacred day). 

ii. 1 and XX. 16. r\ fj/j.epa Trjs Trerra/cocrn/? it is 
presupposed that it is known at what time the feast 
of Pentecost fell. 3 

1 His by no means contemptible knowledge of the Old Testament 
lends additional probability to this conclusion. 

2 We must naturally exclude those passages where it is recorded 
that St. Paul came into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and 
taught there. Every reader would certainly be acquainted with the 
" Sabbath," and the record concerning St. Paul s preaching on the 
Sabbath day in the synagogue (at the beginning of his ministry in 
every city) is to be accepted as trustworthy, though some critics of 
the Acts think otherwise, seeing especially that the " we "-account 
gives the same tradition (x?i. 13). 

3 The wording of ii. 1 is, moreover, of such a character that there 
is room for doubt whether the author intended to say that the 
pouring forth of the Spirit occurred on the day of Pentecost itself. 
It is more natural to suppose that it occurred shortly before this 
day. The matter is perhaps purposely left indefinite. 


xii. 3 and XX. 6. yvav fji^epai TWV a.Tv/j.u>v and 
f^Tr\ev<ra/uLv fj.era ret? ij/mepas TU>I> a(i fj.MV it is not 
s;iid, and is therefore assumed to be generally known, 
when these days fall. 

xii. 4. Herod intended to deliver St. Peter to the 
people fjiera TO Trda-^a the time of the Passover is 
thus known. 

XXVii. 9. orro9 ?j$t) Tri<T<pa\ovs TOU TrXoo? Sia TO KOI 
T*]i> wjorai > i$t] Trapf\ri\vQcvai the fast of the great 
Day of Atonement is meant ; the author s recourse to 
the Jewish Festival-calendar is here especially remark 
able ; even a Gentile in becoming a Christian at first 
accepted, along with Christianity, a slice of Judaism. 

xxi. 23, 27. at CTTTCI r//uLepai (rov ayvicr/nou) the 
readers know that a Jewish vow of this kind lasted 
seven days. 1 

In regard to the trustworthiness of these dates 
given in terms of the Jewish Festival-calendar and in 
the most different contexts, that of ii. 1 alone can 
give cause for doubt. 

Besides the consideration of these passages it is 
necessary to point out the extensive use that is made 
in this book of the word " wepai " in all kinds of 
chronological notices. This use is, so far as I 
know, contrary to Greek idiom. In St. Luke s 
gospel tj/uepa and rj^epai are found eighty-four times, 
in the Acts ninety-four times (in St. Matthew forty- 
six times, in St. Mark twenty-eight times, in St. John 

1 Perhaps mention might also be made here of v. 37 (eV r. y 
diro-ypa^?}*) ; jet a reference to St. Luke ii. 1 /. is probably intended 
here. Note also the Hebraic vJ/cra <cal rj^pay, xx. 31, xxvi. 7 (but 
7t KO.I vvKrfa stands in ix. 24). 


thirty-one times). The numerous constructions in 
which the word stands are in many cases Hebraic, or 
rather imitated from the Greek of the Septuagint. 
By this means, and moreover by other similar 
expedients which must have been quite customary 
with him, St. Luke has probably purposely given 
his style a Biblical character. We shall at once 
make acquaintance with a portion of these passages 
as we now turn to consider his indefinite chrono 
logical notices. 1 

IV. Indefinite Dates. 

\. 5. Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ov 
yuera TroXXa? rj/uepas in a few weeks 1 time. 

i. 15. ev TOU? f//j.epai$ Tavrais in the days between 
the Ascension and Pentecost, St. Peter stood up and 
proposed the completion of the number of the 

v. 36. irpo TOVTWV Tfiov qfjLepwv (quite indefinite in 
regard to the length of the time meaning " before 
this our time " ) Theudas rose up. 

vi. 1. ev TCI?? y/u.epais raurat? ( = at that time; it 
is more closely defined by irXvOvvovruiv TUII> /maByTuiv) 
arose a dispute between the Hebrews and the Helle 
nists in the Primitive Community. 2 

1 Compare, moreover, the word "77/^/30. " in a concordance. 

2 Of. in St. Stephen s speech, vii. 41 : ev rcus ^ue pcus ^/ceiVcus ifj.oa\o- 
iroir<ffav. Note also that St. Peter in his speech (xv. 7) describes 
the conversion of Cornelius as having taken place d</> Tjp.epuv 
apxaluv, and that Mnason in the we-account (xxi. 16) is called an 


viii. 11. tVai fo xpov<p (* e probably for many years) 
had Simon Magus practised his sorceries in Samaria. 

ix. 19. St. Paul, after his conversion, continued 
with the brethren of Damascus j/yutyx*? Ttra f, and 
began at once his active ministry. 1 

ix. 23. 0)9 e7r\r]poOi>TO fjiJ.epa.1 iKai ai (it may have 
been years) the Jews of Damascus prepared a plot 
against St. Paul. 

ix. 37. ev TO?? tjfjxpatf eKVai? (i.f- when St. Peter 
was staying in Lydda) it happened that the disciple 
Tabitha died in Joppa. 

ix. 43. St. Peter abode in Joppa with a tanner 
named Simon, ri/u.epa$ iKavds (as in viii. 11 and ix. 23 
it may have been for years). 

x. 48. St. Peter accepted an invitation to stay in 
Ca-sarea, rifjiepas Ttra? (i.e. a few days, vide ix. 19). 

xi. 27. eV rauTcu9 TCUS tu epais, namely, at the time 
of the foundation of the Church of Antioch, or more 
exactly, at the time when St. Barnabas and St. Paul 
were working there. 2 

xii. 1. KO.T etceivov Se TOV Kaipov namely, at the 
time when what had been narrated in chap. xi. took 
place Herod turned against the Church. 3 

1 As it is said in ix. 23 that his stay in Damascus lasted T^paj 
J/cards, the above passage must be paraphrased as follows : " After 
a few days, which he spent in the company of the disciples in 
Damascus, he began at once to preach as a missionary." 

* Ev ravraa TCUJ -rjfjLtpais cannot possibly refer to verse 26 s , but 
only to 20. 

3 The passage introduced by these words is not an interpolation 
without chronological reference, as Weiss thinks ; for the expres 
sion KO.T txttvov rbv naip6i> need not refer to the time of the founda 
tion of the Antiochean Church in the strictest sense of the word, 
but refers to the whole early history of that community so far as it 
had been narrated. 


xiii. 31. Our Lord showed Himself after His 
Resurrection ewl ri/mepay TrAe/ou?, i.e. forty days. 

xiv. 3. IKO.VOV yj)6vov St. Barnabas and St. Paul 
worked in Iconium (see above on viii. 11, ix. 23, 
and ix. 43). 

xiv. 28. -ftpovov OVK oXtyov they then abode in 
Antioch (no doubt a shorter time than iicavov %pdvov 
is intended). 

xv. 33. 7roo/<rai/Te? ^povov (quite indefinite) 
Judas and Silas in Antioch. 

xv. 35. IlauAo? K. Bapi/a/3a? $ierpi(3ov ev ^Avrio^eia 
(without any mention of time as in xii. 19). 

xv. 36. yuera $e rivas fj/j- epas i.e. (vide ix. 19, x. 48) 
after a few days St. Paul proposed to St. Barnabas 
that they should join in a fresh missionary journey 
(preceded by the narrative of the Council of Jeru 
salem and the notice of the stay of St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas in Antioch : this stay must, therefore, 
have been quite a short one). 

xvi. 12. We abode in Philippi rjfj.epa? rivas thus 
only a few days. 1 

xvi. 18. The possessed woman cried after us eiri 

xviii. 1. /Hera Tavra, i.e. after his stay in Athens 
St. Paul came to Corinth. 

xviii. 2. Trpoa-cpdra)? Aquila had come from Rome 
to Corinth. 

xviii. 18. After the trial St. Paul remained yet 
j/ytie lOa? //cam? in Corinth, thus a long time (vide ix. 23, 
43 ; viii. 11 ; xiv. 3). 

1 Weiss tries to show that this does riot refer to the whole time 
of their stay in Philippi ; but I do not think he proves his point. 


xviii. 23. St. Paul stayed (the third time) 

a 7ro/<ra9 (vide xv. 33) in Antioch. 

xix. 22. St. Paul abode yet some time (yj>6vov) in 
Asia l (vide xv. 33 ; xviii. 23). 

xix. 23. Kara TOV Kaipov e/ce^ov, namely in the 
last days of St. Paul s stay in Ephesus, when his 
departure had been already settled, a riot broke 

xxi. 10. We abode in Caesarea ri/mepa? 7rXe/ou?. 

XXi. 15. yuera ^e ray t^j-epa? raJra? (i.e. after the 
stay in Caesarea) we started for Jerusalem. 

xxi. 38. St. Paul is asked whether he was not the 
Egyptian who irpo TOVTWV TWV q/mepwv (vide v. 36), 
rose up as a deceiver of the people. 

xxiv. 24. /uera Se r^J-epa? TIVU$ (thus after a few 
days, vide ix. 19 ; x. 48 ; xv. 36 ; xvi. 12), Felix 
ordered St. Paul to be called that he might hear 
him concerning Christ. 

xxv. 13. fj/jiepwv <5e Stayei Oju.evwv TIVUIV (cf. xxiv. 
24), came Agrippa and Bernice to Caesarea. 

xxv. 14. They remained there f^ epas TrXet ou?. 

XXVii. 7. ey iKavais <5e (3pa$u7r\oovvTe$, we 
arrived with difficulty at Crete (probably several 
weeks, vide ix. 23, 43 ; xviii. 18). 

XXVii. 9. IKO.VOV (5e xpovov SiayevojU-evov, we loosed 
from Crete (vide XXVii. 7, viii. 11, xiv. 3). 

XXVii. 14. yuer ov TroXu, the tempest arose. 

XXVii. 20. Neither the sun nor the stars appeared, 

[XXViii. 6. eTTt TTO\V, they expected that St. Paul 

1 This is preceded in xix. 21 by the quite indefinite wj 64 
r\-r]pu6r] ravra (the successful progress of the mission in Ephesus) 


would fall down dead after being bitten by the 
snake. 1 ] 

In the first place, it is an important point in 
favour of the identity of the author of the we- 
account with the author of the whole work, that 
indefinite chronological notices are of no rarer occur 
rence in the we-account than in the rest of the work, 
nor are they different in form. This circumstance 
will be considered in Appendix I. Next we must 
distinguish those passages, where the fact that the 
time is not defined is by no means remarkable, from 
those where it seems at first sight strange. Of the 
former we may at once simply dismiss the passages 
i. 5; v. 36; viii. 11; ix. 37; xiii. 31; xvi. 18; 
xviii. 2 ; xxi. 38 ; xxvii. 7, 9, 14, 20 ; xxviii. 6 ; in 
some of these instances the author could have given 
us more accurate information had he wished it, in 
others the context required or allowed only a general 
reference to time. But from the remaining passages 
we may not as a rule argue ignorance on the part 
of the author. Thus the duration of the stay at 
Philippi and in Caesarea (xvi. 12 ; xxi. 10, 15) is 
only given indefinitely, although the author, if he 
had wished it we are here in the we-account could 

1 rore is found 21 times in the Acts (including 4 occurrences in 
the " we "-sections). It has, however, in no ease chronological 
significance in the strict sense of the word. In xvii. 14, 
it is combined with evQews, in xxvii. 21, it follows a genitive 
absolute, in xxviii. 1 a participle (5ia<ru9evTes r6re tTrtyj>ujj.ft>). 
EvOtus, evBvs (the latter only in x. 16) is not very frequent in the 
Acts ; it occurs 10 times (including KO.I etf^ws 5 times). It is a 
favourite word in stories of miracles and visions (ix. 18, 34 ; 
x. 16 ; xii. 10 ; xvi. 10) ; elsewhere only in ix. 20 ; xvii. 10, 14 ; 
xxi. 30 ; xxii. 29. 


have afforded us more accurate dates. Why he has 
not done so we are unable to say. It should, how 
ever, be noticed that in reference to the stay in 
Philippi he uses the expression tj/j.kpa<i rtvds, in 
reference to the stay in Caesarea the words y/mepas 
7rXe/ou?, and again in the we-account (XXVii. 7, 9) 
he speaks of tVarcu tjftepai (IKO.VOV XjOoVov). 1 If we 
find the same distinctions in statements of time also 
made outside the we-account, we may assume with a 
certain degree of probability that they are not chosen 
arbitrarily, but as is certain in the case of the we- 
account rest upon more accurate information than 
is clearly expressed. Accordingly when we are told 
(ix. 43) that St. Peter remained in Joppa ^/nepa^ 
iKavds, but in Ca?sarea (x. 48) Sj/mepa? Tivds (in the 
former place he had his abode for the time being, 
at the latter he was only on a visit), again (ix. 19) 
that St. Paul had already begun his missionary 
preaching in the synagogues jj/zepa? rtvds after his 
conversion, while the whole period of his activity 
in Damascus lasted qju.epai ucavai (ix. 23), again that 
St. Paul was in Iconiuui (xiv. 3) ucavov xpovov, in 
Antioch for the second time (xiv. 28) -^povov OVK 
in Antioch for the third and fourth times 

1 lKav6s in chronological statements occurs in the New Testa 
ment only in the Lukan writings, namely, twice in the gospel 
(viii. 27 ; xx. 9) and seven times in the Acts (including two occur 
rences in the we-sections). Combined with xp vot it appears in St. 
Luke viii. 27 ; xx. 9 ; with xpv* in Acts viii. 11 ; xiv. 3 ; xxvii. 9 ; 
with ri^pat in Acts ix. 23, 43 ; xviii. 18 ; xxvii. 7. The approxi 
mate length of the time indicated by luavfa is always to be 
understood from the context. It may be years (viii. 11 ; ix. 23; 
if.. 43 [7] ; xiv. 3[?j), but also only weeks (xxvii. 7, 9). 


(xv. 36 and xviii. 23) rj/u.epa<; nvd? and y^povov riva 
respectively, and that he remained in Corinth (xviii. 
18) yet q[j.epa<; t/cava? after the trial, moreover, that 
Felix summoned St. Paul before him (xxiv. 24) ^tera 
jj/uepa? rivds, finally that Agrippa and Bernice came 
to Caesarea (xxv. 13) fj/j-ep^v ($iaycvofj.ei>(*)v Tii tiov after 
the first appearance of St. Paul before Festus and 
abode there (xxv. 14) TrActou? ij/mcpas in face of all 
these instances we can scarcely regard the epithets 
used with ri/mepas as meaningless, or as quite arbi 
trarily chosen especially seeing that in several cases 
we can prove that they have been most suitably 
chosen rather we are led to suppose that St. 
Luke l in these cases was in possession of good 
information, even though it were not exact but only 

1 It follows from Gal. i. 17 /. that the stay of St. Paul in 
Damascus, including a journey into Arabia which came just at 
the beginning, lasted three years. St. Luke says nothing of the 
journey into Arabia ; probably it was of no importance or he had 
no knowledge of it. St. Paul only mentions it in order to explain 
that he, although he had taken a journey, had nevertheless not 
journeyed to Jerusalem. That St. Paul soon (after Tjntpas rivds) began 
his missionary work "in the synagogues," is not excluded by the 
Galatians, for " in the synagogues" may well include those without 
Damascus, and Arabia extended to the very gates of that city ; 
moreover, the rj/mepai. iKavai of the Acts would correspond with the 
three years of the Epistle. That St. Paul on his last visit to 
Antioch could only have remained a short time can also be shown 
to be probable from the epistles. It can also be shown that 
the approximate chronological statements of the section dealing 
with St. Paul, Felix, and Festus are correct, especially as many 
definite dates are found side by side with them. It is strange that 
in xv. 36 we read only of "some days" which St. Paul and St. 
Barnabas spent at that time in Antioch, while it was during this 
time some scholars place it earlier that the visit of St. Peter to 
this city (Gal, ii, 1 1 jf. ) seems to have occurred. 


approximate. 1 This supposition also may be extended 
to the instances xviii. 1 and xix. 21-23 ; for the 
description of the visit to Athens, taken in connec 
tion with the context, makes it clear that St. Paul 
made only a quite short stay in this city, a fact 
which is confirmed by the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians ; and likewise there was no need that exact 
dates should be given in order to explain that the 
events narrated in xix. 21^". happened at the end of 
the long ministry in Ephesus. 

Accordingly, there remain only four passages in 
which the indefinite chronological statement possibly 
or probably disguises inadequate knowledge, namely, 
i. 15, vi. 1, xii. 1, xv. 33 (the date of the completion 
of the College of Apostles and of the uprising of 
the Hellenists ; the chronological relationship of the 
Herodian persecution to the history of the planting 
of Christianity in Antioch ; the length of the stay of 
Judas and Silas in Antioch). This is a small number, 
and we may accordingly maintain that the Acts of 
the Apostles even in regard to its indefinite, and still 
more in regard to its definite, chronological state 
ments is, on the whole, a very respectable historical 
work (in spite of its want of a chronological scheme). 
In this respect it can very well hold its own when 

1 Naturally in a number of these instances he may also have 
possessed quite exact information, but did not consider it necessary 
to impart it. Thus in xiii. 31 he says that our Lord after His 
Resurrection showed Himself M r;/x<?paj TrXe/ouj ; in an earliei 
passage, however, he has given the more exact statement: 81 
rjntpuv reaaoLpoLKovra. (i. 3). Also in i. 5 we read that the disciples 
received the baptism of the Spirit, ov ^ierd iroXXds rat/raj i)/j.{pas, 
and in ii. 1 the exact date is given. 


compared with the historical works of that period. 
That in point of chronology it leaves much to be 
desired is a fact so obvious as to require no express 
statement ; but if, for example, the narrative of the 
so-called first missionary journey of St. Paul when 
compared with that of the second and third journeys 
leaves much to be desired in respect of chronological 
data (though here also the chief stations are care 
fully given), this circumstance is only a proof that 
the author, though he generally shows such interest 
in the times of duration of journeys and visits, did 
not wish to say more than he could vouch for, and 
has therefore kept silence on these points in this part 
of his work. Our recognition of the trustworthiness of 
the book is thus enhanced by a close investigation 
of the procedure of the author in chronological ques 
tions. In the case of a few incidents the narrative 
is of a conventional type ; but as a whole it is, both 
in accordance with the purpose of the writer and in 
reality, a genuinely historical work. 


The Consistency of the Form in which Chronological 
Statements are given in the Acts 

In order to establish the consistency of the chrono 
logical expressions in the Acts, we shall do best to 
start with the data given in the we-sections and to 
compare with them those in the rest of the book. 

XVi. 11, XX. 15, XXi. 18. T# f-iriova-u [^epn] (twice 
elsewhere in the book). 

XX. 7, XXi. 8. T[) e-jravpiov [>}/mepa] (eight times 
elsewhere in the book). 

XX. 25. rj) e-^o/jievf] [t j/mepa] (vide xxi. 26). 

xxi. 6, xxvii. 18. T e/> [W/o] (vide xxv. 17). 

xvi, 12. t]/jipa.<i riva? (live times elsewhere in the 

xxvii. 7. fi/j.epas tVearaf (three times elsewhere in 
the book). 

XXVii. 20. ITT) TrAe/oya? q/jiepas (xiii. 31 : eVJ tjfJLe 

XXi. 10. rjfjLfpa^ TrXetovs (elsewhere xxv. 4 ; xxiv. 11: 
ov TrAe/oi/? y/JLepai i(B , xxv. 6 : ^/xeoa? ov TrAe/ou? i/, cf. 
XXVli. 14 : /xer ov Tro\v, xviii. 20 : eVJ TrAe/ova -^povov\ 

XVi. 18. eVt TToAAay ///xe^oa? (i. 5 : ov /uera ?roAAu9 
raJra? ^e^oa?). 

XXi. 10 ; XXViil. 12, 14. eV/.uea-cu ^uepa? (vide 
x. 48). 



XVi. 12 ; XX. 6. Siarpifieiv wepa? (vide xxv. 14). 
XXVii. 29, 33, 39. rj/j.epav ylvea-Qai (three times else 
where in the book). 

XXVii. 9. yjiovov Siayevo/mevov (vide xxv. 13 : rt/ 

XXVii. 9. t/cai/o? x/ooi oy (vide viii. 11 : iKavto 
xiv. 3 : IKCIVOV -^povov). 

XXI. 15. at fj/uepai avrai [e/cemu] (seven times else 
where in the book). 

xvi. 18 ; xx. 9, 11 ; xxvii. 20 ; xxviii. 6. eW c. 
ace. temp, (eight times elsewhere in the book). 

XXVii. 27. Kara c. ace. temp, (seven times elsewhere 
in the book). 

XVi. 13. 77 f)/j.epa TWV <ra(3/3dTU>v (vide xiii. 14). 

XX. 6. at tj/mepai TU>V afv/jmov (vide xii. 3). 

XX. 16. f] fi/u epa r^9 TrevTtiKoa-Ttjs (vide ii. 1). 

xxi. 16. Mnason is an ap-^aio^ /xaO>;r>/? (vide xv. 7 : 
ad) 1 ri/mepwv apyaiwv had God commanded the recep 
tion of the Gentile Cornelius). 

XX. 7. /ueo-ovvKTiov (vide xvi. 25). 

xxi. 13. And three times elsewhere in the we- 
sections rore (the same use seventeen times elsewhere 
in the book). 

XVi. 10. evBews (nine times elsewhere in the book). 

XXVii. 22. ra wv (also iv. 29, v. 38, xvii. 30, xx. 32). 
Q? temp, eight times in the we-sections (twenty-one 
times elsewhere scattered through the whole work). 1 

All the chronological notices occurring- in the tee-sections 

o O 

i Apart from the Lukan writings and the Gospel of St. John, ws 
temp, is very rare iu the New Testament. It does not occur in St. 
Matthew (xxviii. 9 init. is not genuine) ; it is found once in St. Mark 
(ix. 21), once in the thirteen Pauline epistles (Gal. vi. 10), never in 
Hebrews, the Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse. 


and among them some which are unusual, some indeed 
iC/iich do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament are 
found again distributed throughout the other parts of the 
book ; with the exception only of T# ere pa, sell, r/u epa 
(XX. 15, XXVii. 3), d^pt avyfc (XX. 11) and Sevrepaioi 
(in the sense of " two days," XXViii. 13). 

Only a few chronological terms of constant occur 
rence not to be found in the we-sections can be 
discovered in the remaining parts of the book. One 
can point to eairr>/9 (x. 33, xi. 11, xxi. 32, xxiii. 30), a 
word which is not of frequent occurrence in other 
Greek writers, to Trapa^pti/mu (in. 7, v. 10, xii. 23, 
xiii. 11, xvi. 26, 33), to KUT CKC IVOV TOV Kaipov (xii. 1, 
xix. 23), to 7rof>/<ra? -%p6vov (xv. 33, xviii. 23), to 
Tea-(rapaKOi>TaeTrj<i y^povos (vii. 23, xiii. 18), to ottrta and 
rpieria (xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30, xx. 31), words of in 
frequent occurrence elsewhere (yet see Deissmann, Neue 
Bibelstudien, s. 86), to t]/j.epav rao-crecrOat (xii. 21, xxviii. 
23) ; but the words and their quite scanty attestation 
(c^auTrjs and Trapa^pjfj.a excepted) show of themselves 
that they can scarcely be accounted to belong to the 
characteristic vocabulary of the author in the Acts. 1 

1 The chronological notices in the gospel only partially admit of 
comparison ; yet vide xiii. 33 rrj ixo^lvj) vii. 11 ; ix. 37 TTJ [rtf] 
{7)5 viii. 27 ; xx. 9 xp^ VOi Ifavol (iv. 25) ; x. 35 ; xviii. 4 itri c. 
ace. temp. x. 31 /card c. ace. temp, [only here] ix. 8, 19 Trpo(p-iJTi)t 
ruv dpxa-lw ii- 3(5 iv iroXXaij, xv. 13 ov ?roXXds i]/ 
iv. 42 i]ntpav ytvfffdat i. 24; i. 39 ; vi. 12; xxiii. 7; xxiv. 18 at 
T//t^pat aOrai iv. 16 ; xiii. 14 ; xiii. 16 ; xiv. 5 r] y^pa. TOU ffafipdrov 
xxiv. 1 Tj; fug. rwv ffajSpdruv xxii. 7 ^ yntpa. rCiv a^v^wv xi. 5 
UtaovvKTiov r&re only fourteen times in the gospel tvOiw only 
seven times in the gospel i. 48 ; v. 10 ; xii. 50 dvb TOV vvv (vide 
Acts xviii. t >) wj temp, about nineteen times in the gospel, thus iu 
about the same proportion as in the Acts. 



We may thus conclude that there is absolutely no 
difference between the chronological terminology of 
the we-sections and that which is employed in the 
rest of the work, and that so far as chronological 
procedure is concerned the we-sections cannot be dis 
tinguished from the work as a separate source. 
Moreover, even apart from terminology, the character 
and the extent of the author s employment of chrono 
logy is quite similar and consistent throughout the 
whole work. If the author possessed written sources 
for the Acts, then so far as we can judge from his 
procedure in regard to chronology he has not 
pieced them together unskilfully and corrected them 
clumsily throughout, but has used them freely, just as 
one would use oral sources. 


Chronological Information to be gained from the Acts 

The careful reader of the Acts could derive from 
the book the following pieces of chronological infor 
mation : From the gospel he knew that our Lord 
was born under Augustus, that He entered upon His 
public ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius 
Ca-sar, and that He was crucified under the procurator 
Pilate and the tetrarch Herod Antipas. It was not 
difficult for him to ascertain that Tiberius died in the 
year A.D. 37, that Antipas was banished in A.D. 39, 
and that Pilate was recalled in the year A.D. 36. 
From Acts xi. 28, xii. 1, he would see that the foun 
dation of the first Gentile Christian community (in 


Antioch) fell in the time of Claudius, and that the 
first sanguinary persecution of the Apostles, recorded 
as contemporary with the former event (to be dis 
tinguished from the persecution of the Christian 
Hellenists in Jerusalem), took place under Herod 
Agrippa. Since the latter reigned from A.D. 41 to 
A.D. 44 it would be obvious that all which is recorded 
in the first twelve chapters of the Acts belonged to 
a period of eleven to thirteen (fourteen) years, and 
accordingly occupied the last years of Tiberius, 
the reign of Caligula, and the very first years of 

On reading further he would recognise from xviii. 2 
that the narrative was still confined to the reign of 
Claudius, and that therefore all the events recorded 
from chap. xi. to chap, xviii. up to the arrival of 
St. Paul in Corinth must have fallen within the years 
A.D. 41(44) 54. When, however, in xxiii. 26^". the 
reader met with the name of the procurator Felix and 
then with that of Festus, and further learnt that St. 
Paul was cast into prison two years before the recall 
of Felix (xxiv. 27) the entry into office of three 
procurators could have been ascertained without great 
difficulty at that time ; and seeing, lastly, that in the 
chapters xviii._xxii. reference is again and again made 
to the succession of years, we can perceive that he must 
have derived from these notices sufficiently satisfactory 
chronological information, even if he could no longer 
ascertain with accuracy the year in which Claudius 
banished the Jews from Rome. Although it is not 
expressly stated in the book, he could have no doubt 
that it was Nero to whom St. Paul appealed and to 


whom the Apostle was sent, 1 and that his transport to 
Rome must have taken place in the first half of the 
reign of this emperor. 

Moreover, the individual reader, who was better 
instructed in this or that direction, would derive yet 
more exact information from his study of the book. 
If he were a Jewish Christian and a native of Jeru 
salem he could orient himself in chronology from the 
statements that St. Paul had been a pupil of Gamaliel, 
that he appeared before the high- priest Ananias, and 
that St. Peter had been tried before the high-priest 
Annas and before Caiaphas. If he were acquainted 
with the history of the Roman rule in the provinces 
he could find out when Sergius Paulus was proconsul 
in Cyprus, and when Gallio, the brother of Seneca, 
was proconsul in Corinth. If he were a Jewish 
Christian of Rome he could easily ascertain in what 
year Claudius had decreed the banishment of the 
Jews. If he were an Ephesian Christian he would 
find much in the book relating to the ministry of 

1 Can it be that the name of Nero was purposely omitted ? In 
after times his name was mentioned with reluctance. In xxv. 8, 
10, 11, 12, 21 ; xxvi. 32, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 19, where Nero is meant 
we find only 6 Kalcrap; and in xxv. 21, 25, 6 2ej3curr6s. On the con 
trary, Claudius is mentioned simply by name without any title (vide 
supra). Moreover, St. Luke never calls the emperor 6 a<nXei;s, as 
was the custom with so many orientals (so also 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 
and the Apocalypse, but not St. Paul). Only the Jews in Thessa- 
lonica who accuse St. Paul and the Christians before the judgment- 
seat are allowed to say that these people act contrary to the decrees 
of Caesar, /SatrtX^a trepov \tyovres dvai Irj/rovv. It is even possible to 
deduce an important inference as to the date of the Acts from the 
author s reluctance to use the title, seeing that 6 pacriXevs as a title 
for the emperor very quickly established itself in the East, indeed 
completely since the time of Domitian 


St. Paul in Ephesus that would direct him to a 
definite period of time. Indeed, if we only refrain 
from criticising the book according to our modern 
standards, we find that it satisfies even more exacting 
requirements in relation to chronology, and that when 
it gives definite information of this kind it proves 
itself trustworthy so far as we have the power of 
judging, however much we may deplore the absence 
of a guiding thread of systematic chronology running 
through the whole work. In short, the reader, even 
in regard to chronology, finds himself exceedingly 
well informed in a higher degree perhaps than the 
author himself consciously intended. 

In conclusion, we would direct attention to the 
following point. The narratives of chaps, i v. and 
xiii. xxviii. run in one direct line of strict succession 
of events. 1 We may with reason question whether 
everything in the succession i. v. is in correct order, 
and in reference to chap. xv. this question has been 
already asked (ride supra). But in the chaps, ri.-ani. 
the author follows many lines at once. In the first 
place, he again and again directs his eye to the 
history of the Church of Jerusalem and of the 
Apostles (especially St. Peter and his missionary 
work). Secondly, in vi. 1 ff., he starts upon a history 
of the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem and of the 
" Seven," which from its beginning leads up to the 
mission to the Gentiles and the foundation of the 
Church of Antioch. Thirdly, he traces the ministry 
of St. Philip in Samaria and in the coastlands, and 
treats it not as a part of the history of the Hellenists 
1 Only the episode of Apollos falls out of line. 


and the " Seven," but as a history by itself. Fourthly 
and lastly, he relates the story of St. Paul up to his 
entry into the service of the youthful Church of 
Antioch. In the small space of seven chapters he 
follows all these lines and tries also to interweave 
them with one another, at the same time leading up 
to and picturing the great transit of the Gospel from 
the sphere of Judaism to that of Hellenism (for which 
one is in no way prepared in chaps, i v.). To us it 
seems as if in these seven chapters more gaps have 
been left than facts narrated, and that though the 
literary skill here shown is indeed commendable, it is 
nevertheless not very great. No wonder that for us 
these gaps give rise to numerous notes of interroga 
tion which attach themselves to what is narrated. 
The question, however, whether the narrative of this 
part of the Acts really contains the leading events of 
the history and is essentially trustworthy forms a pro 
blem that has not yet been solved, nor will it probably 
ever be solved, seeing that we possess for its control 
such an extremely small quantity of parallel material. 


The Chronological Note at the end of the Acts 

The most difficult chronological statement in the 
book is the note at the end (xxviii. 30, 31) : eve/j.eivev 
\scil. in Rome] <5e dieriav o\rjv ev i$i<a /j.ivQu)/j.u.Ti KOI 
TravTas TOVS eicnrop evo/mevovs Trpos 
Kypvcra-tov rrjv fiaariXelav rov Oeov KOI 


TO. irepl TOV Kvptov Iqcrov Xoicrrov 
//era iracr*/? Trappi]<ria<; a/ca>Xi>T&>9. 

We must first ascertain that the construction of this 
passage fully coincides with that of other statements 
made by the author concerning the character and 
duration of the ministry of the Apostle in the great 
centres of his missionary field (vide supra}. Concern 
ing Antioch we read that St. Paul was there eviavrov 
oAov KOI SiSd^ai o^Xoj/ LKavov (xi. 26), of Corinth, 
that he stayed there e v i a v TO v KOI /mfjva$ t SiSda-xcov 
ev avrois TOV \6yov TOV Oeov (xviii. 11) ; ofEphesus 
that he first worked in the synagogue eVt /jifjvas Tpei? 
SiaXeyd/uevo? icai TreiOcav TO, Trepi Tfjs /3a<rtAe/a? 
TOV 0eoi/(xix. 8), then for two years more in the school 
of Tyrannus KaO fj/j-epav <$ia\ f ydju.evo$, OXTTC Trafray 
rot/? KaTOiKOuvTay TTJV Acr/av ctKovcrai TOV \6yov TOV 
Kvpiov (xix. 10); lastly of Caesarea, that he was there 
a ^terta, and that Felix commanded the centurion 
/jitjSeva K0)\veiv TWV ISiwv avTOv VTTtjptTeiv CIVTW (xxiv. 
27, 23). Comparison, therefore, teaches us that the 
author when he wrote of Rome would necessarily have 
been most concerned to record the duration and the 
character of St. Paul s ministry in that city. We 
learn, moreover, that what seems at first sight so 
strange namely, the scantiness of the information 
concerning the ministry of St. Paul in Rome is not 
out of character with the whole plan of the book ; 
for St. Luke s procedure is not otherwise in his treat 
ment of the ministry of St. Paul in Antioch, Corinth, 
and Caesarea ; he has contented himself with a few 
quite general touches. Only in the case of Ephesus 
has he imparted some detailed information. The 


inner life and growth of the Churches had evidently 
no interest for him so far as the scope of the task he 
had set himself was concerned, unless the hostility of 
the Jews came into play or the authorities intervened 
(vide supra). The difficulty of the passage, therefore, 
lies by no means in the statement itself, but simply 
in the fact that the book breaks off at this point. 
And this fact is doubly strange ; firstly, in that the 
author breaks off just at this place ; and secondly, in 
that in breaking off , he at the very same moment hints 
that the history of St. Paul had a further continuation; 
for Blass and other scholars are justified in deciding 
that the aorist eve/u.eivev, taken together with the 
chronological note, implies that after two years this 
situation was brought to an end by St. Paul s leaving 
Rome altogether or by his exchanging a condition of 
comparative freedom for one of closer confinement. 
It is indeed scarcely probable that the latter alterna 
tive is meant; for if this situation of closer confine 
ment lasted only a very short time and led to the 
execution of the Apostle, it is difficult to see why 
his death is not recorded ; if, however, it lasted 
for a longer time, we ask in vain why this time 
was not included in the period of his residence in 
Home. We are therefore left with the hypothesis and 
this the most probable that the Apostle again left Rome; 1 
for the hypothesis that St. Luke for political reasons 
did not wish to recount the fatal issue of the trial of 
St. Paul is not suggested by his attitude throughout 

1 That this hypothesis is supported by the historical notices 
concerning the Apostle in the second Epistle to Timothy may here 
be only mentioned without further examination. 


the whole book (and is incredible in itself) ; and the 
other hypothesis, that St. Luke composed his book at 
the conclusion of this SieTia must likewise be rejected, 
for in that case he must have written, " Paul has 
now been in Rome two full years" ; instead of which, 
he has quite clearly described the residence in the 
hired lodging at Rome as a closed episode. 

The problem, therefore, takes the following form : 
\Yhy is it that St. Luke, who in the last quarter of 
this book has described the fortunes of St. Paul in 
such detail, has not proceeded further with his narra 
tive of the history of the Apostle, but has concluded 
his account with the two years residence in Rome 
which he, moreover, disposes of in the same cursory 
fashion that he disposes of similar visits which are 
recorded elsewhere in the book (arrival ; duration of 
the visit ; relations with Judaism, xxviii. 17^1 ; rela 
tions with the authorities, xxviii. 31 [a/ccoAimo?] ; the 
content of the Apostle^s teaching) ? Why has he not 
related what happened to St. Paul, and what he did 
after he had again left Rome ? 

Proposed in this form the problem is, in my 
opinion, capable of solution if one rightly discerns 
the aim and method of the book, while it remains 
insoluble if one follows the hypothesis, not suggested 
by the form of the concluding verse, that in the 
mind of the author the Steria closed with the execu 
tion of the Apostle, concerning which nothing is 
said. In spite of first impressions the book, even 
in its second half, does not profess to narrate the 
history of St. Paul, but to describe the way in which, 
according to the predestined purpose of God, Salva- 


tion passed to the Gentiles from the Jews, who had 
lost it (cf. supra, pp. xxi. <??.). Chap, xxviii. 25-28 
forms both the true conclusion and the true key to 
the book. The fact here stated in impressive fulness 
of language, and with the trumpet-blast of Isaiah^s 
prophetic utterance here proclaimed in the sentence : 
yvo/HTTOV ovv ecTTW on TOIS eOveiriv cnre- 
<TTa\ri TOVTO TO crccTi] p lo v TOU Oeov avTol KCU 
aKovcrovrai, has been before expressly, even if not so 
loudly, declared in various passages of the work (from 
xiii. 46 onwards ; vide xviii. 6, &c.). Certainly from 
vi. \ff> onwards it forms the leading thought in the 
whole economy of the book ; while even earlier it 
probably lies at the background of the great list of 
nations in chap. ii. Now at the close this leading 
thought again comes to the front and holds the field 
with sovereign power. As he writes these concluding 
words the author plainly declares that he must now 
leave St. Paul as he before left St. Peter the diffi 
culty is the same in both cases, even if the disappear 
ance of St. Peter is not half so strange for the 
Divine plan of salvation is fulfilled ! Soli Deo gloria! 
The author is concerned not with Peter nor with Paul, 
but with the grand development of the Divine pur 
pose whereby Jewish hearts were hardened, whereby 
the gospel was proclaimed among the Gentiles from 
Antioch to Ephesus and Corinth and finally in Rome, 
whereby also Gentile hearts were made receptive of 
the message : 1 avToi KOI aKovcrovrai ! According to 
St. Luke it was not St. Paul who began the mission 
to the Gentiles ; others had preceded him ; only with 

1 Vide e.g. xvi. 14: 6 xvpios Birjvoi^fv rrjv Kapulav rrjs \v5tas. 


excelling power he had thrown himself into the work 
which had been already commenced. 

And yet, after all, we may ask how the author 
could have had the heart not to tell us of the 
death of St. Paul (and of St. Peter). Even so 
early as the second century this question was asked, 
and the psychological problem herein presented is in 
truth sufficiently difficult. The hypothesis that St. 
Luke intended to write a TO/TO? Xo yo? does not, in 
my opinion, receive any firm support from Acts i. 1 ; 
it is a makeshift that has little to commend it, be 
cause in accepting it we are almost compelled, against 
all likelihood, to suppose that St. Luke intended the 
second part of his work to be a history of (St. Peter 
and) St. Paul. What could St. Luke have purposed 
to narrate in this supposed third part if not the 
history of the last days of St. Peter and St. Paul ? 
But coming after the history of our Lord and of the 
hardening of the heart of the Jewish nation and of 
the conversion of the Gentiles from Caesarea to Rome, 
the story of the last days of the two apostles would 
have formed a finale which could scarcely have made up 
a complete book, and which in importance would not 
have reached the level of the first two parts, indeed 
would have been quite incongruous with them. We 
must therefore be content to assume that St. Luke 
could so concentrate himself upon the main subject of 
his work that he could allow himself to break oft the 
thread of the story of St. Paul at the end of the two 
years 1 ministry in Rome, because the aim of the book 
had been now attained. We cannot indeed imagine 
his doing this if the two years 1 ministry had imiuedi- 


ately preceded the gaining of the martyr s crown. If 
this had been so, the omission of the story of the 
martyrdom would have involved on the part of the 
author a piece of self-sacrifice which would have been 
quite useless, and which is, moreover, psychologically 
unintelligible. Neither does the text demand such 
an hypothesis ; on the contrary, it almost excludes it. 
Between the end of the " Sieria o\tj " in Rome and the 
death of St. Paul there must have lain a fairly long 
period during which the Apostle continued his 
ministry, though this ministry was no longer of high 
importance in the grand progress of the mission. 


Special Readings of a Chronological character in the 
so-called ft-recenswn 

The so-called ^S-recension presents a series of inter 
polations and variant readings, some of which are 
chronological in character : 

1. ii. 1. D : Kai eyevero ev TCU? tj/mepais e/cetVaf? TOV 
crv/uL7r\}jpovar6ai (instead of KOI ev TU> <ru/A7rA.), 
not received by Blass into the /3-recension. 
The meaning of the passage is essentially 
altered by this interpolation ; for we may 
now probably translate, " It happened in 
those days, when the day of Pentecost was 
fulfilled, " i.e. the fulfilment is no longer to 
be understood simply in a temporal sense. 
At all events the reading is secondary and 
in its phraseology an imitation. 


2. iii. 1. Dp : Ev (Se) Tafy t]/u.epats 

Ilerpo? (instead of Ile r^Of $e) ; not received 
by Blass into the /3-recension. It was in 
tended to mark a new paragraph (vide ii. 1). 

3. iii. 1. D : TO SeiXivdv, received by Blass into the 

/3-recension; perhaps original, but probably 
a descriptive interpolation. 

4. v. 1. E : ev curry Se ria Kaipw ai i jp T<? (instead 

of simply avrjp Se ri<t), not received by Blass 
into the /3-recension ; ride ii. 1, iii. 1. 

5. ix. 40. Egp Ps-August(sah) : rj Se Trapa^rjfjia 

tivoifcev (instead of fj Se J/i -)not received into the 
|8-recension by Blass. Concerning Trapa-^p^fjLa 
in St. Luke, vide supra and xxii. 29. 

6. xi. 2. Dspw : 6 /J.ei> ovv IleTpo? Sia IKCIVOV ypovov 

t]8e\t](rav TropeuOijvai e<V lepovaoXv/uLu, an inter 
polation received by Blass into the /3-recen- 
sion. For IKCIVOS -^povo? vide viii. 11, ix. 23 
(r/fjLepat t/cai/a/), ix. 43 (fjfj.. IK.), xiv. 3, xviii. 18, 
XXVii. 7 (IK. ^yu.), XXVii. 9. Feeble imitation. 

7. xiv. 2. Dsgpw (E) : 6 Se Kupios eSu>Kev Ta^y 

eiprjvqv, an interpolation accepted by Blass ; 
TO^ does not occur elsewhere in the Acts. 

8. xiv. 20. f sah : k<nrepa.<; avaa-rds (in place of 

ava<TTa<i\ accepted by Blass ; probably due to 
imitation, vide iv. 3. 

9. xvi. 11. DMs : Tfl Se nravptov avap(0tWe9 (vide 

ava^Qfvre^ o^f), to compensate for the omission 
of ev6eu>s in verse 10; also due to imitation; 
accepted by Blass. 

10. xvii. 19. DMs : yueru $e ij/xe^oa? Ttva? Trt\a- 
/36/u.fvoi (in place of 7ri\a/36fjievoi) t interpola- 


tion due to reflection ; accepted by Blass ; 
due to imitation. 

11. xviii. 19. Df Ms sah : TW (LTTIOVTL cra^j3ar(t) 

ei(TcX6wi> (in place of etVeXOwj/) ; interpolation 
due to reflection ; accepted by Blass ; due to 

12. xviii. 21. DHL? Syri gw al lat.: (el-rev)- Set ^e 

, an interpolation inserted because 
it was thought that a journey to Jerusalem 
was referred to in verse 22 ; received by Blass 
into the /3-recension. In xiii. 44 the right 
reading is perhaps ro> ep^o/mei/M (e^o/ieww ?) 

13. xix. 9. Dsgw : (SiaXeyo nevos ei> T. cr^oA// 

Tf|0a^voiy) CITTO upas Tre/zTTT*;? ea)j ^e/car;?, re 
ceived by Blass into the /3-recension ; perhaps 
original (vide supra the passages where hours 
are noted in the Acts). 

14. xx. 18. D 1 : a)? TpiGriav q KOI irXeiov, received 

by Blass into the /3-recension ; a proleptic 
repetition from xx. 81, with the enigmatic or 
rather incorrect addition >/ KOU ir\ecov. 

15. XXi. 5. d : 777 $e e^tj? rjfjilpa, received by 

Blass into the /3-recension (in place of ore 
Se eyevero e^apricrai r// ret? yfj.epa$) ; a 
careless and unsuitable correction, due to 
the constant occurrence of the phrase in 
the context. 

16. XXi. 15. D : yuera Se rtvas rj/nepay 

(for yuera ^e TU? ^/ae/oa? rairra? 

evidently a secondary reading ; 


received by Blass into the /3-recension. Due 
to imitation. 

17. xxi. 26. D : Tfl Trtov<Tfl (for 77; e^o/xeV/;), re 

ceived by Blass into the /3-recension ; insigni 
ficant variant, due to imitation. 

18. xxi. 27. D (g sch) : crvvr\ovfj.evr)<; Se rns e{3$o- 

fjLtjS f]fjLepa<i (for o>? e e/xeAXov [at] CTTTU t l/mepai 
o-vireXeicrOai), received by Blass into the /3- 
recension ; insignificant variant ; due to imi 
tation of the gen. abs., not infrequent in the 

19. xxii. 29. Ms sah : KCU Trapa^ptj/ma eAucrei/ airroY, 

received by Blass into the ^-recension ; un 
suitable interpolation. For Trapa^tjfjLa vide 
ix. 40. 

20. XXVii. 1. fgs : rj) e-iravpiov, received by Blass 

into the /3-recension ; really part of a more 
extensive interpolation. 

21. XXVii. 5. f : KOI ywera ra^ra, received by Blass 

into the /3-recension ; really part of a more 
extensive interpolation. 

22. XXVii. 5. Msf : Si yuepwv SeKaTrevTe, received 

by Blass into the /3-recension; perhaps original. 
To treat these variants as homogeneous and related 
to one another, and to include them in a single recen 
sion, is a fundamental error. The tradition of the 
text itself protests against such a procedure. The 
numbers 1, 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, as pure D readings, 
may perhaps be regarded as related to one another ; 
a second group is formed by [2], 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
13; a third group by 8, 20, 21, 22. The numbers 
4, 5, 19 stand in isolation. The text of the Acts 


has accordingly been corrected by various hands 
from a chronological point of view among others 
and in accordance with its own style. The second 
group is the most important ; it alone has a claim to 
be regarded as a relic of a very ancient recension. 
To it also may be assigned the passage x. 41 over 
looked in the preceding list, where D sah Egsw and 
Const. App. vi. 30 insert jj/x^oa? rea-o-apaKovra in 
accordance with i. 3. We ought perhaps also to 
mention ix. 30, where ta VVKTOS is inserted by E minusc. 
180 sgp (in imitation of numerous passages vide 

It is improbable that St. Luke himself for 
mally published the Acts of the Apostles (so also 
Ewald, cf. Wellhausen, loc. dt. s. 19/); for (1) 
many instances of roughness suggest the absence 
of a last careful revision by the author ; (2) the 
history of the text of the book teaches that from 
the earliest times several, or at least two, editions 
of the book were in currency. The very fact that 
the book was not published by the author himself 
made it possible for different editions to establish 
themselves. One does not, however, in matters of 
chronology miss the revising hand of the author 
(contrary to Ramsay). There is not, in my opinion, 
a single passage in this book where a developed 
chronological notice (like that of St. Luke iii. 1, 2) 
would have been in place. 



I. Terms of more General Significance. 
("E0VOS about forty-four times in the Acts). 

Most frequently as ret e0y/ meaning the Gentile nations, 
i.e. those who were not Jews (LXX) ; so also in XXI. 
II; 1 more rarely in a quite neutral sense, as in ii. 5 : 
UTTO Trarro? eQvov? TWV VTTO rov ovpavov, x. 35, xvii. 26 : 
TTU.V eOvo? avOjOOJTrwv, viii. 9 : TO e0vo? r//? 2a/xajO/a?, 
xiii. 19, &c. In the former signification it has been 
already so affected by the Judaeo-Hellenic use of the 
word, that the Gentile inhabitants of a city are called 
TO. eOvtj (xiii. 48, xiv. 2); xv. 23: aSe\<pot$ rot? <r 
e6i wv, xxi. 25: Trepl TOOV TreTrttTTewcoTfoj/ eOnwy = " the 
Gentile Christians." It is placed in contrast with its 
antithesis (the Jewish nation) in iv. 27 (a-vv eOvea-iv KOI 
Xaof? Icr|Oa>/X), ix. 15 (eiwTriov eOvwv re /cat (3a<Ti\iov 
viwi> re la^oaj/X), xiv. 5 (op/u.t) TWI> eOvwv re KOI louSalcov), 
xxi. 21 (ro^ Kara ra eOvrj Trai/Taf Io^^a/oi f), xxvi. 17 
(eutpov/ji.ei os ere e/c TOV \aov [i.e. the Jewish nation] 
KU\ K TWV eBviav}, xxvi. 23 (tcaTayyeXXeiv rw re Xao) 
KOI TO/"? e9ve<rti>). Nevertheless, the word is not yet 
absolutely secularised : in x. 22 we read that the 
Gentile centurion Cornelius was held in good repute 

1 References to the we-sections are in bolder type. 
49 D 


UTTO oXou TOV e$you? TUIV lovSaioav, St. Paul speaks 
(xxiv. 17 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 19) of the Jewish nation 
as eOvos juov, and the Jewish orator Tertullus (xxiv. 3) 
as well as St. Paul (xxiv. 10) call the Jewish nation 
TO eQvos TOVTO. But in all these six instances it is 
to be noticed that we are dealing with discourses, or 
rather with the reports of discourses, in which the 
official terminology, such as was customary before 
a Gentile tribunal, would naturally be used. These 
passages only show how carefully St. Luke handled 
matters of style. 

No difference can be distinguished between different 
parts of the book in the use of this word. 

Aads (about forty-eight times, including 1 twenty- 
four times in the first seven chapters). 

O Xao ? is, as a rule, the designation for the Jewish 
nation in the religious or political sense (cf. especially 
xxi. 28 : OVTOS CCTTIV 6 avQpunros 6 Kara TOV \aov K. 


further for the community of the Jews at a definite 
place (e.g. Jerusalem). Often but only in discourse 
of an exalted character it is combined with the 
epithet IcrpcujX (iv. 10; iv. 27 [here Xao) I<rpaij\ 
after the LXX] ; xiii. 17, 24) ; only once (xii. 11) with 
TCJV lovSaidov. Not infrequently it partakes of the 
meaning of our phrase " all the people " (in a city, 
cf. xxi. 36 : TO TrX^of TOV \aov) ; or of the people in 
distinction from their leaders (e.g. iv. 17, 21 ; v. 13) ; 
or of a collection of people (e.g. v. 37). Only in a 
quotation from the Old Testament \aol=e6vtj (iv. 


25). Aao?, as a rule, has as its antithesis TO. Z6i>t], 
and so in xxvi. 17, 23 they are expressly opposed 
to one another (e/c TOV \aov KOLI e/c TWV eQvwv r<5 
re \au> KOI rots eOvetrtr, cf. iv. 27). Only in one 
passage does Xao ? signify Christians, namely, in xv. 
14 (Xa/3eiV e eQvav XaoV), the word as it occurs 
in xviii. 10 (Siort Xao ? eVr/ /u.oi TTO\V<? eY 777 
Tro Xet rai/Tfl) can scarcely be regarded as approaching 
this use. 

No distinction can be drawn between the different 
parts of the book in regard to the use of the word. Its 
absence from the we-sections is accidental. In his use 
of TO. f&vti and 6 Xao? St. Luke, the Gentile Christian, 
has kept quite closely to the idiom of the Septuagint. 
The fact that in the book the Christians are never 
called 6 Xao? is a strong argument for its high 

(ten or eleven times) and 

The former word, which is wanting in the synoptic 
gospels (it occurs, however, thrice in St. John), appears 
five times in the Acts in the combination frequently 
met with after St. Paul lovSaiwv TS KOI EXXj/i/wv 
(xiv. 1; xviii. 4; xix. 10, 17; xx. 21) in the first four 
places the author is speaking, in the fifth St. Paul. By 
its combination with Ioi;<Wot the word received a wider 
significance, so that it almost coincides with ra ZOvt] 
(it is not, however, till the fourth century that the 
process is completed and ot ^EXX^e? = the Gentiles). 
Apart from combination with lovSaioi the word occurs 


again xi. 20 (dispersed Christians of Jerusalem preach 
to the Hellenes in Antioch), xvi. 1, 3 (the father 
of Timothy of Lystra was a Hellene), xvii. 4 (the 
ere/3o / uei ot"EAA>;ve9 in Thessalonica, i.e. the proselytes), 
and xxi. 28 (St. Paul is supposed to have introduced 
Hellenes into the Temple J ). It cannot therefore be 
proved that St. Luke uses the word only in reference 
to particular regions and excludes it from others. We 
find once EAA^v/^e? yvvatKe? (xvii. 12 in Bercea of 
Macedonia), once EAAqi/icrn (xxi. 37 2 ), and twice 3 
(vi. 1 and ix. 29) EAA^wcrrcu, only Jews of the 
Diaspora dwelling in Jerusalem and speaking Greek 
are so called (antithesis : ol Eftpaioi), and are still 
so called after they have become Christians. The 
word is not found elsewhere in the New Testa 
ment, and is altogether very rare. By the expression 
lovfiaioi re /ecu "EAA^i/e? St. Luke is characterised as 
belonging to the Pauline school. 


St. Luke again coincides with St. Paul in his 
sparing use of E/3pa?o9 and in the way in which he 
uses it. St. Paul, as is well known, uses the word 
only twice (2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Philipp. iii. 5) to express 
the fact that he was fully a Jew by birth (in spite of 
his birth in the Diaspora) ; similarly Eifipatoi is used 
in vi. 1 in contrast to EAA^wcrTcu (vide supra). Every 
Hebrew is a Jew, but not every Jew is a Hebrew. 
As this distinction between lovSatoi and Et(3paioi was 

1 In xviii. 7 the word "EXX^vej is of doubtful authority. 

2 Elsewhere only in St. John xix. 20. 

3 In xi. 20 we must read "EXX^ces (vide supra). 


not universal * (vide Heinrici on 2 Cor. xi. 22) there 
exists here a relationship in the use of language between 
the two missionaries. 

Three times in the Acts we find the phrase T# 
EftpaiSi Sia\eKT(a (xxi. 40; xxii. 2; xxvi. 14; no 
where else in the New Testament). This can only 
mean Aramaic, which has the same name in St. John, 
and is elsewhere described even by born Jews as 
Hebrew " (vide Zahn, Einl., 1 I. s. 5, 18). 

(about eigfhty-two times). 

While lovSaioi is found in the three synoptic 
gospels only seventeen times (including five times in 
St. Luke), it occurs in St. John about seventy-one 
times and in the Acts about eighty-two times ! And 
it is most noteworthy that in the first eight chapters 
of the Acts it is found only thrice ; these chapters 
also in other respects partake of the linguistic charac 
teristics of the gospel. 

The connections in which the word occurs in the 
Acts are very manifold : (1) it stands in combination 
with EXX^ve?, Xao?, and eOvrj (vide supra) ; (2) in com 
bination with proselytes (ii. 10; xvii. 17); (3) pleon- 
astically side by side with a-vvaycoyq 3 and VO/JLOS 4 (xiii. 
5; [xiii. 42]; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 1, 10; xxv. 8); (4) in the 
vocative; (5) as an adjective (x. 28; xxii. 3 avtjp 
xiii. 6 evSoTrodv jrtjs, xvi. 1 ; xxiv. 24 

1 Yet Jews avoided the word E/S/xuot ; it is also wanting in the 
gospels and the Apocalypse. The name of honour, which was there 
fore preferred, was lovSaloi. 

1 TJJ Idif 5t.a\tKT<i> stands in 5. 19 ; ii. 6, 8. 

3 Generally, however, it is wanting with this word. 

Yet only in the speech of St. Paul before Festus. 


<yin /, xix. 13 ej-opKKTTai, xix. 14* ap-^iepevs) ; (6) as a 
designation of the Jewish population of a land or 
a city (xiv. 19 OLTTO Avnoxetas KOI !KOVIOV lovfiaioi, 
xvii. 13 ol ctTTo Qe<T(ra\oviKt]s Iov., xxi. 27 ol cnro T. 
Acr/a? lov., cf. xxiv. 18; xxi. 39 lov&uo? Tap<reuy, 
xxv. 7 ol OLTTO lepovcr. /caTa/3e/3///fore9 Iou<^., see also 
xviii. 2 evpwv TIVGL loud., xviii. 24 Iou<5a<b? <^e Ti? 
ATj-oXAcof, xix. 34 ; strange [vide infra] but yet cor 
rect ii. 5 : tja-av [eV] lepovaraX^/m. KaroiKovvres lovaioi 
. . . aTro TTOVTO? e^i/oi;?) ; (7) vide expressions such as ol 
TTpcaroi (xxv. 2; xxviii. 17) vel ol Trpea-fivrepoi (xxv. 15) 
r. lou&uW ; >? X^/ a T * 1^- ^ s f un d only once (x. 39), 
and then with Jerusalem. Most often, however, it 
occurs, as in St. John, as a designation for the whole 
nation ; and in some passages, as so often in St. John, 
in a somewhat disparaging sense. To apply again 
and again the general name of a nation or of a 
religious society to a distinct group of the same is 
an unusual procedure. It may be very complimentary, 
it may, however, also be the opposite, and so it is 
here and there with St. Luke. It is important that 
in the passage of the we-sections where lovSatoi occurs 
(xxi. 11) it has just this disparaging significance: 
rov avSpa ov ea-Tiv rj ^covt] avrrj oi/r<o? Srja-ovariv ev 
Iepov<rd\r]/J. oi lov&aioi KCU TrapaSuxrovcriv V yeipus 
eQvwv. Thus the whole nation is made responsible, 
and the prophet Agabus, who himself was sprung 
from among the Jews, speaks of the members of his 
own nation as ol lovSaioi, cf. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 1 

1 It is noteworthy that in xxviii. 21 and xxii. 5 the Jews address 
one another and that in official discourse as aSe\<f>ot. St. Luke 
must have heard them speak thus. The use of this term by Christians 
in addressing one another seems therefore to have been borrowed. 


(about fifteen times), la-paqXirat (five 


Both words belong almost exclusively to the first 
half of the book, but in the second half they occur 
each once (xxviii. 20 T*?? JX*x3of r. Icrpw jX, xxi. 28 
avSpes I<rp. (3o]9eiT^. Iay>ar/\ is used in the same 
connections in which it would also stand in the Old 
Testament (with /3acr<Ae/a, ira? ot/co?, Xaoj, viol) ; it 
stands by itself only in v. 31 and xiii. 23 (as so often 
in the Pauline epistles). la-patjXiTai only occurs 
with avSpes in the vocative ; elsewhere in the New 
Testament it is found only in St. Paul (thrice) and 
once in St. John (i. 48). 

pdpftapoi (twice). 

The word only occurs in St. Paul (twice) l and in 
St. Luke of the writers of the New Testament, and 
in contrast to "EXA^ye? ; but while St. Paul uses it, 
so to say, objectively, as indeed every Jew could 
use it, St. Luke in applying it to the inhabitants 
of Malta who could not speak Greek (XXViii. 2, 4), 2 
uses it subjectively, and thereby declares his own 
Greek descent. 

Oi KCLTOIKOVVTC? = the inhabitants (thirteen 


This term for " inhabitants " 8 imitated from the 
LXX is found in all parts of the book, usually the 

1 The passage 1 Cor. xiv. 11 does not belong here. 
* Mommsen was therefore not justified in thinking this strange. 
3 Elsewhere in the New Testament it is found in St. Luke iiii. 
4, and often in the Apocalypse. 


place (the land) is put in the accusative (but in ii. 5 ; 
ix. 22 ; xi. 29 ; xiii. 27 ev is used). It is combined 
with Jerusalem l in i. 19 ; ii. 5, 14 ; iv. 16 ; xiii. 27 ; 
with Damascus in ix. 22 ; xxii. 12, with Lydda in ix. 
32, 35, with Ephesus in xix. 17, with Mesopotamia in 
ii. 9, with Asia in xix. 10, with Judaea in xi. 29. 2 

Ty (about thirty-four times), Xu>pa (eight times ; 
n Trep^Mpos once), IIo A<9 (about forty-three times), 
K&M (once), ToVo? (eighteen times). 

In the great majority of passages yrj is used either 
of the land, or of the world, or of the earth in distinc 
tion from the heavens, or in quotations from the Old 
Testament. It signifies a particular land in vii. ** 

tj XaXSaicov and rj jrf avTi] = Palestine), vii. 36, 40 ; 

1 While in ii. 14 we read : "ApSpes louScuot Kal ol 
Ifpov<ra\rnj., in ii. 5 it is the Jews of the Diaspora dwelling in 
Jerusalem who are termed KaroiKovires. But this is not inadmissible 
(as say Blass, who in ii. 5 omits lovda ioi with Cod. Sin., Neue kirchl. 
Ztschr. 1892, s. 826 jf., and Joh. Weiss, who thinks that a Kal must 
be inserted after TouScuot), rather it is demanded by the context. 
The author wished to say that the people described some verses 
later as Parthians, Medes, &c., who were dwelling at that time at 
Jerusalem, were nevertheless Jews, and this is quite correctly ex 
pressed by the words : ?j<rav 6t ev lepova-aXrjfj. KaTOiKovvres lovdaioi, 
&v5pes ei)\a/3eTj a7r6 iravTos ZOvovs rdv virb rbv ovpavbv. 

2 Ilapoi/aa and Trdpoiitos have not yet reached a technical signifi 
cance in the Acts (TrapoiKfTv is altogether wanting) and are of very 
rare occurrence ; they are only found in the speech of St. Stephen 
(vii. 6. 29) and in St. Paul s sermon at Antioch (xiii. 17), thus only 
in connection with Old Testament history. This is again a proof 
of the relatively high antiquity of the Acts ; for these words became 
technical ecclesiastical terms before the end of the first century, 
vide 1 Peter i. 17 ; ii. 11 ; First Epistle of Clement, &c. In ii. 10 
we find ol eTrtSrjit.ovvrfs Pw/ucuot and in xvii. 20 ol eirid >j/j,oui>Tft 
j-tvoi. The word is wanting elsewhere in the New Testament. 


xiii. 17 (yii Aiyinrrov or Aiyvrnf)t vii. 29 (yq 
Ma&dju), xiii. 19 (yrj Xamaf, twice); this use is, 
however, confined to lands mentioned in the Old 
Testament, and is derived from the LXX ; St. Liike 
himself never uses this form of expression. In the we- 
sections (xxvii. 39, 43, 44) yrj is the dry land (so 
also in iv. 24; xiv. 15, where it occurs together with 

Xa5|oa occurs only once in the plural (viii. 1) and 
there is used like " agri " to signify villages. The 
Christian Hellenists driven by persecution from Jeru 
salem are scattered over the villages of Judaea and 
Samaria ; and so we read (viii. 25) TroXXa? re KW/ULCIS 
TU>V Za/xdjOetTaii einjyyeXi^ovro. Apart from this 
passage the extension of the movement over a country 
(the villages) appears to be distinctly mentioned only 
once again. In xiii. 49 we read that the word of the 
Lord spread abroad from Antioch in Pisidia <V oX/9 TJ/J 
Xwpas. But (vide infra) it is possible that here x^P a 
= " regio " in the official sense. In the sense of an 
undefined land as distinguished from the sea it is found 
in XXVii. 27. In the sense of a definite land it is com 
bined in x. 39 with ru>v lovSatwv, in xxvi. 20 with 
T>/9 loucWa?, in xvi. 6 and xviii. 23 with FoXcnnuof ; 
in xii. 20 it signifies the region of Tyre and Sidon. 
It does not occur in other passages of the book. 
Seeing that the word is so rarely used in the book, 
though so many lands are mentioned therein, the 
question must be asked whether in all these passages 
(with the exception of xii. 20) \(*>pa is not purposely 
used to indicate that the whole country-side is meant. 
In chapter x. 39 we read : jj/xef? /xapruoe? 


wv eTroj/o-ei/ ev re 777 X/ ? T v 
lepovcrdXrjju., and in xxvi. 20 : a\\a TOI$ ev Aa/xdo-/coi? 
Trpoorov re KOI Tepocro\v/Jt.oi$ e<V Traaav re r^ vdpav 
T>;9 Iou<Wa? [Blass unnecessarily proposes loftWot?], 
/ecu To?9 zQveariv aTn/yyeAoi/. Why does St. Luke not 
here simply write ^ Iou<Wa, as he so often does? 
Evidently he wishes to emphasise the fact that 
St. Paul s preaching extended to the country folk of 
Judaea. Again it is of additional importance that 
the author in the only two places where he mentions 
Galatia uses the expression fj TaXctTUct] ywpa? while 
elsewhere when speaking of Roman provinces he 
always names them Asia, Phrygia, Cilicia, and so 
forth. We may assert that he so speaks because 
Galatia was poor in cities, and because in official ter 
minology the word " regiones " was also used of this 
province. It then further follows that in the much 
discussed question where the Galatia of St. Paul is 
to be found, we may not claim St. Luke as a witness 
in favour of the South-Galatian theory ; rather we 
must regard him as a witness to the contrary. The 
word Trepi^wpo?) sometimes found in the synoptic 
gospels, occurs only once in the Acts (xiv. 6) : eis ra? 
TroAe/? r>79 AiwaoWa? Avarrpav KOI ^.ep^rjv KOI Trjv 

The use of the word x^j a ni ^ e Acts, though it is 
so rare, again shows the consistency of the author. 2 
The word 7ro At9 is added to the name of a city 

1 Some exegetes think that x<6/>a (xvi. 6) is also connected with 
$piryiai>, but Qpuytav cannot be adjectival ; moreover, in xviii. 23 we 
read: Siepxtpevos Kadeffi ryv Ta\aTiKTjv x&pa.v Kal ^pvytav, here 
&pvylav is certainly a substantive. 

2 Xupiov (field) is found in Acts i. 18, 19 ; iv. 34 ; v. 3, 8 ; xxviii. 7. 


twice in the we-sections (XVi. 14 ; XXVii. 8 : 7ro /\eo>9 
Qvareipaiv, Tro Xi? Aacra/a) and once in the rest of the 
book (xi. 5 : ev iro Ae* loV-Tr?;) ; in all other numerous 
instances where a town is mentioned the name stands 
without TroXi?. The phrase : rj E<ecrtW Tro Xt? (xix. 
35) l occurs once in a speech to the Ephesians in 
order to flatter their pride. Samaria is introduced 
in viii. 5 without closer definition as " f) Tro Xt? Ttjs 
Zctyuap/af " scarcely because the author assumed 
that his readers knew what city was meant, but 
because he wanted to let us know that the Gospel, 
when it was carried from Juda?a to Samaria, made 
its entrance at once into the capital city of that 

Sometimes the author adds the name of the pro 
vince to the name of the city. His reasons for this 
procedure are not always the same, and are not always 
clearly discernible ; as a rule, however, we may assume 
that it is because he wishes to draw attention to the 
fact that the Gospel had now made its way into the 
particular province mentioned youthful missionary 
religions count their conquests by provinces ! per 
haps also because he wishes to determine more accu 
rately the geographical situation of the city and to 

1 Like a true Hellene St. Luke likes to describe persons by the 
cities from which they sprang. He speaks not only of Romans and 
Athenians (xvii. 21, 22), but he also writes Nafapalot (often), TI//JIOS 
(xii. 20), ZiSwnoi (xii. 20), To/xr^uj (ix. 11; xxi. 39), Avrioxfvs (vi.o), 
A\fai 5pevs (vi. 9 ; xviii. 24), Aep^aios (xx. 4), Qea<ja\oviKevs (xx. 4; 
xxvii. 2), Bepotatoj (xx. 4), KopivOios (xviii. 8), E06nos (xix. 28. 34, 
35 ; xxi. 29), \v5la. jr6\ews Qvareipuv (xvi. 14). Cf. also the terms 
llovTiKlx (xviii. 2), A<riav6i (xx. 4), Kvvpios (iv. 36 ; xi. 20 ; xxi. 16), 
KvpTfaiot (vi. 9; xi. 20 ; xiiL 1), AiOlo\J/ (viii. 27), MacceSuu (xvi. 9; 
xix. 2 J ; xxvii. 2), AiyvirTio* (xxi. 38), 2a/xa/}dnjs (viii. -5), ic. 


avoid by this means any confusion with another city 
of the same name. St. Luke writes : 

Ila/x^tA/a? (xiii. 13). 
^aa r/7? Ilfcri^/a? (xiii. 14). 1 
a KOI Ae jO/3>7, TroXa? r^? A.VKaovla$ (xiv. 6). 
i ]Ti<i ecTTiv 7rpu>Tt) T>/9 yUfjO/^o? Ma/ce^o- 
v/a? TroXt? (XVi. 12). 
Ta/ocrei ? r^? KiXj/c/a? (xxi. 39). 
Tct|0<TO? r>/9 KtAma? (xxii. 3). 
Mvppa rJ/9 Au/aa? (XXVii. 5). 

It is most extraordinary that the epithet " of 
Cilicia " is twice added to the large and well-known 
city of Tarsus. One is almost tempted to recollect 
that there was another Tarsus in Bithynia, and that 
St. Luke, according to the very ancient preface to his 
gospel, is reported to have died in Bithynia. It is 
better to remember that it belonged to the style of 
the registers a style that would naturally be adopted 
by a man giving formal account of himself to give 
the name of the province, however well known the city 
might be. 

St. Luke exhibits great acuteness and delicacy of 
perception when in xxi. 39 he makes St. Paul add to 
Tapcrevs the words " OVK ao^/xou TroXew? TroXt rj;? " 2 in 
order that by this reference to Eurip. Ion. 8 (OVK 
acr^/xo? EAXvi/wv TroXt?) he might show himself, in 
the face of the Chiliarch s mistake, to be a man of 

1 Etr Aynoxfiav TT]V llicridiav has almost unanimous attestation ; 
but Htffidiai> cannot be an adjective ; we must therefore probably 
read ILtnSiaj with D. 

2 Uo\irr)s occurs only here in the Acts, but is found elsewhere in 
the New Testament in St. Luke xv. 15 ; xix. 14 (in the Hebrews in a 
quotation). Ho\iTfia = Roman citizenship only in Acts xxii. 28. 


Hellenic culture. Similar phrases occur in inscrip 
tions found in Asia Minor, for instance in the 
famous inscription of Abercius : E/cXe/cr^? 7ro Ae&>9 6 
TroXiTtjs. In connection with the use of the word 
7ro/\<9 the following additional remarks are perhaps 
worthy of note. 1 The mission was for the most 
part carried on in the cities, as also the Jews 

1 Let me here point out another small detail which is neverthe 
less of importance in reference to the author s consistency of style. 
In general he does not use the article with names of cities. It is 
found only in 23 (24) out of about 250 instances, if I have not over 
looked any ; in xxvi. 12 the article is not quite certain (among the 
59 instances where Jerusalem is named the article only occurs once 
in v. 28). In 13 of these instances the reason of the addition of 
the article is obvious (ix. 3, 38 ; x. 8 ; xiii. 14 ; xvii. 13, 16 ; xviii. 
1, 21 ; xix. 17 ; xx. 6 ; xx. 17 ; xxii. 6 ; xxiii. 31) ; for the city has 
been mentioned just before and is now repeated with the article 
(in many cases of course this is not done in spite of the repetition). 
The instance in xiv. 21 also belongs to this group, indeed the 
passage is especially characteristic : vrteTpe^av e/t rty Xvurpav *coJ 
tit IKOVIOV Kal eii AvTi&xfiaf. The stay in Lystra had been shortly 
before described in detail, therefore the article stands only with 
this city. But there remain yet nine instances which do not admit 
of this explanation. Of these xviii. 2 diri> T^ Pii/u^s and xxviii. 
14 et j rfjv Pw/njv are sufficiently explained by the fame and import 
ance of the city (and besides in xxviii. 14 it is implied that St. 
Paul had at last reached the goal of his ministry ; afterwards in 
verse 16 we read: efs PiJcuijv). The article before Afri6x tia (* v - 
23) is sufficiently explained by the circumstance that Syria and 
Cilicia come afterwards. Of the six instances still remaining four 
may be explained from the circumstance that they mark the neces 
sary direction of the determined route which the Apostle took (vide 
Llass) ; they occur in xvii. 1 ; xx. 13, 14 ; xxiii. 31 (notice again 
the agreement of the we-sections with the whole work). The force 
of the article in v. 28 (TTJV IfpovffaXrjfj,) and in xx. 16 (TTJV "Efao-ov) 
is somewhat obscure ; but the author may very well have once 
written ^ "E</>e(roi for the same reason that he wrote ^ "PwyUT/, and 
the article with Jerusalem in the mouth of the high-priest is prob 
ably intended to signify: " this Jerusalem of ours." 


of the Diaspora were chiefly settled in the cities. 
Hence we read in viii. 40 of St. Philip : ew/ yyeXtTero 
ra? Tro Aa? Tra cra? (scil. of Philistia) ; again St. James 
says (xv. 21) that Moses has Kara TTO\IV ev rat? 
a-vvaywyal^ TOU? Krjpv<jcrovTa<i CIVTOV, and St. Paul 
admits (xxvi. 11) that he persecuted the Christians 
not only in Jerusalem, but also followed them up 
even etV Ta? e^co TroAe*? ; St. Paul and Silas pass 
through (xvi. 4) ret? Tro Aet? and revisit (xv. 86) Kara 
TTO\IV Trdcrav the communities that were founded on 
the first journey ; St. Paul declares that the Spirit 
/caret TroXiv prophesied sufferings that were about to 
come upon him (xx. 23), and TO TrXyOo? TU>V irepi^ 
TroAecov lepova-aXrj/jL crowded into the city (v. 16) to 
be healed by the apostles. It is characteristic of the 
exactness of the author that he often marks the fact 
that something took place outside the city. Stephen 
was stoned eeo T^? TroAeto? l (vii. 58) ; the temple of 
Zeus in Lystra was situated irpo TV? TroAew? (xiv. 13) ; 
St. Paul was dragged eco T?;? TroAeto? (xiv. 19) ; the 
place of prayer in Philippi lies eo> r^s xwA>;? (xvi. 13) ; 
and the brethren and sisters in Tyre accompany 
St. Paul eco? e^ct) T?? TroAew? (xxi. 5). Lastly, it is 
a fine proof of the precision of the author that in 
xiii. 50 he speaks of the irpwroi T>?? TroAeeo? (in 
Antioch of Pisidia), in xxv. 23 of those /car e ^o^v 
T>?9 TTd Aew? (in Caesarea of Palestine), and elsewhere of 
the rulers of cities, but in the case of Philippi alone 
does he call the magistrates of the city " <rrparr]yoi " 
(xvi. 20 ^!), and in the case of Thessalonica alone 

1 Among both Jews and Gentiles executions took place as a rule 
outside the city, vide Heb. xiii. 12, 13. 


(xvii. 6, 8), while he calls the governor 
of Malta (xxviii. 7) 6 -TT/JWTO? TW vfyrov. These 
names are correct, for in the Roman colony Philippi 
praetors (duumviri) held sway, the title " Politarch " 
is vouched for in Thessalonica by inscriptions, and 
the title Trpcoros MeXmwW is found in an inscription 
discovered in Malta (Inscr. Graec. Ital. et. Sicil. 601); 
a certain Prudens an eques Romanus is there so de 
scribed. We also learn from inscriptions that the 
part which the official described as 6 ypa/uL/mareu? 
(town-clerk) plays in Ephesus (xix. 35 f.) suits the 
Ypa/j./jLarev^ in Ephesus, though it would not at all 
suit the official of the same name in every other 
city. 1 

The use of TO TTO? is most varied, and yet even 

1 All the other official titles in the book are correct. The monarch 
is called, as iu Phil. iv. 22, simply 6 Kcu<ra/> (xvii. 7 ; xxv. 8-12, 21 ; 
xxvi. 32 ; xxvii. 4 ; xxviii. 19) or 6 Zf/faorij (xxv. 21, 25), or is 
simply described by one of his own names (xi. 28 ; xviii. 2). He is 
never called BacnXefo, a title, however, rightly applied to Herod 
(xii. 1, 20) and to Agrippa (xxv. 13, 14, 24 ; xxvi. 2, 7, 13, 19, 26, 
27, 30). Sergius Paulus in Cyprus and Gallio in Corinth are rightly 
called dvOuiraToi (xiii. 7, 8, 12 ; xviii. 12 ; [xix. 38]) ; on the other 
hand this title is wanting, and rightly wanting, in the cases of 
Felix and Festus ; each of these is called, as also in Josephus, 
riyftJ-uv (xxiil 24, 26, 33, 34; xxiv. 1, 10; xxvi. 30). The term 
iirapxia- ( = " provincia ") is found only in the mouth of Felix in his 
question concerning St. Paul : IK volas tirapxfa* (xxiii. 34) and in 
the clause (xxv. 1) : 4>?<rTos ^wi/Jaj r-g tirapxly [a strange use of 
dative just as in xxvii. 2 : ^iri/Savres irXoty] elsewhere it is avoided. 
The titles fKarovrapx^ (x. 1, 22; xxi. 32; xxii. 26, 26; xxiii. 17, 
23 ; xxiv. 23 ; xxvii. 1, 6, 11, 31, 43 ; xxviii. 16) and x<^ ia PXs 
(xxi. 31-37 ; xxii. 24-29 ; xxiii. 10-22 ; xxiv. 7, 22 ; xxv. 23) are 
correctly used. It is uncertain whether the Stratopedarch of 
xxviii. 16 is original. The epithet " /cpdrwroj " is only employed 
in addressing Felix and Festus (xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 25), and its 
use in this instance is correct. 


here one can establish the homogeneity of the author s 
style. 1 It is used metaphorically in i. 25 (\afieiv TOV 
TOTTOV T>/9 <5mKOwa?) and in xxv. 16 (TOTTOV cnroXoylas 
\aj3etv) ; the Temple is called in vi. 13 and xxi. 28 
o ayios TOTTo?, and in vi. 14 and xxi. 28 o TO TTOJ 
otrro?, in vii. 7 o roVo? oSro? is to be understood 
as referring to the Holy Land. In xvi. 3 01 TOTTOI 
eKeivoi describes the region round Lystra and Iconium ; 
likewise we read in XXVii. 2 etV TOV$ Kara ryv Acr/av 
TO TTOU? and similarly in XXViii. 7 ra irepi TOV TOTTOV 
e/ceivov. The word has a mysterious sound in i. 25 : 
UTTO r^? aTrcKTToX)?? Trape/By Iova$ Tropevdyvai et? TOV 
TOTTOV TOV ISiov, and even in xii. 17 : Heroo? ej*\6u>v 
eTropevOrj e/y eTepov TOTTOV (for TOTTO? = place, city, vide 
XXVii. 8 ?j\6ofJ.ev ei<? TOTTOV TLVO. Ka\ovfJ.evov KaXo^ 
Xi/xeVa?). Only once (xxi. 12) are the native inha 
bitants of a city called ot CVTOTTIOI (the word is found 
in Plato ; it is not one that is often met with). 

(nine times). 2 

The use of the word in iv. 36 Kirn-jcno? r. yevei, 
xviii. 2 TLovTiKo? T. yevet, xviii. 24 A\eai>Spev<; T. 
yevei, vii. 19 TO <yeVo? ^/ULMV shows the consistency of 
style in both halves of the book. The remaining 
passages where the word occurs give it the significance 

1 The passages (iv. 31 ; vii. 33, 49 ; xxvii. 29, 41) are neutral. 

2 Similar words, which occur only rarely or only once, and are 
therefore not fitted for use in comparison, are ra opta (for a region, 
xiii. 50), i} (Trapxia (xxiii. 34 ; xxv. 1), rj olKov/j^vi} (xi. 28 ; xvii. 6, 
31 ; xix. 27 ; xxiv. 5), &c. The use of TO, pepr) is, however, worthy of 
note. In ii. 10 we read TO. fj.tpt) TTJJ Ai/3u7?s, in xix. 1 IlaDXos 5te\&uv 
ra avuTepiKa /U^/JT;, and likewise in xx. 2 5ie\0wf TO. ^prj fKtlva (said of 


of race, not in the sense of nationality but of descent 
(iv. 6 ; vii. 13 ; xiii. 26 ; xvii. 28, 29). 

II. Terms of more Special Significance. 

The list of nations in chapters ii. 5, 9-11 and 
in vi. 9. 

<5e ev [?] lepova-aXtiiu. KCHTOIKOVVTCS l 
ai Spe? ev\a/3ets OLTTO TTU^TO? e Ovov? TCOV VTTO TOV ovpavov 
. . . lldpOoi /ecu MtjSoi teal AtAa/xirat KOI ol KO.TOI- 
KOVVTC? Ttjv MecroTrora/x/ai [ lovSaiav ? Ap/meviav ? 
"Evplav ? IvSlav ?~^ re /cal KaTTTra^o/c/at , TLovrov KOI 
Tt)V A-trlav, typvytav re KOI Eta/x^uX/ai/, A tyvirrov KOI 
ra iJ-epn r^f Ai^i;^? T^? K ara Kfp/i^y, KOI ol eTriSq/n- 
Pcoju.aiot, lovSaioi re /caJ Trpocn ]\VTOi [Ko^re? KOI 

After the first three national names St. Luke con 
tinues with 01 KdToiKOvvTes, because there was no 
national name for Mesopotamia ; but this has led 
to a formal discrepancy with the preceding clause. 
St. Luke is speaking simply of such persons as were 
resident in Jerusalem (not of pilgrims for the feast), 
yet he describes them most awkwardly as KaroiKovvrcs 

v Meo-OTrorayU/av /c.r.X. after their former place of 
abode. In its significance, therefore, the second KGLTOI- 

vvres must be regarded as pluperfect. Moreover, 
seeing that from Fontus onwards the author gives the 
names in pairs and that lovSaiav though the reading 
of all MSS. is senseless, while AjO/xew ai (Tertullian, 
and once in Augustine), as well as 2/vpiav (Hieron.), 
are evidently only attempts to clear away a difficulty 


which was felt already at an early date ; we must 
therefore delete lovdatav. 1 We can of course give 
no satisfactory explanation for the interpolation of 
this word. The irregularity of the use of the article 
in this section is surprising, so also the appended 
Ko^T69 /cat "A0a/3e?, here also we must assume 
an ancient gloss, for both the special mention of 
these people and their combination together is ex 
traordinary. The assumption of an interpolation 
becomes yet more probable if the preceding words 
" Iov<5atot re /cat Trpoa-rfXvTOi " i belong not only to 
" 01 e7ri$>iju.ovvTe$ Putjuaioi" but to all the foregoing 
national names, as is almost certainly the case. The 
author had said at the beginning of the list that 
he was concerned with those Jews now dwelling in 
Jerusalem who had before lived in Parthia, Media, 
&c. At the conclusion he says more exactly that 
these included both Jews by birth and proselytes, and 
this without doubt answered to the truth, and did 
not apply only to Rome. Strange, lastly, is the 
epithet " eTr/c^owre? " applied to ot Pco^uat ot. In 
my opinion it finds its explanation in the fact that 
01 PcofjLaioi could be understood as meaning " Roman 
citizens" (vide Acts xvi. 37, 38; xxii. 25, 26, 27, 29; 
xxiii. 27). St. Luke wishes to avoid this ambiguity. 
Instead of ot eVt^/x. Pay*, he might also have written 
ot KaroiKovvres TJ/J/ Pa>/j.t]v (as in verse 9) ; but he 
wished at the close to remind us that the people in 
question throughout now dwelt in Jerusalem, though 

1 Mesopotamia and Cappadocia could very well be mentioned 
together for they are contiguous, and as the counting is from "East 
to West this order is specially appropriate (vide infra another reason 
for the omission). 


they were properly at home in other lands. Thus 
" ot eirtSfj/novvTes Pu>fji.atoi " does not mean " Romans 
settled in Rome " (as Wendt and others would inter 
pret), but " Romans who had migrated to Jerusalem 
and had settled in that city " (so Overbeck). The 
circumstance that after striking out louSaiav, K^rey, 
and "Apafie? we are left with a list of twelve nations 
confirms the omission ; i.e. the author perhaps in 
tended to indicate that each apostle spoke in one of 
these tongues. It is true that according to ii. 1 we 
must suppose that the Holy Spirit descended upon 
all the Christians in Jerusalem ; but nevertheless, 
according to ii. 7, it is the Apostles alone who are 
thought of. If we do not choose to accept this 
hypothesis, it still follows that the number twelve of 
the nations was purposely chosen. 

The list begins with the nations in the remotest 
East, where the tribes that had not returned to 
Palestine were settled ; with Cappadocia it reaches 
Asia Minor, which is described first from north to 
west (Pontus and Asia) ; then in a parallel line 
from the centre (Phrygia) to the south (Pamphylia). 
Then the author passes to the real south of the 
empire, and names again from east to west Egypt 
and the parts of Libya about Cyrene. 1 Rome, as the 
representative of the West, closes the list. 

It is possible to argue with the author concerning his 
reasons for naming one region and passing over another, 
nit it will be difficult to make any point against him. 

1 With /card Kvp^vrjv compare St. Luke r. 32 : Aevemji Kara, rbv 
btrov A0WV, and Acts xxvii. 5 : ri> irtXayos ri /card TTJV KtXwfov Ka.1 


With relative completeness he begins with " Parthians, 
Medes, and Elamites," because these nations were far 
distant and dwelt outside the Roman Empire it 
was the more important for him that their represen 
tatives heard the new message ! These are followed 
most appropriately by Mesopotamia and Cappadocia. 
He naturally passed over Syria because it lay too 
near, and because it was self-evident that numerous 
Syrians were to be found in Jerusalem. Besides, 
their language was so nearly allied to that spoken 
in Jerusalem that for them the miracle, which the 
author intends, was scarcely a miracle at all. If in 
the case of Asia Minor the four countries, Pontus, 
Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, are chosen for men 
tion, one cannot but approve of the choice, seeing 
that Cappadocia had been already mentioned : the 
chief province in the north, the west, the centre, and 
the south is thus marked. Could any one proceed on 
a better plan ? With equal appropriateness he now 
mentions Egypt and Cyrene and closes with Rome. 
In the two former regions it was a matter of common 
knowledge that the Jews had settled in especially 
compact bodies ; and that the whole West should be 
represented by Rome is not strange but rather what 
one would expect in a Greek writer of the East. 
The omission of the Balkan peninsula is less intel 
ligible. It has been said that the author has not 
included purely Greek regions in his list, because for 
Greeks with their universally-spoken language the 
miracle of Pentecost was no miracle at all, at 
least they did not need such a miracle ; this explana 
tion is ingenious but scarcely correct. The disciples 


in their ecstasy spoke Aramaic, not Greek (v. 7 : 
ov^t idov a-irairres OVTOL etartv oi AaAowre? Ya\i\aioi ;). 
The Balkan peninsula (Macedonia and Achaia) is 
passed over either because in this region, when com 
pared with the others mentioned, the Jews were not 
specially numerous, or because the author passing 
naturally from Asia to Egypt and then to Cyrene 
had now come so far to the west that he concluded 
with Home. Besides, he did not wish to exceed the 
number twelve (vide supra). 

The formal construction of this passage is very 
skilful and superior to that of the list given by Philo 
(Agjippce ep. ad Caligirfam, Legat. ad Caium, 36), 
which contains double the number of nations. The 
author begins with the sonorous triplet, " Parthians, 
Medes, and Elamites " ; then he follows with 4x2 
nations, and the " oi eTriStj/uLovvTe? Pw/jiaiot, i.e. the 
great Capital of the World, standing by itself, brings 
the twelve to a very impressive conclusion. 1 We trace 
here the literary skill of the Hellene. But how much 
greater still does this skill appear when we place this 
list of nations in the light of the aim which dominates 
the whole work ! "EtcrecrOe /ULOV /ndprvpes ev re Icpov- 
KOI ev Tracrfl ry lovSaia KOI ^a/mapia teal eco? 
ys yqs f (i. 8). Gaprer a>? yap ^Lf/j-aprvow 
Ta Trepi e /xou e/V Iepouora\))/m, ovrta ere Set KOI V 
Pw/jLrjv /uapTvptjtrai (xxiii. 11). YVUKTTOV ovv e<TTa) OTI TOIS eOve<riv cnrea-TaXt] TOVTO TO crooTi /ptov TOV 
Oeov avrol /cat a/foJcrovrat (xxviii. 28). On the 
very threshold of a work, which was intended to 

1 Cf. Iferm. Simil. ix. : the twelve bills = the twelve nations of 
the world. 


describe the realisation of this aim, is placed this list 
of the nations of the known World, and we are told 
how this great promise was at once fulfilled for their 
representatives ! Could anything be more impressive ? 
How many are there who could measure their art 
against this writer ? And yet more, the barriers 
of language are seen to be overthrown ! All under 
stand the ecstatic speech inspired by the Spirit ! The 
racial divisions of mankind are now abolished ; in 
the new religion the consequences of the building ot 
the Tower of Babel are seen to be annulled ! True, 
this grand picture cannot stand investigation in cold 
blood. The people of course all understood Aramaic ; 
moreover, it is not even Aramaic alone which is in 
question, but also a language of enthusiasm which 
works by suggestion. But one does not think of this 
at first. St. Luke takes up two facts of actual his 
tory that Jews and proselytes out of all countries of 
the world were resident in Jerusalem, and that on a 
certain day, the day of Pentecost or shortly before 
hand, a great multitude were won over to the Gospel 
owing to a sudden outbreak of rapturous enthusiasm, 
accompanied by ecstatic speaking, among the disciples 
of Jesus these two facts the author works up with 
consummate skill, so that they form as it were a 
grand flourish of trumpets heralding the appearance 
of the great theme of his work. 

We have yet to compare this list of nations with 
the statement of chapter vi. 9. Here we are told 
of Libertines, men of Cyrene, of Alexandria, of 
Cilicia and Asia, dwelling in Jerusalem. Unfortu 
nately we cannot gain a quite clear conception of 


the meaning of the words ; for St. Luke has not 
expressed himself with precision. 1 They are, how 
ever, important on this account, because here in a 
context dealing with a simple succession of events 
not a worked-up description witness is borne to 
some representatives of the nations mentioned in ii. 
9^*., namely men of Cyrene, Alexandria (Egypt), and 
Asia. Hence Jews and proselytes from these regions 
were really settled in Jerusalem, a circumstance which 
is moreover probable in itself. 

Palestine (Galilee, Judaea, the Philistian cities, 
Samaria and Phoenicia). 

If St. Luke, the author of the we-sections, was also 
the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we learn 
from his own account that he accompanied the Apostle 
St. Paul to Jerusalem (chap, xxi.), and that about 
two and a half years later he journeyed with him 

1 The words run: 6.vtari]<ia.v 64 rives rCiv IK TT?J ffvvaywyfjs rrjt 
Xtyofj.f rrjs Ai^tprivuv Kal Kvpt}vatui> Kal A\f^av5p(wv Kal r&v dirb 
KAi/u a? Kal Ao-fai ffuvfarovvTei rif ?.Tf<pav(f. According to the 
simplest interpretation only one combined synagogue of Libertines 
and of men of Cyrene and Alexandria, and in addition Jews of 
Cilicia and Asia are here spoken of (the Libertines are usually 
explained to be Jews who were once Roman captives taken in 
war, and who then [either themselves or their descendants] had 
returned to Jerusalem ; this explanation cannot be regarded as 
satisfactory). But the combination, " Libertines, men of Cyrene 
and of Alexandria, is very strange. It has therefore been supposed 
that St. Luke has not expressed himself with accuracy ; and that 
three different synagogues are intended. Some indeed think of 
four synagogues in that they conceive of the men of Cilicia and 
Asia as also belonging to a synagogue. Others again think of 
one synagogue of the Libertines alone, leaving Ki /^ratW K.T.\. to 
depend upon rivet. 


from CcEsarea to Rome (chaps, xxvii. xxviii.). It is 
more than doubtful whether he was with the Apostle 
between these two dates, for the " we " breaks oft 
directly after the arrival in Jerusalem, and first 
appears again at the departure from Caesarea. The 
explanation that the " we " does not appear in the 
chapters in question (xxi. 19 xxvi. 32), because St. 
Luke had nothing to relate in which he himself took 
part as eye-witness is most improbable ; for he him 
self relates that St. Paul when in Caesarea could 
receive his friends without hindrance, and that they 
were allowed to minister to him (xxiv. 23). There 
must have been opportunity enough for St. Luke not 
only to have visited the Apostle, but also to have 
shared in experiences of his that were worthy of 
record. Besides this he could have attended on the 
various occasions when St. Paul appeared before the 
procurator ; even here, however, he has not written 
as an eye-witness. We may therefore assume that 
St. Luke set foot indeed upon the soil of Palestine 
and Jerusalem in company with the Apostle, but that 
he left it again very soon. We accordingly expect 
that he will show the amount of information con 
cerning the country and city which a traveller is 
wont to acquire after a short residence. And this 
is just what we find in the work itself. Here, how 
ever, we can only show that this is so in the case of 
the information he gives us on geographical, topo 
graphical, and ethnographical points. 

TO yevo/u.evov p>i/J.a. KO.& oX?/? rrjs 
axo T^? laAtAcaa? yuera TO 
o eKi ipv^ev Icoaf ^9 (x. 37) : the movement 


started from Galilee (xiii. 31 : w<^$// TO?? a-vvavafiaa-iv 
avTw O.TTO T>79 FaXiXa/a? e<Y If/oowraX^/u) and first 
spread over the whole of Juda?a. Jesus is 6 O.TTO 
Na^apeO, 1 and the eleven apostles are addressed 
(i. 11) as avSpe? Ya\i\aiot ; St. Luke at the same time 
knows that the Galilaeans could be distinguished by 
their dialect (ii. 7 ov^l $ov airairres OVTOI etcriv oi 
XaXowre? Ta\i\aloi; cf. St. Mark xiv. 67, 70; St. 
Matt. xxvi. 71, 73). When intending to give the 
boundaries of Christendom in the first years after its 
foundation, he says (ix. 31): 17 aaeXipria KaO oX>/5 TJ/? 
loucWa? KOI FaXiXa/a? KOI 2a/xa^>/a?. A few times, 
when we should have expected Galilee to be men 
tioned with Judaea, it is wanting, possibly because it 
is included in Judaea. Galilee plays no part in the 
narrative of St. Luke it is merely a reminiscence 
this, however, in all probability answers to actual 
history. St. Paul never mentions Galilee and the 
Galilean Christian communities in his epistles. Jeru 
salem the capital became the exclusive determining 

1 Thus only once in the book (x. 38), on the other hand six times 
Irjffoh (X/xoTis) 6 Nofwpaibs (ii. 22 ; iii. 6 ; iv. 10 ; vi. 14 ; xxii. 8 ; 
xxvi. 9) ; it is probable in itself bat that single passage is de 
cisive that 6 Nafw/>a?oj means one who was a native of Nazareth. 
It is noteworthy that St. Paul never uses the expression, and that 
it occurs only in the first half of the Acts, or rather the only two 
passages in the second half where it occurs really belong, so far 
as their subject is concerned, to the first half. The designation 
"Jesus the Nazarene" is thus Palestinian, and is only used by 
St. Luke in order to give the right colouring to the first half of his 
book. His procedure, as is well known, is similar elsewhere. It is 
only in the mouth of the Jewish orator Tertullus (xxiv. 5) that the 
Christians are disdainfully called ^ TWV Rafapalwt> a pfffis. A like 
feeling is expressed in St. John i. 45 / Iriffouv T&V dir6 Nofap^r . . . 
Kal tiff* <U T NatfapcuJX K Nafap^r 6vi>a.ra.i TI ayaObv tlvat. 


centre of the movement soon after the Crucifixion 
of our Lord. 1 

Judaea is more frequently mentioned in the book. 
There, and indeed ev Tracry ry lovSaia, the disciples are 
to bear witness (i. 8). The adherents of Stephen are 
scattered Kara raf ^opa? TJ/? lovSaias (viii. 1), i.e. 
throughout the Holy Land (vide supra sub y^apa). With 
the phrases eKK\r]<rta KaO oA>;? TJ/? lovSalas (ix. 31 ), 2 and 
a.e\(pol oi OVTCS KCITO. Ttjv lovSaiav (xi. 1), and KCITOIK- 
ovvres eV ry lovSaia aSeXcpol (xi. 29), we may compare 
Gal. i. 22 : at eKK\t]crtai rfjs lovSaias and 1 Thess. ii. 14 : 
at e/c/cX;<r/a< at ovcrai ev Tfl Ioi/<Wa. It is noteworthy 
that St. Luke realises that Caesarea does not belong 
to Judaea in the proper sense of the word ; in xii. 19 
and XXi. 10 he writes KareXOaiv CLTTO Ttjs Iov$aia<? els 
Kaicrapiav and KCLTtjXOev rz? O.TTO T^? Iou^a/a9 7rpo<prJTt]9 
[e<V Kaio-a^o/av] respectively note the coincidence 
here; XXi. 10 stands in a we-section ; but already, 
from viii. 2640 ; ix. 32^1 one recognises that St. 
Luke did not count Caesarea and the whole belt of 
Philistian cities as belonging to Judaea, and yet he has 
no inclusive name for the region ; in viii. 40 he writes : 

1 In the history of the Church the expectation of the near 
approach of the "Kingdom" has always had as a corollary the 
assembling of believers at one single place. We may accordingly 
assume that after the first appearances of our Lord in Galilee all or 
almost all of His adherents betook themselves to Jerusalem, where 
it was expected that the "Kingdom" would be revealed. Hence 
Galilee passed at once quite into the background (St. Paul speaks 
only of Churches in Judaea), and hence it is also explained why it 
happened that the first appearances of the Risen Christ in Galilee 
were replaced by appearances in Jerusalem. It was afterwards that 
churches gradually formed themselves in Galilee. 

2 The same expression: KuO fi\?/s rijt Iov5aias occurs also in x. 37. 


eupeOt] ej? v A^a>TOi/, KOI Siep-^o/JLevos evijyye- 
XiTero rof TroXe/? Tracrctf eco? TO? eAOeFv avrov ei<t 
Kaia-apiav, and in ix. 32: eyevero IleVjOov Siep-^o- 
fjifvov Sia Trdvrwv [sell. all the brethren in the cities 
of the Philistian coast] Kare\0eiv KOI TT/OO? rof9 ayiov? 


Judaea occurs in some passages where we should 
expect Jerusalem, and vice versd ; but this is scarcely 
due to inaccuracy. That the Christian communities 
of Juda?a in the first days, and for some considerable 
time, were only relatively independent, indeed were 
for the most part dependent upon the Church of 
Jerusalem, and were, one might say, really identical 
with that Church, is a fact which can be deduced 
from the Pauline epistles, and which answers to the 
natural course of development of all such organisa 
tions : the mother community remained at first " the 
Church," the rest were only in dependent filial rela 
tionship to her. St. Luke thus shows himself well- 
informed when in the cases in question he writes 
Jerusalem for Judaea, and vice versd. 

It is, however, believed that it can be proved that 
the author has made a mistake in writing Judaea in 
xxvi. 20 : St. Paul did not preach, as St. Luke makes 
him say, in Judaea, not at least ev irao-fl -777 X<*>p(f TW 
Iov$ala<?. It cannot, in fact, be proved that he did 
preach in Judaea, and before the time mentioned in 
Gal. i. 22 he cannot have done so ; but why may he 
not have proclaimed the Gospel in this region on the 
occasion of later visits when he was journeying from 
Antioch or Cacsarea to Jerusalem ? For this ministry 
days, not weeks, were quite sufficient, and he himself 


says (Rom. xv. 19): UHTTC ju.e cnro IepovaraXtifJi . . . 
Treir\t]pU!Kva.i TO evayyeXiov TOU Xpi(TTOv. 

The centre of Judaea and of Christendom is Jeru 
salem. Here the name given to the city by St. Luke 
is of itself a matter of the deepest interest. 1 As is 
well known St. Mark uses without exception the name 
Icpo(r6\vjj.a, so also St. Matthew (for the single pas 
sage where lepova-dXrj/u. occurs [xxiii. 37] belongs to a 
quotation), 2 and St. John. On the other hand, St. 
Paul and St. Luke use sometimes Iepo<r6\v[jLa and 
sometimes lepovcraXrjju. 3 again a proof of their 
mutual relationship. In St. Paul s case we can with 
out difficulty discern the rule which guides his use of 
the respective names : where Jerusalem has religious 
significance (Gal. iv. 25, 26), and in passages of special 
solemnity where the Apostle thinks of the " saints " 
in Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25, 26, 31 ; here Jerusalem is 
everywhere combined with ot ayioi) he writes lepov- 
o-aX?/yU, i.e. he chooses the Hebrew name, elsewhere he 
writes Iepo<To\v/uLa (Gal. i. 17 : av^XQov eiV Iepo<T., 
likewise i. 18 ; ii. 1 avefiqv ? le^oocr.). Two instances 
only are left which do not seem to conform to the rule. 
In Rom. xv. 19 we read : axrre /JLC cnro lepovcraXrju 
/ecu KUK\(I) ftexpt TOV I\\vpiKCv 7re7r\r]pa)KGi ai TO evayye- 
\iov, and 1 Cor. xvi. 3 : 01)9 av SoKi/uLaa-tjTe <V eTncrro- 
\u>v TOVTOVS 7rejui.\ls(i) cnreieyKetv Tt]v X ( *P IV VfJ.<iav [the 
alms that had been collected] V Icpova-aXrj/ui.. But 
in the second instance St. Paul is thinking of the 

1 Of. Ramsay in The Expotitor, 1907, p. HO/. 

J Vide my work " The Sayings of Jesus," Williams & Norgate, 
1908, pp. 29, 143, 103 /., 168 /. 

8 In the Apocalypse only Iepov<ra\r)(j. is found (iii. 12 ; xxi. 2, 10). 
So also in Hebrews (xii. 22). 


saints in Jerusalem, and has therefore chosen the 
more sacred name ; and in the first instance his feel 
ing of reverent wonder at the grandeur of the work 
that had been accomplished through him may have 
led him to write the name lepoua-aX^fji. 

In regard to St. Luke^ usage in the Acts the 
matter is not quite so simple. First let us give a 
statistical summary of the occurrences of the two 
names : l 

Chaps, i. vii. Iepo<roXv/u.a once; lepova-aXrj/u. 

eleven times. 
Chaps, viii.-xv. Icpoa-oXv/na five times; Iepov<ra\>i/j. 

fifteen times. 
Chaps, xvi. xxi. (without thewe-sections) -- leoocro- 

\v/ma twice ; Iepou<TaXq/u. twice. 
The we-sections -- lepocroXv/ma four times ; lepou- 

craX^fj. three times. 

Chaps, xxii. xxviii. Iepo(r6\vjj.a, ten times; lepov- 
six times. 

Here the first thing to notice is that St. Luke 
uses lepova-aXi ifi (thirty-seven times) very much 
more frequently than lepoa-oXv/j-a (twenty-two times). 
Seeing, however, that in his gospel he has written 
lepoaoXu/ma only four times (ii. 22 ; xiii. 22 ; xix. 
28 ; xxiii. 7) while he writes lepoixraX^/m. twenty-six 
times, and seeing that almost the same ratio obtains 
in the first half of the Acts (^IepocroXvfjt.a six times, 
lepova-aXij/ui. twenty-six times), it is at once evident 

1 The manuscripts of course vary, yet in each particular case 
it is possible with the highest degree of probability to ascertain 
which form St. Luke chose. We here leave D out of consideration. 


that the author who, even as a Hellene, loved to 
imitate the antique style of sacred literature, had an 
especial affection for lepovaraXSjim. In his gospel 
and in Acts i. xv. taken together, lepova-aXijju. occurs 
fifty-two times, lepocroXv/ma only ten times. 

The second thing to notice is that the problem is 
the same for the we-sections as for the whole book. 
If the author of the we-sections is not identical with 
St. Paul we should have to assume three writers who 
varied between lepocroXf/xa and lepovcraXrj/ui. unless 
indeed we assume that St. Luke has carefully worked 
through his source correcting it and bringing it into 
conformity with the rest of his work even in this 
point ! But who will believe this ! 

In regard to the rule which governs the use of 
these two forms of the name in the Acts of the 
Apostles, something can be learned from the gospel. 
Here St. Luke in the parts which he has in common 
with St. Mark or St. Matthew, or with both, has in 
the first place written lepova-dXv/u. where these have 
Iepo(To\v/jt.a ; in the second place he has often inserted 
Jerusalem where they do not give the name of the 
city. lepocroXv/uLa is only used by him in the gospel 
where he has no source before him, and in the purely 
geographical sense (ii. 22 : avryyayov avrov et? lepocr., 
xiii. 22 : SteiropeueTO Kara Tro Aef? KOI /co^ua? . . . 
Tropeiav 7roiovfji.evo$ ei? lepoa-.J, xix. 28 : eTropevero 
e/u.pocr6ei> aj/a/3a:Va)v a? lepocroXv/ma, xxiii. 7 : TT/JO? 
JUpwStjv OVTO. KOI avrov ev lepoa-.J. lepova-aXrjju. is 
thus for him the more sacred name, and, because 
almost the whole narrative of the gospel is noble 
and sacred, it is the proper word for constant use. 


The same attitude towards the names is plainly discern 
ible in chapter* i.-rii. of the Acts and in the we-sections. 
In the former passage (chapters i. vii.) the author 
has only once written lepocroXv/jLa (in the introduction 
i. 4), where he tells us that our Lord commanded 
His disciples not to depart at once from the place 
Jerusalem (UTTO lepoo-o\v/u.h)v ju.r) -^wpi^ecrOai) ; as for 
the rest of the passage everything in the early history 
of the Church is of so lofty a character that he 
only speaks of Iepov<ra\) ]/m (eleven times). In the 
we-sections the reason of the variation between the 
two forms of the name is quite evident : in XX. 
16 ; xxi. 4, 15, 17 lepoa-oXv/ma is written because the 
author is concerned simply with topographical notices 
(St. Paul wished to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost ; 
St. Paul ought not to go up to Jerusalem ; we took 
our journey up to Jerusalem ; when, however, we 
arrived at Jerusalem). But among these verses stands 
a saying of the prophet Agabus ; here we read in oratio 
directa (xxi. 11). TOV avtipa . . . ofaowut ev leoou- 
a-aXrjfj. oi lovdaloi, and now the bystanders take up 
this word Iepov<ra.\i]/u. (xxi. 12), and also St. Paul says 
(xxi. 13) : airoOaveiv ei? Iepov(ra\>i/u. eTOi/JL<a$ *X M 
The Biblical form lepovo-aXi ifjt. alone suited the 
solemnity of the whole scene. This may seem to us 
somewhat petty ; and so it is. So ultra-refined was 
the feeling of the stylist St. Luke ! Let there then 
be no doubt that he who wrote the gospel and 
Acts i. vii. also wrote the we-sections ! The manner 
in which the two forms of the name for Jerusalem 
are used is enough to show it. 

At first sight the variation between the two forms 


in chapters viii. xxviii. (omitting the we-sections) 
appears to present greater difficulty. We are con 
cerned with seventeen passages in which lepocroXvjma 
is read. Obviously lepocroXuiaa is more frequently 
used since the narrative is no longer concerned with 
the earliest history of the Church of Jerusalem, and 
at the end, although the scene of action again returns 
to the soil of Palestine, \epowa\rnj. is yet less frequently 
used than Iepoa-d\vju.a. But even in chapters xxii 
xxviii. where the former occurs only six times, while 
the latter occurs ten times, it is still possible to 
observe a peculiar and quite invariable rule. In xxii. 
5, 17, 18; xxiii. 11; xxv. 3 tee read lepovcraXij/ui., 
Jbr here Jerusalem is spoken of in Jerusalem itself; in 
xxv. 1, 7, 9, 15, 20, 24 ; xxvi. 4, 10, 20 ; xxviii. 17 
we read Iepo<ro\u/ut.a, t for Jerusalem is here spoken oj 
in Ccesarea and (xxviii. 17) in Rome. The place where 
the scene is located, not the speaker, makes the differ 
ence : St. Paul speaks in Jerusalem of Jerusalem, in 
Caesarea and Rome of Hierosolyma. 1 There accord 
ingly remain for consideration only seven more 
passages where lepotroXvjma is found, namely viii. 1, 
14, 25 ; xi. 27 ; xiii. 13 ; xvi. 4, and xix. 21 (iepovaa- 
\YHJL occurs seventeen times in these chapters, namely 
viii. 26, 27; ix. 2, 13, 21, 26, 28; x. 39; xi. 2, 22; 
xii. 25 ; xiii. 27, 31 ; xv. 2, 4 ; xx. 22 ; xxi. 31). 
Evidently Iepovara\i ]/u. is still the rule in this part 
of the Acts. The rule is broken where the scene 

1 In chapters xxii.-xxviii. (in sixteen instances) there is only one 
exception, namely xxiv. 11 ; here one would expect " Hierosolyma," 
yet we read "Jerusalem." But this exception proves the rule: 
St. Paul speaks of irpoaKwelv in Jerusalem ; this suggested the use 
of the sacred form (cf. viii. 27 : irpovKwrio-uv els lepow.). 


of action tends towards Samaria or is situated there 
(viii. 1, 14, 25) ; again when the narrator takes his 
stand in Antioch (xi. 27), in Perga (xiii. 13), in 
Lycaonia (xvi. 4), and in Ephesus (xix. 21); but 
seeing that in these sections St. Luke under the same 
conditions also speaks of lepoua-aXy i/ui, no fixed rule 
can be here established. We must confess that the 
variation in chapters viii. xxi. omitting the we- 
sections is not to be explained, i.e. that St. Luke 
here (though he prefers lepova-aX^/n.) keeps to no 
rule ; but in chapters i. vii., in the we-sections, and 
in xxii. xxviii. his rule can be clearly discerned. And 
yet the number of instances (where lepoo-oXv/uia. is 
used) where the rule is not clear is not more than 

In regard to the knowledge of Jerusalem and 
Judaea the passages wherein the author betrays a 
certain knowledge of his own are no less numerous in 
the Acts than in his gospel. The gospel contains an 
important body of traditions connected with Jerusalem 
and Juda?a, and peculiar to St. Luke, which it is 
probable that the author acquired on the spot. One 
does not write in a gospel passages like : KWJU.II aire- 
%ov<ra. (TTdSlovs cfy iKovra cnro lepovaraXij/ji., ft ovo/ma 
Ei/u./jLaous unless one has been oneself on the spot. 
But we also read in the Acts (i. 12) : rare u 
\l/av et$ Iepov(ra\>iiu. cnro opov$ TOV KaXov/uevov 
o <TTII> eyyv? lepovcraXtj/u. <ra/3/3dTov e-^ov o&ov, again 
(i. 19) : oJTTe K\riQrivai TO yiapiov e/rVo 777 StaXcKTO) 
^, TOUT f<mv yjepiov af/AUTOs, again 
(viii. 26) : -wopcvov KCLTO. /j-eur^ftpiav eirl TTJV 6Sov T^V 
a-rro lepova-aXr/n c<V Fa^a^ avrt] evriv 



ep>]/ut.os. 1 The trepi^ TroXeis IepovaraXv/u. (v. 16) might 
also be mentioned here. St. Luke, moreover, knows 
of a definite v-rrepwov in which the first disciples were 
wont to assemble ; 2 he mentions the house of the 
mother of John and Mark (xii. 12 : ov yjvav iKavoi 
crvvti6potcr[JLvoi KOI Trpocrev^o/j.evoi) ; he has a definite 
conception of the locality of the prison where St. 
Peter was confined and of its distance from the house 
just mentioned (xii. 10/". : $ie\Q6vTe<; <5e 7rp(ort]V (frv\a- 
xrjv KOI evTepav fjXQav eir\ T>]V 7ru\t]i> T)]i> a-iSrjpav TIJV 
(pepovtrav ei? TtfV TroXiv . . . KOI e^eXOovTe? 7rpo>j\9ov 
/JLiav . . . KOI 6 flerpo? . . . ?)\0cv eVt 
oiKiav rrjs Map/ay). Had he visited St. Paul 
in this same prison ? He knows the gate of the 
Temple, which Joscphus (Bellum, v. 5, 3) also calls the 
" Beautiful Gate " (iii. 2, 10 : f] Oupa rov tepou fj \eyo- 
copaia) and Solomon s Porch (iii. 11; v. 12 : fj 
a ff Ka\ov/j.evq SoXoyUwi To?), which is also men 
tioned in St. John (x. 23) and by Josephus (" Antiq.," 
xx. 9, 7). 3 He knows of the (priestly) err pciTijyos rov 
iepov (iv. 1 ; v. 24, 26), likewise of the cohors Romana 
auxiliaris, which was stationed in the citadel Antonia 
(xxi. 31^.); he is acquainted with the situation of 

1 It can scarcely be meant that the road was deserted at the 
given time; for that KO.TO. /j.f(rrifj.j3piat> means "mid-day," and not 
" towards the south," is not probable, in spite of Nestle (Stud. u. 
Krit., 1892, s. 335/.). The most probable meaning of the passage 
is that the road was always deserted, that is, passed through a desert 
region ; in spite of this the Evangelist was to go along it. St. Luke, 
if he has added this note, must have known the road. 

3 He did not, however, know or did not think it necessary to tell 
us the exact locality in which the event recorded in ii. 1 ff. took 

3 Knowledge of the Temple is also presupposed in xxi. 30. 


the centra in relation to the Temple, indeed even with 
the avafiaOfioi (xxi. 34, 37, 40). He has such correct 
knowledge of the Sadducees that he writes with pre 
cision (v. 17) : 6 ap-fcifpevs Kat Trai/re? ol avv ai/rct?, r\ 
ovtra aipe<Tis TCOI/ 2*a^0ouca/cp. Similarly, he shows 
himself well informed concerning the Pharisees ; he 
knows that both parties were represented in the 
Sanhedrin (xxiii. 6) ; he knows the question on which 
the Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed (xxiii. 7): 

a$$ovKatoi ju.ei> yap \cyovcriv /my eivai avaa-racriv /UT/re 
ayye\ov /u?/re Trvev/j-a., Qapiarcuoi oe o/J.o\oyovcnv TO. 

Jifporepa. It is known to him that a considerable 
number (vi. 7 : TroXi/? 0^X09) of both priests and also 
Pharisees (xv. 5) had joined the Christian community 
in Jerusalem, that the latter demanded that Gentile 
Christians in the Diaspora should be circumcised and 
observe the Law (foe. c^.),and that the Jewish Christians 
in Palestine, in spite of the decree of the Council of 
Jerusalem, all remained fyXwral rov VOJULOV (xxi. 20). 
He knows that of the ypa/m/uLareis (iv. 5 ; vi. 12) a 
part belonged to the Pharisees and a part did not 
(xxiii. 9). He tells us that the Pharisee Gamaliel 

ytuof Travri TU> \au) interfered to a certain extent 
in favour of the Apostles (v. 34 y.), and that during 
the proceedings against St. Paul the Pharisees took 
his part against the Sadducees (xxiii. 9). It is not 
unknown to him (xxi. 27 ; xxiv. 18) that it was not 
so much native Jews, but Asiatic Jews, present in 
Jerusalem, who instigated the assault upon St. Paul in 
that city. It is not from St. Paul that we learn any 
thing concerning the dispute between the "Hebrews" 
and the "Hellenists 1 1 in the Primitive Community, or 


concerning the choice of the " Seven " and their 
names, or concerning the heroic Stephen and his 
teaching against the Temple, 1 or concerning the 
gradual preparation for the transformation of Chris 
tian Judaism into Christianity which underlies all 
these events in the history of the Church of Jeru 
salem, but only from St. Luke (chaps, vi. vii.) ; and 
it is St. Luke, not St. Paul, who, in the story of 
Ananias and Sapphira, has painted the shadows into 
the portrait of the " saints " of Jerusalem and makes 
us suspect many other shadows. All these things in 
the first place, the topographical statements ; in the 
second place, the more .intimate acquaintance with 
the early history of the Church in Jerusalem admir 
ably agree with the information afforded by St. Luke 
himself, that he came to Jerusalem with St. Paul 
(and there shared with the Apostle the hospitality of 
an "old disciple, Mnason of Cyprus,"" xxi. 15, 16). 
We have already mentioned what other knowledge he 
had of Judaea. Let it be added that he knows that 
it took two days to travel from Jerusalem to Caesarea 
by way of Antipatris (about 62 miles). 2 Of the 
cities on the coast Caesarea and the towns lying to 
the south, the former is mentioned fifteen times in 
the book. St. Luke himself landed there (xxi. 8) ; 

1 Also chap. xxi. 28 is important from this point of view ; here 
it is the Temple which is most thought of. 

2 Chap, xxiii. 31 /. This was not the first time that St. Paul had 
gone from Jerusalem to Cajsarea ; already in ix. 30 we are told that 
the brethren escorted him thither from Jerusalem ; in xviii. 22, 
however, we must not suppose that a journey from Csesarea to 
Jerusalem and thence to Antioch is implied. Neither, on the other 
hand, was Ca?sarea the goal of this journey; but the ship, in 
which St. Paul voyaged to the East, was bound for Czesarea. 


he knows it as the abode and centre of activity of 
the Evangelist St. Philip (loc. clt. and viii. 40); he speaks 
of the Church in that city (xviii. 22) and the brethren 
there (xxi. 16), also of the Praetorium which Herod 
the Great had built there (xxiii. 35) ; and he knows 
that St. Paul was confined there in mild imprison 
ment. That the cnreipa fj KaXov/Jievt] \ra\iKtj was 
stationed in Caesarea is, according to x. 1, quite 
probably meant by St. Luke ; yet we cannot be 
certain that this was his meaning, and it is still less 
certain that St. Luke has here made a mistake (as 
Schiirer contends, Gesch. des jtid. Volks, I. 3 s. 462 f.). 
The first missionary station of St. Philip in the 
southern cities seems to have been Azotus (viii. 40) ; 
thence he worked through the principal towns until 
he transferred his seat to Caesarea (loc. tit.). Other 
places mentioned are Lydda (with Sharon) l and Joppa 
(ix. 32/!, 36 ff".), with their Christian communities. 
They are specially mentioned because two great 
miracles were wrought in them by St. Peter. In 
spite of the exact statements that Lydda was nigh to 
Joppa (ix. 38), and that St. Peter dwelt in Joppa " in 
the house of one Simon a tanner, &> CVTIV OIKIO. irapa. 
6d\aar<rav " (ix. 43; x. 6, 17) tanning was an un 
cleanly trade 2 the narratives do not give the 
impression that St. Luke himself had been in those 
parts. He speaks here on the strength of information 
the source of which was very near at hand. The first 

i The plain of the coast stretching northwards from Lydda and 
Joppa is meant. 

1 If St. Peter enters into a house on the seashore and stays there 
along time (ijntpat tKavdt, ix. 43), we may perhaps assume that his 
trade of fisherman iulluenced him. He was no tanner. 


great success of the mission was not, however, in the 
parts of southern Palestine, but in Samaria. The 
Christian Hellenists dispersed by the persecution con 
cerning Stephen and the same Philip who afterwards 
became the missionary of the Philistian cities, won 
over this region (viii. i. 5 ff.}. The rejoicing concern 
ing this first success is already reflected in i. 8 (ev 
Tfl louSala Kal ^a/mapla, then follows at once 
T>?9 y>]9, cf- ix. 31 : 77 e/ocA)/<na Ka9 6X;? TJ/? louocua? 
. . . KOI Sci/zapa?? also xv. 3), again in viii. 14 : 
SeSeKTai f] 2ayUao/a TOV \6yov TOU Oeov, and in the 
emphasis laid upon the fact that here the gospel had 
won its way into many villages (viii. 25) ; but even 
in the gospel of St. Luke we may trace a reflection of 
this conversion of Samaritans (ix. 52 ; x. 33 ; xvii. 
11, 16, but see also St. John iv. 39y.). Yet on the 
other hand, it is obvious that St. Luke had not him 
self seen the country so as to have a clear conception 
of its topography ; he speaks only from second-hand 
information concerning " the city " (viii. 5), " the 
people " of Samaria (viii. 9), and the Church in that 
country. In reference to Tyre, Ptolemais, and Sidon 
(XXi. 3/. 7 ; XXVii. 3) we hear that St. Luke, together 
with the Apostle, had learned something of the churches 
in these cities on flying visits. In Tyre their reception 
was especially hearty. The general name " Phoenicia " 
occurs thrice (xi. 19 ; xv. 3 ; Xxi. 2) in the Acts. In 
the second passage it stands together with Samaria ; 
in the first (according to viii. 1) Samaria is also to 
be supplied : Si>]\6ov [from Samaria] e<o? ^omV?;? KOI 
KUTT/OOU /ecu AvTfOYe/a? at that time the foundation 
of the Phoenician Church was laid by those who had 


been driven from Jerusalem ; this Church, however, was 
at first according to xi. 19 purely Jewish-Christian ; 
the third passage is purely geographical. Phoenicia, 
like Judaea and Samaria, appears as an independent 
ecclesiastical " province," which cannot be said of the 
Philistian cities, 1 and to it we must also assign 
Damascus. Concerning this city St. Luke possesses 
special information, however improbable it is that he 
himself visited it. He knows that it had several 
synagogues (ix. 20), that one of its streets was 
called " >/ ei)$a " (ix. II), 2 and that St. Paul took 
up his abode there in the house of a man named 

Syria and Cilicia. 

In the Acts Syria is mentioned three times purely 
geographically as the goal of the journeys of St. Paul 
(xviii. 18 : f^tTrXet e/y Tt]V ^vpiav, XX. 3 : avayea-Qai 
e/y Tqv SfjO/ay, XXi. 3 : eTrXeo/xev ety Tr\v ^>vpiav 
notice here the consistency of expression, which was 
by no means a matter of course) ; in the two other 
passages, where it again occurs, it stands just as 
in Gal. i. 21 together with Cilicia (xv. 23, 41), and 
here we learn that the two provinces in St. Luke s 

1 This answers to what we know of the later circumstances. 
The south-western cities of Palestine, including Caesarea, did 
not form a proper ecclesiastical province, but were included with 

* H pvfj-r) i) Ka\ovfj.^vf] tvOfta. This use of Ka\(iff0ai is char 
acteristic in regard to the consistency of St. Luke s style. It 
occurs about fifteen times in the gospel and likewise fifteen times 
in the Acts, including four times in the we-sections (xxvii. 8, 14, 
16 ; xxviii. 1). 


view formed a single ecclesiastical district. 1 It is 
the first great Gentile Christian district ; in its centre 
stands Antioch and the church in that city. The 
foundation of this church forms the goal towards 
which the narrative tends even from vi. 1 ff. z St. 
Luke shows himself well informed concerning this 
community, 3 and regards it as, after Jerusalem, the 
second capital of Christendom. 4 He relates that 

1 This answers to the development in succeeding times, but also 
to the political situation in the time of St. Luke. Cilicia is yet 
again mentioned as the native country of St. Paul (xxi. 39 ; xxii. 
3 ; xxiii. 34). In vi. 9 it stands together with Asia (Jews of 
Cilicia and Asia resident in Jerusalem), in xxvii. 5 with geo 
graphical propriety together with Pamphylia (TO Tre Xayos T& KO.TO. 
rrjv KiXiKiav Kal T[a/j.^>v\iav). Even in such small points St. Luke 
exhibits knowledge and conscientious care. This variation in 
the /coupling of the province with other provinces is highly char 

2 In this connection it is also most significant, that the native 
place of only one of "the Seven" is mentioned (vi. 5: Nt/c6\aos 

3 St. Luke knows nothing, or at least has told us nothing, of the 
Christian community in Tarsus. He only says that St. Paul came 
from that city and possessed the right of citizenship (Tapcrei/s) there 
(ix. 11 ; xxi. 39 ; xxii. 3), that the brethren of Jerusalem dispatched 
him thither by way of Cassarea (ix. 30), and that after a seemingly 
long ministry St. Barnabas brought him thence to Antioch. The 
statement agrees admirably with Gal. i. 21. 

* Of other Syrian cities St. Luke mentions only Seleucia, the 
haven of Antioch (xiii. 4), and that casually, without stating 
whether it possessed a Christian community. It is part of the 
author s literary custom to give the names of the havens, </. the 
mention of Attalia (xiv. 25) of Neapolis (xvi. 11), of Cenchreae 
(xviii. 18). In xvii. 14 we read efaTreVretXav ol d.5e\<f>ol iropevfaOai ?ws 
lirl Tyv OdXaaaav. It may well be that St. Paul, in order to guard 
against plots, embarked at a point of the coast that lay out of the 
way (Ramsay, " St. Paul the Traveller" [1897], p. 70, 233, explains 


its foundation was Gentile Christian, 1 and mentions 
its founders ; 2 he knows that at the very begin 
ning it was extraordinarily flourishing (xi. 21 : TTO\U<; 
apiO/uLos), that through the ministry of Barnabas, 
who came thither from Jerusalem, 3 it grew yet 
stronger (xi. 22-24), and that then for the space 
of a year it received instruction from St. Barnabas 
and St. Paul, whom the former had brought from 
Tarsus (xi. 25, 26). 4 He moreover knows (loc. cit.) 
that the name " Christians " arose in Antioch of 
course invented by opponents ; neither St. Paul nor 
the four Evangelists use it ; he knows an episode in 
the primitive history of the community their offer 
ing on behalf of the brethren in Judaea ; 5 and he has 

1 There exists a formal discrepancy between xi. 19 and xi. 20 
(. . . Avrioxfi-o-s, nySevi XaXoOvres rbv \byov el ^TJ louoafois and A0<Wei 
e/j A.vrit)x eLav AdXow Kal irpbs Tovs"~E\\rjvas), but the discrepancy is 
only brought about by stylistic awkwardness. We need not conclude 
therefrom that there must have been here two sources. Similar cases 
of pardonable awkwardness are also found elsewhere in the book. 

* Chap. xi. 19 : Some men of Cyprus and Gyrene of the number 
of those driven from Jerusalem. St. Barnabas the Cypriote did not 
belong to them ; for it was not till later that he entered upon the 
mission in Antioch. On the other hand, the " old disciple " Mnason 
the Cypriote (xxi. 6), with whom St. Paul lodged at Jerusalem, 
may have belonged to them. St. Paul may even on this account have 
claimed his hospitality, because he had known him of old in Antioch. 

3 It is strange that Barnabas, who had been already mentioned 
at an earlier period, should here be again specially described (xi. 24). 
It may well be that the author wished in this way to explain and 
to emphasise the grandeur and the success of his work in Antioch. 

4 St. Luke thus distinguishes quite plainly three stages in the 
early history of the Church in Antioch. 

8 The importance which St. Luke seems to assign to this offering 
appears in an especially clear light if we remember what stress St. 
Paul laid upon the collections for Jerusalem. St. Paul continues 
what the Christians of Antioch had begun. 


knowledge of the college of prophets and teachers in 
Antioch (xiii. 1) : Barnabas, Simeon, surnamed Niger, 
Lucius of Cyrene, Mnason, once an intimate acquaint 
ance of Herod the Tetrarch, and Paul. The great 
missionary journey of St. Barnabas and St. Paul he 
regards as an undertaking of the Church of Antioch 
(xiii. 1 ff- OL eKTrejucfrOeitTes, xiv. 26 f. : ave-irXevvav ei$ 
A.vTioyeiav, oOev rj<rav r 7rapaeo/J.evoi 77; ^upiri TOV 
6eov els TO epyov o e7r\i)pu>arav. Trapayevo/JLevoi e KOI 
arvvayayovTes Ttjv e/c/cX>;criav, avi jyyeXXov bora TTOlt}<rV 
6 6eos /J-er 1 avTcov, KCLI OTL rjvoi]*ev roFf eQvecriv Ovpav 
TTiWefo?). That the great controversy between the 
primitive community of Jerusalem and St. Paul was 
a controversy between Jerusalem and Antioch cannot 
be suspected from the Epistle to the Galatians ; it is 
St. Luke who says this, and even expressly tells us 
that it was the Church of Antioch that had the high 
courage to take up the matter " officially," and that 
sent St. Paul and St. Barnabas with some others as 
delegates to Jerusalem (01 ae\<pol erafav avafiaiveiv 
TlavXov K.T.\. ol 7rpoTre/u.(p6evTes VTTO Tijf e/c/cX>;cr/a9, 
xv. 1 /. 3). In the decree of the Council of Jeru 
salem the city of Antioch therefore is put first, then 
follow Syria and Cilicia (xv. 23). The city appears 
henceforth as so to say St. Paul s new home, whither 
again returns after his so-called second missionary 
journey (xviii. 18, 22). Only then does it vanish 
from the narrative. 

The picture of this Church which one thus gains 
from the Acts of the Apostles is a very impressive, 
significant, and imposing one ; and yet the Pauline 
epistles tell us nothing about it, with the exception of 


the painful scene of Gal. ii. 11 f. The representation 
given in the Acts fills a tremendous gap which has 
been left by the Pauline epistles. Indeed, we could 
not even suspect how great the gap is unless we pos 
sessed the accounts of St. Luke ! Yet in these 
accounts there is nothing of that vivid distinctness 
which is to be found in most of the descriptions of 
the second half of the book ; moreover, the actual 
amount of facts here recorded is not very great. The 
narrative depends not upon the personal experience 
and the eye-witness of the writer, but upon tradition. 1 
We can control this tradition scarcely at a single 
point; 2 yet it contains nothing, so far as I can see, 
which is untenable, and much on the other hand which 
bears the stamp of trustworthiness. Abstract specu 
lations concerning what may possibly be incorrect, or 
speculations which on a priori presuppositions would 
eliminate details of the tradition, are worthless. 

The extraordinary prominence given to Antioch in 
the Acts may have been due to the actual importance 
of that Church, 8 but the ancient record that St. 

1 Even for this reason the " we " of codex D in xi. 28 is certainly 
not original; vide Sitzu ngsber. dcr K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch., 
1899, April 6. 

1 If one restricts the old controversy, concerning the relationship 
of Gal. ii. to Acts xv. , to Gal. ii. 1-2, and Acts xv. 1-4 and it is 
only with these verses that we are here concerned we may declare 
that the two passages do not exclude one another. More than this 
cannot of course be said. 

8 Only after a comprehensive investigation of the sources of the 
first half of the book can it be ascertained how far the literary 
purpose of the author has contributed to give more prominence to 
Antioch than was given in his source. It is a priori possible that 
St. Luke has brought important questions into relationship with 
Autioch which really had no connection with that city. 


Luke was a native of Antioch still remains most 
worthy of note in this connection. It of course does 
not therefore follow that he was ever a member of 
the Christian community of Antioch ; indeed, the 
form in which this ancient record has come down to 
us is not even favourable to such a supposition. 

Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Lyeaonia. 

It is characteristic of the first mission of St. Paul 
and St. Barnabas in these regions that no dates are 
given. This in itself is a proof that the tradition 
from which St. Luke here draws was no longer exact. 
This conclusion is confirmed upon closer examination. 
St. Luke here only possessed the plan of the route 
and some anecdotes of the mission. More exact 
information concerning definite persons (eminent 
Christians, magistrates, hosts, &c.) are entirely want 
ing. " The Jews," " the Greeks," and some other 
generalities of these he and his readers must make 
what they can. 1 

The description of the journey across Cyprus, 
whither the first missionaries had come from Jeru 
salem at a very early date and before the ministry of 
St. Paul, through the city Salamis here St. Luke 
knows of the existence of several Jewish synagogues 
(xiii. 5) and Paphos, is correctly given (xiii. 5, 6). 
That the proconsul resided in Paphos is also correct. 
Nothing is told us of St. Paul s success in Cyprus 
(with the exception of the gaining over of Sergius 

1 Ramsay, " St. Paul," p. 89 ff., reads an incredible amount of in 
formation between the lines of chaps, xiii. and xiv. , and entirely 
ignores the general want of precision throughout these chapters. 


Paulus). The mission in Cyprus taken up again 
some years later by St. Barnabas and St. Mark is 
immediately followed (xiii. 14) by the mission in 
Antioch of Pisidia (the seaport Attalia is first men 
tioned in xiv. 25 on the return journey, when the 
mission in Perga is also recorded ; Perga is only men 
tioned in xiii. 13 because St. Mark here separated 
himself from St. Paul). 1 The choice of a place of 
only moderate importance as the base of the mission, 
and generally the decision to start the mission to 
Asia Minor in Pisidia and Galatian Phrygia a 
country that could be reached from the Pamphylian 
coast only by a long and dangerous journey imply 
on the one hand the foregoing of a ministry to 
Hellenes, and on the other hand a decided purpose 
to minister to the Barbarians. 2 The large number of 
Jews in those regions does not explain this decision ; * 
St. Paul could have found just as many large colonies 
of Jews on the coast. Wendt gives the correct ex 
planation when he says : " It required at a later 
time special Divine intimations to induce St. Paul 
to approach genuine Hellenes as a missionary. 11 The 
author shows in xiii. 49 how the success of the mission 
in the city extended to the whole surrounding country. 
The use of the word x^/ a here * s perhaps not acci 
dental. An inscription has been found in Antioch 
which speaks of a eKarovrdp^f peyeowdpios* But it 

1 Ramsay, " St. Paul," p. 89/., thinks otherwise. 

* So we must judge if the route was as St. Luke describes. 

3 This is the opinion of Blass ; Ramsay gives a noteworthy 
explanation of the decision to go to Autioch in Pisidia (loc. cit. 

4 Raaisay, loc. eit. p. 103. 


must nevertheless remain questionable whether St. 
Luke here was thinking of a " regio " of which 
Antioch, as a Roman colony, was the centre under 
the Roman Administration. The general significance 
of the word xwpa is at least equally possible here. 
The account of the mission in Iconium (xiv. 16) is 
quite formal in its style, and is moreover confused ; 
but from the geographical point of view it is correct 
that the entry into a new province should be marked 
at Lystra, 1 and that in xiv. 19 the two cities of 
Antioch and Iconium, in spite of their considerable 
distance from one another, should be mentioned in 
close combination. 

St. Paul betakes himself in flight (xiv. 6) to the 
cities of Lycaonia, Lystra (rightly put first), 2 and 
Derbe and ei? TIJV Trepiywpov? Ramsay (loc. cit. p. 
110^.) again lays great stress upon the circumstance 
that the \wpa is also mentioned in this passage. I 
cannot follow him here. The very expression Trepi- 
Xtopos, which is also used by St. Luke in his gospel 

1 It is probably true that at this time Iconium belonged, from an 
administrative point of view, to Lycaonia ; but according to its 
nationality and its earlier history (Xen., Anab. i. 2, 19) it belonged 
to Pisidian Phrygia, and even in later times was still regarded as a 
Phrygian city (Acta Justini. 3 ; Firmil. in Cypr. Ep. Ixxv. 7). 

2 In xvi. 1 Derbe rightly stands first, because St. Paul is coming 
from the south. It is straining at gnats to pay so much attention 
to the fact that St. Luke in xiv. 6 first mentions Lystra and Derbe 
together, then writes separately about Lystra and then about Derbe, 
and to conclude therefore that we have here different sources. 

3 The description of the route and of the trials which were 
endured receives good attestation from 2 Tim. iii. 10 (so also the 
account that Timothy came from Lystra): TraprjKoXovO-rjffas . . . 
rots diuyfjiois, rots jraO^fJiacrii , old /J,oi tyevero v Aproxe/p, lv 

Iv AtVrpou. 


(iii. 3; iv. 14, 37; vii. 17; viii. 37), and by St. 
Mark (i. 28) before him, and by St. Matthew (iii. 3 ; 
xiv. 35) along with him, of itself makes it very im 
probable that he could here have had in his mind the 
special meaning which the word " regio " may have 
had for the country in question. If he had had this 
in his mind he would not have written tj Trepixcopos, 
but \wpa or another word. Lystra could be reached 
from Iconium in a day, 1 Derbe from Lystra also in a 
day ; yet the latter distance was greater. Both cities 
were seemingly unimportant. 2 St. Paul s flight thither 

1 Hence in xvi. 2 " the brethren in Lystra and Iconium " could 
also be mentioned together. Timothy, who belonged to Lystra, 
was also known to, and respected by, the neighbouring Church of 
Iconium. The combination of these two cities is not discrepant 
with the other combination (xiv. 19), where Antioch and Iconium 
occur together (vide supra). In xvi. 2 we have a combination 
suggested by the mere proximity of the two cities, in xiv. 19 one 
probably given by the united conspiracy of the Jews of the larger 
cities Antioch and Iconium against the ministry of the Apostle in 
the whole neighbourhood. It is strange that Derbe is not mentioned 
in xvi. 2 : it follows that the churches of Iconium and Lystra were 
more closely connected than those of Derbe and Lystra, and this 
is explained by their greater proximity. The accuracy of the book 
at once strikes the reader as he considers the following combina 
tions: (1) Lystra and Derbe are mentioned together as genuine 
Lycaonian cities, in distinction from the Phrygian cities Antioch 
and Iconium ; (2) Lystra and Iconium are mentioned together in 
speaking of their churches, because the cities were very near to one 
another, and because a notable Christian of the one church was 
also known to the other ; (3) Antioch and Iconium are mentioned 
together because the powerful bodies of Jews in these cities 
guarded the interests of Judaism in the whole province. 

1 In xiv. 6, 21, and xvi. 1 we read \varpav [in xiv. 21 rty A.], in 
xiv. 8 and xvi. 2, however, and in 2 Tim. iii. 11 Ai <rrpos. (The 
inscriptions only afford us the nominative Lustra, which decides 
nothing.) To conclude from this that we have here different 
sources is unjustifiable, and involves a strange conception of the 


perhaps implied a change in his original plan ; but 
we can never arrive at certainty on this point. 
The decisive turn had been taken in the journey 
from Pisidian Antioch to Iconium i.e. towards the 
south-east, i.e. towards Tarsus (and Syrian Antioch) 
St. Paul simply continues in this direction. That he 
did not follow this road to the end, but turned back 
upon his route, is strange and does not admit of 
further explanation. Did he shrink from making his 
way into the wild territory of Isauria ? The people 
with whom the Apostle had to do in Lystra spoke the 
language of Lycaonia (xiv. 11); they did not there 
fore belong to the Greek or Latin l upper classes, but 
to the native and probably poorer classes. Derbe 
forms the turning-point of this journey of the Apostle. 
He returns by the same route (vide supra), and now 
the mission in Pamphylia (Perga) is first mentioned 

procedure of the writer. We must perhaps assume that it is a case 
of irregular declension of a foreign proper noun, though there is 
here no special attestation, yet see Kiihner-Blass, I. (1890), s. 
492 /. ; Moulton, "A Grammar of New Testament Greek" (1906), 
p. 48 ; Ramsay (loc. cit. p. 129) who refers to Mfya, ace. -av and 
genit. -uv. The Isaurian cities with unusual names were treated as 
neuter plurals (vide e.g. the subscriptions to the decree of the 
Council of Nicaaa) ; at the same time it might easily happen that a 
name like Lvstra, which had a Greek sound, was declined in the 
accusative, seemingly like a noun of the first declension. Examples 
of such mixture are by no means wanting, indeed the addition of 
an irregular v has actual attestation. In ix. 32, 35 the best codices 
treat Avdda as neuter plural (but C E H L P, &c. , read Av5Sav), yet 
in ix. 38 A.v5da.s occurs as genitive singular. In ix. 35 we read in 
some authorities TOV Sapuva, in others TOV "Lapuvav ; and in xxi. 1 
ei s -r-r\v Ku) and et s rriv Kuv. 

1 Ramsay (Expositor, September, 1905) remarks that the most 
ancient graves in Lystra bear Latin inscriptions, while in Iconium 
Greek is the rule. 


(xiv. 24jf.). On his second missionary journey the 
Apostle travelled by land through Syria and Cilicia, 
and came once again into these regions (xv. 41 ; xvi. 
I,/!); but St. Luke gives us no further information 
of a geographical character. 1 The TroXeiy (xvi. 4) 
may, however, have also included other cities than 
the four mentioned in chaps, xiii. and xiv. 

Phrygia and Galatia (Mysia, Bithynia, Pontus). 

Following the Acts of the Apostles, we usually speak 
of three missionary journeys of St. Paul; but the author 
did not so count them. He distinguishes the mission 
in Cyprus, Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia (chaps, 
xiii. xiv.) from a second great missionary under 
taking which he describes in chaps, xv. 36 xxi. 17. 
Within this period there occurs a return to Antioch 
(xviii. 1822), but the unity and continuity of the 
whole is not affected thereby. In regard to this second 
missionary undertaking St. Luke was interested only in 
the mission on the coasts of the JEgean Sea. In conse 
quence the mission in Phrygia and Galatia is scarcely 
touched upon in his book. Nevertheless in xvi. 6, by 
means of the characteristic word Siep-^ecrOai and in 
xviii. 23 by this same word combined with a-rtipi. feiv 
Trdvras rovs ^taO/yra?, it is clearly intimated that St. 
Paul had planted the Gospel in these regions ; while 

1 In xvi. 1-3 Dcrbe and Lystra are yet again mentioned only for 
the purpose of telling bow it was that Timothy, who belonged to 
the latter city, came into contact with St. Paul. St. Luke has thus 
a special interest in this companion of St. Paul, and very naturally 
so, seeing that he himself had worked together with him. 



in regard to Mysia l (irapeXOovTes, xvi. 8) and Bithynia 
(fTreipaCov e*V Trfv T&iQvviav TropevOtjvai, KCU owe e lacrev 
O.VTOVS TO iri evfj.a Itjcrov) we are told why it was that 
in spite of St. Paul s own purpose to preach in those 
countries no mission was started there, 2 except in the 
Mysian port Troas (XVi. 9, 11; XX. jf-). The pas 
sage xvi. 69 is one of the most remarkable in the 
whole book ; for at the very moment when St. Paul 
makes up his mind to pass over to the genuinely 
Greek world, St. Luke here tells us of plans of the 
Apostle which he was not permitted to carry out. 
Seeing that we cannot regard all this as mere inven 
tion or supposition the passage accordingly shows 
intimate knowledge, on the author s part, of circum 
stances which occurred just before the we-sections 
begin. If, moreover, the passage as a whole is only 
intelligible in connection with the we-account, namely, 
as a prelude to it, so also in its details it testifies 
that the author of the we-account is identical with 
the author of the whole book. What is narrated in 
xvi. 69 presupposes information derived from St. 
Paul himself. He purposed to journey from Galatia 
westward to the coast, i.e. to Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. ; 
but the " Spirit " restrained him ; he then went north 
eastwards towards Mysia with the object of preaching 
in Bithynia, i.e. in the great cities, Nicomedia, Prusa, 
&c. ; but the accomplishment of this plan also was 

1 Mysia was not a Roman province. St. Luke, who elsewhere as 
a rule mentions the provinces, here selects the old name in order to 
give distinct expression to the geographical situation. 

2 Nothing at all is said about Pontus ; it only occurs in ii. 9 ; 
and we are casually told in xviii. 2, that Aquila was a Jew of 


forbidden " by the Spirit of Jesus." Finally, he was 
also led through Mysia without venturing to preach 
there, and at last arrived at Troas ; yet even here he 
had not reached the appointed goal, but the Spirit 
directed him to Macedonia. The final direction of 
the Spirit embodied itself in the vision by night 
of the Man of Macedonia. Nothing in the book 
approaches the conviction with which at this place 
the leading of the Apostle by the Spirit is pictured. 
In this way St. Luke heralds, not the entry of a new 
source, but the coming of St. Paul to Macedonia and 
his own meeting with St. Paul. According to Ramsay 
St. Luke himself was the man of Macedonia an 
attractive conjecture, which had also once suggested 
itself to me before I knew of Ramsay^s hypothesis 
but it cannot be proved, and there is also much to be 
said against it. In its favour stands the circumstance 
that the appearance of the " we " at this point would 
receive a good explanation, and would no longer 
startle us like a sudden pistol-shot. It would well 
suit the delicacy of St. Luke s literary feeling that he 
should have introduced himself in this way, hinting 
that St. Paul learned to know him in Troas, and 
that God had used him as a means to bring the 
Apostle to Macedonia. But the thread here is too 
fine, and, moreover, it cannot be proved that St. 
Luke was at home in Macedonia. As for the unful 
filled plans of the Apostle, his sudden passage from 
Galatia to Macedonia without preaching in the 
countries on his way ! is so paradoxical that it can 
neither have been invented nor does it admit of a 
" rational " explanation. The epithet " rational " 


can only be applied to the Apostle^s original purpose 
to preach either in the cities on the west coast of 
Asia or in those of Bithynia or Mysia. The prohi 
bition, however, when given certainly had for its 
positive side the thought of passing on to Macedonia, 
and perhaps even of passing on to Rome, for we cannot 
understand why Macedonia and Achaia should have 
been preferred before Asia. The eye fixed on Rome 
would explain the decision ; it therefore needed a new 
and special revelation to summon the Apostle to the 
mission in Macedonia and to hold him there. In any 
case the unique character of the narrative in xvi. 69 
prepares any one with literary perception for the 
entrance of the " we " at this point. It is in form 
only that the entrance is abrupt ; in reality the in 
tended contrast and at the same time the close 
connection with the context are as clear as possible. 
Only compare : 

They were forbidden by the Holy Ghost to preach 
the Word in Asia. 

They assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit 
of Jesus suffered them not. 

They passed by Mysia [so willed the Spirit] and 

came to Troas. 
[The vision in Troas : the man of Macedonia.] 

Straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia, 
concluding that God had called its to preach 
the Gospel to them. 

Under the assumption of a we-source it would be 
necessary to make such a source begin as far back as 
xvi. 6 ; but it is not in this style that a man writes 
who is simply passing on to a new source ; rather the 


eager joyous rush of the narrative at this point 
implies a writer who is personally interested in what 
he narrates, and now wishes to pass on to things 
quorum pars magna fuit. 

In Phrygia and " the Galatian region " here at 
least the word %u>pa is really highly significant, vide 
supra St. Paul had actually preached the Gospel on 
a former occasion. Seeing that according to xvi. 1, 
4, 6, first Derbe and Lystra, then " the cities," then 
Phrygia, then the TaXariKt] %u>pa are named in order, 
and that then we at last are informed that at this 
point St. Paul wished to turn his steps towards Asia, 
it therefore follows that he travelled from Lystra 
to Icon in in and Pisidian Antioch, and that after he 
had worked in south-eastern Phrygia he left Pisidian 
Antioch, travelling northwards (probably north-east 
wards, for a route straight northwards would have 
led him into uninhabited regions). Here he worked 
in a district where cities were few, among the Gala- 
tians, to whom he afterwards wrote an epistle, and 
from Galatia he purposed to pass by way of Sardis to 
Smyrna or Ephesus ; but this was forbidden him. 
When he came a second time into the Galatian \iapa 
this region is mentioned before Phrygia (xviii. 23), it 
follows that St. Paul on this occasion journeyed from 
Cilicia straight to the north-west, and then turned 
from Galatia towards Northern Phrygia. Thence 
Ste\6it}v TO. avcareptKa /neptj (xix. 1) he arrived at 
Ephesus, i.e. he now carried out the plan which he 
was prevented from carrying out previously (chap, 
xvi.). The " avcoTeptKa. fj.eptj " sell. T^? Acr/a?, situ 
ated between Phrygia and the Ephesian coastland, 


are the mountainous district of Lydia bordering on 
north-western Phrygia (on the road which leads to 
Sardis from the interior). 

All that St. Luke directly or indirectly tells us 
concerning the provinces, countries, and cities of 
Asia Minor, and concerning the routes of St. Paul s 
journeys, is unexceptionable from the geographical 
standpoint. There is no flaunting of geographical 
erudition, but what is necessary is always given in 
correct form. The by no means insignificant culture 
of the author, who keeps the map in his head, as well 
as the homogeneity of his work, are herein conspicu 
ously displayed. 

Asia, Macedonia, Achaia. 

Wherever in this book " Asia " stands together 
with another province, or where it denotes Ephesus 
and the neighbourhood, Asia in the narrower sense 
of the word (Asia proconsul.) is intended, vide ii. 9 
(Tldvrov KOI Tt]i> Acr/ay, it always has the article 
except in vi. 9), vi. 9 (KtXma? /rat Acn a?), xvi. 
6 (with Phrygia, the FaXcm/of -^wpa, Mysia and 
Bithynia), xix. 22 (with Macedonia and Achaia ; 
here it moreover stands for Ephesus and the neigh 
bourhood), xx. 16, 18 ; xxi. 27 ; xxiv. 28 (here also 
it stands for Ephesus). The province must also be 
understood in XX. 4 ( Aa-iavol e Tir^/co? KOI Tp.), and 
also probably in xix. 10 (because as a result of the long 
stay of the Apostle TroWe? oi KaToiKovvTes T*I\> Aer/ay 
were enabled to hear the Word of the Lord). Never 
theless it is not always quite certain, and in xix. 26, 
27 (ov /J.OVOV ^(pea-ov aXXd a"^jov Trdari]? Ttjs Aa/a? 


KOI TJ ourou/Motf) it may be doubted 
whether the province is meant or whether the word 
has the wider significance. Seeing, however, that 
the province is also to be understood in XXVii. 2 
(e7ri{3dvTe$ Tr\ol(i) ^ASpa/ULVTTrjvw, /meXXovri TrAefv e/y 
rot ? KaTa TTJV A<riav roVou?) for the ship of Adra- 
myttium (Mysia) was bound for its native shores, 
i.e. for the province of Asia it follows that it is 
improbable that in any part of the book Asia means 
anything else than the Roman province of Asia. 

The coast of Asia from Samothrace (XVi. 11) and 
Troas to Patara and Myrra in Lycia (XXi. 1 and 
XXVii. 5) is specially well known to the author. 
Assos (XX. 13/), Adramyttium (XXVii. 2), Mitylene 
in Lesbos (XX. 14), Chios (XX. 15), Samos (XX. 15), 
Trogilium (XX. 15, vide infra), Ephesus (w. 11.), 
Miletus (XX. 15, 17), Cos (XXi. 1), Cnidus (XXVii. 7), 
and Rhodes (XXi. 1), are mentioned by name. Also 
the distance of the places from one another are familiar 
to him. As a result of the disastrous voyage which 
he made we are specially well-informed concerning 
Crete (XXVii. 7, 12, 13, 21): Salmone on the eastern 
promontory (XXVii. 7), Kaloi Limenes and Lasea 
(XXVii. 8) neither of these places is mentioned in 
ancient authors ; they are to be found on the southern 
promontory Phoenice (XXVii. 1 2, mentioned by 
Ptolemy, and to be found on the western portion of 
the southern coast), and the island Cauda (Gaudos, 
XXVii. 16), are all noted. 1 Nothing is said anywhere 
1 In xxvii. 17 the Syrtes and in xxvii. 27 the Adriatic are men 
tioned. Morumsen was of opinion that in the latter passage 
the author must be charged with a serious geographical blunder. 
There is no justification for this charge. 


in the book of a mission in Crete. The author shows 
fairly detailed knowledge of Ephesus (mentioned eight 

times between xviii. 19 and XX. 17 ; EKpemoi xix. 28, 
34, 35 ; xxi. 29), though we cannot ascertain from 
the Acts whether he himself had visited that city. 
On the so-called second missionary journey St. Paul 
only paid the city a passing visit, yet his ministry 
found at first a favourable reception in the synagogue 
there (xviii. 19, 20). The real founders of the 
Ephesian Church were Priscilla and her husband 
(xviii. 18 y!) together with the so-called " disciples of 
John." During the third missionary journey St. Paul 
at first, for three months, made the synagogue the 
centre of his work (xix. 8), then for two years he 
worked directly among the Gentiles of the city. We 
are told that he taught daily ej/ 777 cr^oAfl Tvpavvov 
(xix. 9). This sounds as if the school were known 
to the first readers of the Acts. The fact that the 
number of Jews in Ephesus was very large is clearly 
expressed in the book, and the local colouring in the 
narrative of the riot of the silversmiths is most appro 
priate, although it is plain that St. Luke was not 
present. His authorities here would have been Gaius 
and Aristarchus of Macedonia. It is quite evident 
that the narrator regards the mission in Ephesus as 
at the same time a mission to the whole of Asia. 
Not only did the numerous provincials visiting Ephesus 
hear the AVord of God (xix. 10), but it is suggested 
in passages where St. Luke writes Asia while we should 
expect Ephesus (vide supra) that St. Paul made mis 
sionary journeys from Ephesus. It is distinctly stated 
(xix. 1) that he passed through the mountainous dis- 


tricts of the province (vide supra"), and his farewell 
discourse to the Ephesian elders in Miletus is reported 
as if it were a farewell to the whole of Asia. Of the 
cities in the interior of the province Thyatira alone 
is once cursorily mentioned (XVi. 14). 

The province of Macedonia, whose churches stood 
in the closest personal relationship to the Apostle, is 
often mentioned in chaps, xvi xx. (see also XXVii. 2). 
In xix. 21 Macedonia and Achaia stand together as in 
Rom. xv. 26 and 1 Thess. i. 7, 8. Philippi is the 
first Macedonian city and at the same time the first 
European city to which St. Paul brought the Gospel. 
It is also the only Christian community the history 
of whose foundation is related in the we-sections. It 
is therefore the more important that the planting of 
the Church in this city proceeds mutatis mutandis in 
the same way as that of the other churches (St. Paul 
begins with the Jews). The details of the narrative 
are, however, as might be expected, specially vivid 
and trustworthy (the role which St. Luke assigns to 
himself [he does not belong, as do Timothy and 
Erastus, to the SICIKOI ouvre? r<5 TLavXca xix. 22], the 
o> T/? TTV^W irapa TroTa/mov, Lydia the 
ts 7roXeco9 Svarco>V) the reception into 
her house, the girl with the daemon, the a-rpar^yoi). 
Yet such traits are found only in the first half of the 
account, the second half (the imprisonment and the 
release of St. Paul) leaves much to be desired ; but just 
here the " we M is wanting. St. Luke had therefore 
again left the Apostle ; probably he had returned to 
Asia. If he were at that time at home in Philippi, per 
haps temporarily, as Ramsay supposes an hypothesis 


which is favoured by the fact that in XX. 6 he joins the 
Apostle a second time at Philippi he must at this 
time have left the town for unknown reasons ; for he 
was not involved in the fate which overtook St. Paul 
and Silas in Philippi. It is unsafe to conclude that 
the remarkable description of Philippi (?;rt? co-rlv 
TrpdoTrj r>79 /mepiSos Ma/ce5owaf Tro Xt? /coXaWa XVi. 12) 
is due to special local patriotism on the part of 
St. Luke. The import of this note, the interpreta 
tion of which is moreover not clear, 1 is fairly obvious 
if one considers that Philippi was by no means a very 
important city and that its Jewish population was 
only small. To explain why St. Paul came first to 
this place (passing by Samothrace and Neapolis XVi. 
11), all is said that could be said in favour of its 
importance. At the same time it still remains un 
explained why St. Paul passed so hurriedly from 
Galatia (!) straight to Philippi ; and it still remains 
an attractive hypothesis that it was St. Luke, who, 
having relations of some kind with Philippi, influ 
enced the Apostle to go to that city. 

In reference to Thessalonica (xvii. 1, 11, 1-3), the 
native city of Aristarchus and Secundus (xx. 4 ; 
XXVii. 2), which St. Paul reached by the great road 

1 It contains an error if it was intended to signify that Philippi 
was the capital of that district (M^/HS) of Macedonia ; for Araphi- 
polis was the capital. Perhaps the words may be translated " the 
most considerable city that was a colony in the particular district 
of Macedonia." Blass s conjecture, trpwrr]s for Trpwrt] TTJS, is in 
genious and elegant, yet scarcely right, seeing that TrpJh-os in the 
sense of "prominent" is usual with St. Luke (vide St. Luke xix. 
47 ; Acts xiii. 50 ; xvii. 4 ; xxv. 2 ; xxviii. 7, 17) ; and on the other 
hand, one does not expect so detailed a statement as " in the first 


passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia (xvii. I), 1 
we only learn that there was a synagogue there (loc. cit. ; 
if t] (rvvaywyn is to be read we must assume that it 
was the only synagogue in the district), that St. Paul 
was entertained there by one Jason, that he preached 
on three Sabbath days in the synagogue, and that the 
magistrates of the city were called " Politarchs." As 
for the rest of Macedonia mention is made of the 
mission in Bercea (xvii. 10, 13), where the Jews were 
more friendly disposed. From Beroea came Sopater 
the son of Pyrrhus (xx. 4), the companion of St. Paul. 
The addition of the name of the father unusual in 
the Acts would show that the man was of good 
birth. The name " Pyrrhus" is, besides, characteristic 
of the country. 

Achaia is first mentioned where Gallic residing in 
Corinth is described as avOvwaros rtjs A^a /ia? (xviii. 
12). Elsewhere it is found again only twice : xviii. 
27 (Apollos wishes to go from Ephesus into Achaia, 
i.e. to Corinth to work as an evangelist, but not ex 
clusively in that city) and xix. 21 (St. Paul determines 
to pass through Macedonia and Achaia). In xx. 2 
instead of Achaia we find " Hellas " (here only in 
the New Testament). The provincial council of the 
Acha-ans calls itself in an inscription of the time of 
Caligula (vide Guirand, Les Assemblies Provinc. dans 
Tempire romaine, Paris, 1887, p. 116) IlayeAAf/j/ey, 
Tray-re? 01 "EAAj/i e?, owoobj TU)V KAAj/vcoi/. This varia- 

wravT6s, rrjv Aji<f>iiro\ii> /cat TTJV Airo\\uviav jjX^ov ei j 0e<nra- 
Not only the article before the first two cities, but likewise 
the verb Siod(vtii> [only here in the Acts, but see St. Luke viii. 1] 
proves that St. Luke is thinking of the well-known road (vufe supra). 


tion between Achaia and Hellas is characteristic of 
the Hellenic author. 

The description of the visit to Athens (xvii. 15, 
16, 21, 22 ; xviii. 1) is not only of special nobility 
and beauty, but also, so far as we are able to judge, 
both appropriate and unexceptionable. The syna 
gogue in that city, the Agora, the Areopagus, 1 the 
Epicureans and Stoics are mentioned. The character 
isation of these people and the gentle sarcasm of his 
words concerning the Athenians (xvii. 21 : AOyvaioi 
iron/res KOI oi evrt^y/xowre? ^evoi he knows also of 
these people ei? ovev eTepov tjVKcdpovv 77 Aeye/v TI rj 
axoveiv TI Katvorepov), the poetical quotation, and 
every detail, betray the cultured writer who paints 
his portraits on a background of the very best 
tradition. The use that is made of " the Unknown 
God," which need not necessarily be changed into 
" the unknown gods," is a masterpiece of art, and I 
do not see why we must ascribe this masterpiece to 
St. Luke and not to St. Paul himself. The dis 
course, spoken in such a place, may well have dwelt 
in the memory of those who heard it, and the author 
with perfect integrity has recorded the slight results 
of St. Paul s teaching. 

During the so-called second missionary journey 
St. Paul worked for eighteen months in Corinth 
(xviii. 1, 8 ; xix. 1). However, as usual, only 
the beginning and close of the ministry is pic 
tured in the book. St. Paul abode first with 
Aquila and Priscilla (xviii. 3), then with one 
Titius Justus in the neighbourhood of the syna- 

1 Here Curtius explanation seems to me untenable. 


gogue. 1 The port of Cenchreae is mentioned in xviii. 
18. On the third journey the Apostle once again 
spent three months in " Hellas," i.e. in Corinth and 
the province (xx. 2 /.). 

1 Interest in the houses in which St. Paul (or St. Peter) had 
stayed sometimes with detailed descriptions may be traced 
through the whole of the book. Here again we have a trait which 
shows the close connection between the we-sections and the other 
parts of the book. 

St. Paul stays in Damascus tv oUiq. lovSa in the street that 

is called "straight" (ix. 11). 
St. Peter stays in Joppa vapd Tin Zt/iwvi /3i//xre?, if iartv oMa 

ira/>d 6d\aa-<rav (ix. 43 ; X 6). 
St. Paul stays (/^mc) in Philippi with the purple-seller 

Lydia (xvi. 13 /.). 

He stays in Thessalonica tv rfi olidq. Ida-ovot (xvii. 5). 
He stays (fj^veiv) in Corinth first with Priscilla and Aquila 

(xviii. 3). 
He next stays in Corinth lv oUty -rivfa 6v6^ari Ttrt ou lovcrrov, 

oO i) oiKiif. ?jt> ffvvofjLopovffa TTJ (rvvayuyrj (xviii. 7). 
He stays (ntvtLv) in Caesarea with the evangelist Philip rovrtf 
5 tya.v Ovyartpfs rfoffapts irapdtvoi irpo(pr)TVov(rai (xxi. 9). 
He stays in Jerusalem with one Mvao-wv KWT/MOS, Apxaios 

HaOrrrrjS (xxi. 16). 

He stays (ftlvtiv) in Eome itad eavrbv avv rip <f>v\d<rir<H>Ti avrbv 

ffrpanwTTj (xxviii. 16), or again, he stays (^u^mv) 

there iv Kiy ni<r0w/j.a.Ti . . . &K<I)\VTVS (xxviii. 31). 

Cf. also the virepyov, ov Jjyaiv Ka.Ta/j.tvovrfs in Jerusalem (i. 13) ; the 

vtrfpfov in Lydda (ix. 37, 39) ; the house of Mary the mother of 

St. Mark in Jerusalem (xii. 12) ; the house of the jailor in Philippi 

(xvi. 34) ; the inrtpfov in Troas, ou rjftev <rvvijy/j.^yoi (xx. 8) ; the 

<TXO\TJ Ti pdwov in Ephesus (xix. 9). How do the supporters of the 

we-souroe hypothesis stand in the face of a situation like this ? Of 

these passages six stand in the we-sections, nine in the remaining 

parts of the book. It must be assumed, I suppose, that the author 

of the whole book was interested in " houses," and had the fortune 

to meet with the account of an eye-witness who was likewise 

interested in " houses " ! I 



Italy and Rome lie on the horizon of the author of 
the Acts, and are terms which mark the limits of the 
scope of his work. St. Luke says in xviii. 2 of Aquila 
and his wife Priscilla that they had TT poo- (paras come 
from Italy, meaning thereby, as is shown by the con 
clusion of the verse, Rome. Likewise we read in the 
we-sections (XXVii. 2) : " when it was determined that 
we should take ship for Italy " while Rome is in 
tended. Also in a third passage (XXVii. 6) Italy 
perhaps stands for Rome ; for it is here most natural 
to think of an Alexandrian corn-ship bound for 

" Romans " are already mentioned in the list of 
nations (ii. 10) ; but as the goal of the journeys of 
St. Paul Rome appears first in xix. 21 (in Ephesus 
during the third journey). Then in xxiii. 11 we find 
the most significant words of Christ to the Apostle : 
to? Sie/maprvpo) TO. Trepi e/xou eis Iepov<Ta\t )/uL, OVTCO are 
Set KOI eis Pw/u.rji [tapTvptjaai (Jerusalem and Rome !). 
These words are again taken up in XXVii. 24 (here 
the emperor stands in the place of Rome), and the 
arrival in Rome is at last recorded in XXViii. 14, 16. 1 
We, however, learn but little of the Christians and 
the Jews in Rome. Of places belonging to Italy, 
Malta (XXViii. I,/.), Syracuse (XXViii. 12), Rhegium 
(XXViii. 13), Puteoli (XXViii. 13), Appii Forum and 

1 Pw/tcuos has the moaning " Roman citizen " in xvi. 21, 27, 38 ; 
xxii. 25-27, 29 ; xxiii. 27. In xxv. 16 it occurs in a wider sense : 
OVK tariv tdos Pw(ji.aiots, and here the Roman sense of justice is 


the Tres Tabernae (XXViii. 15) are mentioned. The 
author presupposes in his readers a knowledge of the 
two last places, though they were not important. 

Nor is the Acts wanting in references to Egypt and 
Cyrene. These are already mentioned in the list of 
nations (ii. 10) with the precise description : AtyvirTos 
KCU TO. fj.ept] r7? AfpVi;? TJy? Kara KiMMJMfir. Egypt 
occurs elsewhere only in quotations from the Old 
Testament, and in xxi. 88 an Egyptian is mentioned 
who had stirred up a revolt, as is also told us by 
Josephus. In vi. 9 we hear of Alexandrian Jews 
who had settled in Jerusalem, and in xviii. 24 of an 
Alexandrian Jew, Apollos, who comes to Ephesus. As 
this man had already learned to know the Gospel 
even though imperfectly in his own country, it 
follows that the Acts contains an indirect notice of the 
beginnings of the mission in Alexandria. 1 Concern 
ing the Jews of Cyrene in Jerusalem (vi. 9), St. Luke 
has not forgotten that some of these, in conjunction 
with Jews of Cyprus, were the first missionaries to 
the Gentiles (xi. 20), and he notes among the pro 
phets and teachers of the Church in Antioch Lucius 
of Cyrene (xiii. 1). By an accident a reference even 
to Ethiopia is not wanting in this book (viii. 27) : 

* < A W I ~ T^- > r\ -^ i 

idov avrjp Attftoy ei/voir^o? ovvacrTtjs Jtxayda/o;? pacr/Atcr- 
crq? AlOioTrcov. Thus the glance of the author surveys 
the greater part of the known world (xi. 28 ; xvii. 6, 
31 ; xix. 27 ; xxiv. 5) from the Parthians and Medes 
to Rome, and from the Ethiopians to Bithynia. In 
no instance does he lay himself open to an attack 
upon his accuracy, and in no place docs his descrip- 

i Alexandrian ships in xxvii. 6 and xxviii. 11. 


tion fall into heterogeneous fragments. The geogra 
phical and chronological references and notices in 
the book show the circumspection, the care, the 
consistency, and the trustworthiness of the writer ; 
and the parts where the we " does not occur are also 
in this particular so firmly and closely riveted to the 
we-sections that the latter cannot be distinguished as 
a source from the rest of the book. The author of 
the we-sections is also the author of the complete 

Appendix : Special Reading s of the so-called 

Also in the passages of the book with which we are 
at present concerned the so-called /3-recension offers a 
series of special readings. 1 I here neglect the varia 
tion between lepova-aXyj/ut. and lepocroXvjuia. 

1. viii. 1. IlAr/y ru>v aTroaroXcav has the seemingly 

superfluous addition : o* epeivav ev Iepova-aXiJiu. 

2. viii. 4. In addition to the notice that those 

dispersed by the persecution preached the 
Word, we have also the seemingly superfluous 
addition : /caret ra? Tro Aet? KOI /cco/xa? (civitates 
et castcllaj louSaias (L). In the genuine text 
of the book /cay/*/ is once found (viii. 25, vide 

3. viii. 5. In place of ei? ryv iroXiv rt]9 Za/xctjO/ct? 

a Latin authority gives the explanatory read 
ing : ei? ^/a/mapeiav Trjv TTO\IV. 

1 D denotes that the reading occurs only in Codex Bezte, L stands 
for Latin, S for Syrian, and K for Coptic authorities. 


4. ix. 32. Instead of the indefinite Sia TTOLVTWV two 

Latin authorities read : Sia Traeruiv TWV TroXewv 
KOI -viwpwv (vcooot, vide supra}. 

5. xi. 2. Before ore <^e afe/3// IleTyOO? etV lepovtra- 

Xr jfji DLS add : o yixei/ ovv Tlerpo? Sta l/cavou 
tjOeXijtrev TropevOfjvai eV lepoa-oXv/ua KOI 
Toi/9 a$eX<f)ov<} [sell, in Caesarea] 
ctf rai/TOf?] efyXuev, iroXvv Te 
< CTropeveTO > om TU>V \(apu>v 
ai/rou?. Concerning the secondary 
character of this interpolation see Weiss, 
Texte u. Unters., Bd. 17, H. 1, s. 70 / Here 
also %u>pa is again used by the interpolator. 

6. xii. 1. DSL here add : <V>/9^ eV r/; lovfiaia in 

order to connect the verse with xi. 30. 

7. xii. 10. Here, in the description of the exit of 

St. Peter and the angel from the prison, D has 
the famous addition : Kcnef3)]<Ta.v roi/9 CTTTU 
/3a$/xoi>9 /cat, which may be original ; yet this 
is not certain when we consider the tendency 
to embellishment in the /3-recension. 

8. xii. 25. Here a Latin authority inserts etV 

A.vrioyeiav in order to connect this verse 
with the following verse. 

9. xiv. 6. D and the Codex Laudianus reinforce 

Tt]v Trepi^wpov by adding oXijv. Such re 
inforcing additions are frequent in D. 
10. xiv. 25. DS insert evayyeXifou.ei oi avrov?, 

i I o 

because they missed an express statement 
that a church had been founded also in 
Attalia. The interpolator probably knew of 
a church there. 



11. xvi. 1. DSL interpolate Sie\6tov [ 

TO. eQvt] TO.VTO. because they had already 
made an interpolation in a previous verse 
(xv. 41). The secondary character here is 
shown by the constant repetition of SiepyecrQai 
which already stands in xv. 41, stands again 
in xvi. 4 (D), then again in xvi. 6, and lastly 
also in xvi. 8 (D). This is not like St. Luke. 
The genuine text has the word only in xv. 41 
and xvi. 6 (thus twice instead of five times). 
The use of TO. eOvtj here is also unusual. 

12. xvi. 6. One Latin authority reads in place 

of TaXartK^v %(t)pav the plural " Galatise 
regiones"; this is unimportant. Yet Blass 
against all other authorities has received this 
reading into the text. 

13. xvi. 8. Instead of the difficult but un 

doubtedly correct TrapeXOovre?, which has 
here a metaphorical significance, DL read 
Sie\66vTe$ (rrfv Mvo-mv). 

14. xvii. 1. The insertion in D of Kar^\0ov V 

before "* A.Tro\\u>viav (which must now lose its 
article) and of xaitelQev before et? Oea-a-aXoi iKtjv 
is probably intended to indicate that the 
Apostles also preached in Apollonia (vide 
supra on xiv. 25). 

15. xvii. 15. Here is found in D the great inter 

polation: TraptjXOev $e rt]v Qea-craXiav CKwXvOr] 
yap et? avrovs Ktjpv^ai rov \6yov. The inter 
polator took offence at the circumstance that 
Thessalia was passed by, and endeavoured to 
explain it (after xvi. 7). 


16. xviii. 25. Here D, in an explanatory inter 

polation (though it does not give any new 
information), reports that Apollos was in 
structed in Christianity ev rji irarpiSi (i.e. in 
Alexandria). 1 

17. xix. 28. The interpolation ipaporrw e<Y TO 

a/j-cfioSov (DS also Mediolan.) naturally does 
not presuppose a special knowledge of the 
locality, but is intended only to inform us that 
the scene was now transferred to the street. 

18. XX. 15. After irapefiuXonev a? 2a/uoi/ D 

(also the codices HLP and very many cursives) 
SL read KCU /u.eivai>re$ ei> TpwyiXta ^Tpaiyv- 
\\i(i)~\. This seems to be the original read 
ing ; its omission also is intelligible ; yet on 
this point absolute certainty cannot be at 
tained vide infra on xxi. 1 and 16. 

19. XXi. 1. Here DLK insert KOI Mvpa after 

Ildrapa ; probably an interpolation after 
xxvii. 5/. 

20. XXi. IGyi DS read here: ovroi $e rjyov ////a? 

TT/OO? o5? evi(r6w/Jiev KOI Trapayeio/uLCKx f/y Ttva 
KWfJLrjv eyevo/uLfOa irapa MroffWM Ki>7rp/a>, 
fjLa9t]T{] ayo^a/a), KaicelOev eftoKTtJ "jXOofjLev e/V 
Iepocr6\ufJ.a. The host is thus represented 
as dwelling in a village between Caesarea and 
Jerusalem, not in Jerusalem itself. This text 
appears at first sight very attractive; on closer 

1 I do not discuss the interpolations made by D and its satellites 
in xviii. 21, 27 /. ; xix. 1, as they do not serve our present purpose 
with the exception of the reading " rcus tKK\rjfflcus" ( Ax&tas) for 
TO?I vtiri<rrei K6ffi.t . Here we are informed that there were several 
churches in Achaia. 


inspection, however, its meaning is not clear ; 
moreover, we can see how it has arisen out of the 
genuine text (vide Weiss, loc. cit., s. 101 /.). 
It is also somewhat incredible that St. Luke 
should have taken such interest in noting the 
person with whom St Paul with his large 
following of Gentile Christians found hos 
pitality for one night on the way between 
Csesarea and Jerusalem, while it would be not 
unimportant to mention the man who was 
courageous enough to offer shelter to St. Paul 
and his company during their stay in Jerusalem. 
2 1 . xxvii. 5. A Latin authority may perhaps 
have read SicnrXeva-avres TOV KiXiKiov KO\TTOV 
KOI TO<pv\ioi> TreAccyo? instead of TO 
TO Kara. Ttjv KtA//aav /ecu Il 

22. XXViii. 16. LS and Cod. Mediolan. read the 
words e&o T>/9 7rape/jL/3o\>js after fj.eveiv Kaff 
eavrov (explanatory). 

Many of these readings are not uninteresting ; but 
only those in xii. 10 and XX. 15 have a certain claim 
to originality. No certain conclusion can be drawn as 
to the birthplace of these interpolations. The inter 
polations in xiv. 25 (Attalia), and in xvii. 1 (Apollonia), 
the insertion of Myra in xxi. 1 and of the village 
between Caesarea and Jerusalem in xxi. 16,/!, give us 
no information on this point. The interpolation of 
Thessalia in xvii. 15 is more important. It is natural 
to suppose that the interpolator had some interest in 
apologising for St. Paul s neglect of this province. 



ST. LUKE, in his Acts of the Apostles, treats only two 
persons, St. Peter and St. Paul, as chief characters. 
The former is introduced in i. 15 as already known 
(from the gospel) and as the leader of the Apostles ; 
but the author gives no further direct information as 
to his character and antecedents. His character is 
left to come out in his speeches and actions. St. 
Luke, in xii. 17, lets him drop out of the history of 
the Acts, though he afterwards mentions the part 
he played in the most critical scene of the book (xv. 
7-11, 14). St. Paul is first introduced (vii. 58) as an 
unknown young man named Saul. Here again, as 
with St. Peter, no definite summary of St. Paul s 
character and antecedents is given, and the Apostle is 
left to describe himself in his own words and actions. 1 
Emphasis is alone laid upon the fact that he, like 
St. Peter, spoke moved by the Holy Spirit, and a 
few details of his early history are referred to here 
and there (Tarsus, Roman citizenship, study under 
Gamaliel, &c.). From chap. xv. to the end of the 

1 The only exception is the passage in the letter of the Church 
of Jerusalem to Antioch, xv. 26, where we read of him and St. 
Barnabas that they were Avdpuiroi ira.p3.5c5uK&Tft T&J ^t x<ij avruv 
vvip rov 6v6fjLa.Tos rov Kvpiov r]/j,wv I. Xp. This, however, can scarcely 
be called an exception. 



book he remains the hero, so that it is quite obvious 
that the two chief personalities of the book, as it 
were, relieve one another. In chap, xv., however, we 
find them together. There is this difference in the 
treatment of the two characters that St. Paul, in the 
great discourse of chap. xx. at Miletus, is made to 
look back upon his career and to give a searching 
description of his character and his work in the 
style of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Cor 
inthians ; this is never the case with St. Peter. On 
the whole the book makes St. Paul stand out in ever 
so much clearer light than St. Peter at the conclu 
sion the reader possesses quite a distinct portrait of 
the former apostle, 1 while St. Peter as a personality is 
of a shadowy, indeed a somewhat conventional type. 2 
Some have asserted, and with a certain plausibility 
have attempted to demonstrate, that St. Luke pur 
posed a detailed parallelism in the history of the two 
apostles. This, however, does not admit of proof. 3 

1 This is especially so because the three great speeches (in Pisi- 
dian Antioch, Athens, and Miletus) describe his active ministry 
according to its three principal phases as missionary to the Jews, 
as missionary to the Gentiles, and as a leader of the Church. 

2 And yet the speeches contain some quite individual and char 
acteristic traits (in reference to St. Peter s doctrine) which ought 
not to be overlooked. 

3 From the point of view of the space dedicated to St. Paul and 
of the whole structure of the book itself, one cannot definitely prove 
that St. Paul was not intended to be the sole hero of the Acts. We 
must, however, remember, that not only are several very important, 
indeed fundamentally important, discourses put into the mouth of 
St. Peter, but that the story of Cornelius, in which he plays the 
prominent part, also occupies a central position in the book, and 
that with this story chap. xv. is most closely connected (vide xv. 
7, 14). 


Some instances of parallelism presented themselves quite 
unsought for ; nothing more than this can be said. 
The name of apostle is applied to St. Paul only twice 
in the book (xiv. 4, 14). 1 Weiss thinks that just on 
this account the word in both cases must have its 
more general and non-technical significance. But 
this cannot be proved, for the circumstance that in 
many passages the Twelve are called simply " the 
Apostles " (as if there were no others) is not a safe 
proof. In the book they are also called " the Eleven " 
or " the Twelve," and what could have induced St. Luke 
purposely to refuse to give St. Paul a name which he 
himself claimed with such complete conviction ? 2 

Among persons of the second rank might be num 
bered the Apostles (the Twelve), who, although they 
were the witnesses of the Resurrection and formed a 
most important body indeed at the beginning the 
leading and governing body in the Primitive Com 
munity, are yet kept in the background. But if we 
would exclude these, then only jive personages of 
secondary rank come under St. Luke^s consideration, 
namely, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, James, and Apollos. 
Concerning the character and antecedents of four of these 
the Acts gives some direct and detailed information 

1 In the same passages it is also given to St. Barnabas. 

2 The following conjecture is at least possibly true : For St. 
Luke, and for the authority upon whom he depends for his know 
ledge of the relations of Jerusalem and Antioch, St. Paul was as 
much an apostle as the others (note that chaps, vi. and xiii., xiv. 
belong to a single body of tradition and that in chap. vi. the Apostles 
are called "the Twelve," while in chap. xiv. St. Paul and St. 
Barnabas are called apostles) ; but the source from which St. Luke 
borrowed his material for the description of the Church of Jeru 
salem avoided calling St. Paul an apostle. 


(Stephen, vi. 5, 8, 10 ; vii. 55 ; xxii. 20 ; Philip, 
viii. 6f. ; Barnabas, iv. 36 f. ; xi. 24 ; xv. 26 ; Apollos, 
xviii. 24^".). It is not insignificant that these four 
are all Hellenists. The greatest emphasis is laid 
upon the characterisation of St. Stephen, and what is 
still more important a long speech of his is recorded. 
Owing to this he approaches very nearly to St. Peter 
and St. Paul in the importance given to him in the 
economy of the book. We might describe him by 
the numeral l b , so important is he to the author, so 
great is his admiration for him. St. Barnabas conies 
next in importance, but no speeches of his own are 
recorded, though he speaks together with St. Paul 
(xiv. 14y; 22 b ; xv. 3,12). Likewise no reports are 
given of discourses of St. Philip, yet cursory reference 
is made in viii. 35 to a missionary sermon of his on a 
passage in Isaiah, and the renown of his miracles is 
celebrated in the strongest terms. These three per 
sons of secondary rank have a very high, and indeed 
the same, significance in the plan of the work. They 
are to St. Luke of the highest importance for his 
representation of the passage of the Gospel from the 
Jews to Gentiles. There is no need to go more into 
detail on this point. In the second part of the book, 
however, there is no personage of secondary rank 
within the general plan of the book It is the more 
remarkable that outside the general plan there is one 
person, Apollos, who strongly excited the interest of 
St. Luke. The manner in which this personage is 
treated, i.e. characterised, in the book, makes him 
appear on a level with Stephen, Philip, and Barnabas. 
How came St. Luke to treat him with such distinc- 


tion ? The key to the answer seems to me to lie in 
xviii. 28. Here St. Luke emphatically states with 
what energy and success Apollos demonstrated the 
Messiahship of Jesus publicly before the Jews in Corinth 
(nothing is said of his preaching to Gentiles). 1 In 
this statement the account concerning Apollos culmi 
nates. Though the main subject of the book is the 
demonstration of the passage of the Gospel from the 
Jews to the Greeks, still the conquest of the Jews by 
this gifted apologist was so important to St. Luke 
that he has included the ministry of Apollos as an 
episode in his work. Thus the second half of the 
Acts acquired as a companion figure to St. Paul 
a personage of secondary rank, who in his teach 
ing formed to a certain extent a parallel to St. 
Stephen. Seeing that St. Luke was personally ac 
quainted with Silas and Timothy, and yet does not 
in his work give them special prominence as mission 
aries, it follows that Apollos must have appeared to 
him a much more important personality than either 
of them. 2 This deduction, moreover, agrees excellently 
with what we learn about Apollos from the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians. Here also he stands in 
the foreground beside St. Paul and St. Peter. Ac 
cordingly St. Luke s procedure in introducing Apollos 

1 Not only evrovus but also 17/40719 are strongly emphasised in 
the verse. This emphasis makes it improbable that St. Luke had 
in his eye only the discourses of Apollos in synagogues ; he must 
have intended a ministry of wider publicity, wider than that of 
St. Paul to the Jews. 

2 May we not go a step further and conjecture that St. Luke 
counted Apollos a more successful converter of Jews than St. Paul 
himself, and therefore felt bound to mention him in his work. 


to the scene of the Acts is brilliantly justified by St. 
Paul. St. James, the fifth personality of this series, 
occupies a peculiar position. It is presupposed that 
the four others are unknown, while it is assumed that 
he is known. The readers evidently knew though 
this is nowhere stated that he was the Lord s brother, 
and that he had become the head of the Primi 
tive Community after the Twelve had quite given 
up the leadership, which had already been limited 
by the appointment of the " Seven." We receive no 
direct information concerning him, indeed in two of 
the three passages where his name occurs extraordi 
narily little is said about him (xii. 17; xxi. 18^".). 
In the second passage we at once lose sight of him as 
an individual amid the body of presbyters at Jeru 
salem, and in the first passage one can only just 
recognise that he is the head of " the brethren " in 
Jerusalem. 1 But in the third passage (xv. 13 y.), for 
which xii. 17 is evidently intended to prepare, he 
plays a part of the highest, indeed of decisive, 
importance in the general plan of the book. As to 
St. Stephen, so also to him a speech is assigned, and 
it was this speech that settled the whole question 
under discussion. 

We can, moreover, distinguish in the book person 
ages of a third degree of importance, individuals 
whom St. Luke thought it worth while or necessary 
just to mention, without going into closer detail con 
cerning them, either because they were of no import- 

i This method of treatment of St. James in xii. 27 and xxi. \Qff. 
is of importance in connection with the question of the homogeneity 
of the book. Chap. xxi. 18 belongs to the we-sections. 


ance at all for the plan of his work, or because their 
importance seemed to him to be exhausted with the 
mere mention of their names, or because he had no 
further information about them. Among these we 
include the Apostles in so far as in i. 13 a list of their 
names is given ; further, in the first part of the Acts, 
the Apostle John, the Apostle James described in xii. 
as the brother of John, this can only be because it is 
presupposed that the latter was known to the readers 
Joseph, Barsabbas, and Matthias (i. 23, 26), the 
Mother of our Lord (i. 14) and His brethren (Joe. cit.) ; 
lastly, the Seven (vi. 5). Again in the second part of 
the book we also have as subordinate characters St. 
Mark (xiii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37 f.) already mentioned 
in the first part (xii. 12, 1 25), and thus forming a 
bond between the two parts the prophets and 
teachers of Antioch (xiii. I/.), Silas (xv. 22, 27, 32, 
40, and in chaps, xvi. xix.), Judas Barsabbas (xv. 22, 
27, 32), Timotheus (chaps, xvi.-xix.), Aquila and 
Priscilla (xviii. 1 ff.}> Erastus (xix. 22), Gaius and 
Aristarchus (xix. 29 ; xx. 4 ; Aristarchus also in 
xxvii. 2), and the companions of St. Paul mentioned 
in xx. 4. Of these persons, who are only cursorily 
sketched or not sketched at all, St. Mark is the only 
one of whom we learn anything discreditable. We 
cannot see why St. Luke should have mentioned him 
at all if he only meant to tell his readers that when St. 
Mark had been chosen to accompany the two Apostles 
as their minister he had left them of his own accord, 
and that this behaviour of his was the cause of a 

1 In this passage he is, as it were, announced beforehand, just as 
it is with St. James in xii. 17. 


quarrel between St. Paul and St. Barnabas, leading to 
their separation. As one recollects that St. Mark s 
gospel formed the chief authority for St. Luke in 
his gospel, all kinds of ideas concerning St. Luke s 
relations with him suggest themselves. The reader 
is evidently intended to notice that Timothy takes 
St. Mark s place with St. Paul (compare xv. 37-39 
with xvi. 1 ^.), likewise that Silas takes the place of 
St. Barnabas (xv. 40). That Silas stood on a diffe 
rent footing with St. Paul from Timothy follows from 
xvi. 19^".; xvii. 4, 10; on the other hand, even 
according to the Acts, Timothy was not merely an 
attendant. Silas vanishes after xviii. 5 ; his place is 
supplied by Aquila and his wife Priscilla. 

The lists of names of the Apostles, of the Seven, 
and of the prophets and teachers in Antioch, are all 
given from the same motive. The readers must know 
the names of the ancient leaders of the two to St. 
Luke most important churches, and this applies 
more particularly in the case of the Apostles. Of 
these, if we except St. Peter, the author shows special 
interest only in St. John. Seeing that he has simply 
inserted the name of St. John into the Petrine narra 
tives after they had taken their final shape, it follows 
that he wished to give prominence to this apostle. 
We see his reason from xii. 2 (vide supra) the 
readers knew this John, or at least knew of him. 1 

The brevity of the reference to the Herodian 

1 Why he is not mentioned in chap. xv. we cannot tell. St. Luke 
has not purposely left him out. The simplest supposition is that 
the tradition upon which he depends did not here make mention of 
St. John. 


persecution is most strange. An apostle, St. James, 
suffered martyrdom, other Christians of Jerusalem 
became confessors, and yet the author, who describes 
the history of Stephen in such detail and with such 
enthusiasm, does not devote to this event a few sen 
tences of recognition ; indeed he tells us no details at 
all ! This paradoxical fact can, in my opinion, only 
be explained on the supposition that the author here 
closely followed his source, and that he possessed no 
other information concerning the Herodian persecu 
tion (while Clement of Alexandria, over a century 
later, knew more). The source, however, did not con 
tain a history of the Apostolic epoch, but only stones 
about St. Peter, and therefore mentioned this persecu 
tion only by way of an introduction. This circum 
stance is of high significance in view of the question 
concerning the nature of the source (written or oral). 
Besides these three classes of actors, who are 
arranged in an order which displays an admirable 
sense of proportion and relative importance, there 
appear in the book about seventy other persons who 
are for the most part mentioned by name. 1 They 
are all of them introduced in subordination to those 
who have been already described as the actors, and it 
would serve no useful purpose to go through the list 
and to discuss them one by one. A few points are, 
however, worthy of notice. In the first place, it is 
strange that some persons who play an important 
part in the plot of the narrative are not mentioned 
by name. Why is the lame man of iii. 2 ff. not 

1 We exclude references to characters of the Old Testament, to 
Pilate, &c. 


named, nor the lame man at Lystra (xiv. 8 ff.) ? l 
Why do we miss the names of the founders of the 
church in Antioch (xi. 20 /.) ? why also the names 
of the confessors under Herod (xii. 1) ? Why is it 
that no names are given to the Jewish Christians, 
hostile to St. Paul, who came down to Antioch (xv. 
1) ? nor to the companions of St. Paul and St. Bar 
nabas (xv. 2) ? nor to the Christian Pharisees in 
Jerusalem (xv. 5) ? nor to the numerous teachers in 
Antioch who laboured together with St. Paul and St. 
Barnabas (xv. 35) ? Why is it that we do not know 
the name of the damsel who was possessed by an evil 
spirit in Philippi (xvi. 6 f.) ? nor the names of the 
praetors of that city (xvi. 20 ff.) ? nor the name of 
the jailor (xvi. 23 ff.) ? nor the names of the so-called 
" disciples of John " in Ephesus (xix. 1 ^".), nor of the 
Asiarchs and the Grammateus (xix. 31, 35) in the 
same city ? nor the name of St. Paul s sister s son in 
Jerusalem (xxiii. 16) ? The answer that St. Luke 
has not given their names because of their compara 
tive insignificance will suffice for the majority of the 
instances ; 2 but in some cases as for instance the 
lame men in Jerusalem and Lystra, and the martyrs 
under Herod we must suppose that he did not know 

1 Compare on the contrary the less important case of ./Eneas 
(ix. 33). 

2 This holds good also of the Strategi in Philippi and the Asiarchs 
in Ephesus. The author indeed mentions by name, when he can, 
persons in authority among the Jews and Gentiles who appear in 
his history (thus even Claudius Lysias, the centurion Julius, and 
Publius in Malta ; Gamaliel is even characterised in v. 34 as T//UOJ 
irdvTi TO? Aay ; the proconsul Sergius Paulus is called atn^p crweros 
[xiii. 7]), but the Strategi and Asiarchs did not come under con 
sideration as individuals. 


the names, otherwise he would certainly have given 
them. 1 On the other hand it is also strange that 
there are some very insignificant persons whom he 
has honoured by mentioning their names, in the first 
place a whole list of persons with whom St. Paul (or 
St. Peter) dwelt or lodged (vide supra p. 109) this 
belongs to his scheme of narrative then some other 
individuals, namely Blastus the chamberlain (xii. 20), 
Dionysius and Damaris at Athens (xvii. 34), Crispus 
at Corinth (xviii. 8), and Alexander at Ephesus (xix. 
33). These are after all only a few instances. Except 
for the cases of " Blastus " and " Alexander," which 
stand quite by themselves here the author has paid 
too much deference to his sources we may well sup 
pose that the persons in question, Dionysius, Damaris, 
and Crispus, played an important part in later days 
(for Crispus, see 1 Cor. i. 14 ; for Dionysius, see the 
notice concerning Dionysius of Corinth in Eus. Hist. 
Eccl. iv. 23), indeed that they were probably known 
to the first readers. They are thus named for the 
same reason that the Apostle John is named side by 
side with St. Peter, and that in xxi. 9 the informa 
tion is given that St. Philip had four daughters who 
were prophetesses (concerning the importance of these 
daughters, see Papias and numerous other authorities, 
also Clem. Alex.). 

The treatment of personalities is the same in 
character throughout the whole book. By this means 
also the book acquires an aspect of strict uniformity. 
Even the abrupt introduction of the " we " is paralleled 

1 This supposition is also probable in the case of the Grammateus 
at Ephesus. 


by similar instances of abruptness in the introduction 
of persons as if they were already known ; and the 
speaking in unison of St. James and the presbyters 
of Jerusalem in xxi. 20 has several parallels in the 
earlier parts of the book (St. Peter and St. John, iv. 
19/., the whole congregation, iv. 24^"., the Apostles, 
i. 24/., and vi. 2/., St. Paul and St. Barnabas, xiii. 
46 /. ; xiv. 14^". quite a long discourse! xiv. 22, 
cf. xiv. 27 ; xv. 3, 4, 12). Only cursory reference is 
made to the teaching and discourses of subordinate 
characters (e.g. viii. 35 Philip ; xv. 32 Judas and 
Silas ; ix. 27 Barnabas ; xviii. 26 Aquila and Pris- 
cilla, &c.). The speeches and they are by no means 
few that are attributed to Jewish and Gentile persons 
in authority have for the most part one and the same 
aim ; cf. the words of the Sanhedrin (iv. 15 ^f.), the 
speech of Gamaliel (v. 35 ff.), of Gallio (xviii. 14 /.), 
of the Ephesian Grammateus (xix. 35 /.), moreover 
xxiii. 9 ; xxiv. 22 ff. ; xxv. 14 ff. ; xxv. 24 ff. ; xxvi. 
31 /., as well as the letter of Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 
26 ff.). They are intended to bear witness to the 
innocence of the Christians in general and of St. Paul 
in particular. 

In regard to the great speeches both the selection 
of ideas and the arrangement in the book are worthy 
of notice. The speech of St. Stephen (vii. 2 ff.), that 
of St. Peter to Cornelius (x. 28 ff.), those of St. Peter 
and St. James at the so-called Council (xv.), and in 
directly the three apologies of St. Paul (xxii. 1 ff. ; 
xxiv. 10^". ; xxvi. 1 ff.), as well as the shorter fourth 
apology (xxviii. 17 ff.), all minister to the main theme 
of the book : that the preaching of the Gospel, in 


accordance with the Divine Will, is passing over 
from the Jews to the Gentiles. The book opens 
with the missionary discourses delivered by St. Peter 
before the Jews (ii. 14/.; iii. 12 /. ; iv. 7/., 19 /. ; 
v. 29 y.). Parallel to them stand the missionary 
discourse of St. Paul to the Jews (xiii. 16 ff.) and to 
the Gentiles (xvii. 22 f.\ the latter having a sort of 
prelude in xiv. 15 ff. These are with one exception 
which will be immediately dealt with all the longer 
speeches that are to be found in the book. We see 
how completely they are in subordination to the main 
purpose of the book, which is to describe the history 
of the mission and of the passing over of the Gospel 
to the Gentiles. The more remarkable therefore is 
the contrast presented by St. Paul s speech at Miletus 
(xx. 18y.). Its content is such as to set it somewhat 
outside the framework of the book. As is well known 
it stands between two we-sections, and it is for this 
very reason probable that we have here the report of 
words which St. Luke himself had heard, and that 
here just as in his account of the perils of the 
voyage to Rome he goes more into detail than is 
consistent with the plan of his work, because he 
allowed himself to be led away by the deep impression 
that the scene had made upon him. The speech at 
Miletus is therefore most probably authentic, in so 
far as a short report can be said to be authentic. 1 It 
has, however, been noticed long ago that in spirit 
and in phraseology no passage in the Acts is more 
closely allied to the Pauline epistles than this speech. 

1 Note also that in it subjects are discussed which are not touched 
upon elsewhere in the whole book. 



It is also scarcely possible that the remaining 
speeches are the product of pure invention (if they 
were so the highest praise would be due to the author s 
creative and yet astonishingly correct imagination). 
How distinctly the speech of St. Stephen stands out 
from all the others! The subject itself of the speech 
is quite peculiar, and not according to the mind 
of St. Luke, who had great reverence for the rdigio 
antiqua of the Jews. In the parallel speeches of St. 
Peter (ii. 14^". and iii. 12 ff.} the eschatological im 
plication of the outpouring of the Spirit is strongly 
emphasised, while St. Luke himself seems to regard 
this outpouring only as the foundation of the mission, 
and facts themselves had refuted the combination of 
the outpouring of the Spirit with the Final Judg 
ment. Again our Lord appears as avrjp a.Tro$e$eiy- 
/zeVo? CLTTO TOV Oeov (ii. 22), whom God had first made 
Christ by the Resurrection from the dead (ii. 36), or 
again as Tra?? Oeov (iii. 13, cf. iii. 26 ; iv. 27 : o ayio? 
Trot?? (TOV 1*70-01/9, ov e^jOtcra?, and iv. 30, but nowhere 
else in the book) ; the eTrayyeXia TOV Tri>ev[jt.aTO$ TOV 
ayiov which He had now poured forth, was first 
imparted to Him at His Ascension (ii. 33). The 
speech before Cornelius has similar Christological 
traits, and the reminiscence (x. 38) : o? <$ifj\6ev 
evepyeTwv KO.I uo/wevo? . . . OTI 6 $eo? ijv yUer avrov, 
is unique in the whole non-evangelic literature. Here 
again the eschatological point of view is strongly 
emphasised (x. 42), and the words: acpecriv a/uLapTiu>v 
\a/3eiv Sta TOV o^o/xaro? O.VTOV TravTO. TOV TricrTevovTa 
elf avrov (x. 43) are certainly not borrowed from 
Paulinism, but contain primitive doctrine. Again 


with what delicate touches is the speech of St. 
James, in chap, xv., distinguished from that of 
St. Peter ! Are we to assign all this to St. Luke 
the Hellenist without any source to guide him ? 
And above all how clearly the first two great 
programmatic speeches of St. Paul (chaps, xiii. and 
xvii.), the first addressed to the Jews, the second 
to the Gentiles, are distinguished from the speeches 
of St. Peter! Compare only xiii. 38, 39 with 
x. 43 (vide siipra"), and think whether in a short 
report the likeness and the difference between the 
teaching of the primitive apostles and that of St. 
Paul could have been more concisely and delicately 
expressed than in those words ! As for the speech 
at Athens, with its prelude in xiv. 15 ff., if only 
critics will again learn to see clearly and to feel 
rightly, none of them will fail to recognise that in 
this attempt to give a short summary of the prob 
able nature of St. Paul s fundamental teaching in his 
sermons to Gentiles, the genius shown in the selection 
of ideas is just as great as the historical trustworthi 
ness of the report. 

It is most strange that St. Luke gives us no less than 
three great apostolic discourses of St. Paul in close 
succession (chaps, xxii., xxiv., xxvi. ; compare, more 
over, the speech in Rome, chap, xxviii.). Unless 
these separate discourses rested upon some tradi 
tional foundation that seemed to the author trust 
worthy and important, we can scarcely understand 
why one speech did not suffice for him. Probably 
he made use of several sources ; for in one source 
these sj>eeches would most probably have run together 


into one. If this, however, be true then it follows 
that where the speeches agree the one vouches for 
the other, and the critics will at last be compelled to 
give up one of those positions to which they cling with 
the most inveterate prejudice, the assumption that 
St. Paul s doctrine is here brought into too close 
accordance with the doctrine of the Pharisees, and 
that he is here represented as adopting a line of 
defence which is unworthy of himself in that he 
renounces his own principles. 



ACCOUNTS of miracles and works of the Spirit play 
so great a part in the Acts of the Apostles that 
the mind of the author can be discerned from these 
narratives with special clearness. He himself is a 
physician endowed with peculiar " Spiritual " gifts of 
healing, and this fact profoundly affects his concep 
tion of Christianity. Moreover, these records are 
also of importance for the discovery of the sources 
of the book ; they confirm its unity, but they also 
clearly show that distinct groups of subject-matter 
exist therein. I first proceed to give a summary of the 
material in question (see the tables on pp. 134 et seq.}. 

Merely a cursory glance at these tables discovers 
a sufficiently striking state of things. Let us, how 
ever, commence our closer investigation with a general 
survey : 

The we-sections, although they comprise only about 
one hundred verses (a tenth part of the book), con 
tain one summary account of cases of healing, besides 
four accounts of single instances of the same sort 
(including one case of raising from the dead), two 
instances of interference by the Holy Spirit to pre 
vent a course of action, the appearance of a man of 
Macedonia in a vision, the appearance of the angel 




2 a ca , 

-3 bcM 



r-H Q 


M CO .0 O ft 

r~* r-S -U 






53 C8 K 

8 ,2" 

O ^ *u 
08 fl =t 

5 3J hc 2 

S "o o f. 
g ea s jj- 
B .S 3 t 





-w TO g 


-a w o 


c 2.^ ^ 





a -S 


rf -^ T3 *^> 

W P^ Q 


cc v, a 

4) Q ^Q O 


p ^ 5 -g a 




1 i ~ " % 


ca B _o - 

* tti 


_c . -3-.J2 2 



g C Q. > <-l 

ja ^ 


^ rh " o 

C-- 13 





^ Q co *o o 

. s 


Q ^M ^j p 





i. 9 (The Ascension) 
ii. 4 /. (The gift of 
iv. 31 (Miraculous earth- 

quake as a sign from 
v. Iff. (The death of Ana 
nias and Sapphira) 
ix. 8 (St. Paul s blinding) 
[xii. 23J ( H erod is smitt en 
with a fatal disease) 
xiii. 11 (The blinding of 

i. 10 /. (The angeli inter 
preter at the Ascension) 
v. 19 (The angel of the 
Lord opens the prison 
and speaks to the 
[viii. 20] (The angel of 
the Lord speaks to St. 
Philip ; it can also be 
regarded as a vision) 







e author distinguishes sha 
it was brought about by t 
Cornelius (expressly descri 
night, and therefore beloE 
augel does not appear, an< 




S^S-c -1 



c* "^ 




g-s^S- 2 



2 v X 



. c ~j Q. 


_o c 


C C P i "* 


^f. -l 


5 12 * 


^ o 

rt gj 


t o o o >- .2 
o c c v 3 

S w 

K c 


* 4s 2 2 ** 73 



^ ^3 i c 

1 1 ^9 


^ 11 11 *~* 



X S _a * 


C <t ca *j (t 


X i 

a o 

-" (3 *> 

. o o> 

43 O 02 

tT C <o 

PH ^ 

tl. .2"S 

.S fe.S 

.ri *= P< 03 

"^i-H ^ ~* -S 

, oc n -5 > 

14* 4 
O g 

c . 

cd ** 


r+ M-l 

.d o 

^H 05 01} 

.75 O O 



_ _ 



-S to 

i- a 
e o 



r. ^ 


S c 


O C3 

H H .,. 
- O , 

2 to 
. O 


-^ ^H 

K * 

a PJ " 

ti ID OQ 


m 03 <D i 

. 43 

X) !H 4> 

3 *J ^ ^ 3 +? rf 

bo -9 -* 

D ft 8 


^ 8 I ^ ^ 

"c -3 i, ^ 


. O 73 "S " 

J; J3 x-. 01 


""" d ^"5 5 


*j In 1 ! 


. .c S c ^ 


S OQ 5 "^ . 

e w a -. 
.2 fl . 42 
. !<2 gdis a 

I i 



O5 00 "S" 54 
fe -.,4 ^ 

*H * *B 


K L^l 



073 C 73 

s ^.-s 


J Jo 

^ 2 S "5" 


> ^ o 

3 "^02 ~. 

.2 c o 5 



ifjj g "f 

? > ^S 


* ^ 73 ** 

P^< J3 O P-* S ^ 

IB OJ > 


-^ a *" % a 2 
w C S , 

rj * > 

H fl S &? 


S 1 ^ -^ 


~ p el* ^ < 

a-i rt C 

S . ee jj -S x 

.S O A ft 


K K 



JB a> ^ w 

*S a i "S M -. 
2 a g "S-"- 

i 4 



o .2 ^ a *> ca 9 

H ^* 



ft <g ^j fl 5 

2 * 01 .2 fij P- 1 r5 



1; B - 1 

^ ^ 00 ^ -^ f- 





ao c 

S3 43 ^C (_, 


-^ ** w 

_fl t\ r* ^ ^^ 

ft J 


*, _o/> D 

i-^ ?j-a ^s _ **^_g 

o a ft 
E H o 

Put S 

O . 

|J _ ^^ a 2 

v^- -2 02 "2^*5?*" d 


IS ^ 

S |l5"l 

^ -5 ""! .S S M o > d > 

r- a-. o 
N fe o 
^ >-5 :s 


"S ^ 

S .H H H H 

*S S 

"S 4> 

.J3 "5 O 



% <o 



c -2 

2.5 *" 


tn - t 

^i 3 

* rt 

C ^^ 

t* O 

.2 03 


x rt *- ^4 



"^ CO .^"J 5 


N V 

^J^-CQ . 






H fl 


a +3 

"- 1 n 

s & 

.2 M 

"S fl 

s--< -q 

^-t . .-a 

-rt > U 

_. -J - - 

9 P ^ s 

O .2 ^ H" 
IW "3 P 



I I 

o; re 



a ^= 

* tf 

T -O O ^ 

g Sj-.S gj.1 


^ M .3 


of the Lord in a vision, the Tyrians foretelling 
the future, Agabus foretelling the future, the 
daughters of St. Philip who were prophetesses, 
two instances in which St. Paul foretold the future 
thus no less than fourteen instances of a " miracu 
lous " character recorded in so small a space ! In 
correspondence with this abundance we find in the 
first half of the book about seventy-seven similar in 
stances of a miraculous character. Any one who wishes 
may ascertain by calculation that, taking into account 
the length of the first fifteen chapters, the proportion 
is much the same. Moreover, the categories of our 
list again repeat themselves. We again find summary 
accounts of cases of healing, accounts of separate 
miracles of healing, persons mentioned who speak in 
the Spirit, cases where the Spirit acts and speaks, 
visions (the appearance of an angel), prophets. On 
the other hand, the situation is quite different in the 
second half of the book, omitting the we-sections. 
Here in passages which picture St. Paul in Philippi 
(at the close of his visit), in Thessalonica, in Beroea, 
in Athens, in Ephesus, in Jerusalem, in Caesarea, and 
in Rome, we find only ten instances of a miraculous 
character, and even these suffer serious reduction when 
we consider that the earthquake in Philippi was a 
natural occurrence treated as a special instance of 
Providential interference and so used in the narra 
tive ; that the two passages xx. 23 and 28 belong to 
a speech of St. Paul which in all probability must be 
assigned to the we-sections seeing that it stands in 
their midst and that St. Luke was present on the 
occasion ; and that xxviii. 25 is the customary 


introduction to a quotation from the Old Testa 
ment : TO TrvevjULO. TO ayiov eXaXycrev Sia Hcra /ov TOV 
Trpo( }Tov. We are therefore left with only six pas 
sages namely, xviii. 9/. ; xix. 2, 6, 11 /., 15 f. ; and 
xxiii. 11. Now, however, we at once see that xviii. 
9/. and xxiii. 11 are out of organic connection with 
the simple narratives in which they stand, and give 
the impression of having been thrust into the context 
like the lyric Christian passages in certain parts of 
the Apocalypse. Only consider : 

xviii. (811) : KjOiV?ro? c^e 6 ap^iarvvdywyoy eTr/cr- 
TU> Kvpiw uvv oX<w TOO O IKW avTOv, KOI TroXXoi TU>V 
/coj a/couovTe? eiricrTevov KOI e/3a7TT/(^oi TO. 

fiirev 5e 6 /cuptos ev WKrl Si opa/iaros r 
(f>o/3ov, dXXa AaXet KCU p.rj crto)7r?;crys, Stort tyw et/xt /xera 
crou, Kat ouSeis eTrt^^crerai crot TOV KaKwcrai ere, SIOTI Aaos 
ecrri /xot tv rfj TroAei Tavrrj. 

<^e eviavrov KOI /x^ra? e^ 8i8d<TK(i)i> ev CLVTOIS 
TOV Xoyof TOV 9eov. 

Again xxiii. (1012) : IIoXX^9 e yevo/uievtis a-Tacrews 
d>o(3>]9e is 6 ^fX/ao^o? / Siaa-TracrOr] 6 LLauXos VTT 
, eKeXeua-ev TO CTToaTev/ULa KciTa/Sav apTracrai CIVTOV 

rfj Sf eTTLOvcrr] I/VKTI 7T6CTTas a.VT(p 6 Kvpios etwev 

d)S yap Siyu,apri. pco TO. Trepl f^ov et s lepowaA.?^, OVTCO 

ere Sei Kat ei s Pwyu^v ^aprvprjcrai. 

TroirjcravTes crvtTTpofpyi oi lovSaiot 

ca>9 o5 aTTOKTeivuxri TOV IlauXov. 


I do not mean it is here a question of later inter 
polation into an already complete text it is by no 
means necessary to suppose a written exemplar but 
the situation seems to be as follows : the author of 
the we-sections, i.e. of the whole work, has given the 
impress of his own peculiar temperament to accounts 
which were at his disposal. In the icliole subject- 
matter of the second half of the Acts with the excep 
tion of the we-sections * miraculous episodes do not 
occur as organic elements of the context except in the 
account of St. PauTs ministry in Ephesus (xix. 2 jf.). 
Here we have the " disciples of John " who receive 
the Spirit and prophesy ; here the exorcism of an evil 
spirit ; and here the summary account of instances of 
miraculous healing by St. Paul. 

The situation here presented is most interesting 
and admits of only one explanation. It is clear that 
St. Luke whose own we-account shows him to have 
been a physician endowed with miraculous gifts of 
healing possessed for the first half of his book a 
source or sources (oral or written) ivhich was congenial 
to his own peculiar temperament. On the other hand 
it is also clear that for the second half of his book he 
did not possess such sources (with the exception of 
what is told us of Ephesus), but only had at his dis 
posal simple records into which he has inserted nothing 
except two conventional accounts of visions which 
illustrate the development of the plot. It cannot be 
otherwise ; for if he himself had introduced the 
supernatural element into chapters i. xv., it is unin- 

1 And of the repeated narrative of St. Paul s conversion, which 
may be here neglected. 


telligible why he should have refrained from doing 
the same thing in the second half, except, or almost 
only except, where he himself was an eye-witness. 
That the parts of his narrative where the colour 
ing is most sober are not the we-sections, but the 
accounts of St. Paul s visits to Thessalonica, Bercea, 
Athens, Corinth, Jerusalem (the last visit), Caesarea, 
and Rome, is a convincing proof that his narrative 
here is kept in close accordance with sources. Either 
the records given in these sources contained nothing 
of a supernatural character, or what they contained 
of this character seemed to him incredible ; naturally, 
however, the latter alternative is altogether improb 
able when we take into account St. Luke s peculiar 
temperament. We reach no solution of the problem 
by supposing that the economy of the book pre 
vented him from relating supernatural events in these 
passages ; for his we-sections are full of the super 
natural, and the account of the ministry in Ephesus 
shows that even for the second half of his work, 
in those passages where he was not an eye-witness, 
anything of a supernatural character was most wel 
come to him. 

The circumstance that in chaps, i. xv. the super 
natural element is so abundant, indeed is wanting in 
no single chapter, is accordingly a proof that we have 
here a body of tradition, homogeneous in its treat 
ment of the supernatural, which had been transmitted 
to the author in a form and with a colouring that 
were congenial to his temperament. That this form 
and colouring belonged to the source itself- the question 
whether it was oral or written may be left open 


follows not only from the fact that the supernatural 
element is almost entirely absent from the second half 
of the book (excluding the we-sections and chapter 
xix.), but still more clearly from the fact that while 
there is much in common between chapters i. xv. 
and the we-sections in their attitude to the super 
natural, there is much more of the supernatural in 
chapters i. xv. than in the we-sections. For in 
stance : 

1. In the we-sections all that has been included 
under category III. namely, what I have called 
miracles of a " singular " character is entirely want 
ing. Stories like the Ascension, the Gift of Tongues, 
the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the blinding of 
St. Paul and of Elymas, the mors persecutors Herodis, 
have no parallels in the we-sections (naturally also 
not in the rest of the second half of the book). 

2. In the we-sections realistic appearances of angels 
(vide sub IV.), such as we find in i. 10 /. ; v. 19 ; viii. 
26 ; xii. 711, are wanting. 

3. In the we-sections we are never expressly told 
that such and such persons are filled with the Holy 
Ghost. The more frequently we meet with such 
persons in chaps, i. xv. (vide sub V.) the Apostles in 
a body, those who were chosen as the " Seven," St. 
Peter, St. Stephen, St. Barnabas, St. Paul, the Chris 
tians of Jerusalem, and the Christians of Pisidian 
Antioch are so described the more strange it must 
seem that nothing of the kind is said of any one in 
the second half of the book. 

4. In the we-sections are to be found none of the 
passages, so frequent in chaps, i. xv., which speak of 



the coming, the giving, the receiving of the Spirit, or 
of the being baptized with Him (vide sub VI.). 

5. In the we-sections there are no expressions 
parallel to those included under category XI. 

The absence of these groups from the we-sections 
certainly brings out the distinctive character of chaps, 
i. xv., but this distinction is no less clearly marked 
in the different treatment of parallel material here 
and in the we-sections. It is true that in the we- 
sections St. Luke appears as a man endowed with 
" Spiritual " gifts who seeks for and believes in the 
miraculous, yet in the parallel stories of chaps, i. xv. 
the miraculous colouring is more thickly laid on. 
Compare the summary accounts of miracles, signs, and 
wondrous cures (vide sub. I.) in chaps, i. xv. with the 
parallel passage XXViii. 9 : /ecu oi \onroi oi ev T$ vijcra) 
e^ofre? aaOevcias Trpoa"t]p^ovTO KOI eOepairevovTO, oi KOI 
TroAXcu? Ti/J-als TL/m.jjcrav J^ua?. Here no more is said 
than a " Christian Scientist " could say, there the 
strongest expressions are used ; we are intended to 
picture to ourselves the working of the strongest 
imaginable miraculous power. Or compare the 
accounts of raising from the dead here and there. 
In the one case we are told in plain words that 
Tabitha was dead and that her " corpse " was already 
prepared for the burial, and that St. Peter by prayer 
and an authoritative summons brought her to life 
again. In the we-sections, on the other hand, there 
is nothing told us in the account of the raising of 
Eutychus that is in itself extraordinary. Of course 
St. Luke regarded, and would have us regard, the 
occurrence as an instance of raising from the dead ; 


but he does not embellish the story from this point 
of view. It is the same with the story of the snake 
in Malta : here also nothing is said which is in itself 
extraordinary, though St. Luke would have the occur 
rence regarded as a miracle. Nor is it otherwise with 
the " Spiritual " element in the strict sense of the 
word. In chaps, i. xv., in a quite realistic fashion, 
the Spirit is represented as speaking to St. Peter and 
St. Philip ; in the we-sections the Christians of Tyre 
and Agabus speak in the Spirit, and the Spirit speaks 
in visions of the night. In chaps, i. xv. we read 
that TTvevfjLa Kvpiou fjpTraa-ev rov $/At7T7rot (viii. 39) on 
the public highway ; in the we-sections He hinders or 
prevents; but how this happens we are not told (we 
must suppose visions or something similar). 

It is also very instructive to compare the account 
of the so-called first missionary journey of St. Paul 
(chaps, xiii. xiv.) on the one hand with the accounts 
of the later journeys, and on the other hand with chaps, 
i. xii., xv. Every one will at once see that it belongs 
to the latter and not to the former section of the book. 
In xiv. 3 we read of St. Paul and St. Barnabas : Trap- 
prjiria.l^6fJLevoi eirl ry Kvpiw, SiSovTi cry/ueta KCU Tepara 
ylvea-Oat Sia TUH> ^etpwv avTcav, just as in numerous 
passages in chaps, i. xii. and in xv. 12, while no 
parallel passage is to be found in the second half of 
the book. The story of the healing of the lame man 
in Lystra (xiv. 8^".) has parallels only in iii. \ff. and 
in ix. 33 (in each case a lame man in Jerusalem and 
Lydda respectively). The story of the punishment 
of Elymas by blinding has an analogy only in ix. 8. 
Such expressions as 7rA>/$e<9 TTfeJ/xaroy ay. (xiii. 9) and 


01 fJLaOtjTai e-ir\iipovvTO Trvev/jLaros ay. (xiii. 52) 
concerning St. Paul and the Christians of Pisidian 
Antioch respectively are used in the second part 
neither of St. Paul nor of any one of the communities 
he founded. Moreover, it is easily recognised that 
the whole narrative of chaps, xiii. xiv. (with the 
exception perhaps of the scene at Lystra, where the 
people are about to sacrifice to the Apostles) is en 
veloped in the same atmosphere of generality and 
superficiality which is characteristic of most of the 
accounts in the first half of the book. It is not that 
the author s representation of St. Paul is altogether 
different from his representation of the leading figures 
of the Primitive Community in chaps, xiii. xiv. he 
shows that this is not so but the difference in his 
treatment begins just at the point where St. Bar 
nabas and St. Paul separate from one another 
because of St. Mark. All that is narrated before 
this time is essentially of one type, and all that is 
narrated afterwards is of a twofold type (namely, 
that of the we-sections and that of the remaining 
parts), though this does not affect the unity of style 
and vocabulary which obtains throughout the whole 

Behind chaps, i. xv. there accordingly stands an 
authority (or several authorities) who, as a " Christian 
Scientist" and a "man of the Spirit," was on the 
whole congenial to St. Luke, and whose word went 
very far with him, though he was considerably more 
credulous and uncritical in regard to the miraculous 
than St. Luke himself. St. Luke has not dared to 
narrate such stories where he himself was an eye- 


witness, but he trustfully accepts them when they are 
vouched for by this authority (or authorities). 

Who was this authority, or who were these authori 
ties ? It may seem absurd even to propound this 
question, and certainly it cannot be satisfactorily 
answered on the basis of the material which is here 
collected ; yet perhaps some indication may present 
itself that may help us to an answer. It is natural 
to suppose, and indeed has been already conjectured 
by several critics independently of one another, that 
the authorities for chap, xix., which is so very distinct 
in character from the rest of the narrative in the 
second half of the book (vide supra), were the Gaius 
and Aristarchus so abruptly mentioned in verse 29. 
Aristarchus, moreover and Gaius also according to 
the conjecture of Blass together with St. Luke meet 
St. Paul again a few months later, and Aristarchus 
also joins St. Paul and St. Luke on the voyage to 
Rome. The abrupt mention of his name and that 
of Gaius in xix. 29 receives its simplest explanation 
on the hypothesis that these very men were here St. 
Luke s authorities. May we not now attempt to dis 
cover among the persons who are mentioned in chaps. 
i xv. one or more who might also be claimed as 
authorities for what is here recorded ? It must have 
been, as has been already remarked, a person of im 
posing authority, one whom St. Luke followed with 
confidence. The leading personalities in chaps, i xv. 
are St. Peter, St. Barnabas, St. Stephen, St. Philip, 
and St. Paul. Of these, according to his own testi 
mony, he had learned to know St. Philip (also St. 
Paul). That he was also acquainted with St. Peter, 


St. Barnabas, and St. Stephen is almost certain in the 
case of the first two persons, and quite certainly ex 
cluded in the case of the last. Moreover, of persons 
belonging to the Primitive Community he knew St. 
James, Silas, and St. Mark. 1 St. James, however, 
falls quite into the background in the book, and no 
one would dream of him as St. Luke s authority. If 
therefore this authority is to be sought among the 
persons mentioned in the book we can only think of 
St. Philip, St Mark, or Silas. That he is to be sought 
among these persons is, in my opinion, overwhelm 
ingly probable ; for if St. Luke had the opportunity 
of gaining information from these persons what 
could possibly have prevented him from seizing it ? 
Of the three persons just named Silas is expressly 
described as a prophet (xv. 32), St. Philip as a great 
worker of miracles (viii. 6/. 13), both of them thus 
as imposing authorities, a thing which cannot be said 
of St. Mark. The latter does not play a very 
pleasing part in the book (xiii. 13 ; xv. 37 ff.). 
This, however, is as far as we can go at present. 

We must, however, now glance at the character of 
the miracles narrated in the book. The question 
occurs whether these rest upon first-hand information, 
or whether they presuppose secondary or even tertiary 
tradition. If we neglect the instances of vision, of 
prophecy, and of other communications made by the 
Spirit, which are not miracles in the strict sense of the 
word, we are left in chaps, i. xv. with six instances of 
miraculous cure, six (seven) " singular " miracles, and 
four realistic appearances of angels. 

1 He first learned to know St. Mark in Rome. 


Dealing first with the miracles of healing, there is 
nothing in the three accounts of cures of lameness 
or in the one account of a cure of blindness that can 
be brought forward as evidence against the primary 
character of the tradition. In the first place, these 
cures of lameness as well as the cure of blindness (the 
cure of St. Paul who was sufl ering not strictly from 
blindness but from temporary loss of sight) could well 
have actually taken place cures, and more especially 
cures of lameness, by suggestion are recorded at all 
times ; l if, however, this is not allowed, it is never 
theless certain that from the very beginning belief 
in such miracles was current in the Primitive Com 
munity ; nor are the stories told in such a fashion 
that primary tradition i.e. tradition originating in 
the circle of those directly or almost directly con 
cerned must necessarily be excluded. Moreover, the 
circumstance that St. Paul, in spite of the stoning, 
still remained alive, and could return into the city, 
is not related as a miracle, but is intended to be regarded 
as an instance of special Divine protection (just as in 
the case of the snake-bite at Malta). Of the miracles 
of healing there is now left only the raising of 
Tabitha from the dead by St. Peter. It is idle to 
inquire what really happened on this occasion. It is, 

1 Notice also that each of the three accounts of the cure of lame 
ness has its own distinctive character. The first (in Jerusalem) 
cannot possibly be broken away from the context, for it plainly 
gives the occasion for all that follows (indeed probably also for the 
outpouring of the Spirit vide infra). The second (in Lydda) is an 
isolated anecdote leading on only to the vigorous extension of the 
Gospel in Lydda and Sharon. The third (in Lystra) is presupposed 
by the story of the apotheosis of St. Barnabas and St. Paul, a story 
that could not have been invented. 


however, important that the daughters of St. Philip 
told Papias of a case of resurrection from the dead, 
and that even Irenaeus writes (II. 31, 2) : o Kvpto? 
^yetpev [veicpovs] KOI oi aTrocrroXoi Sia Tnootreu^?, Kal 
ev aSe\<poTt]Ti TroXXd/a 9 Sia TO avayKaiov KOI T*?? Kara 
TOTTOV e/f/cX 170709 7racr>;? aiTt](ra[ji.evr]$ yuera vrjarTelas /cat 
XtTaye/a? TroXX^? eTrecrrpc^sev TO irvev/ma TOV rere- 
Xeur>7/coT09 KOI e-^apia-Ot] 6 avOpcoiros rcu? eii-gai? TU>V 
ayivv. I consider it to be quite probable that even 
during the lifetime of St. Peter stories were current 
concerning dead who had been raised again by that 
apostle, indeed that he himself may have believed that 
he had called a dead woman to life again. It is, more 
over, favourable to the hypothesis of a primary tradi 
tion that the story, in spite of its crudity, is fixed 
in form and ministers to no special tendency. The 
event it records did not take place in Jerusalem, but 
in Joppa, a place which has no other significance in 
early Christian history, and its favourable results 
extend only to Joppa and the neighbourhood. None 
of the more notable Christians of Jerusalem accom 
panied St. Peter thither, and there is in the story no 
conscious imitation of a similar event in the Gospel : 
St. Peter prayed over the corpse, and then by his 
summons brought back to life this old woman, who 
had played a part of some importance in the little 
Christian community of Joppa. I do not see why 
decades of years should have been necessary for the 
creation of this legend ; it could well have been told 
to St. Luke when he was staying with St. Philip at 

As for the miracles of " singular " character, we 


need not discuss the two cases of sudden blinding (St. 
Paul and Elymas) and the punishment of Herod by 
death. The latter is simply a real event narrated 
from a religious point of view ; St. Paul really lost his 
sight for a short time ; and the story of the blinding 
of Elymas by St. Paul, which certainly did not occur 
in the way we are told, has probably some historical 
nucleus, though no one if he is wise will venture to 
state what it is, for it is possible to conjecture all 
kinds of things. It is enough to know that the Pro- 
consul s magician lost his eyesight at the time that 
the influence of St. Paul won over his patron. We 
cannot well imagine that the story is pure inven 
tion ; for why is it that nothing dreadful happens to 
Simon Magus, who is painted in much darker colours ? 
This negative fact seems to me very important ; for 
if St. Luke wished to invent miracles there was no 
more fitting place to insert one than here. And for 
this very reason I regard the recourse to similar traits 
of constant occurrence in novels of those times as 
quite uncalled for. 

There remain therefore only the Ascension, the 
miracle of Pentecost, the Earthquake, and the story 
of Ananias and Sapphira. Here also we may at once 
eliminate the miracle of Pentecost. The countless 
learned essays on this subject are really not worth the 
paper on which they are written. There is only need 
of a little literary feeling and understanding in order 
to recognise that St. Luke the litterateur has here 
taken the liberty of dressing up the phenomenon of 
" speaking with tongues " in a grandiose style, although 
its real nature and its form of manifestation were 


naturally well known to him. There is absolutely no 
reason to assume the interpolation of secondary or 
tertiary tradition, or the combination of two sources, 
or such like hypotheses. Indeed, the very attempt 
to analyse and to test the inner unity of this passage 
is in itself an artistic crime. Neither is there any 
thing extraordinary about the Earthquake of iv. 31. 
Besides, it is not a question here of an earthquake in 
the strict sense of the word : Setflevrwv avrwv ecra- 
\ev9t] 6 TOTTO?, ev (a rjcrav cru^y/xeVot, /ecu eTrXJja-Qrjcrav 
dVai Te? TOU ay iov Trfei^uaro?. The trembling of 
the ecstasy is transferred also to the place where 
they were assembled. Certainly the author intends 
a real miracle, but it is just as certain that the 
record that such a miracle occurred could have arisen 
at once and in the very locality of its supposed 

It is otherwise with the story of Ananias and 
Sapphira and of the Ascension ; but they are of 
quite a different character. 

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is certainly no 
" allegorical fable " (Pfleiderer), and by the fact that 
it presupposes not a general community of goods in 
the Church of Jerusalem, but a self-sacrifice which 
rested with the free-will of the individual, it shows 
that it belongs to very ancient tradition. Neither 
does it belong to the general plan of the Acts, i.e. it 
is not a necessary link in the chain of development of 
the narrative, but stands by itself. In its outward 
form it is entirely Lukan, though it contains singular 
elements in both vocabulary and subject-matter (yoa-^l- 


(ra<r0ai TO ay. Tri>ev/u.a, \l/ev<racr6at ro> Sew, oi vea>Tcpot 
[ot veuvia-Koi]). Its point lies in the miraculous know 
ledge and power of St. Peter (in the second place, 
in the sanctity of the Church, in which every offence 
is avenged by God). Here again we cannot say what 
really happened, but it is not incredible that the 
sudden death of two members of the community, of 
doubtful character, should have been regarded in 
Jerusalem itself, and even by contemporaries, as a 
Divine act of punishment announced by St. Peter ; 
and that the account of this event should have 
been worked up after the pattern of Jos. vii. and 
Levit. x. If, however, we recollect 1 Cor. v. 5, we 
may go a step farther and may very well suppose 
that St. Peter really pronounced a sentence of 
death against the guilty pair and that their death 
actually followed (vide Macar. Magn., III. 21, 28). 
How this took place scarcely allows of conjecture. 
At all events this legend is not one of those 
that could only have been created by a later 

On the other hand, the account of the corporal 
Ascension is without doubt a narrative that could 
not have taken form in the circle of the " Eleven. 11 
I have collected together the material for the history 
of the tradition of the Ascension in Hahn s Bibllothek 
der Symbok, 3 Aufl. s. 382 ff. Apart from the Acts, 
it occurs in the New Testament only in the spurious 
conclusion of St. Mark, and in the interpolated passage 
in St. Luke xxiv. 51. St. Paul has no knowledge of 
it ; but there is no need to show how natural it was 
that the primitive belief in the descensus and asccnsus 


should take this form in dependence upon the story 
of Elijah (for the cloud " cf. St. Mark ix. 7 ; xiii. 
26 ; xiv. 62 ; Rev. xi. 12 ; xiv. 14 /.). The most 
interesting points are the localisation on the Mount 
of Olives, and the term of forty days. The localisa 
tion need not necessarily have taken form in Jeru 
salem ; yet it is overwhelmingly probable that this 
trait had its origin in that city, for such localisations 
are wont to be assigned in the place itself. More- 
ever, there can be no doubt that the Primitive Com 
munity very soon began to embellish the story of the 
last days of our Lord with local legends, according 
to their own taste, and with a view to their own 
glorification. This accretion of legend was facilitated 
by the fact that after tivelve years the Apostles left 
Jerusalem and only returned thither on short visits. 
The Church there stood under the leadership of St. 
James, who did not belong to the Twelve. Perhaps 
it was only after his death that the legends arose that 
our Lord first appeared to him, that the women (or 
one woman) saw Him at the empty tomb, and that 
accordingly the appearances in Galilee were preceded 
by appearances in Jerusalem (the former were then 
persistently ignored). At the time when St. Luke 
was with St. Paul in Jerusalem these stories could 
scarcely have been current. The stories that were 
told at that time we learn from 1 Cor. xv. and the 
genuine St. Mark, and from St. Matthew. The dis 
persion of the Apostles after twelve years, and the 
dispersion of the Christians of Jerusalem during the 
Great War, gave the opportunity for such a luxuriant 
growth of semi-doctrinal legends concerning the appear- 


ances of the Crucified in Jerusalem. They took form 
in the second generation, perhaps not in Jerusalem, 
yet with the view to the glorification of that city, 
and then were further developed within the Church 
of Jerusalem when it had again gathered together in 
its old home. 

But if St. Luke had once heard the more trust 
worthy story, how could he possibly have bartered 
his better knowledge for a later and inferior tradition ? 
That he could do so is already shown in the two parts 
of his own work when we compare the conclusion of 
the first with the beginning of the second ; for here 
he has exchanged a secondary for a tertiary tradition. 
Why may he not previously have given up a primary 
in exchange for a secondary tradition ? In his gospel 
he indeed knows of an Ascension in Acts i. 1 ff. he 
says in plain words that in his former work he had 
carried his narrative down to the point where our 
Lord was taken up into Heaven (see also St. Luke 
ix. 51) but he only mentions the fact, he does not 
picture it as a visible ascension, he does not localise 
it on the Mount of Olives, and he does not fix its 
occurrence at the end of forty days, but on the day 
of the Resurrection. These are all points wherein 
this story is superior to the narrative of the Acts, 
though it is already legendary in character, and pre 
supposes a development of tradition which must have 
occupied some considerable period of time. Now, 
however, St. Luke has met with what he thinks still 
better information, though it is really inferior : now 
the Ascension is visible like the ascension of Elijah, 
now it takes place on the Mount of Olives, and that 


after a period of forty days of continuous intercourse 
with the disciples. If it is thought incredible that 
St. Luke could have exchanged the tradition of St. 
Paul and St. Mark for that which appears in his 
gospel, then it ought also to be thought incredible 
that he should have given up the latter tradition in 
favour of that which appears in the Acts. And yet 
the latter exchange is a fact, unless we are to assume 
that the first twelve verses (certainly not intact) of 
the Acts have been, even to their innermost nucleus, 
edited and recast. There are, however, no grounds 
for such a radical hypothesis. Hence it follows that 
St. Luke has twice exchanged his better knowledge 
for that which is worse. 

Yet, after all, is this so strange ? Has not Chris- 
tology its own history ? and must we assume that its 
influence could not have been as strong as that of actual 
history ? The problem here in question is simple 
compared with the problem of the gospel of St. Mark, 
i.e. compared with the problem presented by the fact 
that the legendary traditions concerning Christ actu 
ally took form within the Primitive Community during 
the first thirty years and under the very eyes of those 
who had witnessed the events themselves ! Later 
legends and legends with a doctrinal tendency show 
themselves even more powerful than the memory of 
the actual history ; and even the recollections of eye 
witnesses are modified and transformed under the 
dominating influence of the thought " So it must 
have happened " ! When some considerable time 
after the destruction of Jerusalem St. Luke wrote 
his gospel perhaps in Asia he reproduced the 


story of the last days of our Lord according to a 
recension which, though originating in Jerusalem, 
coincided in important points with the Johannine 
type. It was not until afterwards that he accepted 
the myth of the forty days and of the visible Ascen 
sion, and gave his vote for it in the Acts of the 
Apostles. This myth belongs to the by no means 
small number of those myths in which Israelitish and 
Hellenic ideas encounter one another. Those who 
suppose that the legend of the Ascension of our Lord 
took form on the soil of Gentile Christianity and in 
dependence upon the myths of the apotheosis of 
heroes and emperors are certainly mistaken, and yet 
it is no wonder that these legends when they reached 
the genuine Hellene were especially welcome, and 
therefore regarded as especially worthy of credence. 
Now for the first time, according to his view of 
things, the story of the Saviour of the World whose 
birth had been celebrated by the angelic choirs had 
received its appropriate finale ! Therewith all earlier, 
more or less unsatisfying, " conclusions " were set 

It is true, therefore, that stories of miracles in the 
first fifteen chapters of the Acts include, in the story 
of the Ascension, a tertiary legend, indeed a myth, 
although St. Luke was originally better informed and 
also knew well what was written in the gospel of 
St. Mark ; yet his reason for exchanging his better 
knowledge for the worse admits of very easy explana 
tion. All the other stories of miracles occurring in 
these chapters, including the story of Ananias and 
Sapphira, can be ascribed to primary tradition, even 


though here and there a story has been worked up. 1 
It ts a remarkable fact that (apart from the Ascension) 
only the miracles of the Lame Man, of tlie Death of 
Ananias and Sapphira, and of the Release of St. Peter 
from prison, are related in connection with Jerusalem 
itself? This self-restraint vouches well for the rela 
tive trustworthiness of the Jerusalem accounts ; but 
we may also say, in regard to all the miracles narrated 
in the Acts, that measured by the miracles of the 
Acta Pauli or of the Acta Johannis and later apocry 
phal Acts of Apostles they appear scarcely miracles 
at all. The miracles of the we-sections are almost 
all miracles of the first degree ; the miracles in chaps. 
i. xv. are partly of the same degree, partly, however, 
miracles of the second degree. The miracles of the 
so-called apocryphal Acts are miracles of the second 
or third degree. By miracles of the third degree I 

1 I have not as yet dealt with the four realistic appearances of 
angels. The first (i. 10/.) is insignificant ; the two " men " at the 
Ascension as angeli interprets are almost necessary embellishments 
of such narratives (cf. the appearance of angels at the sepulchre). 
The two narratives, v. 19 and xii. 7-11 (the angel unlocking the 
prison) are evidently doublets (on this vide infra). The more 
ancient form here is that St. Peter (not " the Apostles ") was mira 
culously (i.e. by an angel) released from prison (chap. xii.). We 
may suppose that such a wonderful (i.e. entirely unexpected) 
release really occurred ; the details of the story vouch for this. It 
was the general belief that every child of God, and especially 
St. Peter (xii. 15), had his own guardian angel. This at once 
afforded a means for explaining the manner of the deliverance, and 
even if we cannot suppose that Sf. Peter himself told the story as 
we read it in chap, xii., still it could have been so told by his friends, 
Laslty, the speaking of the angel to St. Philip (viii. 26) is as a 
"miracle" insignificant. 

2 The remaining miracles are connected with Damascus, Lydda, 
Joppa, Cyprus, and Lystra. 


mean those absurd stories of wonders which have not 
the tiniest substratum of fact, but are demonstrably 
either false inventions from beginning to end or old 
stories of miracles or popular myths in a new setting. 
The critics of the Acts of the Apostles have not as a 
rule a sufficient acquaintance with this unwieldy col 
lection of fabulous stories. If they knew them they 
would not make so much ado about the stories of 
miracles in the Acts. 

The observation made above that only three stories 
of miracles are connected with Jerusalem suggests an 
inquiry into the whole question of the grouping of 
the narratives of the Acts. Starting in this way we 
may perhaps approach nearer to the solution of the 
enigma which the book presents. The next chapter 
is dedicated to this question. 



IF St. Luke the Physician is the author of the Acts, 
the question of sources is simply and speedily settled 
for the whole second half of the book. So far as 
a considerable portion of this second half is con 
cerned, he has written as an eye-witness, and for the 
rest he depends upon the report of eye-witnesses who 
were his fellow- workers. For what occurred during 
the second and third missionary journeys Timothy 
and Gaius and Aristarchus of Macedonia (xix. 29 ; 
xx. 4 ; xxvii. 2) come into the first line of considera 
tion (vide supra, p. 149). As for the narrative of 
what occurred during the final visit to Jerusalem and 
Caesarea we cannot point to any definite person who 
formed the author s authority here ; but during the 
long voyage from Caesarea to Rome which immediately 
followed these events, St. Luke was actually the com 
panion of St. Paul. It is in itself improbable that the 
second half of the book (from xvi. 6 onwards) depends 
upon written sources, nor do we anywhere find indica 
tions of their existence. 1 It has, however, been already 
shown (pp. 141^.) that the records which stood at the 
author s service for this portion of the book are 

1 Whether the cases of discrepancy presuppose the use of sources 

is discussed later. 



sharply distinguished by their sobriety from the 
sources for the first half of the book. 1 

As for the first half of the book, every attempt to 
make a scientific analysis of the sources on the basis 
of vocabulary and style has proved abortive. A most 
thorough and detailed investigation has taught me 
that everything here is so " Lukan " in character that 
by the method of linguistic investigation no sure 
results can be attained. The style of the first half 
is certainly distinguishable from that of the second 
half by certain obvious and tangible characteristics 
(ride " Luke the Physician," pp. 106^!) ; yet not only 
is the agreement much greater than the difference, 
but the problem which here exists is only part of the 
problem which dominates the whole question of the 
relationship between the gospel and the Acts. St. 
Luke is an artist in style, and always modifies his 
style in accordance with the content of his narrative 
and the geographical scene of action (vide toe. cit., 
103 ff.) ; from this established fact it follows that 
differences of style do not necessarily imply different 
sources. It is true that sources may lie in the back 
ground in the gospel, for instance, by noting differ 
ences of style it might perhaps have been possible to 
arrive at a source like St. Mark and another like Q, 
even if we did not possess the gospels of St. Mark 
and St. Matthew (vide my " Sayings of Jesus," Williams 
and Norgate, 1908) ; but in no part of the Acts can 
the use of sources be proved on the basis of linguistic 

1 Local colouring is found in the second half only in the narra 
tive of events in Ephesus and in the account of the voyage. 


In the face of this negative result our inquiry into 
the first half of the book must approach the ques 
tion from other starting-points from the scenes and 
persons with which the narrative is concerned. All 
historical traditions are attached to persons or places ; 
they are either local or personal or both together. 
St. Luke was necessarily dependent upon tradition. 
The scene, vipon which the primitive history of the 
Church was enacted, was far removed from him, the 
Hellene, not only in time and space, but also in 
temperament and spirit. And yet it is on the other 
hand most important to recollect that he had been 
in Palestine even though probably only on a flying 
visit ; that he had learned to know the Christian 
communities of Jerusalem, Caesarea, and some churches 
on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean ; that in 
company with St. Paul he had worked with Silas of 
Jerusalem, and in Rome with St. Mark, another 
native of Jerusalem ; that he even came into personal 
contact with St. James, the Lord s brother ; and that 
he had stayed in the house of St. Philip the Evan 
gelist (vide supra, pp. 149,/!). 1 There is surely com- 

1 His acquaintance with, or fellowship in labour with, St. Paul s 
Hellenic fellow-workers, does not concern us here. The circum 
stance that Titus is not mentioned in the Acts would only present 
a difficulty if Titus were so constantly with St. Paul, and so in 
timately bound up with his ministry as was Timothy and, for a 
period of time, Silas. But in all probability he was as independent 
as St. Luke himself, and only temporarily placed himself at the 
disposal of the Apostle. He is, moreover, probably included in the 
words " KO.I Tivas AXXous " of Acts xv. 2, and perhaps also in xv. 35 
(fj-tra Kal ertpuv vo\\ui>). By mentioning the ctXXot St. Luke salves 
his own conscience as an accurate historian, and clearly enough 
informs us that he does not wish to suppress anything, though he 


munication enough here to .explain the character of 
the material for chaps, i. xvi. 5 of the Acts and the 
means by which it was acquired ; and it is obvious 
that we must start our critical investigation with the 
discussion of these means of communication. Whether 
these will suffice, i.e. whether we may not be com 
pelled to search for other sources of information, is a 
wider question. 

Considering first the scenes of action we find that 
they are as follows : 

Chaps, i. viii. 1. Scene Jerusalem. 

Chap. viii. 1, 4. Scene at ywpai rtjs lovSaias KCU 

Chap. viii. 5-25. Scene Samaria and Jerusalem. 
Chap. viii. 2640. Scene The coast of Philistia 

(Azotus and Caesarea ; starting from Jeru 

salem : viii. 26). 

Chap. ix. 130. Scene Damascus and Jerusalem. 
Chaps, ix. 32 xi. 18. Scene The coast of Philistia 

(Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea) and Jerusalem. 
Chap. xi. 1930; xii. 25. Scene Antioch and 


Chap. xii. 1-24. Scene Jerusalem (and Caesarea). 
Chaps, xiii. 1 xiv. 28. Scene Antioch, and the 

places in south-eastern and central Asia Minor 

visited by the mission which started from 


thinks that he is justified in confining himself to the express mention 
of St. Paul and St. Barnabas as the chief characters. Besides, it is 
clear from Gal. ii. 1 (nerd. Bapv. ffvnirapa.\a.pwv ical firov) and 
Gal. ii. 9 (where Titus is wanting) that the others were really only 
secondary characters. St. Luke s procedure is therefore fully 


Chap. xv. 135. Scene Antioch and Jerusalem ; 
xv. 36 xvi. 5, a fresh visit to the churches of 
Syria, Cilicia, and south-eastern Asia Minor 
(forming the transition to what follows). 
This survey seems to teach us that, with the ex 
ception of xiii. 1 xiv. 28, a section which begins and 
ends in Antioch, we are throughout concerned with 
traditions connected with Jerusalem ; for even where the 
action of the narrative is carried on in other scenes, 
Jerusalem still remains the place whence it proceeds 
and to which it in many instances returns. We might 
accordingly formulate the very simple conclusion that 
the Acts in its first half, with the exception of chaps, 
xiii. and xiv., presents us with tradition purely con 
nected with Jerusalem. 

But the matter is not so simple as this. The 
" interpolated " passage, with its horizon so clearly 
Antiochean, of itself incites us to inquire whether 
Antiochean tradition may not be traced earlier in the 
book ; and in chap, xv., also, we find that the narra 
tive starts from Antiocli (xv. 1 /.), and returns thither 
(xv. 3035). Closer investigation shows that the 
Antiochean character of chap. xv. is as clear as that of 
chaps, xiii. xiv. ; for the arrangement of both passages 
is exactly parallel ; the narrative begun in Antioch 
passes over to other scenes, and returns back to Antioch 
again. Accordingly xiii. 1-xv. 35 is Antiochean 
tradition, because the principal scene of action is 
Antioch. With this conclusion agree the exact state 
ments concerning prophets and teachers in Antioch 
in xiii. 1, and the details given in xv. 1, 2, and xv. 
3035. It has been thought that a quite new divi- 


sion of the book begins with xiii. 1, because the section 
opens with the words : t}<rav Se ev Ai/rto^e/a /cara 
Tqv ovcrav KK\)]ariav Trpo<pt]Tai KOI SiSdcrKaXoi. But 
it was necessary to mention the name " J Avrio-^eia " 
here (instead of omitting the name as in xii. 25 and 
writing there "), because even in xii. 25 the name 
of the city is left to be supplied after vTreurpe^/av, 
and it would have meant too great reliance upon the 
memory of the reader if the name of the city had 
been again unexpressed. Again, the purpose of the 
words Tt]v ovcrav eKK\r]<riav is not to inform us that 
there was a church in Antioch, but to distinguish the 
prophets who are here named as belonging to this city 
from those prophets belonging to Jerusalem who had 
come down to Antioch (xi. 27 ff.). Hence xiii. 1 ff. 
necessarily presupposes not only xii. 25 but also xi. 
2730. But now we at once notice that this section, 
although it introduces a journey of St. Barnabas and 
St. Paul to Judaea and Jerusalem, is nevertheless 
written from the standpoint of Antioch even if we 
do not accept the reading of Codex D (a-vve<rrpafjL/j.V(av 
fii^tov) as original (this reading is correct in that it 
marks that the tradition here belongs not to Jeru 
salem but to Antioch) for it is to Antioch that 
the prophets come from Jerusalem, and the Apostles 
depart from Antioch and return thither again (while 
nothing is said about the return of the prophets who 
came from Jerusalem). The setting of this passage 
is therefore found to be exactly similar to that given 
in xiii. 1 /. and xiv. 26 /., and in xv. 1 ff. and xv. 
3035. Thus all from xi. 27 xv. 35 is Antiochcan 
tradition, with the exception of xii. 1-24, a piece of 


Jerusalem tradition which we can now see has been 
interpolated here. 

But the passages written from the standpoint of 
Antioch do not first begin with xi. 27, rather as has 
been long recognised xi. 27 ff. presupposes xi. 1926 
a passage of even central importance indeed, is bound 
up with it. In this passage the rapid development 
of the narrative is from the beginning directed towards 
Antioch, and in the shortest space presents a wonder 
ful wealth of information (the preaching to the Gen 
tiles ; the foundation and the rapid growth of the 
Church ; the sending of St. Barnabas from Jerusalem 
to Antioch ; St. Barnabas 1 approval of the mission 
to the Gentiles, and the part he took in it ; the 
bringing of St. Paul from Tarsus to Antioch by St. 
Barnabas ; their united missionary work in the city 
during a whole year ; the origin of the name " Chris 
tians " in Antioch). These facts in themselves, and, 
above all, the statement concerning the origin of the 
name " Christians," leave no room for doubt that we 
have here Antiochean tradition, even if xi. 1926 
were not bound up so closely as it is with what 
follows. It is not even forgotten that the first persons 
who dared to preach the Gospel directly to Gentiles 
and that first in Antioch ; for this is expressly 
emphasised were exclusively Christians of Cyprus 
and Cyrene. 

Their names are not mentioned, though afterwards 
the prophets and teachers of Antioch are introduced 
by name. This, however, cannot be because they met 
with slight success for in xi. 21 we learn just the 
opposite but only because they were not authorised 


prophets and teachers, or rather were not prophets 
and teachers by profession. 

But these Christians of Cyprus and Cyrene who 
preached in Antioch, and founded in that city the 
mission to the Gentiles, are introduced in xi. 19 f. as 
members of an already well-known group namely, 
those Christians who had fled from Jerusalem because 
of the episode of St. Stephen. They are introduced 
by the words : ot /xef ouv Siaa-irapevres O.TTO Tt]s $A/\J/-eft>? 
TJ;? yevo/j.ei tjf eir) ^Lredxivw. The narrative thus goes 
back for some 146 verses, and connects directly with 
viii. 1, 4, as if nothing had intervened (note the catch 
word Sie(nrdpt]crav in viii. 1 and ot JJLCV ovv Siaa-Tra- 
pevre? in viii. 4). Thus viii. 1, 4 also belong to the 
Antiochean group of narratives. 

Now conies the question, how much more of the 
preceding part of the book must we assign to this 
group ? In order to answer this question it is obvious 
that we must begin with vi. 1 ff. ; for all that pre 
cedes is of a different character, and is exclusively 
connected with Jerusalem. Besides, as we shall see 
more clearly later, vi. 1 ff. is sharply distinguished 
from chaps, i. v. by the character and the precision 
of its narrative. 

In vi. 1-6 we have the account of the election of 
the seven deacons in consequence of a controversy in 
the Church between the Hellenists and the Hebrews. 
Among the seven Stephen comes at once to the front 
Tri(TTe(i)$ KCU TrvevjuLciTOs aymv, again 
KOI Suva/mews CTroiet TepaTCt KOI <Tt]/Jieia 
fuya\o ev TW Xaa>, again */ (ro(pia KCU TO 7rvcu/j.a u> 
cXaXet, compare the description of Barnabas in xi. 


24 : avrjp ayaOos KOI 7r\r ipt]s TrveJ/zaro? ayiov KOI 
7r/crTew9), all the rest are simply named with the sole 
exception that the words " Trpoa-^Xvrof Aimo^e^y " 
are added to the name of Nicolas (vi. 5). Thus two 
traits that the native of Antioch is the only one of 
the " Seven " whose place of origin is mentioned and 
that the Hellenists are introduced in controversy with 
Hebrews a kind of preparation for the "EAX^i/e? in 
xi. 20 make it in itself probable that vi. 1-6 belongs 
to xi. 19 ff. But there are yet closer bonds of con 
nection between the two passages. For we must 
necessarily ask why this account of the choice of the 
seven deacons, which stands out in such contrast to 
the narratives of chaps, i. v., has been given at all. 
Taking account of what follows we at once perceive 
that this election forms in one way or another the 
starting-point of no less than three lines of narrative : 

(1) St. Stephen^ controversy with the Hellenistic 
Jews, and then all that follows up to the preaching 
of the Gospel in Antioch by those who had been 
scattered by the persecution concerning Stephen ; 

(2) the missionary activity of St. Philip in Samaria, 
&c. ; (3) St. Paul s zeal in persecution and his con 
version on the way to Damascus. But it is only the 
first line which is really organically connected with 
the election of the " Seven " ; for the two others this 
election is not an essentially necessary presupposition, 
nor are they especially concerned with the distinction 
between Hebrews and Hellenists. On the other hand, 
the connection is vital and complete throughout the 
following series of events : 

1. A dispute arises between Hebrews and Hellenists; 


2. In order to remove the causes of the dispute 
seven Hellenists are chosen as deacons; 

3. One of them, Stephen, contends with the rigidly 
orthodox Hellenists, and is accused of uttering blas 
phemy against " the holy place " and the Law and 
of proclaiming the destruction of the Temple and 
the abolition of the edtj of Moses ; 

4. A persecution arises, Stephen is put to death, 
and the Christians of Jerusalem (except the Apostles 
thus not all the Christians of Jerusalem but most 
probably only the Hellenistic Christians) are compelled 
to leave Jerusalem ; 

5. At first they are dispersed throughout Judaea 
and Samaria, where they preach, but afterwards they 
wander farther, extending their mission to Phoenicia, 
Cyprus, and Antioch ; and some of them, men of 
Cyprus and Cyrene, preach the Gospel to the Greeks 
in Antioch. 

This is evidently a single connected narrative, the 
goal of which is from the first Antioch and the 
mission to the Gentiles, and which for this very reason 
begins with the controversy in Jerusalem itself be 
tween Hebrews and Hellenists. Its unity can, more 
over, be proved from considerations of form ; for 
in the story of St. Philip not only is there no special 
emphasis laid upon the circumstance that the Samari 
tans differed in religion from the Jews, but also this 
story is itself obviously and confessedly a digression. 
In fact, in viii. 4, St. Luke already makes a start to 
tell what he is about to tell us in xi. 19. He com 
mences with the words : ot /JLCV ovv Siaa-Trapevres SirjX- 
6ov, i.e. with the same words with which he commences 


in xi. 19. But instead of continuing : (SirjXOov) eW 
<&oiviKtj? KOI Kinrpov KOI Avrio^e/a?, he confines him 
self, without naming the countries, to the general 
phrase : (Si>j\Qov) evayyeXi^o/nevoi TOV \6yov, so that 
it was possible for him to pass over to the story of 
St. Philip, to connect therewith other digressions, 
and not to take up the thread again until xi. 19. 
Hence all that comes between viii. 4 and xi. 19 is 
digression, and accordingly vi. 18 and xi. 19 xv. 35 
(with the exception of xii. 1-2-i) form one great 
homogeneous passage which stands in sharp contrast 
to the rest of the context : It is an Antiochean tradi 
tion^ distinguished as such by the phrase Nixro Aao? 
irpocnjXvTos Aj/Tio^ev? at the very beginning, charac 
terised as such by the fact that the point is through 
out directed towards Antioch, and proved to be such 
by the indissoluble connection of the earlier sections 
with the concluding sections, which are unquestionably 
Antiochean in character. In view of the verbal coin 
cidence between viii. 4 and xi. 19 the question must 
occur whether a written source does not here lie in the 
background. The argument in favour of this conclu 
sion is strong, but taken by itself it is not convincing ; 
it is also possible that St. Luke may have repeated 
his own words. 

But there is yet another consideration which makes 
it probable that St. Luke is here dependent on a 
written source. In vi. 13 the witnesses who charge 
St. Stephen with blasphemy against the Temple and 
the Law are described as false witnesses, and then 
there follows the long speech of St. Stephen ; this 
speech, however, not only breaks off prematurely, but 


also shows evident traces of the hand of an editor, 
for while its depreciatory attitude towards the Temple 
is still clearly recognisable, its attitude towards the 
Law is quite obscure. It is not, therefore, too bold 
a conjecture to suppose that at the background here 
there lies a source in which the accusations concern 
ing the Temple and the Law (vide The Trial of 
Christ") were not described as false accusations, and 
in which the speech of St. Stephen had a sharper tone 
(in reference to the Law), and also contained at its 
close the declaration that Iqcrovs /caraAi/cret TOV TOTTOV 
TOVTQV KOI a\\dei TO. e6tj a TrapeSwicev Mcoi/cr^?. It 
would be quite in correspondence with St. Luke s 
reverence for the Old Testament and for the pious 
ordinances of the ancient religion which was all the 
greater because he did not know them from within 
that he should have softened the tones here. Then, 
however, it is probable that for vi. 1 viii. 4, and xi. 19- 
xv. 35 (xii. 124 may be neglected in this connection) 
he possessed a written source. The unity of this source 
cannot, of course, be absolutely proved, but when we 
consider how the passages vi. 1 viii. 4 and xi. 1930 
carry on a connected and purposeful development 
of events whose goal is Antioch, and as we note 
the Antiochean setting of chaps, xiii. and xiv., as 
well as of xv. 135, this hypothesis seems at all 
events probable. We may also point out that in the 
first half of the Acts it is only in these Antiochean 
passages (and in chap, ix., a chapter which stands 
by itself) that the Christians are called ot 
and that the Apostles (vi. 2) are called ot 
and that such detailed accounts as those of vi. 5 ; 


vi. 9; xi. 19, 20; and xiii. 1 are almost without 
analogy elsewhere in the first half of the book. 

But is all the rest of the first half of the book, 
namely, chaps, i.v. ; viii. 5-xi. 18; xii. 124, really 
tradition connected with Jerusalem and also homo 
geneous ? As a matter of fact the whole narrative 
of chaps, i.v. is connected with Jerusalem, and we 
may say that all the rest has Jerusalem for its 
setting ; but two considerations demand further ex 
amination. In the first place, the narrative concern 
ing St. Paul in ix. 128 l (to which vii. 58 b and viii. 
1*, 3 also belong) has Jerusalem indeed for its 
setting, but the fact that parallel accounts exist in 
xxii. 316 and xxvi. 918, of itself shows that we 
have here tradition of a distinctive character, and 
the possibility that St. Luke may have derived his in 
formation from St. Paul himself, compels us to treat 
this passage separately. It is also deficient in con 
nection with the rest of the narratives. In the second 
place, the stories of St. Philip, though their scene of 
action lies outside Jerusalem, and also the records of 
the mission of St. Peter in Palestine, are certainly 
closely dependent upon Jerusalem ; and yet there is 
another city to which they give special prominence, 
namely, Caesarea. We read first at the conclusion 
of the stories of St. Philip : ^/AfTTTro? evpeOtj e*V 
"Afcorov, KOI Siep^o/nevos evrjyyeXuCeTO ret? TroXei? 
Tracra? ea>9 TOV e\6eiv O.VTOV etV K.aicra.piav (viii. 40). 
It is thus expressly noted that St. Philip took up his 
lasting abode in Caesarea, and in this way we are 
prepared for xxi. 8, 9. Secondly, the conversion of 
1 The limits here are uncertain. 


the centurion, an event only inferior in importance to 
that of chap. xi. 19 jf., has its scene in Csesarea ; 
further the express, yet seamingly superfluous, in 
formation is given that the brethren who conducted 
St. Paul from Jerusalem to Tarsus came with him to 
Caesarea (ix. 30) ; and lastly, there is the record of the 
punishment of Herod by death in Caesarea (xii. 19^1) 
a piece of supplementary information which lies 
quite outside the economy of the book. We must, 
therefore, describe the sections viii. 540 ; ix. 29 xi. 
18; xii. l24< as Caesarean tradition, or rather as 
tradition connected with both Jerusalem and Caesarea. 
There is also a piece of personal tradition (the Con 
version of St. Paul, ix. 128). It has, however, been 
shown in the previous chapter that all these tradi 
tions are strictly homogeneous in their attitude to 
the supernatural, and that this character cannot have 
been first impressed upon them by St. Luke ; for 
otherwise it must have appeared in those parts of 
the second half of the book where the " we " does 
not occur ; here, however, this character is almost 
entirely wanting. 

The passages i. v. ; viii. 540 ; ix. 29 xi. 18 ; and 
xii. 124, do not give an impression of literary homo 
geneity such as would lead us to conclude that they 
are derived from a single source ; but we cannot come 
to close quarters with this question until we have 
investigated the content of these passages with special 
reference to the chief personalities with which they 
are concerned. 

The Antiochean traditions, as read in St. Luke, 
begin with St. Stephen, whom they extol while St. 


Paul does not mention him in any of his epistles 
and then pass over from the " men of Cyprus and 
Cyrene " to St. Barnabas and St. Paul, gradually giving 
to the latter ever greater prominence (up to xiii. 7 
St. Barnabas stands in the foreground xiii. 9 St. 
Paul s change of name xiii. 13 01 irepi HavXov in 
xiii. 43, 46, 50 ; xv. 2 [bis], 22, 35 St. Paul stands 
first xiv. 20 e^tjXOev <rvv rw Bapvdfia but in xiv. 
12; xiv. 14; xv. 12, 25, St. Barnabas still stands 
first). This gradually increasing accentuation of the 
importance of St. Paul, and the introduction of the 
name " Paul " for " Saul," are certainly due to St. 
Luke, and were foreign to the source, as may be seen 
even from xiv. 14 and xv. 12, 25. Hence we may 
not describe the Antiochean tradition as Pauline 
tradition, but must characterise it by the three names 
Stephen Barnabas Saul. In it St. Barnabas is 
regarded as equal to, indeed as superior in importance 
to, St. Paul as with St. Stephen we are told some 
thing of his character and antecedents (vide supra}, 
nothing of the kind is told us of St. Paul ; again, St. 
Barnabas is a prophet, St. Paul only a teacher. This 
again shows us that we are here concerned with a 
separate tradition which has been touched up by St. 
Luke. 1 According to this source St. Paul was not 
the originator of the mission to the Gentiles ; on the 
contrary, the men of Cyprus and Cyrene were first in 

1 It is even possible that, in the source, St. Stephen and St. 
Barnabas were treated as the chief characters, and that Saul played 
only a secondary part. In favour of this hypothesis we have xv. 
37: Ba/)va/3dj e/ScwXero ffv/j.Trapa.Xafie iv Kal rbv ludvrqv (cf. also Trapa- 
\a.p6vTa in verse 39), if we may press the words. Yet it is no longer 
possible to speak here with certainty. 


the field, and were followed by St. Barnabas, and 
only in the third place by St. Paul. In its references 
to Jerusalem this source is interested in the attitude 
of the Church as a whole; otherwise only in St. Peter 
and in St. James (chap, xv.), who is regarded as of 
equal importance with St. Peter. Here (in contrast 
with Gal. ii. 9) all remembrance of the attitude of 
St. John has vanished ; on the other hand, the memory 
of the two men who were at that time sent from 
Jerusalem to Antioch has been preserved ; they were 
the prophets Judas Barsabbas and Silas. The rela 
tions between Jerusalem and Antioch are, on the 
whole, carefully depicted. First Barnabas came from 
Jerusalem to Antioch as an ambassador (xi. 22), then 
a whole deputation of prophets (xi. 27), then teachers 
(xv. 1), then Judas and Silas. We are to note that 
these were all prophets or teachers ; evidently it was 
considered that such men were alone suitable to con 
duct negotiations, and to establish relations in the 
correct way. By the mention of the thrice repeated 
despatch of prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
and by the journeys of St. Paul and St. Barnabas 
from Antioch to Jerusalem, this body of tradition is 
again held together and characterised as homogeneous. 
Through the whole of these sections there also runs 
a connected theme : the foundation of the mission 
to the Gentiles in the foundation of the Church of 
Antioch, the extension of this mission from Antioch 
and its firm establishment by St. Barnabas and St. 
Paul up to its full recognition hy the mother church 
of Jerusalem, which had from the beginning benevo 
lently fostered good relations with Antioch, while 



on the part of Antioch there was no want of filial 
deference to Jerusalem. 

The traditions connected with Jerusalem, and with 
both Jerusalem and Caesarea, have in chaps, i v. St. 
Peter as their centre (in iv. 36 St. Barnabas is thrust 
into the context by St. Luke, very carelessly and 
inartistically so far as form is concerned, but in order 
to prepare for his later ministry ; also St. John here 
and later in the work is depicted in quite a shadowy 
fashion). In viii. 5-40 St. Philip and St. Peter form 
the central points ; in ix. 29 xi. 18 and xii. 124 
St. Peter again stands by himself. We must accord 
ingly describe these traditions as Petrine, with the 
proviso that two passages connected with St. Philip are 
found among them (viii. 5-13 ; viii. 26-40). The first 
is closely bound up with the Petrine sections by the 
Petrine passage viii. 1425 ; but the second is quite 
independent, neither does the first lose anything of 
its real independence because of its conjunction with 
the Petrine sections. St. Philip here plays a primary 
part. Accordingly these traditions fall into two divi 
sions very unequal in extent, the larger of which is 
grouped exclusively round St. Peter, the smaller round 
St. Philip. This distinction does not, however, coin 
cide with the distinction between tradition purely 
connected with Jerusalem and that connected with 
Jerusalem and Cassarea ; in fact, the latter body of 
tradition is connected not only with St. Philip but 
also with St. Peter. 

The Jerusalem-Cresarean tradition (viii. 540 ; ix. 
29 xi. 18), concerned both with St. Peter and St. Philip, 
may be regarded as an unity, for the style of narrative 


is the same, and the sections are bound together by 
similar traits. Moreover, the passage xii. 1-24 must 
be assigned to the same collection ; for it is connected 
both with Jerusalem and Caesarea and gives the 
necessary completion to the narrative of viii. 5-40 
and ix. 29-xi. 18. As for chaps, i. v., this passage of 
fundamental importance for the Acts is certainly not 
homogeneous, rather we can trace in it at least two 
strains of tradition. This fact has been long recog 
nised with more or less clearness, though its details 
have been worked out in various ways. By means of 
a criticism totally wanting in method, and with an 
exaggeration which is simply colossal, the conclusion 
has actually been drawn that throughout the whole 
of the Acts, or at least throughout the greater half of 
that book, there run two parallel sources, veritable 
twin writings ! We now proceed to state all that 
can be safely concluded on the basis of methodical 

Every one who carefully reads chaps, ii.-v. and 
attempts to realise the connection and succession of 
events recorded in those chapters must necessarily 
recognise that the whole second chapter and chap. v. 
17-42 are elements which disturb and obstruct the 
(low of the narrative are, in fact, doublets which 
are in more than one respect liable to exception. If 
we at first simply omit them we arrive at the follow 
ing scheme of narrative : 

1. St. Peter and St. John go to the Temple; the 
cure of the impotent man (iii. 110), clearly recorded 
as the first astounding miracle, one which determines 
the whole following course of events. 


2. St. Peter s great missionary sermon in Solomon s 
Porch on the occasion of the miracle that had been 
wrought (iii. 11-26). 

3. The extraordinary effect of the miracle and the 
sermon (5000 souls are said to have been converted x ) ; 
St. Peter and St. John are at evening cast into prison 
by the Jewish authorities [the Sadducees are specially 
mentioned] (iv. 1-4). 

4. The hearing in the morning ; St. Peter s mis 
sionary discourse before the Council (the cure of the 
impotent man is still the fact upon which the argu 
ment rests) ; the command not to preach the Gospel ; 
the protest of St. Peter and St. John against the 
same (" Judge ye yourselves whether it is right in 
the sight of God to hearken to you more than unto 
God ") ; the dismissal of the Apostles because of fear 
of the people (iv. 5-22). 

5. The return of the Apostles to their brethren ; 2 
the great thanksgiving of the assembly ending with 
the prayer : $09 TO?? SovXois crov /mera Trappt]orias 
7rccc7>/? \a\tv TOV \oyov <rov, ei> TW T;;C X *P a ^ KT ^ elv 
ere e/? *a<riv tcai cnj/meia KOI Tepara yivea-Oai $ia TOV 
ov6u,a.TO<; TOV ayiov TratSo? crov L/croi/ (iv. 2330). 

6. Directly afterwards thus still before mid-day 
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit accompanied by 
a kind of earthquake ; the immediate result: eXaXovv 
TOV \oyov TOV Oeov juera Trappya-ias, further result : 
they were all of one mind, neither said any that 
ought of the things which he possessed was his 

1 Have we not here one cipher too many 1 Vide 1 Cor. xv. 6 : 
tvciv j) TrfVTaK&crioi a.8e\<pot. 

2 Thus still before mid-day. 


own, and Suvdjuei /ue-yaXp aireSiSovv TO jj-aprvpiov 
01 aTrocrToXoi Tov Kvoiov Ii]<Tou T^? ava<TTacrea>y (iv. 

7. Because of this grand spirit of self-sacrifice no 
one lacked anything ; the appalling episode of Ananias 
and Sapphira ; the great fear of the whole Church l 
because of the apostolic power of St. Peter (iv. 34 
v. 11). 

8. Many signs and wonders are now wrought by the 
Apostles 1 hands among the people (Xao? in contrast 
with KK\t]cria) ; they were all together in Solomon s 
Porch ; the people hold them in high honour and 
reverence ; their number increases ; St. Peter performs 
many miracles of healing; even from the towns outside 
Jerusalem many sick folk and those possessed with 
daemons were brought to him (v. 12-16). 

Here we have a narrative marked by consistency 
and logical connection in the succession of events. 2 
If we now turn to chaps, ii. and v. 1742, we read 
as follows: 

1. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in visible 
form in the morning [where ? in what connection or 
for what reason ? Is it because the day of Pentecost 
was being fulfilled ?] ; immediate result : \a\civ 
erepaiy yXwva-aK;, so as to be understood by all (ii. 

1 Here the word tKK\rjffla makes its first appearance quite abruptly. 

2 It is noteworthy that in these passages our Lord is four times 
called 6 TTCUJ Oeov. It is possible to eliminate from this connection 
the story of Ananias and Sapphira ; whether it ought to be elimi 
nated is a question which, in my opinion, cannot be decided. As an 
especially appalling instance of apostolic power it is quite in place 
in l he context. 


2. A great missionary sermon of St. Peter on the 
occasion of the outpouring of the Spirit which had 
been manifested in the fiery tongues and in the miracle 
by which those who heard understood what was said 
(ii. 1436). St. Peter in his sermon presupposes that 
this outpouring was accompanied by " Tepara" of 
which nothing is said in the narrative. 

3. The extraordinary success (about 3000 con 
versions) of the miracle and the sermon (ii. 37-41) ; 
further result : they continue in the doctrine of the 
Apostles and in the fellowship, in the breaking of 
bread and in the prayers; fear came upon every 
soul ; the Apostles work great miracles ; all that 
believed were always together and had all things 
common ; they were daily together in the Temple, 
and also in their own homes they held their sacred 
feasts in gladness and singleness of heart, having 
favour with all the people (ii. 42-47). 

4. The Apostles are thrown into prison by the 
Jewish authorities [the Sadducees are specially men 
tioned], but are set at liberty by an angel who directs 
them to go into the Temple and to preach there to 
all the people; this they do (v. 17-21 a ). 

5. The Jewish authorities, who wish to condemn 
them, in vain seek for them in the prison ; being, how 
ever, informed that the Apostles were teaching in the 
Temple, they command that they should be brought 
before them (" not with violence ; for they feared the 
people ") and forbid them * to preach the Gospel. 

1 Here St. Luke expressly introduces the prohibition as a reminis 
cence of an earlier one thus as a second prohibition because he 
had already narrated it once before. 


The protest of St. Peter (" We must obey God rather 
than men "). The purpose of the Council to con 
demn the Apostles to death is changed by a speech 
of Gamaliel. The scourging and release of the 
Apostles (v. 21 a -41). 

6. The Apostles continue their teaching in the 
Temple and at home (v. 4#). 

It is, in my opinion, so clear that we have here a 
second narrative of the same events, that one can 
only wonder that the knowledge that this is so has 
not long ago become common property. The corre 
spondence becomes still more striking if we add to 
the first account (A) the story from the Jerusalem- 
Caesarean section (vide supra) of the miraculous deliver 
ance of St. Peter from prison by an angel during the 
night (chap. xii. ; here also without the knowledge of 
the guards) ; and this we ought to do (as Weiss also 
thinks). The first recension (A) is, however, far 
superior to the second recension (B). We may with 
confidence leave it to the reader to test that this is so 
both on the whole and in detail (the editorial touches 
of St. Luke in both recensions do not often affect 
the subject-matter, and can be easily discerned ; l St. 
Luke did not perceive that he was reproducing two 
traditions concerning the same occurrences, so that 
the connection of events in the narrative which he 
has compiled is altogether poor, illogical, and incred 
ible). In B there is no clear motive given either for 

1 St. Luke s character as an historian quite excludes the hypo 
thesis that the recension B is a free invention of his ; there is, 
however, no doubt that here as elsewhere he has added his own 


the outpouring of the Spirit, 1 or for the presence of 
the multitude, or for the fear of the people, or for the 
fear of the authorities because of the people, or for 
the imprisonment of the Apostles. In A everything 
has hands and feet : the cure of the impotent man 
this astonishing miracle that it had been granted 
to St. Peter to perform explains everything : the 
courage with which St. Peter openly and loudly pro 
claimed Jesus in Solomon s Porch before the people 
who were present, and were rushing together to him ; 
the many conversions; the imprisonment of St. Peter 
(and St. John ?) ; his open testimony before the Jewish 
authorities on the following day ; his dismissal through 
fear of the people. And now after the return of the 
Apostle the enthusiasm of the first believers (the 
5000, i.e. probably the 500) arose into an ecstasy 
which opened the way to the reception of the Spirit, i.e. 
what then happened zvas the actual, the historical, Pente 
cost. 2 And though there is no speaking with tongues 
this at least is not mentioned what happened 
then had the result upon which everything depended : 
eXaXovv TOV \6yov TOV Oeov /xera Trapptjaria? and : 
ovva/J-ei /JLeyaXrj ctTreSiSovv TO /mapTupiov oi aTro crToAot 


After the appearance of the Risen Christ to St. 
Peter and to the Twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5) the cure of 
the lame man was the next great stirring event ; after 
the two speeches in which St. Peter bore public testi- 

1 Are the words : KO.I tv rip ffWTrXrjpovadai rrjc i]fj.^pav T^S irfvra.- 
Ko<TT7js (ii. 1) intended to supply the motive which is here wanting? 
The correction in D seems to have such an intention. 

2 And probably also the appearance of our Lord before the 
brethren, more than 500 in number, of which St. Paul speaks. 


mony before the people and the Council and after 
his own imprisonment and deliverance this miracle 
resulted in the " Outpouring of the Spirit " (and the 
birth of the Church into active life). That this 
" Outpouring " should have shaken itself free from its 
connection with this miracle and should have made 
its appearance as an independent event is very intel 
ligible, and indeed the whole description in B, in 
every trait and every detail of the transformation, is 
best explained as the next stage after A in the pro 
cess of legendary development. Here again the proof 
may with perfect confidence be left to the reader. It 
is most noteworthy that in B St. Peter, in his dis 
course, mentions repara, which were bound up with 
the " Outpouring," though nothing had been said of 
these in the foregoing narrative. In A, on the other 
hand, we find the earthquake ! l 

According to A on the night preceding the out 
pouring of the Spirit St. Peter was cast into prison, 
and on the next morning released by the religious 
authorities ; according to B the Apostles were cast 
into prison after the " Outpouring," but were released 

1 By combination of the two accounts A and B concerning the 
" Outpouring," taking A as our foundation, we arrive at the follow 
ing historical picture : After the cure of the lame man, the public 
witness of St. Peter (before the people and the Council) and his 
suffering as a confessor, we learn that the resulting ecstasy of the 
little company of believers was assisted and confirmed by an earth 
quake. This created public amazement ; St. Peter then delivered 
a discourse, explaining this " outpouring " as being also the initial 
stage of the " Day of Judgment." By this the listeners were cut 
to the heart ; and under this influence many joined the new com 
munity. The great majority of them were Hellenists ; while the 
natives of Jerusalem held themselves aloof. 


during the first night by an angel. This release 
by an angel (in reference to St. Peter) is in chap. xii. 
rightly set at a much later time, and is recounted 
with details which show that we have here the more 
ancient stage in the development of the legend, 
wherein are still preserved some genuinely historical 

Seeing, therefore, that chaps, ii. and v. 17-42 bear 
the same relationship to chap. xii. as to chaps, iii. 
1 v. 16 it is natural to suppose that chap. xii. belongs 
to iii. 1-v. 16. Chap, xii., however, is one of the 
passages containing tradition connected with Jeru 
salem and Caesarea. These passages (vide supra) 
begin with the mission of St. Philip in Samaria, with 
which the mission in the cities on the coast is con 
nected. But we notice that the section iii. 1 v. 16 
concludes with an outlook towards the irepi^ iroXei? 
\epovara\t ]iJL. The missions we have mentioned would 
therefore follow in very good connection with this sec 
tion. The source must naturally have contained a short 
introductory description of St. Philip and of his ap 
pearance on the scene of action ; but the introduction 
which we now read in the Acts the election of the 
Seven, among whom St. Philip is only named, nothing 
more being said about him is quite out of connec 
tion here and belongs (vide supra) to the Antiochean 
source which knows St. Philip only as a deacon, and 
in which St. Stephen alone appears as an evangelist. 
Here, however, St. Philip appears as a missionary. 
There is no doubt, therefore, that an hiatus lies 
between the mention of St. Philip in vi. 5 and 
the narratives concerning him in viii. 5 ff. This 


hiatus is explained most simply by the results of our 
analysis of the sources: the account in vi. 5 belongs 
to the Antiochean record, while the accounts in viii. 
5 ff. belong to the tradition connected with both 
Jerusalem and Caesarea. 1 It is accordingly probable 
that the sections iii. 1-v. 16 and viii. 5-40 ; ix. 29 
xi. 18 and xii. 1-24 belong together, that they 
form to a certain extent a homogeneous whole, and 
that they may be described on the one hand as tradi 
tion connected with both Jerusalem and Caesarea, 
and on the other hand as tradition relating both to 
St. Peter and St. Philip. Surveying them we find 
before us a collection of traditions which is tolerably 
homogeneous, and which though far from being so 
connected and logically consistent as the Antiochean 
source, nevertheless displays certain common charac 
teristics and a distinct connection in the events it 
records. This compilation concludes with the 
Herodian Persecution, the death of St. James, the 

1 So far as viii. 5 ff. is concerned it must remain quite an open 
question whether the Philip here is the Apostle or the Evangelist. 
The question is first settled in xxi. 8. The very attractive hypothesis 
of the identity of the two Philips, for which support might easily be 
derived from later tradition, indeed seemingly also from the gospel 
of St. John, breaks down at this passage belonging to the we-sec- 
tions. The theory that there never was a Philip among the Twelve, 
but that the name of the Evangelist found its way into the list of the 
Apostles, so that he was numbered as one of the Twelve, presup 
poses a mistrust of this list which I cannot share, and which seems 
to me quite unjustifiable. The name " Philip " was very common, 
and the confusion of the two Philips in the second century was not 
only suggested by the name and the missionary activity of the 
Evangelist, but also by the highly probable fact that the Evangelist 
had been a personal disciple of our Lord ; for we may well assume 
that all the " Seven" were once personal disciples of our Lord. 


miraculous release of St. Peter, who now leaves 
Jerusalem (xii. 17 : e^VAOoov Tropev8ij et? eTepov 
roVov), and the death of the persecutor Herod in 
Cccsarea. This source thus comprises the first twelve 
years of the history of the Church of Jerusalem and 
the fundamentally important missions of St. Peter 
and St. Philip. 

Herewith the analysis of sources as regards the 
first half of the Acts is carried as far as, in my 
opinion, it can be carried ; l let me once again cursorily 
summarise its results : 

Chap. ii. llecension B of the history of the out 
pouring of the Holy Spirit and its conse 

Chaps, iii. 1 v. 16. Recension A of the more 
intelligible history of the outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit and its consequences (the Jeru- 
salem-Caesarean or, in other words, Petro- 
Philippine source). 

Chap. v. 17-42. Continuation of B. 

Chaps, vi. 1 viii. 4. The Jerusalem- Antiochean 
source (with at the end an interpolated re 
ference to St. Paul). 

Chap. viii. 540. Continuation of A. 

Chap. ix. 1 30(?). A passage concerning the 

1 I have left chap. i. on one side. The former of its two divisions, 
including the introduction and the account of the Ascension, is 
probably the latest tradition in the Acts, and has been inserted by 
St. Luke on the authority of a legend of very advanced develop 
ment. Whether the second part, recounting the completion of the 
apostolic college, belongs as an introduction to chap, ii., or to the 
traditions of iii. 1 ff., or is a quite independent piece of tradition, 
is a question which, in my opinion, cannot be settled. 


conversion of St. Paul interpolated from a 

separate source. 

Chaps, ix. 31 xi. 18. Continuation of A. 
Chap. xi. 1930. Continuation of the Jerusalem- 

Antiochcan source. 

Chap. xii. 123. Continuation of A. 
Chaps, xii. 25-xv. 35. Continuation of the Jeru- 

salem-Antiochean source. 1 

This analysis of sources first makes it possible to 
enter upon a thoroughly scientific criticism of the 
traditions of the first half of the Acts, in so far as 
such criticism is at all possible ; for almost the only 
information which here presents itself for comparison 
is aflbrded by the epistles of St. Paul, though after 
all this is not so scanty as is sometimes supposed 
(vide infra). It is, however, more important for us 
to keep in view the fact that these traditions were 
actually compiled by St. Luke, the companion of St. 
Paul, and in face of this fact not to throw to the 
winds the general axioms of historical criticism. 

Taking first the body of tradition which we have 
called A, we have already pointed out the logical 
sequence and the trustworthiness of the narrative in 
the passage iii. 1 v. 16 so far as the leading features are 
concerned. Also on pages 154 f. attention has been 
drawn to the fact that even the story of Ananias and 
Sapphira in its main outline need not be a fable of late 
invention. Of course what is given us even here is 

1 No notice is here taken of the few passages which have been 
touched up by St. Luke, or which have been transferred from one 
body of tradition to another in order to bind these together ; we at 
once are lost in uncertainty if we try to explain every detail. 


never tradition absolutely primitive and unaffected by 
legend, it is rather historical tradition handed down by 
enthusiasts. This is also shown in the description of 
St. Philip as the great wonder-worker (viii. 6, 7), and 
in the supernatural colouring given to the accounts 
of his and St. Peter s actions throughout the mission. 
But, on the other hand, we ought not to forget the 
historical excellences of these sections. It has been 
the greatest mistake of modern criticism that it has 
suspected all sorts of things in the story of the rela 
tions between St. Peter, St. Philip, and Simon Magus, 
and has read its boldest surmises into this story, 
while it has overlooked the relative simplicity of the 
tale as here told, and the complete absence in the 
narrative of any hint of the importance which Simon 
Magus and the Simonians are supposed to have gained 
later in the history of the Church. Again, certain 
as it is that the story of Cornelius is thickly overlaid 
with the colouring of supernatural legend, this story 
nevertheless contains in its principal features, and in 
several secondary traits, history that could not have 
been invented ; and in that it represents St. Peter as, 
at first, drawing no further practical conclusion from 
the baptism of Cornelius, it keeps within the sphere 
of the probable and we must therefore conclude of 
the historical. 1 Lastly, in the concluding section, the 
manner of the release of St. Peter presents a difficulty 
and yet the " angel " could have been invented on 

1 St. Luke plainly enough gives us to understand that St. Peter 
did not understand the general intention of the Divine vision vouch 
safed to him, as related in the story of Cornelius ; and that it was 
necessary for the mission to be set on foot by others before he could 
be brought to the right way of thinking. 


the very next day (even the first listeners could have 
invented it, vide xii. 15 ; 6 ayyeXo? <TTIV aJrou) ; 
apart from this many secondary traits, having all the 
characteristics of authenticity, give to the greater part 
of the story an appearance of probability and trust 
worthiness. 1 

Here, however, we receive a hint as to the origin 
of these traditions. If we note that the horizon of 
this source includes both Jerusalem and Casarea, and 
that St. Philip and no other, so far as we are told 
in the book belonged to the churches of both Jerusalem 
and Ctesarea, and that St. Luke has not only expressly 
recorded St. Philip s migration to Caesarea (ix. 40), 
but has also told us that he himself met him there 
and stayed with him (xxi. 8f.) for a fairly long time 
(perhaps a week) ; if we further consider that though 
many Christians preached the Gospel in the Trepij~ 
Tro Aet? lepova-aXrj/uL, yet the Acts only records the 
mission of St. Philip together with that of St. Peter ; 

1 The fact that, according to chap, xii., St. Peter (and the 
Apostles) definitely vanish from the scene is an additional proof 
that with chap. xii. this source comes to an end, and that we now 
pass over to another source (namely, the Antiochean). He who 
writes : " Peter departed to another place," shows that he intends 
to let this person drop out of his narrative. The fact that St. Peter 
ngain appears abruptly and that in Jerusalem in chap. xv. seems 
necessarily to point to the use of another source, and to a certain 
carelessness on the part of the editor. This, however, makes it 
probable that at least one written source lay before St. Luke. 
Wellhausen remarks (Nachrichtcn d. k. Gcstllsch. d. W. z. Gottingen, 
1907, s. 9, n. 1) : "We may conjecture that eh Irtpov r&irov is a 
correction of St. Luke perhaps for Antioch ; for the name of this 
city could not be left standing if xv. l-3i was to follow." The con 
jecture is very daring; for why could not St. Luke have mentioned 
the return of St. Peter to Jerusalem before chap. xv. ? 


if, moreover, we take into account those peculiar traits 
in the character of St. Philip which remind us of the 
" Christian Scientist " (traits which were inherited by 
his daughters), and compare therewith the super 
natural colouring of this source, and if we lastly con 
sider that St. Luke himself was a Christian Scientist, 
and that therefore this man of the Primitive Com 
munity must have appeared to him specially worthy 
of reverential trust if we take all these facts into 
consideration it is surely not too bold an hypothesis 
to suppose that the body of tradition we have called 
A was derived from St. Philip, or from him and his 
daughters. 1 Together with them we may and indeed 
must also think of St. Mark and Silas ; for they 
were both natives of Jerusalem, and St. Luke for a 
time lived and perhaps worked with both of them. 
It is also strongly in favour of St. Mark that St. 
Luke has taken his work as the basis of his own 
gospel ; and, in fact, the story of the miraculous 
release of St. Peter from prison (chap, xii.) in its 

1 The mention of the daughters in xxi. 9 is very remarkable. 
Papias expressly tells us (Eus., Hist, Eccl. III. 39, 9) that they 
transmitted traditions connected with the Gospel history among others 
a story of one tcho was raised from the dead. " A " also contains an in 
stance of raising from the dead (ix. 36 jf.) ; such fanciful tales are, 
however, very rare in the most ancient tradition ; St. Paul says 
nothing about them. St. Luke may well have again met with these 
daughters in Asia, and have then first heard of these accounts (vide 
" Luke the Physician," pp. I53ff.). Besides, it must be remembered 
that St. Luke must have seen St. Philip himself a second time, 
namely, in the days before his voyage with St. Paul from Crcsarea 
to Rome. We do not know how long during that visit he was in 
touch with St. Philip, the most notable member of the Church 
in Csesarea ; it may have been days, but it may also have been 


details (the house of St. Mark s mother, the assembly 
there, Rhoda the maid-servant) looks quite like an 
account derived from St. Mark, and probably is so, or 
rather information derived from St. Mark has found 
its way into the story. " A " is not so strictly homo 
geneous as to prevent us from supposing that a second 
or even a third source has been used in it. But apart 
from this passage, nothing can be found in A which 
can be ascribed to St. Mark with greater probability 
than to St. Philip ; indeed there is absolutely no other 
detail of the source which points at all to St. Mark. 
The same also holds good of Silas. Naturally St. 
Luke also received from him information concerning 
Jerusalem, but A in its essential character is bound 
up not only with Jerusalem, but also with Samaria 
and Caesarea. We are accordingly left only with St. 
Philip. 1 But it may now be objected if this source 
depends upon St. Philip, and if, moreover, he and 
his Samaritan mission may have originally stood in 
some kind of opposition to St. Peter and his mission 
in Jerusalem and Judaea, is it not strange that in 
one and the same source St. Philip and St. Peter 
appear in such peaceful proximity ? We may answer 
that the story of the mission of St. Philip, at all 
events, does not belong to the Jerusalem-Antiochean 
source, and that at a later time even St. Philip him 
self would have felt that any trace of opposition 
between himself and St. Peter had been smoothed 

1 I have already shown in " Luke the Physician," pp. 153 ff. , 
and I will not here enlarge upon the point, that the investigation of 
the sources of the gospel of St. Luke points to a special source con 
nected with Jerusalem which has a certain relationship with A of 
the Acts. 



away. Only we must not suppose that the Samaritan 
mission met at once with the approbation of St. Peter 
and the Apostles (viii. 14 j^*.); some considerable time 
may well have elapsed in the meantime. This, more 
over, seems to be implied by the text itself; the 
Apostles only approve after fj Za^a^o/a SeSeKTai rov 
\6yov TOV Oeov. But even if this interpretation of 
the passage is not accepted, we must recollect that 
little dependence can be placed upon the chronology 
of the first half of the Acts. It is certain that St. 
Peter at a relatively early date preached the Gospel 
in the districts on the coast, and in after times we 
know that this was reckoned to him for righteousness 
by those of more liberal opinions ; why not also by 
St. Philip ? 

As for B the unfavourable opinion which has 
been above passed upon this recension may be har 
dened into the critical verdict that, apart from 
some few details, as compared with A it is worthless : 
where it is trustworthy in its record the order of 
events is confused, it combines things that have no 
real connection with one another, it omits what is 
important, it is devoid of all sense of historical de 
velopment. It gives a much later and more impres 
sive representation of events, and for this very reason 
it met with acceptance. It is, however, correct in 
recording that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was 
manifested in the " speaking with tongues." Whether 
the exaggeration of this speaking with tongues into 
a speaking in foreign tongues or into a miracle of 
hearing though the transformation is of course not 
complete is due to the source itself, or first to 


St. Luke, is a question which cannot be definitely 
settled. The former alternative is to me the more 
probable. At all events the outlook upon the Gentile 
world again, of course, not logically and courageously 
developed must have been present in the source ; 
for therein lies the point of the whole narrative ; 
though at the same time we must make the reserva 
tion that St. Luke himself has drawn up the list of 
nations according to his own discretion. It is, on 
the other hand, very remarkable that in this account 
the results of the " Outpouring " extend not to the 
natives of Jerusalem but to the Jews of the Dispersion. 
In this point we note its relationship with the Antio- 
chean source. Unfortunately there is no evidence 
that would help us to discover the person upon whose 
authority this account rests. It probably first ap 
peared after the Gospel had been preached in the 
Empire. It, however, certainly proceeded from Jeru 
salem or Palestine ; and we may also suitably connect 
with it the account of the Ascension (i. 114) ; for 
we may safely assume in St. Luke so much critical 
sagacity as would prevent him from accepting such 
stories concerning Jerusalem on foreign testimony 
when he had so many opportunities of communication 
with Palestinian Christians. In regard to the account 
of the Ascension, it has been already shown above (pp. 
155^ .) that the legend originated in Palestine, though 
not perhaps until after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Passing now to the Antiochean source, we may assign 
to it a high historical value ; but here distinctions 
must be made. As far as chap. xiii. 4 inclusive it lays 
itself open to depreciatory criticism in a few details 


which can be easily recognised as editorial touches. 
From this source alone we learn of the important 
dispute between the " Hebrews " and the " Hellenists " 
in the Church of Jerusalem, 1 of the election of the 
" Seven " a second group of apostles which arose 
from this dispute ; and above all, we learn that St. 
Stephen and his following taught in Jerusalem a 
peculiar " Paulinism before Paul," that the Twelve 
by no means thoroughly acquiesced in this doctrine 
for they were not affected by the persecution concern 
ing Stephen and that this teaching led up to a 
mission to the Gentiles before the ministry of St. 
Paul. 2 If St. Stephen taught that Jesus would not 
only destroy the Temple but would also abrogate the 
e 6tj a. TrapeScoxev q/> McoL- o-^?, it is at once intelligible 
that some of his followers should have preached the 
Gospel directly to the Gentiles in Antioch. The 
source perhaps contained more than St. Luke took 
from it, as has been already pointed out in the case 
of the story of St. Stephen, and is also suggested by 
other passages. For example, the narrative of xi. 
1930 quite gives the impression of an extract from 
a fuller account. 3 There is difficulty, as is well 

1 The mention of the Hellenists in ix. 29 probably belongs to the 
editorial touches of St. Luke, and is an imitation of vi. 9. 

2 Wellhausen also (loc. cit., s. 9 /., 11 /.) allows this. As he rightly 
remarks, St. Matt. x. 5 protests against this mission. 

3 So also Wellhausen (loc. cit., s. 1 ff.). But seeing that he with 
out just reason throws doubt upon the homogeneity of the source 
here, and thinks himself justified in a criticism so incisive as to 
lead him to assert that St. Barnabas in all likelihood himself be 
longed to the fugitive Hellenists, that the representation of him as 
"the inspector from Jerusalem" is due to tendency, that the 
Hellenists on principle would have confined their mission simply to 


known, in the narrative of the journey of St. Paul 
and St. Barnabas with an offering for Jerusalem 
(xi. 30 b ; xii. 25). I allow that the narrative does 
not appear to be absolutely excluded by Gal. ii. 1 (Sia 
CTUIV trd\iv avej3r]v). 1 If, however, this 

the Jews, and that St. Peter is represented as the apostle to the 
Gentiles I find it impossible to follow him. Again I cannot accept 
his other objections that " the people of Jerusalem suffer from a 
famine that had been merely prophesied," and that the same cause 
moves the people of Antioch to help them, further that the delegates 
from Jerusalem were not prophets but other folk. All these objec 
tions are disposed of partly by reference to the brevity of the 
narrative, partly by the fact that they do not rest upon sufficient 

i The two journeys to Jerusalem recounted in Gal. i.-ii. are 
characterised as follows : 6.vfj\6ov laropfiaai KT)<t>8j> TrdXtv fotfiyv 
KO.I &vt0t(j.T)i> avrou (the Christians of Jerusalem) rb ei/ayyAioi 3 
Krjpi ffffu Iv TO?S tOveffiv. We may say that he does not count the 
journeys he actually took, but only those journeys that had any 
thing to do with his relations with St. Peter and the rest or with 
his gospel. So we may decide, if hard pressed, nor do I wish to 
maintain more than this. The identification of the journey of 
Gal. ii. with" that of Acts xi. 30 b , commended by Ramsay and by 
others before him, that is, the reduction of the two journeys of St. 
Paul and St. Barnabas recorded in the Acts to one which took place 
before the first missionary journey, I regard as an hypothesis 
attractive but difficult to establish. Wellbausen has lately (loc. cit., 
s. If.) again given it his sanction, but the way in which he thinks 
himself bound to criticise the stories of the Acts and to throw them 
into new combinations makes it scarcely possible to come to close 
quarters with him. It seems to be in favour of the identification 
of the journeys (that is, of the transference of xv. 1 ff. to the time 
of xi. 30) that xv. 1 ff. (Gal. i. 21) ia concerned only with the Gentile 
Christians of Syria and Cilicia, while one would expect that the 
Gentile Christians in Lycaonia (the district passed through in the 
Bo-called first missionary journey) would have been also mentioned. 
But the question here in the first instance concerns an acute " orcLm 
KO.I f7jr77<ns OVK 6X1777 " which had broken out in Antioch (and there 
fore also affected the regions of Syria and Cilicia connected with 


detail is unhistorical it only follows that the Antio- 
chean source has erred for once ; and yet even in 
this case it is left open to us to suppose that the 
whole account of this journey does not belong to the 
Antiochean source, but has been inserted by St. Luke 
on mistaken information. It can be omitted without 

The account of the so-called first missionary journey 
belonging to this source is not so vivid in its style nor 
so trustworthy (vide supra, pp. 92^".) as the greater 
part of the narrative in the second half of the Acts. 
Here also St. Luke has evidently taken certain liber 
ties. I conjecture that the source only gave the route 
(without dates, which are almost entirely absent), and 
that St. Luke taliter qualiter fashioned this into a 
" history " in which the great interpolated discourse 
at Antioch takes up more than a third part of the 
space. He here gradually allows St. Barnabas to fall 
into the background behind St. Paul in opposition 
to the attitude of the source (vide supra}. If this 
source originated in Antioch one understands why 

that metropolis), and had been stirred up by unauthorised meddlers 
from Jerusalem, not a general spontaneous effort to regulate the 
whole relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians. It stands 
to reason that the decision arrived at was afterwards of importance 
for Gentile Christians in general (xxi. 25). Instead of pulling 
St. Luke to pieces, one ought rather to recognise that here he 
does not move in generalities, but has given a fairly detailed re 
presentation. To bring the collection for the famine -stricken 
Christians of Jerusalem (xi. 29 /. ; xii. 24) into connection with the 
compact made in Gal. ii. 10 belongs to that class of combinations 
which compromises historical criticism. The attractiveness of the 
hypothesis lies in the fact that St. Peter is still in Jerusalem, while 
according to chap. xii. he seems to have definitely left that city. 


in this section it only shows interest in leading 

It seems to me most important for the criticism of 
chap. xv. 135 that the Antiochean origin of this 
passage should be kept in view. If the tradition here 
is Antiochean and from the words of verse 2 : yevo- 
fj.evr)<} $e o-rdVfco? /cat ^T/jcreeo? OVK oXiyqs TW YlavXa) 
KOI Bapi dfia Trpos ai/roi/? as well as from Tiva? aXXov? 
of verse 2, and yuera /ecu frepwv TroXXoov of verse 35, 
it follows that the source knew more than St. Luke 
tells us, and that it could only know this because it 
was Antiochean everything at once explains itself. 
There was no need to record what St. Paul and St. 
Barnabas had said at Jerusalem. The whole interest 
would be concentrated upon the attitude adopted by the 
whole Church of Jerusalem, under the leadership of St. 
Peter and St. James, towards those teachers of the Law, 
who without authority (xv. 24 : 019 ov Sie<rTiXd/uLe9a), 
had come down to Antioch (xv. 1), and who belonged 
to the party of Christian Pharisees in Jerusalem 
(xv. 5). Neither does the passage on the whole give 
any other information, and to try to coax more out of 
it is quite inadmissible. It simply marks the result, 
while defining the attitude of St. Peter and St. James 
more clearly by a free reproduction of their speeches. 
It is at the same time clearly shown that the stand 
point of the former was somewhat different from that 
of St. James. According to St. Luke both recall the 
Divine leading given in the history of the centurion of 
Caesarea those men of Cyprus and Cyrene who first 
preached to the Gentiles in Antioch could not there 
fore, in St. Luke s opinion, claim such Divine leading ; 


but St. Peter then dwells upon the manifest inability 
of even the Jews and Jewish Christians to bear the 
yoke of the Law, and passes on to speak of the 
grace of the Lord Jesus which brings redemption to 
those who believe ; while St. James dwells upon the 
fact that the Law is everywhere proclaimed in the 
synagogues (and is accordingly assured of its position 
of due respect within the ancient nation 1 ). 2 

We shall return to the Apostolic Decree in Chapter 
VI. It may therefore be set aside for the present. 
And yet it is not possible to give a final decision as 
to the date of the Antiochean source before this Decree 
has been discussed. Neglecting it, however, for the 
moment, we find in the source nothing that demands a 
late date of composition, while the excellent accounts 

1 The " synagogues " of xv. 21 can only mean purely Jewish 
synagogues, not those in which Jews and Jewish Christians were 
found together. 

* So these words of somewhat doubtful significance are to be 
understood. The other explanations (vide Wendt on this passage) 
almost all include the Jewish Christians here, and regard the words 
as a declaration of conditions to be imposed. They, however, read 
into the text a significance which is quite foreign to it, and which 
if it were intended must have been expressly stated. The opinions 
delivered by St. Peter and St. James really complete one another ; 
the former calls attention to the absolute impossibility of keeping 
the Law, and points out that in consequence everything depends 
upon faith in the grace of the Lord Jesus; St. James declares that 
the Law still retains its inviolable character for the Jews, and that 
thus its rights were preserved. St. James does not intend by his 
words to commend the positive side of the so-called Apostolic 
Decree, but, like St. Peter, merely its negative side (fj.rj irapevox^f iv). 
What St. Peter says and what St. James says could also have been 
said by St. Paul, for even according to his teaching the Jews were 
still bound to keep the Law ; but it is important for the standpoint 
of St. James that this is just the point which he emphasises. 


concerning Jerusalem and St. Stephen, and the special 
veneration shown to St. Barnabas, lead us to conclude 
that we have here a writing of high antiquity. With 
due precautions we may perhaps go one step further. 
\Ve have described the source as " Antiochean." But 
we may, indeed we must, also call it " Jerusalem- 
Antiochean " ; for, as has been shown, the bond of 
connection between Jerusalem and Antioch is in it 
most carefully noted and recorded, and it includes 
accounts concerning the primitive history of the Church 
of Jerusalem which are quite unique, important, 
and trustworthy, and even more detailed than those 
concerning Antioch. It demands, therefore, as its 
authority one to whom the connection between the two 
Churches was a matter of special importance, to whose 
heart Jerusalem and Antioch were equally dear, one 
who knew the early history of the Church of Jerusalem, 
and was moreover a convinced believer in, and him 
self endowed with, the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. 
Now we know that Silas came as an ambassador from 
Jerusalem to Antioch, and stayed for a considerable 
time in the latter tity, and that he then, starting from 
Antioch, accompanied St. Paul in the so-called second 
missionary journey during which he fell in with St. 
Luke, and for a time worked together with him. 
Nothing can be more probable than that St. Luke owes 
these records concerning both Jerusalem and Antioch 
to this prophet of Jerusalem who had lived in Antioch, 
and who had gladly entered upon the mission to the 
Gentles ; nothing at least can be said against such a 
supposition. This does not yet amount to a proof; 
but we may well venture the conjecture that the 


authority of Silas is to be claimed for these accounts 
concerning Jerusalem and Antioch. 

We have now completed the analysis of the sources 
of the Acts of the Apostles in their main outlines. 
There still, however, remains the important question 
whether the three sources of the first half of the Acts 
were written sources either as a whole or in part, 
or whether they simply depend upon oral tradition. 
This question can only be dealt with in connection 
with a discussion of the " discrepancies " of the Acts. 
To these the next chapter is dedicated. 



WHAT we include under the term instances of 
inaccuracy and of discrepancy " in the Acts of the 
Apostles will be learned from the following collection 
of examples. We group them according to the sepa 
rate bodies of tradition into which we have already 
analysed the book, more especially in the preceding 

1, The We-sections. 

We must here note that the jj/xef? has not in every 
passage the same connotation. It is not always quite 
certain what persons are included in the word. 

xvi. 10. The "we" is, without any explanation, 
abruptly introduced in e^n/o-ci/zev. 

xvi. 10. Y MoKfTOHOl . . . evayye\lcracr6ai 

xvi. 12, 18. The relation of wxe^oa? rivd? to 

remains undefined. 

xvi. 13, 16. It is not certain whether one or two 
different visits to the Trpoa-ev^ i are intended. 

xx. 7. The auTof? after ij/uctji/ is inexact, seeing 



that it refers to the Christians in Troas, while they 
are also included in the foeis. 

xx. 12. yyayov Se TOV Tratoa ^WVTO. ought to have 
occurred earlier in the narrative, and in the following 
words : KOI TrapeK\ri6r]crav ov /meTpicos there is a change 
of subject. 

xxi. 4. St. Paul does not attend to the prophetic- 

xxi. 8 ff. In Caesarea St. Philip is so important 
to the writer that he forgets the church in that city ; 
it is first mentioned afterwards in verses 12 and 16. 

xxi. 10. Agabus is introduced as if he here 
appeared in the book for the first time ; yet see 
xi. 28. 

xxi. 11. The prophecy afterwards meets with 
only a general not a detailed fulfilment. 

xxi. 16, 17. The reception in Mnason s house in 
Jerusalem is recorded before the arrival in Jerusalem 
(this has given rise to the correction in /3). Prolepsis. 

xxvii. 2. Aristarchus is described as Ma/ce<5<wi> 
GecrcraXofi/ceJ?, although he had been already described 
in xix. 20 as a Macedonian, and in xx. 4 as a native 
of Thessalonica it seems thus to have been forgotten 
that he had been mentioned before. 

xxvii. 10. Here the construction with on abruptly 
changes into the Ace. c. Inf. 

xxvii. 12. " A.vevOerov $e TOV XiyueVo? connects with 
verse 8, although verses 9-11 intervene (Wellhausen 
explains verses 9-11 as an interpolation). 

xxvii. 12. After the mention of the eKaToi>Tapxr)$, 
the Kv(3epvi }T>]9 and the vavK\>jpo$, it is strange that 
oi TrXe/ofe? should occur. Who were they ? 


xxvii. 21. Here the /xev is not followed by <$ e. 

xxvii. 21-26 (from TOTC onwards) ; xxvii. 31 ; 
xxvii. 33-38 (from TrapcKaXei onwards) are explained 
by Wellhausen as interpolations. 

xxviii. 1, 2. It is somewhat inexact that the 
clause : e-jreyvwuev on MeArn? fj vtjiro? KoXeiTai should 
come before the meeting with the inhabitants is 
mentioned. Prolepsis. 

xxviii. 10. Again an instance of prolepsis. The 
friendly offices of the Maltese at the time of embarka 
tion are mentioned too soon, seeing that this embarka 
tion did not take place until after three months. 

xxviii. 14. Another instance of prolepsis. The 
arrival in Rome is mentioned too soon ; it is not in 
place until verse 16. 

2. The second half of the book (omitting 1 the 

xvi. 4. ra? TroXet? . . . TrapeSlSoarav aurof?. 

xvi. 22. Why does not St. Paul now appeal to 
his Roman citizenship ? 

xvi. 23, 24. e/3aXoi/ ei? (pv\aKr ]v . . . e/3aXei> 
O.VTOU? etV Trjv ecrwTepav <pv\aKijv the repetition here 
is awkward. 

xvi. 27. The jailor is about to kill himself, 
although no one could accuse him of anything, and 
although he could not yet have known whether the 
prisoners had escaped or not. 

xvi. 28. It is difficult to see how St. Paul could 
have marked the purpose of the jailor, or how he could 
have known that all the prisoners were still there. 


xvi. 29. am/era?, a strange change of subject. 

xvi. 30. No motive is given for the jailor s rever 
ence for his two prisoners, and no motive at all for 
his appealing cry to them, seeing that he could not 
have known that the miracle had been wrought on 
their behalf. 

xvi. 32. The abrupt appearance of the jailor s 
family is unexplained. 

xvi. 33. It seems strange that the baptism should 
have taken place at once in the prison. 

xvi. 35. No motive is given for the action of the 
fTT partly oi. They issue a sudden command for the 
release, though no hint is given that they were influ 
enced by anything that had happened during the 
night. The whole passage, verses 24-34 (inclusive), 
looks like an interpolation. 

xvi. 37. TTjOo? auTovs though the lictors did not 
themselves go in to the prisoners but sent a message 
by the jailor. 

xvii. 3. Passage into oratio directa. 

xvii. 5. Prolepsis. The house of Jason is men 
tioned, though it is not until verse 7 that we learn 
that Jason had received the missionaries into his house. 

xvii. 9. Aa/3oWe? aireXvcrav change of subject. 

xvii. 15. o>? rd^ia-ra but St. Luke does not tell 
us that the command was not carried out. 

xvii. 18. oi Se is grammatically without antecedent. 

xviii. 5. The connection of irvvei^eTO TU> \oyu> 
with icaTfj\9ov 6 Te 2/Aa? KOI 6 Ti/zoOeo? is strange, 
because the author does not fully explain. 

xviii. 6. TTOpeua-0/u.cii is strange when followed by 
verses If, 


xviii. 8. This verse concerning Crispus breaks into 
the context both in thought and in form, and there 
fore seems out of place here. 

xviii. 11. ev avTots is not quite correct. 

xviii. 17. It is not clear who the Travres were (Jews ? 
or Greeks ?), nor whether the Sosthenes so abruptly 
introduced, and beaten without any given reason, was 
a Christian or a Jew. 

xviii. 18. It is not at once clear whether it was 
St. Paul or Aquila who had taken the vow. 

xviii. 22. It is not quite clear whether avafid? 
implies the going up from the harbour into the city 
of Caesarea or the going up to Jerusalem. 

xviii. 22, 23. Here the brevity of the narrative is 

xviii. 2428 looks like an episode that has been 

xix. 1. We should expect ai>e\6etv, not e\6elv 

xix. 3. The expression fianrTiQaOai etV TO ^Iwdvvov 
ftaTTTicriJia. is a solecism which is only formally excus 
able because of the preceding et<? rt. 

xix. 16. It is not till now that we learn that the 
seven exorcists did not all participate here, and that 
the occurrence took place in a house (the house is 
described as if it had been already mentioned, so also 
the dacmoniac himself). Yet it is possible that a/u.(p6- 
repoi may be carelessly used for " several." The 
whole episode is recorded as if it were only needful 
to recall a well-known occurrence; the notoriety of 
the event is indeed afterwards referred to in verse 17 
and rendered comprehensible in verses 18 f. 


xix. 29. The Macedonians Gaius and Aristarchus 
are introduced quite abruptly. 

xix. 32 takes up the thread of verse 29, though 
verses 30 and 31 intervene. 

xix. 33. Alexander is abruptly introduced without 
comment. We are left in darkness as to his person 
ality and his intentions ; even the construction of e< 
Se TOV o^Aou <Tuve/3i(3aa-av TOV AXe^avSpov is not at all 
clear ; moreover, the purpose of the sudden interven 
tion of the Jews is not obvious. 

xix. 34. eiriyvovTes . . . KpaCovres. Anacoluthon. 

xix. 37. It is doubtful who the ay^oe? OVTOL are. 
Are they St. Paul and his companions ? Probably 
Gaius and Aristarchus. What then is the intention 
of the whole intervening episode with Alexander ? 
Moreover, verse 38 has better connection with 36 
than with 37 (Wellhausen). 

xx. 16. It is not said whether St. Paul actually 
arrived at Jerusalem for Pentecost. 

xx. 19. What St. Paul recalls here is not covered 
by the narrative in chap. xix. 

xx. 23. Here also the summary statement gives 
quite new information. 

xx. 32. Here TW $vvafAevq> either refers to TOJ 
Kvpia> instead of the nearer TO> Xo-yw or the whole 
phrase is incorrect as an epithet. 

xxi. 20. a/coiVai/Te? eiTrav, here we expect St. James 
to speak, but the words are put into the mouths of 
St. James and the presbyters speaking together ! 

xxi. 27. The seven days are spoken of as if it had 
been said before that seven days were still wanting 
for the accomplishment of the vow. 


xxi. 27. fTreftdXav eV avrov ra? ^eipay. Prolepsis. 

xxi. 34. /j.t] (WctyUeVov avrov yvwvai CKeXewev, 
grammatically incorrect. 

xxi. 36. TO TrXtjOo? TOV Xaov Kpdfyvre?, incorrect. 

xxii. 6. Trep} fj-ea-tj/uL/Splav, wanting in the account 
of chap. ix. 

xxii. 9. A case of discrepancy with ix. 7 (though 
it may at a pinch be smoothed away). 

xxiii. 5. The words of St. Paul: OVK ySeiv ori 
e(TT\v up-^iepevs are unintelligible. 

xxiii. 111. The details of this story taken by 
themselves and in conjunction with xxiii. 15 are some 
what strange. Here, just as in the first half of the 
book, St. Luke seems to have followed parallel 
accounts which, because they differed from one an 
other, he did not recognise as parallel accounts. 

xxiii. 12. The general term 01 lovSaioi is still 
more strange here than in xxii. 30. 

xxiii. 16. St. Paul s sister s son is introduced as a 
well-known character. 

xxiii. 22. 6 ovv without a following Se. 

xxiii. 22. Transition into oratio directa. 

xxiii. 24. Transition into oratio indirecta. 

xxiii. 25. ypd\lsas passing over verse 24 connects 
directly with CITTCV in verse 23. 

xxiii. 26. Now at the end we are first told the 
name of the military tribune. 

xxiii. 27. fjiaOitiv cm PoyMUOf ecrriv is either an 
nstance of gross carelessness on the part of St. Luke, 
or is written purposely : the tribune gives a repre 
sentation of events which was false, but favourable to 
u m self. 



xxiii. 30 b is not covered by the previous narrative. 

xxiii. 33. arrives a strange change of subject. 

xxiv. 5. e^jOoVrep anacoluthon ; it is followed 
by no principal verb. 

xxiv. 17 is not covered by the earlier narrative. 

xxiv. 18. The syntax of the clause : rives e awo 
TV/? Acr/a9 lovSaioi is incorrect. 

xxiv. 22. It is very strange that here a more 
accurate knowledge of the Christian movement is 
ascribed to Felix (a.Kpij3e<TTepov et<5u>? TO. irepl r^? 
6$ov). Was it derived from his wife Drusilla ? Or 
does ei$u>s here mean " noting," and is aKpiftea-repov 
to be understood as superlative ? 

xxiv. 22 b . This promise is strangely never ful 

xxiv. 23. KOI /u.r]<$va KooXveiv strange change of 

xxiv. 2427. St. Paul s situation as here described 
is less favourable than we should have judged from 
the preceding verses (22, 23), but there is no real dis 
crepancy here. 

xxv. 4. 6 JULCV ovv without a following $e. 

xxv. 16. Festus does not give a correct report of 
the wish of the Jewish authorities. 

xxv. 21. T. $e IIcwAou eTriKaXea-a/mevov r>ip>]6i]vai 
O.VTOV grammatically incorrect. 

xxv. 24. TO TrXqOos evervyov incorrect. 

xxvi. 4. No 8e follows the /j.ev. 

xxvi. 14. Discrepancy with ix. 7 (eicrri iKeia-av). 

xxvi. 16. In distinction from the previous accounts 
St. Paul is here at once appointed a missionary to 
the Gentiles. 


xxvi. 20. That St. Paul preached in Jerusalem 
and in all Judaea is not recorded elsewhere in the 

xxviii. 17. Sea-/uuo9 e lepo(TO\v/UL(av TrapeSoOqv eiy 
ra? xeipas T. Pco/xa/wf is very inaccurate, for he was 
already in the power of the Romans when he was 
bound in fetters ; verse 19 b is also inexact. 

xxviii. 22. yueV without Se. 

xxviii. 25 ff. The quotation from Isaiah does not 
suit well the information given in verse 24. 

3. Chapter i. and the source B (ii. ; v. 17-42). 

i. 1. No TOV e SevTepov follows TOV fj.ev Trpurrov 
\o i yov. 

i. 2. The style here is confused. 

i. 4. The construction by means of a relative 
sentence passes over into a principal sentence. 

i. 4-6. It is not clear where the summary ends 
and the narrative of particular events begins (probably 
already at verse 4). 

i. 4. The oratio obliqua passes into oratio directa. 

i. 6. It is not said where the disciples had come 
together ; we do not learn this until verse 12. Neither 
is it clear whether the meeting of verse 6 is identical 
with that of verse 4. 

i. 15. In verse 14 mention is made only of the 
brethren of Jesus side by side with the Apostles and 
the women. It is strange that now quite abruptly 
a whole company of brethren is presupposed 120 

i. 18. fjiev ovv without a following <5e. 


i. 17-20. Here it has been supposed that there is 
confusion between the apostolic office of Judas and 
the plot of land which he had purchased (Weiss) : 
the eVauXty of verse 20 is supposed to refer to the 
plot of land. 

i. 22. The words ap^djuevo? to f]jj.u)v are subject to 
exception both in form and meaning (Wellhausen) ; 
Weiss extends this criticism also to verse 21 (from 
ev TTO.VTI onwards). 

i. 24. It is strange that all the brethren together 
say what follows. 

i. 26. fiera. TWV evSeKa airovToXuiv is strange 
seeing that elsewhere in the book not much stress 
is laid upon the number " twelve " of the Apostles. 

ii. 1. It is not clear whether the day of Pentecost 
itself is meant or only its approach. 

ii. 1. o/xoy with TO avro is superfluous; we are 
left in doubt where they were met together. 

ii. 4 ff. It is doubtful whether a miracle of speech 
or hearing is intended, or (verses 12, 13) simply ecstatic 
speech (" speaking with tongues "). 

ii. 4. Traj/re? in ii. 1 Trdvres means all the Chris 
tians, so it must also here ; but already in ii. 7 only 
the " Twelve " seem to be comprehended under wavrep, 
and this seems to be confirmed by verses 14 and 15 
(ovroi = oi evoeKo). 

ii. 5 /. According to what is here said only the 
Jews of the Dispersion living in Jerusalem seem to 
have gathered together ; where then are the natives 
of Jerusalem (yet see verse 14), and how came it that 
this outpouring of the Spirit was noised abroad in the 


ii. 8. With T# iSia JtoXcrry the word signifying 
the speakers " is wanting. 

ii. 9. 01 KCLTOIKOVVTCS Ttjv Meao7roTa/x/ai/ is in form 
discrepant with e<V lepoua-aXq/u. KCLTOIKOVVTCS louSaiot. 

ii. 9. lovSaiav is impossible. 

ii. 11. KjO^re? KCU *Apa(3es comes very strangely 
after lovocuoc re /cat Trpocr^XvTOi. 

ii. 12 y. Trarrej erepoi careless. 

ii. 14. This introduction of the sermon obliterates 
the first impression that the effect of the outpouring 
of the Spirit was confined to the Jews of the Disper 
sion, i.e. to the Hellenists. 

ii. 19 /. Yet no such repara had accompanied 
the outpouring of the Spirit. On the other hand, 
in the parallel account in iv. 31, it is related that an 
earthquake accompanied the outpouring. 

v. 21. The tautologous phrase: TO vwt&ptov KOU 
Trairav T^V yepovo-iav TWV viwv lopco/A is strange. 

v. 22 init. and v. 25 init. are so alike that verses 
2224 seem like an interpolation an hypothesis to 
which Weiss gives additional support by noticing 
the double mention of the (rrpartiyos in verses 24 
and 26. 

v. 28. Weiss thinks that the two reproaches can 
not stand side by side, and he ascribes the second to 
the editor. 

v. 36. The historical mistake in reference to 
Theudas (also the uera rovrov in verse 37). 


4. The Source A (iii. 1-v. 16 ; viii. 5-40 ; ix. 31- 
xi. 18 ; xii. 1-23). 

iii. 1 ff. The Healing of the lame man is narrated 
as the first miracle (see especially verses 10 and 16) ; 
but, according to ii. 43, many miracles had already 
happened. The whole of ii. 4247 is proleptic when 
compared with iii. 1 ff. 

iii. 1 ff. St. John appears as a mere figurehead in 
the whole narrative. 

iii. 1. 6 Xao? . . . eK6a/u./3oi. 

iv. 1. XaXouVrcoj avrwv but St. Peter alone had 
been speaking. 

iv. 13. Prolepsis ; for iv. 4 connects with iii. 26, 
and iv. 5 with iv. 3 (aupiov corresponds to ea-Trepa and 
avrwv to o Xao? in verse 2). 

iv. 6. Anacoluthon ; Annas and the others appear 
in the nominative in apposition to rou? ap^ovra? /c.r.X. 

iv. 7. Weiss concludes from TOI/TO, from ouro? in 
verse 9, from the presence of the people in verse 10, 
from the very strange eTreyivoxTKov /c.r.X. in verse 13 C , 
from the similarly difficult verse 14, and from verse 
22, that the scene was originally set in the Temple- 
court, and that it was the editor who first transferred 
it to the Sanhedrin. 

iv. 10 C . Here OVTOS stands for the man who was 
cured; in ll a oSro? represents Christ; this is very 

iv. 12. ly/Act? a strange transition to the second 

iv. 16. The release of the Apostles is represented 
as due to the fact that the miracle was notorious, and 


could not be denied; in verse 21, however, it is re 
presented as due to fear of the people. Therefore 
Weiss regards iv. 1520 as an interpolation by the 

iv. 19. Here St. Peter and St. John speak to 

iv. 22. It is strange that we should only now 
learn the age of the lame man ; seeing that cnroXv- 
$eVre? of verse 23 connects with aireXiKrav of verse 21, 
it would seem that verse 22 is interpolated. 

iv. 24. 01 $ refers back to 01 idioi in verse 23, 
passing over the ap-^iepeiy /cat Trpea-jBurepoi. 

iv. 24^". The whole company speak together. 

iv. 27. The expression : Aaot IcrpaijX is strange. 

iv. 29. avru)t> does not refer to Herod and Pilate, 
but to the /SacriAetf K. ap-^ovTey of verse 26 ; thus 
verses 27 and 28 look like an interpolation. 

iv. 30. /ecu 0-rjju.eia /cat repara yivea-Qai does not 
fit in well with what has been said before, and looks 
like an interpolation. 

iv. 33 connects closely with verse 31, so that 32 
looks like an interpolation (introduction to the story 
of Ananias), or, since verses 34 and 35 belong to verse 
32, like the too early commencement of a new story. 

iv. 3637 does not agree with verses 32, 34 f., seeing 
that in the earlier passage the renunciation of posses 
sions is represented as universal, while in iv. 3637 it 
seems to be regarded as exceptional, and a particular 
case is recorded as worthy of special praise (the same 
idea lies behind v. 1 ff.\ 

v. 6. It is presupposed that the readers know who 
the vewrepoi were (cf. i/ecw<7/cot, verse 10). 


v. 11. The word KK\rja-ia appears here for the 
first time (in place of oi afieXcpoi). 

v. 12. After ii. 43 this summary, written as if 
the information were given for the first time, is very 

v. 15 is closely bound up with verse 13, hence verse 
14 looks like an interpolation that is out of place here. 

v. 15. After the avrois of verse 13 it is strange 
that St. Peter alone is spoken of here. 

viii. 5. TroXi? T7? Sa/uojOe/a? . . . a Or off. 

viii. 7. A gross and yet very natural case of ana- 
coluthon : TTO\\OI Ttav eyovTUiv Trveujmara aKa.Oa.pTa 

viii. 14. ^a/mapeia . . . TT^OO? 

viii. 16. (SaTTTiiCeiv ei? TO ovo/j-a rou Kvptov 
but in ii. 38 /BairTilCeiv eTrl ra> oVo/xart I>/a"ov 

viii. 17. Strange change of subject (eAa/x/3avoj/). 

viii. 26. a-yyeAo? Kvplov, but in verse 29 it is the 
Spirit that speaks ; in viii. 39 the Spirit is called 
Trvevp-a Kvpiov. 

viii. 35. evayyeXifea-Oai avru> TOV It]<rovv, but in 
viii. 25, 40 : evayyeXifea-Oai ra? /ca)/xa? (TroAet?). 

ix. 31. The Church in Galilee appears here 

x. 10. avrwv stands without reference. 

x. 15. TTOL\IV K SevTepov pleonastic. 

x. 19. Weiss thinks that StevOuju-ovjuLevov makes the 
SitjTTopei of x. 17 superfluous, but it only carries on 
the idea of the earlier word quite naturally. 

x. 23. Weiss sees here an awkward interruption 
in the flow of the narrative, but the verse is necessary 
as a preparation for verse 45. 


x. 25-27. The cases of discrepancy which are 
believed to have been discovered here disappear with 
closer attention to the interpretation of the text (vide 

x. 36. The connection with verse 35 is remark 
ably loose. 

x. 39* is a doublet of verse 41 and disturbs the 
connection between verses 38 b and 39 b . 

x. 42. TU> \aw conflicts with i. 8, since it excludes 
the commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. 

x. 43 b . The infinite clause determines fjiapTupovaiv 
in a way for which one is not prepared, and which 
narrows the significance of the verb. 

x. 45. CK TreptTo/mij? is superfluous, but its addition 
is quite intelligible. Seeing that this verse refers 
back to verse 23 b which, according to Weiss, belongs 
to the editor, Weiss decides that x. 45 is not original, 
and conjectures that Jewish Christians belonging to 
Caesarea were originally intended here. 

xi. 12. StaKpivavra, cf. x. 20 StaKpivo/uevo? the 
difference, if there is any at all, is considered by Weiss 
to be great enough to make it necessary to suppose 
an editor, to whom he would attribute the small formal 
differences both before and after this verse (between 
the narrative of chapter x. and St. Peter s report of 
the events). It is strange that the name of Cornelius 
is not once mentioned in St. Peter s report. 

xi. 12. We do not learn until now that the 
brethren (vide x. 23, 45) were six in number, and 
that they accompanied St. Peter to Jerusalem. 

xi. 14 b is more than a free reproduction of the 


xi. 15. Weiss finds a discrepancy between ev ru> 
ap^acrOai ywe AaAetV and ert XaAowro? rou Ileroou 
(x. 44) ; I cannot allow that this is so. 

xi. 15. Weiss writes : " e?r avrovs refers to the 
avpe$ a.Kpo(3v<TTiav l^oi/rey in verse 3, however im 
possible this may be grammatically " ; but it really 
refers to verse 14 (crv KOI TTO? 6 OIKOS crou), so that all 
is in order. 

xi. 17. Weiss here discovers a case of discrepancy 
with x. 47, but I cannot see it. 

xi. 18. Weiss raises the point that jmerdvoia is 
never mentioned in chapter x. ; it was not, however, 
necessary to mention it. In spite of this, in giving a 
summary of the events of chapter x., it was not out 
of place to speak of fj jmerdvoia ei$ ^wi]v. 

xii. 3. fj&av 8e r/jmepai T. a^yfj.u>v. A parenthesis ; 
but ov Kal Trtdo-a? (verse 4) coming after o-vXXafietv 
(verse 3) is tautologous ; it therefore appears that an 
editor has been at work here. 

xii. 6. ore e %/me\\ev Trpoayayetv after 
avayayelv O.VTOV (verse 4) is tautologous, and ry 
eKeivy of verse 6 b does not fit in well with 6 a . It 
seems therefore that 6* originally followed verse 4, 
and that the night in question was the first which 
St. Peter spent in prison (Weiss), while the editor 
treated it as the last night before the intended 

xii. 17. Weiss thinks that the command to tell 
the brethren is discrepant with the purport of verses 
5 and 12 b . 

xii. 17. y erepov TOTTOV very strange ; the 
narrator must surely have known the place. 


5. The Jerusalem- Antiochean Source (vi. 1- 
viii. 4 ; xi. 19-30 ; xii. 25 [xiii. l]-xv. 35). 

vi. 1. Abrupt introduction of the Hellenists and 
the Hebrews (ot /j.a6t]rat also appears here for the 
first time). 

vi. 1. Tr\riQvv6vTu>v Ttav ju.a6t]Ta>i , a very modest 
way of speaking after the great numbers recorded in 
chapters ii. v. 

vi. 1. -77; SiaKOvia TJJ KaOtj/jLepii jj this regular 
ministration to the needs of the poor is something 
quite different from the community of goods spoken 
of in chapters ii. v. 

vi. 2. ol SwSeKa only here (yet see ii. 14). 

vi. 2. The assemblage of the whole TrAJ;0o? (verse 
5) seems still to imply only a moderate number. 
Evidently the Apostles up to this time had also 
ministered to the needs of the poor. 

vi. 5. If viii. 5 ff- comes from the same source, it 
cannot but seem strange that more is not said here 
about St. Philip. 

vi. 6 b . A very awkward change of subject. 

vi. 7. The verse does not fit very well into the 

vi. 8. This second characterisation of St. Stephen 
(vide verse 5) is strange, especially seeing that no 
repara K. (rt]fj.eia are afterwards recorded in connection 
with him. 

vi. 9. It is doubtful how we are to distinguish, 
or rather to arrange, the Hellenists here introduced 
to our notice. 


vi. 12 b . Weiss here supposes a change of subject, 
but this is not quite certain. 

vi. 12. e<V TO crvveSpiov (vide verse 15) but verses 
13 and 14 (6 TOTTO? oyro?), and vii. 54^., suggest 
rather a public place (the Temple-court) and the 
action of a riotous crowd. This is still further suggested 
by the circumstance that, except in the conventional 
verse 1 of chapter viii., there is no indication of a 
judicial trial, and that the speech of St. Stephen does 
not in the least begin as if it were a direct answer to 
charges preferred in a court of law. 

vi. 13y! is essentially a doublet to verse 11. 

vii. 4. /j.Tu>Ki(Ti> a change of subject, which 
vanishes if we delete 4 a as an interpolation. 

vii. 7. Transition into the oratio directa. 

vii. 8. eyewt]o-ev change of subject. 

vii. 10. KarecTTtjcrev change of subject. 

vii. 816 (incl.) is ascribed by Weiss to the editor. 
He appeals to the superfluous and unsuitable character 
of the details given here (compare, however, verse 17), 
as well as to the harsh changes of subject and to what 
seems at least to be a discrepancy between verses 5 
and 16. 

vii. 19. The construction of eKaxuxrev with rou 
Troielv is almost intolerably harsh ; from here onward 
to verse 23 (incl.) Weiss sees the hand of the editor ; 
but his reasons are weak ; neither is it obvious how, 
according to Weiss, Moses is in this case introduced. 
He also sees the editor in verses 26, 36, and 37, but 
again his reasons are weak. 

vii. 21. eKTeQevTos avrou aj/e/Aaro O.VTOV incor 
rect construction. 


vii. 51 f. The conclusion, with its indignant re 
proaches, follows very abruptly ; we must suppose 
that examples justifying these reproaches have been 
omitted, and that something was said about our 
Lord and His attitude towards the Temple. The 
Vision of chap. vii. 56 also seems to demand this. 

vii. 57 viii. 3. These seven verses have much in 
them that is strange : (1) The information given about 
Saul is scattered in three places (vii. 58; viii. 1, 3); 
(2) the eXiOofioXovv of verse 58 is without an object, and 
is repeated in verse 59 ; so that 58 b and the first two 
words of verse 59 look like an interpolation, especially 
as the /uLaprvpes of vi. 13 suddenly appear again in a 
very disconcerting fashion, and now serve as the 
executioners of St. Stephen ; (3) 59 a and 60 look like 
a genuine doublet, of which the second member is 
probably the interpolation ; (4) the second passage 
concerning Saul (viii. 1*) is also probably interpolated, 
since viii. l b connects excellently with vii. 60 or 59 ; 
(5) Travre? . . . TrXrjv TWV a.7rocrTO\(av (viii. 1) cannot 
be correct, and must belong to the editor ; for the 
Hellenists (the followers of St. Stephen) were the only 
persons affected, and the Apostles on the other hand 
were not without a following. Lastly, this notice is 
inconsistent with verse 2 ; for the avSpey 
must surely have been Christians. The TraVre? 
irdp*1(rav K.T.\. is thus intended to prepare for viii. 5. 
Chap. viii. 3 is perhaps original ; Kara rovs OIKOV? 
shows yet again that viii. 1 is an interpolation. 

viii. 4. The source extends to SirjXOov (incl.), vide 
xi. 19. 

xi. 20, compared with xi. 19, is somewhat awk- 


wardly expressed ; nothing more, however, is to be 

xi. 26 b . xprj/uaria-cu change of subject ; also the 
clause depends not upon eyevero O.VTOIS, but only upon 
eyevero ; neither does xi. 27 (ei/ raurat? r. rj/u.epai$) 
refer to 26 b , but to 26* ; hence 26 b is possibly inter 

xi. 30. Presbyters in Jerusalem are here first men 
tioned without any introduction. 

xiii. 2, 3. The subject of the verbs in the 
passage from afyopio-are to cnreXvorai is not quite 

xiii. 5. er^ov Se KOI ^wavv^v vTrtjpeTyv comes some 
what late. 

xiii. 8. It is noteworthy that a second name is 
here given to the man. 

xiii. 13. The abrupt introduction of " ot irepl 
Ilat Aoi " (instead of Bapv. AC. IT.) loses its strange 
ness if great stress is laid on the phrase, and 13* is 
taken closely together with 13 b as cause and effect 
(Weiss) : " Under the leading of St. Paul they came 
to Perga ; St. Mark left them (in consequence) and 
returned to Jerusalem. 1 " And yet this exegesis is 
perhaps a little too ingenious ! 

xiv. 1. V T. arvvayuiyrfv T. *Iov8ai<av pleonastic. 

xiv. 7. KO.KCI evayyeXiYonevoi fi<rav, namely in 
Lystra, Derbe and the neighbouring districts hence 
the story of the occurrence in Lystra acquires the 
appearance of an appended anecdote, but there is 
nothing really strange in its having been appended in 
this way (vide supra, p. 94). 

xiv. 8. Kd6t]To we must assume from verse 13 

that the lame man was sitting outside the city (at 
the gate of the city ?). 

xiv. 14 f. St. Paul and St. Barnabas speak to 

xiv. 22 b . Transition to the oratio directa; they 
again speak together. 

xv. 2. Tti^ct? aAXoi/f strange that they are not 

xv. 4 Jin. coincides with xiv. 27 b . 

xv. 5. aurou? does not refer at all to the previous 
avrwv ; we are compelled, therefore, to supply the 
Gentiles " from the context; this is certainly awk 
ward and yet tolerable. The remarks of Weiss on 
verses 5 f. seem to me too ingenious. Neither can I 
allow any weight to the objection he makes against 
a<^> fjjjifpwv ap-^ai(av (verse 7). Note that St. Peter 
speaks like one who at the time did not belong to 
the community in Jerusalem. 

xv. 12. 7rA/0o? . . . "JKOVOV. 

xv. 12. It is true that nothing had previously 
been said of the ?rX^Oo9, but verse 6 does not exclude 
it (against Weiss), the less so since it is mentioned 
in verse 4 (this holds good even if, as is probable, 
verse 6 describes a different assembly from verse 4 
\cf. verse 4 and verse 12]). Over and above this, in 
verse 22 the aneXiprui is mentioned together with the 
Apostles and prophets, and in verse 23 01 a<5eX^)o/. 

xv. 12, 13. I cannot see sufficient reason for the 
objections which Weiss makes here. 

xv. 14. It is strange that St. Peter is here called 

xv. 23. aravres anacoluthon. 


xv. 23. Brethren, i.e. Churches, in Syria and Cilicia 
have not been mentioned up to this point, also the 
uyua? is covered only by xv. 1 (Antioch). 

xv. 31. ayayvoWe? change of subject. The par 
ticiple also refers to TrXJ/Oo?. 

xv. 32 connects so closely with verse 30 that verse 
31 looks like an interpolation (vide supra) ; however, 
KOLL avrol . . . TrapeKoXecrav is against such a sup 
position (the apposition begins after not before KOI 

avTol, and is confined to the two words : Trpoffirou 

" \ 

xv. 35. pierce /ecu erepcov 7roXX<Si/ the narrator 
thus knows more than he says, or does he only look 
back to xiii. 1 ? This verse would not, however, cover 
the word TroXXot. 

xv. 36. TroXiv iracrav, ev a if. 

xv. 40. It is most strange that here, in opposi 
tion to verse 83, it is presupposed that Silas was in 

6. Chap. ix. 1-30. 

ix. 1. IT i connects with viii. 3. 

ix. 2. We are not prepared by viii. 1 for Chris 
tians in Damascus. 

ix. 11. We learn only now (see verse 8) that St. 
Paul had taken lodging with a man named Judas in 
the street that was called " straight. 1 " Here also for 
the first time we learn that St. Paul was a native of 
Tarsus. I cannot see, with Weiss, that Saul is here 
introduced as a person quite unknown to Ananias (so 
that a discrepancy with verse 13 would result). 


ix. 17. It is strange that Ananias knows about 
the appearance of Christ to St. Paul. 

ix. 26. It is now forgotten that it had been said 
in viii. 1 that all the Christians except the Apostles 
had fled from Jerusalem. 

ix. 26. /mrj Tri(TTvovT<i . . . e(f)o(3ovvTO strange, see 
ing that he had now been in active work as a Chris 
tian missionary for a considerable time (vide ix. 23). 

From this survey we may confidently conclude that 
the majority of the instances of inaccuracy and dis 
crepancy in the Acts, seeing that they occur so 
frequently, ought not to be regarded as indications 
that sources are here used. They belong as much 
to the style of St. Luke as other phenomena of 
constant appearance in his work, and accordingly 
contribute to strengthen the character of literary 
unity in the book. For this very reason we have 
here included instances where the question of sources 
does not at all come into consideration. Let us 
group together some examples of various character as 
follows : 

In A we read (iii. 11) 6 Xao? . . . e/cOa/x/Sof, (viii. 5) 
9 Tqv TTO\IV eKiipv(T<TV avTois, (viii. 14) 
. . . Trpos auroi/?, but we also read in the 
Antiochean source (xv. 12) eo- iyrja-ev TO TrXtjOo? KOI 
yicovov, (xv. 30/.) TO Tr\tj6o$ . . . e^dptjcrav, (xv. 36) 
/caret TroXiv Tra<rav } ev af?, and in those sections of the 
second part which certainly were not drawn from 
any written source, (xvi. 4) Sie-Tropcvovro ray Tro Xet? 
Trape$i<$o<rai> aurof?, (xxi. 36) TO TrAJJflo? TOU Xaou 
s, (xxv. 24) TO TrX^o? everv^ov yuot, see also 


xix. 33, 34, lastly in the we-sections (xvi. 10) ei? 
Ma/ce<W/av . . . evayyeXiaaa-Qai O.VTOV?. 

In B (i. 24) a prayer is recorded, and it is left 
indefinite which of the company said it. 

In A (iv. 1) we read \u\ovvrwv avTa>v, when St. 
Peter alone had spoken; (iv. 19) St. Peter and St. 
John are represented as speaking the words which 
follow, while it is clear that only one can have spoken 
them ; lastly (iv. 24), the whole community is repre 
sented as saying the long prayer that follows. More 
over, in the Antiochean source (xiv. 14 f. and xiv. 
22 b ), on two occasions words are placed in the mouths 
of St. Barnabas and St. Paul speaking together, and 
in the passages of the second part, which are certainly 
drawn from no written source, we read (xxi. 20) 
that St. James and the presbyters of Jerusalem speak 
together the passage that follows that verse. 

Instances of abrupt change of grammatical sub 
ject, such as might lead us to conjecture the presence 
of new sources that have been clumsily inserted into 
the narrative, are found in all parts of the book. 
In the we-sections (xx. 12) the two words "jyayov 
and TrapeK\y /6i]crav standing almost side by side have 
different subjects. In the passages of the second part, 
which are certainly not drawn from any written 
source, abrupt change of subject is found in xvi. 28, 
29 ; xvii. 8, 9 ; xxiii. 32, 33 ; again in A in iv. 12 ; 
iv. 24 ; v. 15 (where we should expect the Apostles in 
place of St. Peter) ; viii. 17 ; lastly, in the Antiochean 
source in vi. 6 ; vi. 12 [uncertain] ; vii. 4, 8, 10 ; xi. 
26 b ; xv. 81. 

It is altogether characteristic of St. Luke^s style 


of narrative that details of a story are here and there 
inserted later or again earlier than their proper place 
(compare also St. Luke s gospel). It is specially 
worthy of note that examples are to be found in the 
we-sections. We are thereby warned, when we meet 
with similar examples in other parts of the book, not 
to fly at once to the hypothesis of interpolation and 
the like (as critics have very often done). In the 
we-sections (xx. 12) tjyayov Se rov iraiSa fooiTa. comes 
too late, we hear (xxi. 12, 16) somewhat too late of 
the Church in Caesarea, on the contrary Mnason (xxi. 
16) is mentioned somewhat too early, xxviii. 1 is not 
quite in its correct place before xxviii. 2, avdyea-Qat 
in xxviii. 10 and e<? Ttjv Pu>p.rjv in xxviii. 14 come a 
little too soon. Nor is it otherwise in the passages of 
the second part of the book, which certainly are not 
drawn from a written source. We learn a little too 
late of St. Paul s Roman citizenship (xvi. 37), that 
Jason entertained the Apostles (xvii. 7), that only two 
of the seven brethren who were exorcists took part in 
the exorcism (xix. 16) if the passage is to be so 
understood of the plots of the Jews in Asia (xx. 19) 
and of the prophecies that had been delivered con 
cerning the coming troubles (xx. 23). The con 
clusion of xxi. 27 (vide xxi. 30) seems to come too 
soon. The name Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26) and the 
preaching of St. Paul in Judaea (xxvi. 20) come later 
than they ought. So also in B (i. 12) we are told 
somewhat late that the scene was the Mount of Olives. 
In A the age of the Lame Man (iv. 22), and again 
the notice that there were six brethren (xi. 12) are 
given rather late in the narrative. In the Antiochean 


source we learn that St. Mark was a companion of 
St. Paul (xiii. 5) later than we should have expected ; 
again in xiv. 6 ff. Derbe KOI y Trepi-^wpo^ are mentioned 
rather too soon, and the scene of action of xiv. 8 ff. 
is only hinted at rather late in the story (xiv. 13). 
Lastly, it is not until ix. 11 that we learn that 
St. Paul put up at the house of a man named Judas 
in Damascus. 

Cases of anacoluihon and of change of construction 
have also led to the supposition of written sources, 
but scarcely ever is such an explanation justifiable, 
for they are of frequent occurrence, and are indeed met 
with in very many authors. In the we-sections (xxvii. 
10) the construction with ori passes over into the 
Ace. c. Inf. ; in the passages of the second part of the 
book, which are certainly not drawn from a written 
source, we find cases of transition into oratio directa 
in xvii. 3 ; xxiii. 22 ; xxiii. 24 (transition into oratio 
indirecta), and an instance of harsh anacoluthon in 
xxiv. 5. In B (i. 4) the relative construction changes 
into a principal sentence, and (i. 4 C ) the oratio obliqua 
into oratio directa. In A we find in (iv. 6) an instance 
of harsh anacoluthon, so also in viii. 7. In the Anti- 
ochean source we find transition into oratio directa in 
vii. 7, also in xiv. 22 b , and in xv. 23 an instance of 
anacoluthon (ypa^avre^. 1 In very many passages we 
find that by omitting one or several verses a better 
connection is gained. But this is not surprising 

1 The Gen. Abs. is incorrect both in vii. 21 (Antiochean source) 
and in xxl 34. M^v without 5t (or dt in isolation) is found, if I 
am right, only in the second part of the book and in the we-sections 
(vide xxvii. 21 and xvii. 18 ; xxiii. 22 ; xxv. 4 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 22), 
but this is unimportant. 


in the case of an author who has the somewhat care 
less habit of referring to things that he should have 
told us beforehand (vide supra). These are notably 
the passages which critics have seized upon in order 
to put in practice their well-known methods of ampu 
tation. It is possible that in some cases interpolation 
may be safely assumed, yet seeing that the phenomenon 
in question is of such frequent occurrence, strong 
reasons must exist to justify this critical operation. 
In the we-sections we gain better connection if we 
omit xxvii. 9-11. In the remaining passages of the 
second part of the book the same is the case if we 
omit xvi. 24-34; xviii. 8; xviii. 9, 10, 24-28; xix. 
30, 31, 37. In B, i. 22 disturbs the connection ; again, 
v. 22-24 is easily dispensed with. In A, iv. 13 is 
awkward before iv. 4 ; one is tempted either to omit 
the latter verse or to transform the former passage ; 
also we could well dispense with iv. 1520, with iv. 22, 
27-28, with the words /ecu 0-rj/u.eia KOI re para yivea-Qai 
(iv. 30), with iv. 32, and with v. 14 and x. 39*. Lastly, 
in the Antiochean source the connection seems to be 
improved if we omit vii. 4 and other details of the 
speech ; again, the passage vii. 57-viii. 3 looks like 
an awkward shuffling together of two sources with 
repetitions (here at all events it is difficult to avoid 
the hypothesis that sources are really present); xi. 
26 b gives the impression of unskilful attachment, and 
xv. 31 of an awkward interpolation. And yet in 
almost all these cases the reasons are not quite con 
vincing, and there still remains the simpler hypo 
thesis of a certain literary carelessness on the part of 
St. Luke. 


On the latter hypothesis we may most probably 
explain those cases where St. Luke introduces persons 
with a certain unconcern, or in other places seems to 
forget that he has already introduced them. Instances 
of the latter kind occur in the we-sections in xxi. 10 and 
xxvii. 2. In the remaining passages of the second part 
of the book we notice the abrupt appearance of the 
household of the jailor (xvi. 32), of Jason (xvii. 5), of 
Sosthenes (xviii. 17), of Gaius and Aristarchus (xix. 
29), of Alexander (xix. 33), and of St. Paul s sister s 
son (xxiii. 16). In A (ix. 31) the Church in Galilee, 
of which nothing has been said hitherto, appears all at 
once ; likewise (xii. 17) St. James, the Lord s brother. 
In the Antiochean source (vi. 1) mention is abruptly 
made of Hellenists and Hebrews in the Primitive 
Community, of presbyters in Jerusalem (xi. 30), of 
the brethren in Syria and Cilicia (xv. 23) ; from xiii. 
1 we might suppose that as little had been previously 
said about Barnabas and Saul as about the other 
men mentioned in the verse. From ix. 2 we suddenly 
discover that there were Christians in Damascus. 

Instances of redundancy, of awkward repetition, 
of silence upon important points, and of extra 
ordinary brevity, can be adduced from different parts 
of the book. Still greater is the number of instances 
of ambiguity, of accounts and expressions whose signi 
ficance is not quite clear, of trifling cases of literary 
inaccuracy. They can be easily found in the lists 
given above. Nor are there wanting instances of 
discrepancy. Such (though insignificant) are to be 
found in the three descriptions of the conversion of 
St. Paul [they do not point to different sources], in 


the letter of Claudius Lysias (xxiii. 26 ff.} compared 
with the previous narrative, in Festus report (xxv. 
14 jf.), and finally in the last speech of St. Paul (in 
Rome, xxviii. 17 /) Such are, moreover, to be found 
in B (ii. 9 compared with ii. 5) ; in A (iv. 36y. 
compared with iv. 32 ; and x. 42 compared with i. 8) ; 
and lastly in the Antiochean source (xv. 40 compared 
with xv. 33 ; concerning this instance of glaring dis 
crepancy vide infra). 

Under these circumstances we are compelled to 
conclude that an analysis into written sources based 
upon phenomena such as have been mentioned, or of 
a similar kind, rests on insecure evidence, and is as a 
rule unjustified. Taking into account the literary 
temperament of St. Luke we are justified in proceed 
ing to such analysis only when the concurrence of 
many such phenomena compels us to adopt this pro 
cedure. In such cases, however, the question always 
arises whether we have to do with written sources 
that have been unskilfully pieced together, or with 
later interpolation* inserted either by the author him 
self or by succeeding editors. 

I. The we-sections have about them the character 
of a diary, and it is therefore probable, if not certain, 
that St. Luke employed in them notes which he 
possessed. In these sections, however, there is no 
certain indication of later interpolation. We may 
naturally conjecture that xxi. 9 (TOVTU> ^e %(rav Ovya- 
Te ^oef Tecrcrayoe? TrapQevoi Trpo^revovcrai) is such an 
interpolation, but we cannot here reach more than 
a vague possibility. Wellhausen has, however, with 
absolute confidence pronounced that xxvii. 911, 21 


26, 31, 33-38 are interpolated. If this is really so, 
then the whole account of the voyage contains no 
reference to St. Paul and becomes an anonymous sea- 
story, which St. Luke with great audacity has turned 
into a story concerning St. Paul. Wellhausen has 
not shrunk from drawing this conclusion, although 
the sections in question are entirely Lukan in style, 
and although the very questionable procedure thus 
ascribed to St. Luke demands the strongest proof 
before it can be accepted as probable. The indica 
tions which have led the critic to omit these passages 
as interpolations made by a third person, may have 
justice done to them without recourse to such an 
hypothesis of dynamite. We may well suppose that 
for the description of the facts the author followed 
either his own memory or as is more probable the 
brief notes of his own diary. His accounts of St. 
Paul s behaviour, and of what the Apostle said on 
that occasion, would naturally be deduced from his 
memory of the whole situation thus recalled to him, 
with colouring from his own imagination, and would 
necessarily have been inserted by him at suitable 
points in the narrative which he composed from his 

II. In reference to the second half of the book 
(excluding the we-sections), I may say that the most 
minute investigation has strengthened me afresh in 
the conviction that on the whole, and in almost every 
particular instance, it is most highly probable that 
written sources were not used. 1 It is possible to 

1 The tradition here is certainly not homogeneous ; in the last 
quarter it is quite possible that doublets exist. 


regard xvi. 24-34 ; xviii. 8 ; xviii. 9, 10 ; xviii. 24-28, 
and perhaps other passages here and there, as later 
interpolations, and xviii. 517, 1923, and perhaps 
other passages, as abbreviations of a more extensive 
written source. But in xviii. 517 the former sup 
position excludes the latter, and then the assumption 
of later interpolation is by far the more probable, 
although I cannot speak even in favour of this 
hypothesis. The section xviii. 24-28, though it 
certainly falls somewhat outside the scope of the 
whole work, is yet to the point if one assumes that 
St. Luke did not wish to pass over so important 
a missionary as Apollos ; and even the best writer 
could not have treated the ministry of this man 
otherwise than as an episode, nor could he have 
inserted it into the context at a more appropriate 
place. The passage xix. 1923 is purposely brief 
and sketchy, for St. Luke did not wish to say nothing 
about St. Paul s return to Syria, and yet it did not 
fit in well with the continuous onward movement of 
his plot. As for the passage xvi. 24-34, 1 would here 
admit the probability of later interpolation if the 
verses were not so entirely Lukan in style, and if after 
their removal a good and consistent story were left 
behind. But it is scarcely credible that St. Luke 
only narrated the imprisonment in Philippi in order 
to show how proud St. Paul was of his Roman 

Chapter xix. (the story of Demetrius) has been sub 
jected by Wellhausen to criticism similar to that with 
which he has treated chapter xxvii. (the account of the 
voyage). Wellhausen here remarks ; " The original 


source here simply described a rising in Ephesus 
against the Jews. The author was neither Jew nor 
Christian, but an impartial and superior observer, a 
trifle malicious but quite sine ira et studio. St. Luke 
has taken up the ready-made narrative and altered it 
to suit his purpose, and yet with so little thorough 
ness that it still shows itself everywhere." This is 
the impression given by the passage after the omission 
of verses 26 (the mention of St. Paul), 29 b , 30, 31, 
and 37. Against such a theory we may set : (1) The 
general consideration of the improbability that a 
writer who, as even Wellhausen agrees, had access 
to all kinds of trustworthy information about St. 
Paul s long stay in Ephesus, should have been at 
such a loss for material for his narrative as to seize 
upon the description of a chance rising against the 
Jews in Ephesus, and in a most audacious way to 
paint St. Paul s portrait into it ; and (2) the special 
consideration that we can scarcely believe that if the 
writer had inserted the Apostle into the narrative he 
would have handled him so discreetly i.e., would have 
allowed him not to be affected by the persecution ! Who 
can possibly believe that any one making up a story 
would act thus ! Lastly verse 37 does not fall out 
of the context (it connects quite well with TrpOTrere? 
of verse 36), and therefore does not break the bond 
between verses 36 and 38, rather this bond remains 
intact even if one reads 37. It is true that the entry 
of Alexander upon the scene remains obscure per 
haps he was known to the first readers, perhaps we 
must simply assume an ambiguity arising from an 
effort to be brief, as in the case of Sosthenes (xviii. 


17), and in not a few other cases. 1 On the whole 
this section, which is in no way necessarily dependent 
on a written source, bears the stamp of historical trust 
worthiness just because it does not eulogise St. Paul 
indeed, leaves him open to possible accusations of 
want of courage. If, however, it is believed that 
here and there in ihe second half of the book we 
cannot dispense with the hypothesis of written sources, 
it need not at all follow that the authorship of St. 
Luke is excluded. 

When attempting to answer the question whether 
a temporary companion of St. Paul could have written 
the second half of the book, we ought to keep all 
trivial details out of sight. The few historical mis 
takes in matters of detail, with which it is possible to 
charge the author, are not at all to the point ; for 
St. Luke has the right to make a mistake, especially 
when he was not an eye-witness and was dependent upon 
the reports of others. This, however, does not pre 
vent people from confidently asserting that xxi. 20^., 
and the manner in which St. Paul is represented as 
defending himself before the Jewish (and Gentile) 
tribunal in the last chapters of the book, either exclude 
a companion of St. Paul as author, or destroy all hope 
that we shall ever arrive at an intelligible conception of 
the actual course of events. 2 Here one representation 

1 It has been already recognised by Storr that this straining after 
brevity, leading here and there to ambiguity, is to be noticed in 
the gospel as well as in the Acts. 

* Vide. e.g. Julicher, Ncue Linicn, s. 60 : " If one of the most inti 
mate companions of St. Paul tells us without the slightest hesitation 
how St. Paul for the sake of peace wished by an elaborate act of 
hypocrisy to convince the Jews that he still walked in the strict 


of the character of St. Paul stands opposed to another, 
i.e. to the conception which we ourselves have formed 
concerning St. Paul. Of course I do not mean that 
St. Paul was capable of an act of hypocrisy, or that 
St. Luke was capable of supposing that he was ; for 
such an hypothesis is absolutely devoid of evidence. 
According to my conception of the attitude of St. 
Paul towards his nation and the Law, as I derive it 
from his own letters, he, as a Jew by birth, would 
not only be capable at any moment of performing 
ceremonial and other Jewish functions with a good 
conscience, but where Jewish opposition to the in 
terests of the mission did not come into play he would 
even perform such functions of his own free will and 
from ingrained feelings of reverence. St. Paul not 
only " became " a Jew to the Jews i.e. he not only 
accommodated himself to them in matters of religious 
practice, even in those wherein he had outgrown them 
but he was and he remained a Jew. Nothing in his 
letters prevents us from supposing that on his visits 
to the Holy City he, like his Jewish Christian brethren 
in Jerusalem, took part in the ceremonial worship of 
the Temple. It must be allowed that the epistles to 
the Romans and the Galatians might seem to suggest 
that this was no longer possible for him, but they 
need not be so interpreted ; and if we here receive 

observance of the Law, and if this representation, given by a friend 
who must have possessed true information concerning St. Paul s 
attitude to the Law, deserves to be taken as evidence, then all 
hopes that we shall ever arrive at an intelligible conception of the 
actual history of the Primitive Church are reduced to zero, and we 
are no longer safe in opposing any negation of things which have 
even the best attestation." 


additional information concerning the character and 
practice of the Apostle no matter whether it is to 
his credit or not l we have only to examine most 
carefully whether this additional information is to 
the point. In my opinion, it stands the test. More 
over, in judging of St. Paul and his controversy with 
the Jewish Christians, people are always overlook 
ing the fact the liberty of all Christians was not 
the subject of debate but the freedom of the Gentile 
Christians from the yoke of the Law. There was no 
question at all as to the practice of Jewish Christians 
in reference to the Law, so far as their own persons 
were concerned. As for the point of the defence 
made before the Jewish tribunal, St. Luke may well 
have added an accent or an emphasis which might 
here so readily suggest itself to him. But the main 
question, that St. Paul in his apology laid the 
greatest stress upon his teaching in defence of the 
Resurrection of the dead and of the Hope of Israel 
(xxiii. 6^!; xxiv. 14^1; xxvi. Qf. ; xxviii. 17, 20; 
see, however, on the other hand, xxvi. 23), and 
that he also emphasised points wherein he agreed 
with the Pharisees as opposed to the Sadducees, may 
very well be historical. Perhaps St. Luke might 
with advantage to St. Paul have shown a little finer 
ethical feeling in his reproduction of these speeches, 
but in my opinion it is only a question of nuance. 
Accordingly there is no justification for the assertion 

1 He loses somewhat in determination and in that consistency of 
character wherein the eye is always sharply fixed upon a single 
object, but he gains in freedom and in absolute devotion to the 
interests of the mission. 


that because of these passages no companion of St. 
Paul could have written the Acts. Those who ad 
vance such an assertion make upon both author and 
Apostle demands which are too rigorous, too heroic, 
and too abstract. 

Seeing that there is no proof that the second half 
of the book depends upon written sources, we may 
not forthwith build up the hypothesis of written 
sources for the first half upon the basis of faults 
similar to those which are found in the second half. 

III. Passing to chapter i. and the " source " B (chap, 
ii. ; v. 1742), we find that the instances of discrepancy 
and unevenness are so numerous in the first verses of 
the first chapter that we cannot well reject the hypo 
thesis that they have been subjected to later correc 
tion. We can, however, no longer ascertain the extent 
of this correction, nor the wording of the original 

In the passage concerning the election of Matthias 
(i. 1526) Weiss distinguishes a written source and 
editorial touches due to St. Luke. He bases his con 
clusions upon the different significance given to the 
word f] eVafXt? (the Apostleship and the plot of ground 
of Judas), as well as upon the grammatical and prac 
tical difficulties that are to be found in the verses 
21 b> c , 22. The latter verses may be a later inter 
polation though we are by no means forced to this 
conclusion ; but the fact that eVaiAi? is used in a 
double significance gives no ground for assuming a 
written source. Double interpretations of a word are 
out of place according to our ideas of exegesis, but 
they were not so according to ancient ideas (espe- 


cially where a sacred text was concerned) ; rather it was 
thought that exegesis approached nearer to the truth, 
and was the more edifying, the more things often 
quite heterogeneous it read into the text and the 
more it combined together things quite distinct from 
one another. 

Chapter ii. suffers much from obscurity. It is not at 
all clear whether the event narrated took place on the 
day of Pentecost or shortly beforehand, nor is it clear 
where the scene of action is placed ; there is obscurity as 
to the character of the miracle ; it is doubtful whether 
the Spirit fell only upon the Apostles or upon all the 
Christians ; it is not clear what became of the natives 
of Jerusalem (only Jews of the Dispersion dwelling 
in Jerusalem are spoken of; yet see verse 14); it is 
not explained how the phenomenon could have been 
brought to the notice of several thousand persons ; it 
is not clear how St. Peter could speak of great cosmic 
miracles, which certainly did not occur, nor are they 
mentioned afterwards in the narrative many other 
things also are obscure. But to attempt to clear away 
these obscurities by assuming a written source, contain 
ing none of these faults, which has been spoiled by the 
correction of an editor the editor is always a simple 
ton is a strange way out of the difficulty. It is ever 
so much more natural to suppose that we have here 
a worked-up narrative of a character that of itself 
forbids close examination into the clearness and de- 
finiteness of its details, because throughout one single 
point is kept in view. The unprejudiced reader does 
not notice these instances of obscurity on the other 
hand, the essential point of the narrative stands out 


quite clearly nor were they probably noticed by St. 
Luke himself. 1 How much of this " working up " is 
due to St. Luke, how much to the source itself, cannot 
be determined. It was only natural that this first 
occasion of " speaking with tongues " should be dis 
tinguished from the later occasions in its miraculously 
attractive power. The same considerations hold good 
for the section v. 1742. We are tempted to regard 
the unnecessary verses 2224 as an interpolation ; but 
St. Luke could easily have been somewhat diffuse in 
his narrative ; at all events the verses do not disturb 
the context. Neither can I see why Weiss should 
object to see the two reproaches of verse 28 standing 
side by side. 2 Here also it is enough to say that 
the ordinary style of narrative loves to heap up 
motives, and is not concerned about their consistency 
with one another. Accordingly B may pass as a 
source, but not as a written source. It is, however, 
worthy of note that this source is related to the 
Jerusalem-Antiochean source, in so far as it seems 
to have sprung from Hellenistic circles. In ii. 5 01 ev 

1 It is characteristic of by no means few of his narratives that he 
has not quite thoroughly thought out his situations, as so easily 
happens when one recounts an event of which one has not been an 
eye-witness. From the instances of unevenness and of slight discre 
pancy that must thus arise, to conclude the existence of a written 
source free from such faults, which has been spoiled by abbrevia 
tion and interpolation, is not the first course that presents itself, 
but rather the last resource. Many critics , however, prefer it because 
they would sooner reckon with two rigid components than with a 
single elastic one, although daily experience must teach them that 
stories awkward in style and illogical in small points are everywhere 
the rule. 

2 Weiss judges similarly concerning the incompatibility of the 
two motives given in iv. 16 and iv. 21. 


KaroiKovvres ^lovSafot, avSpe? evXafieis O.TTO 
eOvovs TWV VTTO TOV ovpavov alone appear (vide 
), so that we are almost compelled to infer that 
the story of Pentecost only concerns these Hellenists 
to the exclusion of the natives of Jerusalem. Or is 
this only due to the unskilfulness of the writer (see 
verse 14) ? 

Chapters i. and ii. and v. 17-42 are the passages 
of the Acts which are furthest removed from actual 
history. The account of the Ascension is quite useless 
to the historian (vide sitpra, pp. 155 i ^ ? .), the account 
of the election of an Apostle is at least beyond our 
control, and the story of Pentecost is so worked up 
that even St. Luke did not recognise it as a doublet 
of iv. 31. Neither has he recognised that the story 
of the imprisonment of the Apostles and their mira 
culous release (v. 17 ff.} is a doublet of iv. 1 ff. and 
xii., because here all the Apostles have taken the place 
of St. Peter. Finally, our trust in this source is 
not increased by its profession to know exactly what 
happened in the Council (v. 34 ff., the speech of 
Gamaliel). These passages taken together must be 
accounted the latest and least credible in the book. 

IV. In favour of the theory that A (the Jeru 
salem -Caesarean source) was a written source, we may 
advance the following considerations : 

(1) The name of St. John seems to have been inter 
polated into a text that had already taken form, in 
which St. Peter alone was mentioned (chaps, iii. iv.). 

(2) The scene of iv. 5 ff. seems to have been origin 
ally set in the Court of the Temple, and to have been 
first transferred to the Sanhedrin by St. Luke. 



(3) Elsewhere in this passage, so it seems, traces 
are to be found of the work of an editor. 

(4) Such traces are also found in the passage iv. 

(5) Chap. iv. 32 presents difficulties in both form 
and subject-matter, and does not agree with iv. 36 f. ; 
the same remark applies to iv. 34 f. 

(6) Chap. v. 14 looks like an interpolation which 
breaks the thread of the context. 

(7) In chapter x. it seems possible to distinguish 
the work of an editor and a fixed text which he 
has worked up. 

(8) The same seems to be the case in xii. 1-6. 
Moreover, the brevity of the notice concerning the 
martyrdom of St. James, and of the sufferings of 
other Christians at the same time, is best explained 
on the assumption that the source contained stories 
about St. Peter, and accordingly only cursorily touched 
upon other subjects, however important they may have 
been (vide supra, p. 125). 

(9) The expression xii. 17: TropevO>] Y erepov 
TOTTOV looks like the concluding sentence of a source, 
in the reproduction of which the name of the place 
has been suppressed. 

I do not think that I need weary the reader with 
a detailed investigation of these instances, seeing that 
I have not yet been able to attain to a quite complete 
and certain result, and have advanced only a little 
beyond the position which I formulated in my earlier 
work ("Luke the Physician," pp. 116/.). 

For some passages of this body of tradition it is, 
in my opinion, very probable that St. Luke depended 


upon a written document. So, above all, for chaps, 
iii., iv., and chap. xii. As for the former extensive 
passage, it is here so obvious that the name of St. 
John has been interpolated into a story that had 
already taken a fixed form, that we need only ask 
whether St. Luke himself inserted it or a later inter 
polator. Seeing, however, that St. Luke without 
doubt betrays in his gospel an interest in St. Peter 
and St. John (vide especially xx. 8 ; the other gospels 
give no names here), it is precarious not to ascribe 
this interest also to him in the Acts. Then it would 
follow that the tradition of chaps, iii. and iv. lay 
before him in a fixed i.e. in a written form of nar 
rative l with which it would also seem necessary to com 
bine chap. v. 1-11. It may, moreover, be maintained 
that chapter xii. depends upon a written document, both 
on account of its introduction, the brevity of which 
would be otherwise incomprehensible, and because of 
other phenomena it presents. It is not so probable 
that the passage x. 1-xi. 18 depends upon a written 
tradition, and such an hypothesis is quite uncertain 
in the case of chaps, viii. and ix. 32-43. It is not, 
however, necessary to imagine that because some of 
these passages with great probability are based upon 
written tradition, it therefore follows that the same 
hypothesis must be extended to all the rest. How 
ever probable it is that the passages we have included 
under A form a certain homogeneous whole, it cannot 
be shown that in matters of form this unity is so 
complete that it is not possible to suppose that some 

1 Note also that it is only here that our Lord is called 6 rait 
8tov (vide supra) an important point 1 


of its elements may have reached St. Luke in writing 
and others by way of oral tradition, nor to suppose 
that they may depend upon the authority of different 
persons. The whole of the phenomena seems to be 
best explained on the supposition that St. Luke re 
ceived from St. Philip (or from him and his daughters) 
partly oral information, partly also written tradition, 
which helped out the oral accounts. This body of 
tradition referred to St. Philip^s own ministry, but 
above all it was made up of reminiscences concerning 
St. Peter (and for these St. Mark also comes under 
consideration). What was written can, however, 
scarcely have been written in Greek, but must have 
been composed in the Aramaic tongue ; for the Lukan 
vocabulary and style can be traced into the most 
intimate details of the narratives, while from the 
syntax of the sentences, and from many turns of 
phraseology, we may conclude that the original was 
perhaps Semitic. 

As for the historical value of the records in A, we 
have already considered this question in the preceding 
chapter. This collection of traditions proceeds from 
one who thoroughly believed in the miraculous, and 
was probably himself endowed with supernatural gifts, 
and it has received some legendary embellishments. 
But the legendary element can easily be discerned as 
such ; and beneath the whole there lies a nucleus of 
historical fact. This nucleus appears especially in 
chapters iii. and iv. (the intelligible development of 
events leading up to the " outpouring of the Spirit " 
and the foundation of the Church). In this source 
the stories of the conversion of the Samaritans and of 


Cornelius were not related as stages leading up 
to the mission to the Gentiles, but simply as stories 
concerning St. Peter and St. Philip. 1 It was only 
the way in which St. Luke has used them for his 
history that first gave them their appearance of 
stages. Lastly, the facts referred to in chapter xii. 
may be said to depend upon genuine and trustworthy 

V. It now only remains for us to conclude with the 
investigation of the extensive Jerusalem-Antiochean 
source (vi. 1-viii. 4; xi. 19-30; xii. 25 [xiii. 1] 
xv. 35). In favour of the written character of this 
source we may adduce the following weighty con 
siderations : 

(1) The abrupt fashion in which it begins at vi. 1, 
indeed in which it begins everywhere, when it starts 
afresh. Note especially the verbal identity of viii. 4 
and xi. 19. 

(2) Certain terminological and other differences, 
though not many, which exist between it and the 
remaining portions of the first half of the Acts. 

(3) The consideration that the speech of St. Stephen 
seems to have been edited (though not to the extent 
assumed by Weiss), and that its conclusion seems to 
have been curtailed. 

(4) The consideration that ix. 1930 looks like an 
extract ; while on the other hand xiii. 4 xiv. 28 gives 
the impression of having been expanded from shorter 

1 For this very reason the ordinary objections that are advanced 
against an historical nucleus in the story of Cornelius fall to the 


(5) The consideration that chap. xv. seems to have 
been based upon a fuller narrative. 

(6) The appearance of unity and of gradual develop 
ment up to a climax which can be traced through 
out, and distinguishes all the passages assigned to this 

(7) The consideration that St. Philip, one of the 
" seven," plays no part here, though his name is men 

(8) The consideration that the actual circumstances 
of the story of St. Stephen (a riot in the streets) 
can still be discerned behind the representation of 
St. Luke, who has placed the scene in the council- 

(9) The consideration that vii 57 viii. 3 is best 
explained as an unskilful shuffling together of two 
sources, of which one at least must have been written. 

(10) The consideration that St. Barnabas is here 
not only treated as of equal authority with St. Paul, 
but is even set in the foreground. 

(11) The consideration that xv. 40 is discrepant 
with xv. 33. 1 

Not one of these considerations affords a convincing 
proof of the written character of the source it is also 
possible to assume later interpolation and editing 2 
but the impression that part at least of this source, 

1 The discrepancy is indeed so flagrant that one is inclined to 
conjecture a later interference with the text. 

2 It is not probable that the conclusion of the speech of St. 
Stephen has been curtailed by some later corrector, seeing that a 
too sharp attack upon the Temple and " the customs delivered by 
Moses" would also to St. Luke himself have seemed wanting in 


perhaps the whole, was in writing makes itself felt 
still more strongly than in the case of the source A. 
If Silas was the authority for this body of tradition 
and considering the subject-matter and the relations 
that existed between himself and St. Paul, what more 
likely person could we imagine ! it follows that in 
this case also we may suppose that oral information 
was helped out by written notes. Such a solution of 
the problem seems to answer best to the actual situa 
tion ; but I am far from holding it as certain. St. 
Luke has shall we say, unfortunately ? understood 
how to give his work such a stamp of homogeneity 
that, with the exception of the vindication of the 
we-sections for the author himself, of the discovery 
of the doublets in A and B, 1 and of the separation 
from the rest of the book of a distinct collection of 
narratives connected with both Jerusalem and Antioch, 
there is nothing in the criticism of the sources of 

1 But the following pretty little experience of mine teaches how 
careful one should be in assuming doublets. On a rainy day beside 
the Walensce, I was turning over the leaves of the Jahrbuch det 
I] istorixchtn Vereins det kanlon Glarut, 27. Heft (l-92). In an article 
on " St. Felix and Regula in Spain " I read (pp. 6/.) as follows : " If 
any one had anywhere read that in the third decade of this century a 
pupil of the public school of Aarau, the son of one Triimpi, a pastor in 
Schwanden [Canton Glarus], was drowned near Aarau when bath 
ing in the Aar, and had afterwards read somewhere else that in 
1837 one Balthasar Leuzinger, son of M. Leuzinger, the pastor 
in Schwanden, was drowned when bathing in the Aar close to 
Aarau, if the reader were at all of a critical turn of mind he would 
assuredly have drawn the conclusion that one and the same occur 
rence was evidently referred to in each case. . . . And yet it 
actually happened that two young natives of Glarus, both of them 
sons of a pastor of Schwanden, were drowned in the neighbour 
hood of Aarau [thus a long way from Schwanden]." 


the Acts that can be maintained with absolute con 

We have already discussed (pp. 195,^. and elsewhere) 
the high historical worth of this Antiochean source. 
We owe to it most important information concerning 
the early history of the Church of Jerusalem and the 
beginning of the mission to the Gentiles, filling up 
great gaps in the information we derive from the 
epistles of St. Paul. Without this source we should 
have been unable to form any conception concerning 
certain fundamental historical questions, or we should 
at least have arrived at a conception which would 
have been incorrect. But there is one account in this 
source which seems to threaten its trustworthiness 
I refer to the Apostolic Decree of the Council of 

Our concern is only with the Decree itself the 
rest of the narrative in chapter xv. either presents no 
difficulties at all, or at least not such as would exclude 
its composition by St. Luke i.e. by a man who was 
in a position to make inquiries from the eye-witnesses. 1 

1 It must not, of course, be forgotten that other points of differ 
ence exist between Gal. ii. and Acts xv. The most glaring are 
these that, in the Acts, the Apostles seem from the first to have 
stood upon the side of freedom, and that St. Paul is not repre 
sented as standing on an equality with them, indeed they seem 
rather to form a court of higher instance. But this is partly 
only appearance. Even according to the Acts the conversion of 
Cornelius did not have the result that the Apostles now became 
missionaries to the Gentiles, or in plain terms, recognised the 
Mission (St. Luke makes them refer to the story of Cornelius as 
an event that had happened long ago), and even from the Acts 
one can see clearly enough that it was the account which St. 
Barnabas and St. Paul gave of the success of their mission that 
led to the final decision. If, however, St. Paul, when compared 


But the Apostolic Decree, if it contained a general 
declaration against eating sacrifices offered to idols, 
against partaking of blood or things strangled, and 
against fornication, is inconsistent with the account 
given by St. Paul in Gal. ii. 1-10, 1 and with the 
corresponding passages in the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians. It is, accordingly, unhistorical. But 
if the Decree is unhistorical, it follows that it is in 
the highest degree improbable that a companion of 
Silas and St. Paul either wrote or accepted from 
others what we read in Acts xv. Both he and his 
authority must have known the real result of the 
deliberations of the Council. Neither could St. Luke 
have been so audacious as to forge the result, nor so 
simple as to forget it or to exchange it for another 
tradition, seeing especially that he lays great stress 
upon the fact that St. Paul and Silas on their 
missionary journey delivered this very Decree to the 
churches (xvi. 4), and seeing that he himself refers 

with the Apostles, here falls into the background, we must neverthe 
less allow St. Luke, who was not present on this occasion, the 
liberty so to picture the scene to himself, seeing especially that we 
have here a conflict of two representations, and that the religious 
and apostolic independence which St. Paul claimed for himself 
by no means excludes that at that time the Church of Jerusalem 
with its leaders was regarded as the court of ultimate appeal for 
the whole of Christendom. (Even if the Decree is authentic, I have 
always regarded the letter as a creation of St. Luke. He perhaps 
imitated some other letter of the kind.) Besides, we must not 
forget that even St. Paul has written in Gal. ii. 2 : ivt6tij.-r)v ai/rott 
(the " pillars " of the Church of Jerusalem) rb fua.yyt\iov & Kijpvaau 
Iv rots tOvtaiv . . . fi,rj TTWJ tit ntvbv rp^x u ^ This after all 
is not so very different from the impression which is given by the 

1 And also with the narrative of Gal. ii. II /. 


to it again in xxi. 25. It is possible to suppose that 
a later annalist, who could no longer communicate 
with eye-witnesses, might have made a mistake about 
this Decree, or might have mixed up two different 
decrees but in the case of a companion of St. Paul 
who met with the Apostle soon after the promulgation 
of the Decree, such a supposition is quite inadmissible. 
The same holds good of the person who formed his 

Now it is well known that the Apostolic Decree is 
handed down to us in a twofold form in the manu 
scripts and by the Fathers. Following in the steps 
of other scholars, whose vision, however, had not been 
keen enough, I have gone most thoroughly into the 
question in an article published in the Sitzungsberichte 
d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 2. Marz 1899. I here 
arrived at the result which is now, so far as I know, 
widely accepted that the Decree according to one 
tradition prohibited certain foods (flesh offered to 
idols, blood, things strangled) and fornication, and 
that according to the other tradition it was a sum 
mary of Jewish ethical catechetics (the abstaining 
from flesh offered to idols in the sense of sharing in 
the idolatrous feasts, and in idolatry generally from 
murder and fornication, " and all which ye would not 
that others should do to you, even so do it not to 
them "). In this article I attempted to prove a 
position which up to that time I had agreed with 
almost every one in accepting, namely, that the first 
of these two forms of the Decree (we may call it the 
Eastern form and that of the Uncials) was the original, 
and that the second form (we may call it that of the 


Western Fathers, including Irenaeus ; it is also that of 
Codex D) must accordingly be regarded as due to 

Since that time and I may say with great reluct 
ance and after long consideration I have arrived at 
a different conclusion. I am not fond of correcting 
myself and it is not the first time but magis arnica 
veritas! Besides, the main structure of my article 
still stands firm. The conversion was effected by the 
excellent and exhaustive treatise of Resch, junior, Das 
Aposteldekrei nach seiner ausserkanonischen Tcxtgestalt 
(Texte und Unters., Bd. 28, Heft 3, 1905). 1 But 
there were two other contributory influences : (1) A 
conviction, strengthened by Wellhausen (Noten z. 
Apostelgesch., s. 19 ^.), that the word TTVIKTOV did not 
belong to the original text, and (2) the perception 
that the Decree in its ordinary form did not fit in 
well with its context in chapter xv. 

TLviKTov is wanting in Dd, Athous, Sahid., Iren., 
Porphyr., Gigas, Augustine (ep. 82, Specul. and else 
where), Tertull., Cyprian, Pacian, Hieron, App. ad 
Eucher. opp., Ambrosiaster, Fulgent. It is combined 
with cu/xa to form one idea in the Vulgate [sanguine 
suffbcato], and by Cyril of Jerusalem [ai/xcrro? TTVIKTOV] 
and by Gaudentius [a sanguine id est siiffocatis] ; on 
the other hand, at/ma is wanting in Orig. lat. in Matth. 

i In the year 1906 there also appeared a treatise by A. Seeburg 
entitled, Die beiden Wege und das Apostcldekret. In my article in the 
Sitzsungsberichten I had already touched upon the " Two Ways," 
and used it to illustrate the Apostolic Decree in its Western form. 
Seeburg in his careful treatise has carried this much further ; but 
I cannot accept his conclusions, seeing that they presuppose the 
originality of the prohibitions of food in Acts xv. 


and in Methodius. Moreover, Wellhausen has decis 
ively proved c/!also Resch s learned notes on TTVIKTOV 
that TTVIKTOV is included in the prohibition of af/xa 
(if cu/xa means " partaking of blood " ; it only occurs 
in those authorities where cu/ma has this meaning), 
and cannot stand as a separate member of the list. 1 
Accordingly, the original decree, as reported by St. 
Luke, read in its second half as follows : 
et$(i)\o6uT(jov KOI OU/ULO.TOS KOI TTOpveio.? e wv 
eavTovs ev TrpdPeaOe. As soon as this is recognised, the 
question concerning the original meaning of the Decree 
becomes no longer a question of text but simply of inter 
pretation. The Western authorities (and D) have 
made it quite clear, by the interpolation (6Va /x/ 
OeAere eavrois yivearQal Tepu> jj.rj Trcuefj ), which inter 
pretation they preferred. 2 But is this not really the 
meaning intended by St. Luke ? Resch and already 

1 It is also in favour of the original absence of irviKrhv that the 
insertion of the word can be easily explained (vide infra), and that 
as a general rule interpolations into the text [especially in D, but 
also elsewhere] are far more frequent than omissions [amid the 
enormous number of additions in D can we point to a single omission 
which is not due to grammatical considerations or to carelessness? 
vide Weiss in Texte u. Unters., Bd. 9, s. 37 jf.]. If irviKrhv stood 
originally in the text, and was afterwards omitted, this would have 
implied gross interference with the text. If it was originally absent, 
and then inserted with the intention of giving what was thought 
to be a correct interpretation of afyia, this would scarcely have been 
called interpolation. However, Wellhausen s supposition that in 
the case that al/j.a means " shedding of blood " n-viKT&v may be 
original (but not if it means " partaking of blood," as he supposes) 
seems scarcely possible ; for it is incredible that any one should 
have set together in this fashion the abominations of idolatry, 
murder, fornication, and eating things strangled. 

a It is here assumed that these words are interpolated. That 
this was probably so vide infra. 


before him Hilgenfeld 1 have answered in the affir 
mative, in opposition to all other scholars. What 
support, then, can be found for the usual interpreta 
tion (prohibition of meats and of fornication), if 
TTVIKTOV does not belong to the original text ? Nothing 
certainly in the context of the Acts whether one 
considers only chapter xv. or the whole book nor in 
the epistles of St. Paul. Moreover, the united testi 
mony of the exegesis of the ancient Western Fathers 
is opposed to this interpretation. So far as I can see, 
the conception that the Decree originally included 
prohibition of meats can be based only on the follow 
ing considerations : 

(1) Upon the exegesis of the Eastern Fathers, but 
not until St. Clement and Origen ; 

(2) On passages in very ancient documents (e.g. 
The Revelation), in which the eating of flesh offered 
to idols appears as something that is altogether 
abominable ; 

(3) On the consideration that as eating is referred 
to in the word eiScoXodurov, it may also be understood 
in the case of al/ma ; 

(4) Upon the consideration that it would seem 
superfluous to insist upon plain and obvious moral 
commandments, and that the Decree must there 
fore have dealt with more special precepts ; 

(5) Upon the consideration that it is more probable 
that ceremonial ordinances should have been trans 
formed in course of tradition into general ethical 
commandments than the opposite case. 

1 Ztschr./.wii*. Theol., 1890, B. C25 /. ; 1899, B. 138/. ; Act* 
App. Grace et Latine, 1899. 


Of these five arguments the first has no weight, 
because the exegesis of the Eastern Fathers begins 
after the time that TTVIKTOV had found its way into 
the text. Neither is the second to the point ; for the 
Decree in either form forbids iropvevarai KOI (payeiv 
etu>\69vra (Revelation). The question is only what 
range of meaning " aTreyecrQcu el$u>\o6vTU>v " is in 
tended to have in the Decree (taking part in sacri 
ficial feasts may be meant ; but partaking of any 
flesh that was used in sacrifice may also be under 
stood) ; and this cannot be decided from the wording 
alone, but only from the context. The third argu 
ment is likewise without force ; for Tropveia has 
nothing to do with eating, neither therefore need 
oil/ma be so interpreted. It cannot be allowed that it 
is more natural to translate aTre^eaOai TOV CU/ACCTO? 
by the words to abstain from partaking of blood," 
than by the words " to abstain from murder." 11 1 When 
at/Act stands by itself, or side by side with Idolatry or 
Fornication, it is rather to be understood as " murder," 
unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, vide 
Lev. xvii. 4 : XoyierOr ja-eTai TO? avQpunrco cupa, Deut. 
xvii. 8 : eav aSvvaTya-fl airo <rov ptj/J-a ev Kpiirei ava 
[j.ecrov ai/J.a ou/Aaro? /cat ava /zeTOi> Kptcris Kpia-ews, 
Sirach xxxiv. 25 : aproy eTriSeojaevcav ^u>rj TTTW^WV, o 
avTtjv avBpcoTros ai]u.aT<av, St. Matt, xxiii. 

1 1 Thess. iv. 3 : dir^xeo-^a &*?> TTJS iropveiat, 1 Thess. v. 22 : airt> 
fiSovs iravijpov d-n^eydai, 1 Pet. ii. 11 : a.irl Xfada.i dirk T&V 
ewv iiri.Qi fj.iCjv, 1 Tim. iv. 3 : avt-xtadai. ppwfj.a.Tuv. At the third 
place in which the Decree appears in the Acts (xxi. 25) dWxe<70ai 
is replaced by <j>v\d<r<Teo-6ai. In the N.T. (f>v\d.cra-e(r6ai is never found 
in combination with prohibitions concerning meats (though it does 
occur in combination with TrXeove^-a in St. Luke xii. 15). 


30 : Koii wi o] ev TU> OU/JLUTL Twv TrpochtjTu/v. 1 There 
thus remain only the two last arguments general 
considerations whose validity shall be straightway 

On the other hand, in favour of the interpretation 
of the Apostolic Decree as giving moral precepts, we 
have the following arguments : 2 

(1) In the whole of St. Luke s book, where it deals 
with the Gentile Christian controversy, there is no 
other reference to the question of prohibited meats, 
but only to questions of capital importance namely, 
to Circumcision and the Mosaic Law as a whole. It is 
most strange that in a single passage, and that a 
passage so important, St. Luke should suddenly in 
troduce rules concerning meats without making any 
further remark, or giving any reason for their appear 
ance. Fundamental ethical directions, on the other 
hand, do not suffer from this difficulty. 3 

1 This use of the word is also found in the profane writers (vide 
Resch, p. 42). We need no examples to prove that alfj.a, when 
placed side by side with Idolatry and Fornication, as a rule means 
"shedding of blood." 

1 I omit the arguments in favour of this interpretation which 
may be derived from the Pauline epistles, although, after all, there 
in no reason for this forbearance. 

* St. Peter s vision in chapter x. (the sheet with the unclean 
animals) ought not to be adduced here. But even if it is thought 
necessary to take notice of this instance, it will be found that it 
does not favour the view that chapter xv. deals with regulat ions con 
cerning meats. The import of chapter x. is that these regulations 
were an especially characteristic element of the Law of the Old 
Testament from which St. Peter was to shake himself free. How, 
then, could St. Luke have related, without turning a hair, that re 
gulations concerning meats were nevertheless imposed upon Gentile 
Christians ? 


(2) The combination of prohibition of meats and 
fornication why this selection ? is a detail that no 
one has yet been able to explain satisfactorily. 1 On 
the other hand, the combination of Idolatry, Murder, 
and Fornification is quite intelligible, and can be 
instanced from the ethical catechisms of contemporary 

(3) If the commandments of the Decree prohibited 
meats they undoubtedly formed part of the Jewish 
Law ; but we read just beforehand (xv. 19 /".) that 
nothing of the Jewish Law was to be imposed upon 
the Gentile Christians, seeing that this Law still 
continued in force and in practice among the Jews ; 
accordingly (if the commands of the Decree are inter 
preted as forbidding certain meats) a discrepancy, not 
easy to be removed, arises between " /u.t] Trapevo^Xetv 
TO?? cnro TWV eOvwv eTTKTTpefpovcriv eirt TOV Qeov " (and 
fjitjSev Tr\eov eTriTi6e<r9ai /3dpo$J and this " onre- 
^eaOai. 1 On the other hand, though the moral in 
junctions were also Mosaic commandments, still they 
would have been generally regarded as command 
ments of the universal Moral Law ; for the conscience 
of Judaism had at that time already advanced as far 
as this. 

(4) It is difficult to understand why it is that just 

1 I have emphasised this point also in my earlier article (p. 19) : 
" It only remains for us to admit that we cannot explain the object 
and the selection here. We do not know whether we ought to give 
vopveia a quite general meaning, or whether we must understand 
it in its more special significance ; we cannot tell why just these 
four commands have been selected out of the abundance of legal 
ordinances ; more particularly our attitude towards the combination 
of prohibition of meats with iropveia. is one of total ignorance." 


these points (prohibition of meats !) are described as 
absolutely essential (ruvra TO. eVaVfy/ce?), and how it 
could be regarded as a necessary condition of the eu 
jrpd(T(reii> of Christians that they should observe them 
(f S)v SiaTypovvre? eavrov? ev Trpd^ere). 1 On the con 
trary, there is here no difficulty if the Decree deals 
with moral precepts ; these are, in fact, the necessary 
presupposition of eu irpd(T(reii>. 

(5) The meaning of the word " eiSuiXoOurov " is to 
be derived from the first passage in which the Decree 
appears (xv. 20). Here, however, we read " aTre^ecrOai 
TWV a\i<ryr]/ui.d.T(i)v TWV eiw\(i)v." Accordingly, eiStaXo- 
OVTOV does not specially refer to the sacrificial flesh 
that was on sale in the markets, nor indeed even 
exclusively to the flesh of the sacrificial feasts, but 
simply to Idolatry in general. Participation in the 
idolatrous feasts is especially emphasised, simply 
because this was the crassest form of idolatry. 2 

(6) The objection that the prohibition of murder 
is in such a document strange and superfluous has 
no force ; 3 for, in the first place, the combination of 
the three elements of the Decree is formal, depend 
ing upon the Decalogue and the " Two Ways " ; 

1 It would be otherwise if we read " on these conditions we will 
enter into fellowship with you " ; but we do not read this, nor ii 
this idea introduced. Nothing at all is said about fellowship and 

1 In the first passage where the Decree occurs in the Acts we 
may assume with some probability that there is absolutely no 
intention to prohibit meats. But the other passages must be 
interpreted by the first, i.e. ddu\60vrov is accordingly to be under 
stood as pars pro toto. 

3 Wellhausen writes : " This for Christian Gentiles seems surely 
too self-evident." 



secondly, more refined as well as gross forms of af/xa 
were very prevalent in Heathendom, and these needed 
to be earnestly combated (exposure and slaying of 
children, abortion, murder of slaves, &c.) ; thirdly, it 
was already a part of Jewish teaching that " murder " 
included every injury to the life of one s neighbour. 
Lastly, let us recollect that St. Peter writes (1 Pet. 
iv. 15) : ju.yj rt? v/u.u>v 7raa"^eT(i) 009 c^oveu?, that we read 
in the First Epistle of St. John (iii. 15) : Tra? 6 /xtcrav 
TOV ae\(pov avrov avOpWTTOKTOvos ecrr/v, that the 
Revelation as if in dependence upon the Apostolic 
Decree proclaims (xxii. 15): ew . . . oi Tropvoi 
KOI oi (povets KOI oi ei(i)\d\a.Tpai, and that St. 
James writes, even in reference to Christians (iv. 2) : 
(bovevere KOI faXovre. Moreover, Irenaeus expressly 
says that when heathens were converted it was neces 
sary to teach them the most elementary moral pre 
cepts. Indeed, seeing that at the Apostolic epoch 
conversions were often perhaps as a rule ecstatic 
in character, i.e. wrought " by the Spirit," it was 
doubly necessary to insist most strongly upon the 
great general principles of morality, especially in 
cases where the authority of the Mosaic Law was 
not felt. It is therefore far from being strange 
that these ethical commandments should occur in 
the context of the Apostolic Decree ; they are rather 
proved to be necessary and very much to the point. 
These three ordinances against Idolatry, Murder, and 
Fornication are intended to exclude the whole sphere 
of non-moral conduct. 

(7) Resch quite rightly points out that the exist 
ence of an authoritative law against partaking oJ 


blood is not to be found in the most ancient Chris 
tian documents earlier than the Epistle from Lyons 
and Vienne, and that there is absolutely no evidence 
in primitive times for the prohibition of sacrificial 
flesh sold in the markets. The prohibition in the 
Epistle from Lyons is not based upon the Apostolic 
Decree indeed we know from Irenaeus that in that 
part of the world the Apostolic Decree was at that 
time regarded as a code of ethical precepts. But 
the polemic against eiSwXoOurov was, as a rule, a 
polemic against participation in idolatrous sacrificial 
feasts. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists 
know nothing of regulations concerning meats bind 
ing upon Christians. If it is otherwise with the (fiayetv 
eiSwXoOura of the Revelation, and with the i(a\66urov 
of the Didache (vi. 3) and this cannot be proved no 
reference is at any rate made to the Apostolic Decree. 

(8) The whole Western Church understood the 
Apostolic Decree as an ethical rule, and even Fathers 
(like Tertullian 1 ) who already recognised the prohibition 
of blood and of things strangled as binding upon 
Christians, so understood it. 

From these considerations, as it seems to me, it 
follows that St. Luke (who did not write TTVIKTOV at 
all) understood the three clauses a-Ke-^ea-Qai rcov O\UT- 
yq/j.dTu>v Ttav eiScaXcov (etScoXoOvruiv) /ecu T>/? Tropvelas 
Kal rov cu/ictTOf as an abstract of an ethical catechism, 
and that he intended his readers so to understand 

1 Tertullian when mentioning the prohibition of blood does not 
appeal to the Decree (Apol. 9 ; De Monog. 5 ; De Jejun. 4) ; neither 
does he appeal to the Decree in support of abstaining from flesh 
offered to idols, but to Revelation and 1 Corinthians (De Spect. 13 ; 
De Corona 10 ; De Praesc. 33 ; De Jejun. 15). 


them. If this is accepted, then everything in the 
Decree and in the narrative at once becomes consistent 
and clear. We also see clearly that it was not neces 
sary for St. Paul to mention these stipulations in the 
Epistle to the Galatians, and that in spite of the 
silence of this epistle they may very well be historical. 
Moreover, we now see clearly how the false inter 
pretation arose. 1 In the course of the second century, 
but quite independently of the Apostolic Decree or 
any other decree, the Jewish prejudice against partaking 
of blood (like much else from the Old Testament in 
spite of freedom from the Law) crept into the Church. 
Then it was that early indeed, very early TTVIKTOV 
was added to af^a in the margin of the Decree, 2 in 
order to give the prejudice against the partaking of 
blood the sanction of a commandment. This TTVIKTOV 
transformed the whole Decree ! (The transformation 
could scarcely have been carried out if the words KOI 
o<ra fJLt] OeXere cavrois yivea-Qai erepa) /u.rj iroielv had 
been original ; it is therefore probable [not certain] 
that they are an ancient interpolation which was in 
tended to fix the character of the Decree as a summary 
of moral precepts.) This could the more easily happen 
since the brevity of the Decree made its meaning not 
quite clear, and since a simple ethical catechism in a 
document like this may have seemed superfluous to a 
later generation. But it was at first only in the East 
and very slowly that TTVIKTOV and the new inter - 

1 Further details will be found in Resch, s. 151-170, to whose 
discussion of this point I expressly refer. 

2 The earliest direct testimony to this word is found in Clement 
of Alexandria and Origen, but the consensus of almost all the 
Uncials throws it back much further. 


pretation of the Decree spread from Alexandria and 
gained general recognition. 1 In the West it was 
not until the time of Augustine that, under Greek 
influence, the false interpretation replaced the true. 

If this conception of Acts xv. is correct, then we 
can close whole libraries of commentaries and investi 
gations as documents of the history of a gigantic 
error ! What has not been written concerning the 
Apostolic Decree as prohibiting meats concerning 
the relation of Gal. ii. and Acts xv. on the assump 
tion that Acts xv. deals with the question of prohibited 
meats concerning Jewish and Gentile Christianity 
concerning the " commandments of the Covenant with 
Noah " and concerning the historical worthlessness of 
the Acts of the Apostles ! The scribe who first wrote 
the little word TTI IKTOV opposite af/xa, on the margin 
of his exemplar, created a Flood which has for almost 
two thousand years swamped the correct interpreta 
tion of the whole passage ! The joy that the truth 
has been at last discerned is mingled with sorrow and 
vexation over labour that has been unspeakably great 
and utterly useless ! 

If the interpretation which we have here demon 
strated is correct, then according to Acts xv. the only 
question in debate was this whether Gentiles who 
wished to become brother Christians were to be 
circumcised and subjected to the yoke of the Mosaic 

1 The consensus of all the Uncials (except D) in support of an 
interpolation is a new and strong proof that this consensus offers 
no guarantee that the text is genuine, and that it points to an 
Alexandrian recension. The importance of Codex D supported, 
to be sure, by all the Western authorities is here brought into 
great prominence I 


Law. This question was answered in the negative ; 
indeed, even St. James declared that the burden of 
the Law was not to be placed upon their shoulders, 
but that they must simply observe the great moral 
precepts. They were therewith recognised as Chris 
tians ; but nothing is said in the Decree regarding 
the practical attitude which the Jewish Christians 
intended to adopt towards them in the future. 
Nothing, however, is said about this in Galatians. 
Though the words of that epistle : " e/xo< oi ^o/eovrre? 
ovfiev TrpcxraveOevTo" and " Sepias eScoKav e/mol /ecu 
BajOz/a/3a KOivwvla?, "iva )]/uiiy ei$ ra eOvq, avTol 8e ei? T>;J> 
Tremro/xj/f," as well as " aXX ovSe T/rof . . . tjvayKa.a Qri 
7repiTju.r]Orjvai" do not contain verbal confirmation of 
the record of the Acts ; yet no one can any longer main 
tain that the Acts gives at this point a representation 
which conflicts with the account given by St. Paul an 
account that has evidently a distinct personal colour 
ing and reference. We have here two entirely in 
dependent reports (one by St. Paul, the other by 
a man who was equally interested in Jerusalem and 
Antioch), accounts which can quite well be reconciled 
with each other, and which both of them show that 
the result arrived at by the Council was simply a 
theoretical recognition of the Gentiles, together with 
only an unsatisfying and an unsatisfactory determina 
tion to keep the peace. 1 Nevertheless, the advance was 

1 The scene in Antiocb between St. Peter and St. Paul is now, 
even after what the Acts tells us, not unintelligible. If we are 
obliged to regard the Decree as prohibiting meats, the scene would 
be difficult to explain ; for such regulations could only have been 
enjoined in order to make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Chris 
tians to have fellowship with one another and to eat together. 


of course tremendous : strict Jewish Christians now 
recognised that Gentiles by birth could be Christians 
without circumcision and the observance of the Law. 
The Antiochean source is accordingly free from 
objection also in this point, and St. Luke in follow 
ing this source has trusted to a good authority, nor 
has he told us anything that he could not have told 
us as a companion of St. Paul. But critics have 
always accounted Acts xv. as their chief support for 
the hypothesis that the Acts could not have been 
composed by St. Luke. This support is now, I think 
I may assume, withdrawn. Perhaps I am not too 
bold in hoping that they will draw therefrom the 
logical conclusions. 



(1) Jerusalem, not some town in Galilee, is the seat 
of the Primitive Community, the centre and, so to 
speak, the Forum of the Christian Movement (Acts 
passim Gal. ii. &c.). 

(2) Christian communities were also in existence 
outside Jerusalem, and especially in Judaea, at a very 
early date; there was a time when Christendom was 
described as " the Churches of Judaea " either a parte 

fortiori or in the literal sense (Acts ix. 31 : rj e/c/cA^crm 
/ca$ oXrjs r>79 loi/oa/ay, Acts xi. 1 : oi aTroaroXoi KOI 
ol a$e\<po} oi ovre? Kara rtjv lovSaiav, xi. 29 : oi 
KdToiKovvTes ev Tfl Iof(Wa o.8e\(poi) 1 Thess. ii. 14 ; 
Gal. i. 22). 

(3) The Christian communities are called both at 
KK\tjcrlai (Acts and Pauline epistles, vv. 11.) and / 

1 The comparison of the second half of the history of St. Paul 
(including Acts xv.), according to the record of the Acts and of 
St. Paul himself, though it is still by no means superfluous labour, 
may here be left out of consideration. We are here practically 
concerned only with Acts i.-xiv., and our purpose is to show to 
what extent these chapters also receive confirmation from the 
epistles of St. Paul. 



KK\tj<ria (Acts ix. 31 ; xii. 1 ; Gal. i. 13) ; they there 
fore form in some fashion a united body. 

(4) The Christians are called both ot ayioi and 01 
aSe\(f)oi (Acts and Pauline epistles passim). 1 

(5) The Churches of .Jerusalem and Judaea had to 
endure persecutions at the hands of their compatriots, 
indeed these persecutions were a characteristic cir 
cumstance of their existence (Acts passim, 1 Thess. 
ii. 14). 

(6) These Churches held fast to the observance 
of the Law (Acts xv. 1 /. ; xxi. 20 ; Gal. ii. 12), 
and for this very reason St. Paul, even towards the 
end of his career, was not quite sure of the attitude 
of the Church of Jerusalem towards himself (Rom. 
xv. 31). 

(7) At the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and 
therefore at the head of these Churches, stood the 
Twelve," who are also called the Apostles " (Acts 
i. 13; vi. 2, &c. ; Gal. i. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 5); the 
character of their primacy is defined neither in the 
Acts nor by St. Paul. 

(8) Beside the twelve Apostles there were also other 

1 St. Paul never uses the name " Christian " ; but the Acts also 
avoids it, and only informs us that it was used (xi. 26 : xP r !f iaT ^ ffai 
= vocari) by outsiders (first in Antioch), therefore also by King 
Agrippa (xxvi. 28). Thus here also there is complete agreement. It 
is otherwise in 1 Pet. \Y. 16 and in Ignatius (</. Tacitus and Pliny). 
The fact that ol naOijraL is so frequent in the Acts, while this desig 
nation is entirely absent from the Pauline epistles, is by no means 
a proof of a later date for the Acts ; on the contrary, it is surprising 
that the designation should be wanting in the epistles. The reason 
can only be that St. Paul purposely avoided the term as liable 
to misconstruction, just as he never speaks of our Lord as "The 
Master." " St. John " did not share in this feeling. 


apostles ; St. Barnabas in particular was an apostle 
(Acts xiv. 4, 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6). 1 

(9) St. Peter and St. John stand out from the 
number of the Twelve Apostles (Acts iii. \ff. ; viii. 
14 jf. ; Gal. ii. 9). 

(10) The real head, however, is St. Peter (Acts ii. 
37, &c. ; Gal. i. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5). 

(11) He is also commissioned to be the head of the 
Mission (among the Jews), and as such makes journeys 
(Acts vv. 11.; Gal. ii. 78; Gal. ii. 11). 

1 We can discern both in the Acts and in the writings of St. Paul 
the twofold character of the twelve Apostles as "the Twelve" 
they were the leaders, but they also possessed the apostolic 
character which of itself had nothing to do with the number twelve 
(the term apostle is applied in the Acts to an individual or to in 
dividuals in pairs) ; but the process of limitation of the conception 
of apostleship to " the Twelve " is much further advanced with St. 
Luke than with St. Paul. St. Paul and St. Barnabas alone appear 
as apostles side by side with the Twelve (xiv. 4, 14). In the second 
half of the book the word apostle is entirely wanting probably 
accidentally, or because there was no occasion to use it. In the 
first half the use is in general quite unambiguous, i.e. the Twelve 
Apostles are the ruling body. Yet it must be pointed out that the 
wider use of the word, as well as the term " ol 5c65e/ca " (without 
dir6<TTo\oi), is found only in the Antiochean source, while on the 
other hand it is only in the source B that the phrases " Peter and 
the rest of the Apostles" (ii. 37), or "Peter and the Apostles," are 
to be found. 

Moreover, it is only in the Antiochean source that 01 irpea-pvTepoi 
are found side by side with ol ciTrioToAot in Jerusalem (xv. 2, 4, 6, 
22, 23 ; xvi. 4), while previously in xi. 30 (thus in the same source) 
they are introduced without the Apostles. It is probable that we 
have here a very accurate representation of events. When St. Paul 
and St. Barnabas came to Jerusalem from Antioch the Herodian 
persecution had begun and the Apostles had taken flight. In their 
place St. James, at the head of a college of presbyters, had taken 
over the leadership of the Church of Jerusalem (xii. 17), and this 
arrangement established itself (xx. 18) : the rule of " the Twelve" 


(12) The Brethren of the Lord form a group side 
by side with the Apostles (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5). 

(13) St. James stands at their head, and is, like 
St. Peter and St. John, a " pillar " indeed, from 
a definite point of time he occupies in Jerusalem a 
position of monarchical authority (Acts xii 17; xxi. 
18; xv. 13 jf.; 1 Co:-, xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9; Gal. ii. 12). 

(14) St. Barnal as appears as the most important of 
the missionaries to the Gentiles together with St. Paul 
(and set upon an equality with him), and he is governed 
by the same principles of missionary work as St. Paul 
(Acts ix. 27; xi. 22 ff. ; xiii.-xv. ; Gal. ii. I./.; 
1 Cor. ix. 6). 

was thus never restored. It is, however, probable that individual 
members of the Twelve, who were now only apostles, returned 
afterwards to Jerusalem on temporary visits. On such occasions 
they would naturally take a part, and a very prominent part, in the 
government of the Church in that city. So it was when St. Paul 
came to Jerusalem for the so-called Apostolic Council. St. Peter 
and St. John were present in Jerusalem, and strengthened by their 
authority the rule of St. James and the presbyters. We do not 
know whether any other members of the Twelve, and if so how 
many, were then in Jerusalem. If these plain and obvious deduc 
tions from the record of the Acts answer to facts, then Wellhausen s 
hypothesis (s. 5/.) that the presbytery of the Church of Jerusalem 
was coincident with " the Twelve," and that the phrase ol driWoXoi 
Kal ol irpcffpfrrepoi is therefore a hybrid, is not only very daring but 
also quite inadmissible. Again, Wellhausen makes a mistake when 
he adds : " The sharp-sighted reviser, to whom we owe the recension 
of D, took offence at the hybrid and corrected it in Acts xv." In 
none of the six places where the phrase occurs has the revisor 
corrected it. The mistake has probably arisen because in D the 
article " ol" is wanting before " irptafivrtpoi." in xv. 6. Wellhausen 
evidently regarded the note " om. ol" as referring also to 
" *7><7/3i/repoi." Besides, even if ol wpffffivrepoi. had been omitted 
in only one place out of six, this would have had no significance, 
and must have been simply accidental. 


(15) According to the Acts (iv. 36 ff.} this Barnabas 
was a member of the Primitive Community ; accord 
ing to Gal. ii. 11 jf. he feels more strongly than 
St. Paul his dependence upon the authority of the 
Primitive Community, especially of St. Peter and 
St. James ; from this it is allowable to conclude that 
he belonged to the Primitive Community. 

(16) In the Acts St. Mark appears in especially 
close connection with St. Barnabas (xv. 37,^1); from 
Col. iv. 10 we learn that he was his " ai/e\J/-ioy." 

(17) According to Acts xv. 40 ff. Silas, a member 
of the Primitive Community, was a companion of 
St. Paul, who as a missionary was in a position of 
almost equal authority with that Apostle ; while the 
position of Timothy (xvi. 1 Jf^ was more subordi 
nate ; according to 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. 
i. 19, Silas stands before Timothy. 

(18) In the Acts, even in the earliest period of the 
history of the Church of Jerusalem, the number of 
members is very considerable (ii. 41 ; iv. 4) ; according 
to 1 Cor. xv. 6, before the appearances of our Lord 
to St. James and to " the Apostles " (in a body) there 
were already more than five hundred brethren in one 
place (thus in Jerusalem). 

(19) According to the Acts and St. Paul, reception 
Cito the community was consummated by an act of 
baptism ; but according to the Acts, Baptism does 
not appear as one of the specific functions of the 
apostolic office ; these were rather preaching and the 
imparting of the Spirit (viii. 14 ff.} ; here 1 Cor. 
i. 14, 17, forms a striking parallel. 

(20) Baptism was in the name, of Jesus (Acts ii. 38, 


&c. ; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 13 /, 
17, &c.). 

(21) Baptism had for its object the a(pe<n? ru>i> 
v (Acts ii. 38; Rom. vi. \ Jf. ; Col. ii. 12/). 

(22) The K\d(ris aprov is the social and religious 
bond within the community (Acts ii. 42, 46 ; xx. 7, 
11; 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 17 ff. 24). 

(23) Ev^api<rria and *Xacn? aprov belong together 
(Acts xxvii. 35 : Xa/3a;v aprov ev^apio-Tr](Tev . . . KCU 
ArAa<ra? "jp^aro ecrOietv, 1 Cor. xi 23y. : eAa/3ei/ aprov 
Kal vxapi(rr) i<Ta? e/cAa<rei> . . . ocraKi? eav ecr& ere). 

(24) The " Doctrine of the Apostles " is the funda 
mental principle of the community and its bond of 
unity (Acts ii. 42) ; we may here compare 1 Cor. 
xv. 1-3. 

(25) In Acts ii. 42, next to the Doctrine of the 
Apostles and before the /cAao-i? aprou, stands the 
" KOtvwvta " ; for this conception, which was also of 
great importance in St. Paul s teaching, compare 
Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 16, 18, 20; 2 Cor. 1, 7; 
vi. 14; viii. 4, 23; xiii. 13 ; Phil. i. 5 ; ii.l; iii. 10; 
Philem. 17. 

(26) In Acts ii. 42 " the prayers " are introduced as 
the fourth chief article of the summary there given ; 
also in the Pauline epistles the basis and the sphere 
of the Christian life are summed up in these four 
articles (together with Baptism). 

(27) From the speeches of St. Peter we see that the 
most important subjects of the Apostolic teaching 
were the Crucifixion and Death of our Lord : further, 
the fact that He did not abide in the grave but rose 
again and manifested Himself ou iravri. ru> \aw oAAa 


fj-apTvcnv TrpOKexeipoTOvq/mevoi? (Acts x. 41 ; cf. xiii. 
31) all these things happened as had been fore 
told in Holy Scripture ; just the subjects which St. 
Paul specifies as fulfilments of prophecy, and to 
which he himself bears witness that they formed the 
content of the Apostolic teaching (1 Cor. xv. 1 11 : 
Trapeu)Ka a KOI Trape\a(3ov . . . Kara ray ypad>d$ 
. . . e tTC ovv eyca e tre eKeivoi, OI/TO>? Krjpv<r<Toiu.ev KOI 
ourcas eTTicrreucraTe). In the Acts (including the 
speeches of St. Paul) the theoretical and practical 
content of Christian doctrine is not unfrequently 
summed up in the term " r/ o<5o? " ; in 1 Cor. iv. 17 
St. Paul speaks of ras 6ovs //tou ra? ev X^O-TO), /caOco? 
Travra^ou ev Tracr?; e/c/cX^cr/a SiSdcnth). 

(28) In the Acts the power to work miracles and 
signs appears as part of the equipment of an apostle 
and missionary (Acts ii. 43 ; iii. 12 ff. ; viii. 6 ff. ; 
xiv. 3, &c.); but also in 2 Cor. xii. 11 /. we read: 
ovSev v<TTept]<ra rwv \nrep\la.v cnroa-ToXcov, el KCU ovSev 
iju.i. TO, /mev <rt]iu.eia rov aTroaroAou Kareipyda-Ot] ev 
vju.iv . . . cr>7//,e/ot9 re KCU Tepacri KOI vva.ju.e(riv, cf. 
Rom. xv. 18 f, : ov yap roX/xj/cra) TI XaXe^ &v ou 
KaTeiydcrctTO X^oitrro? Si e/uov eis inraKotjv eOvwv, \6yu> 
KOU epyu>, ev 8vvd/u.ei artj/J.etO)v KCU TepctTU>v, ev Svvdjmei 
Trveu/maTOS dyiov. With the special instance of the 
display of Apostolic power in Acts v. 1 ff. compare 
1 Cor. v. 1 /. 

(29) In Acts xx. 3 (&c.) St. Paul says: eyu> eijju 

cf. Phil. iii. 5 : e/c yevovs Icroaj/X . . . 
Efipalwv, and 2 Cor. xi. 22. 

(30) In Acts xxvi. 5 St. Paul says : Kara rrjv 

alpecriv r^? ly/uereyoa? OpqvKela? 


3>apio-ato$, cf. Phil. iii. 5 f. : Kara VO/J.QV 

. . . /caret SiKaioarvvrjv Trjv ev vo/j.u> yevo^evo 1 ; 

Also the words TrpoeKOTrrov ev " lovScua-fjua v-jrep TTO\\OV<: 

<rvvt]\iKu>Ta9 KT\. (Gal. i. 14) are illustrated by Acts 

vii. 58 and ix. 2. 

(31) In Acts ix. 1 /., &c., we are informed 
that St. Paul originally persecuted the Christians ; 
compare with this Gal. i. 13 /. ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; 
Phil. iii. 6. 

(32) In the Acts St. Paul appears as an apostle on 
a level with St. Peter (and the rest), cf. Gal. ii. 7 /. ; 
2 Cor. xi. 23. 

(33) According to the Acts St. Paul s conversion 
was brought about near Damascus by a revelation of 
our Lord, cf. Gal. i. 12, 17, and 1 Cor. xv. 8. 

(34) According to the Acts St. Paul fled secretly 
from Damascus (he was let down from the city wal] 
ev a-TTupiSi) ; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 32 /. 

(35) According to the Acts St. Paul then went to 
Jerusalem but no time is given (ix. 26), St. Luke 
seems to mean that he went at once and saw the 
Apostles there ; cf. Gal. i. 18 f. (after three years ; 
he saw St. Peter and St. James). With Acts xxiii. 
11 (w? Sie/jLapTupw TO. Trepi efjLov ei f lepova-aXij/u.) we 
may compare Rom. xv. 19 (coo-re /xe tnro Iepov<ra\r]/j. 
KOI KVK\(I) . . . TreTr\tjp(i)Kvat TO evayyeXiov). 

(36) In the Acts St. Paul appears as the missionary 
who laboured most in the Mission ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 10 ; 
2 Cor. xi. 23. 

(37) In Acts xiii. xiv. we have a homogeneous 
narrative of the ministry and of the sufferings of 
St. Paul in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra; 


cf. 2 Tim. iii. 11 : TO?? SuayfJioi?, TOI? TraOijfjLacriv, oid 
fj.oi e-yeVero ev Ajmo>e/a, ev I/cowa), ey AJ<TT|OOi?. 

(38) According to Acts xiv. 23, St. Paul established 
presbyters in the churches of Lycaonia ; compare with 
these the TrpoiarraiJievoi of 1 Thess. \. 12 f. (the name 
01 irpecrfiuTepoi is probably only accidentally absent 
from the genuine Pauline epistles). 

(39) In Acts xiii. 38 /., St. Paul says : ta TOVTOV 
[through the Risen Christ] VJULIV a<p<Tis a/j-apri^v 

\-\ r x i * f ^ /5 

/caTocyyeAAercu [/ecu] airo iravTutv o)i> OVK tjdvi tjutjre ev 
/o/jia) M<tji/cre(? SiKCtiwOyvai, ev TOVTW TTCC? 6 TTHTTevwv 
SiKaiovrai. This is a summary of the great principle 
of St. Paul s doctrine as it is taught in his own epistles 
but from the standpoint of St. Luke. 

The agreement which in these numerous instances 
exists between the Acts (chaps, i. xiv.) and the Pauline 
epistles, although the latter are only incidental writ 
ings belonging to the later years of the Apostle, is 
so extensive and so detailed as to exclude all wild 
hypotheses concerning those passages of the Acts that 
are without attestation in those epistles. The Acts 
is an historical work that has nothing in common with 
the later " Acts of the Apostles, 11 and is not to be 
judged by the standard nor criticised by the method 
which suits these. If we divide the remainder of 
Acts i. xiv. into two parts, the first containing the 
passages, the statements, and notices which have no 
Pauline attestation, the second containing those which 
are distinctly contradicted by St. Paul, we shall find 
that the latter is almost a vanishing quantity. Only 
in making our division we must dispense with that 
self-complacent method whereby from our own really 


great and at present insuperable ignorance of events, 
institutions, and other details of that period, a rope is 
made to hang the author of the Acts. The axiom : 
" What we do not know or cannot prove cannot be 
right " still exercises a tyrannical sway in the sphere 
of history, though we have learned by experience that 
better understanding of known authorities, and the 
discovery of new ones, have again and again proved 
how mistaken it is to form hasty judgments con 
cerning primitive Christian tradition. Hence in the 
case of an historical work like the Acts, our attitude 
towards passages containing elements that are strange 
and extraordinary should be one of critical caution. 
This does not mean that we are to forget that some 
passages have been worked up, and that the author is 
superstitious but who was not superstitious in those 
days ! 

Finally, the character of the vocabulary of the 
Acts is also just what we should have expected in 
one who was a companion and friend, but not a 
dependent disciple of St. Paul. I have already dealt 
with this question in " Luke the Physician " (pp. 19^".). 
The gospel of St. Luke and the genuine Pauline 
epistles have in common 83 words which are not found 
elsewhere in the gospels ; of these 32 also occur in 
the Acts; but in addition to these there are about 
Co words which only occur in the Acts and the genuine 
Pauline epistles. These words common to St. Paul 
and St. Luke, about 148 in number, well deserve a 
more detailed investigation (fide the careful collec 
tion in Plummer s " Commentary on St. Luke," 189C, 
pp. liv. ss.). 



From yet another point of view it is possible to 
establish the affinity between the Lukan writings and 
the Pauline epistles. Hawkins (Horce Synopticce, 1899, 
pp. 1 ff.} has drawn up lists of words and phrases 
characteristic of the three synoptists 86 for St. 
Matthew, 37 for St. Mark, 140 for St. Luke. Of 
the 86 characteristic of St. Matthew 46 are also 
used by St. Paul (loc. cit. p. 155), of the 37 Markan 
words St. Paul has 19, but of the 140 Lukan words 
St. Paul has 94. We may then speak of a certain 
kinship in style and vocabulary between St. Luke and 
St. Paul it is not, however, very significant ; the 
epistles which stand nearest to the Lukan writings 
are those to the Colossians and Ephesians. Only the 
most general and most important characteristics of 
the teaching of St. Paul and the success of his preach 
ing had really made deep impression upon St. Luke. 
For the rest he was not spiritually nor intellectually 
dependent, still less slavishly dependent, upon the 
Apostle. He remained himself! The work of St. 
Paul decided and influenced him far more strongly 
than the personality of the Jew, whose character in 
all its intensive grandeur had not fully disclosed 
itself to him. And yet it was St. Luke that con 
tinued with St. Paul, indeed was the only one to con 
tinue with him ! And how can we find fault with 
him, a genuine Hellene, for not fully comprehending 
the genius of the Apostle. 




In the Introduction we have already stated that 
St. Luke could not form his type of narrative for the 
Acts upon the type of his gospel as it was created 
by St. Mark and developed by himself. The subject- 
matter was too different ; so that St. Luke was obliged 
to form for himself a new type. Yet in one point a 
certain likeness prevails between the plans of the 
two works. In his gospel St. Luke has arranged his 
material under the headings : Jesus in Galilee ; Jesus 
on His way from Galilee through Samaria, &c., to 
Jerusalem ; Jesus in Jerusalem. In the Acts the 
plan is analogous : the Gospel in Jerusalem ; the 
Gospel on its way from Jerusalem through Samaria, 
&c., into the Gentile World and to Rome ; the Gospel 
in Rome. In both cases the progression within the 
" KaOetys " is the chief consideration, and forms the 
thread of the narrative. 

Whilst the reader of the prologue to the gospel 
receives exact information as to what he may expect 
in the book (<5n/y>/cni> irepi TCOV 7re7r\t]po(bopt]/ 
ev rjiJ.iv TrpayjmaTwv according to the tradition of 
the eye-witnesses of our Lord), no such summary 
of the contents of the work is given in the Acts of 
the Apostles (on the other hand, the contents of the 
Gospel are yet again summarised in Acts i. 1 f,). 


We must read as far as verse 8, where we already 
find ourselves in the narrative itself, in order to learn 
St. Luke^s aim in his second book. But that this 
verse gives the programme of the book is only to be 
discovered from the book itself, and not from the 
form of the verse. It is the same with the con 
clusion : the gospel comes to a solemn close, after 
which one expects nothing more. But it is not at 
once clear that the conclusion of the Acts is really 
a conclusion indeed, judging from i. 8 (eeoy ea-^arov 
T>7? 7>7?)> one might expect a further continuation. 
From this difference between the two books we are 
scarcely justified in concluding that St. Luke did not 
give the finishing touches to the Acts this is indeed 
probable on other grounds , but we must rather recog 
nise that the theme which St. Luke set himself in the 
Acts was of a kind that it was difficult to summarise 
in a short argument. In the Introduction we have 
already defined this theme as follows : " The power 
of the Spirit of Jesus in the Apostles, manifested in 
expansion of the mission even to Rome, in the Con 
version of the Gentile world, and in the hardening of 
the heart of the Jewish nation." We at once see 
that this theme was too unwieldly to be framed 
within a short argument. It was probably for this 
reason that St. Luke abstained from giving such an 
argument, though the theme of the book was quite 
distinctly formed in his mind and kept well in view 
throughout the work. 




The high note of Christian Joy was, so far as we 
know, first struck by St. Paul. He experienced, and 
could proclaim as an experience, both " the joy in 
the Lord " and " the joy in the Holy Spirit. 11 How 
much he regarded joy as the necessary and constant 
condition of the Christian is shown in many passages 
of his writings, but above all in 2 Cor. i. 24 : avvepyoi 
e&fjLev r7? \apu<i vfjLwv. We cannot here go into the 
question of the importance and the peculiar signifi 
cance which this conception of joy has reached in the 
Johannine literature. 

In the ancient evangelic tradition, and in St. Mark 
and St. Matthew, not very much of this joy is to be 
traced. Apart from the references to the stern joy 
because of persecutions (St. Matt. v. 12 ; St. Luke vi. 
23), to the joy over the penitent (St. Matt, xviii. 13 ; 
St. Luke xv. 5, 7, 10), and to the joy at the reception 
of the Word (St. Mark iv. 16; St. Matt. xiii. 20, 
44<; St. Luke viii. 13) yet the latter is certainly 
very important we can scarcely find another passage 
of the kind. 

It is otherwise with St. Luke. In his expression 
of joy he speaks in unison with St. Paul and St. John. 
Indeed in the New Testament it is in his writings 
alone that we find the word evcfipocrvvrj as well as the 
more usual words \apa and yaipeiv evtypaivecrOai is 
more frequent with him than in all the other writings 


of the New Testament taken together, and various 
expressions for " joy " run through both his works. 

The gospel begins with "joy" (joy of many over the 
birth of St. John the Baptist, i. 14 ; " Behold, I bring 
you tidings of great joy ; for to you is born this 
day the Saviour," ii. 10), and with " joy " it closes (the 
disciples are aTrio-Tovvres airo TW -^apus, xxiv. 41 ; 
and they return to Jerusalem with great joy, xxiv. 52). 
St. John leaps for joy in his mother s womb (i. 44), 
Elizabeth rejoices eVJ TW 6e(p TU> crcoTtjpi /JLOV (i. 47), 
and our Lord rejoices in the Spirit in His Thanks 
giving to the Father (x. 21). The seventy disciples 
return from their mission with joy (x. 17), and are 
taught in what they should rejoice and in what not 
(x. 20). The people rejoice over all the glorious 
actions of our Lord (xiii. 17), and the multitude of 
the disciples rejoice with cries of praise at His entry 
into Jerusalem (xix. 37). Zacchaeus rejoices because 
he is allowed to entertain our Lord in his house 
(xix. 6), and the whole second half of the parable 
of the Prodigal Son is filled with joy (xv. 23, 24, 

OQ OO\ 1 
XV) OX/J. 

It is the same in the Acts. In his first great 
speech St. Peter quotes the joyous words (ii. 26, 28) : 

1 From these passages, and from xii. 19 and xvi. 19, one sees that 
St. Luke likes to connect, indeed almost exclusively connects, 
fixppalveffddi. with the partaking of food. Just in the same way we 
read in Acts xiv. 17 that God fills men s hearts with rpo<J>T) Kal 
fiKppoffLtvrj (see also Acts vii. 41), and in Acts ii. 46: p-freKa^avov 
Tpo<t>rjs tv a.ya\\idffti. St. Luke evidently had a feeling for the joy 
that springs from the common festal meal, and regarded it also in 
a religious light. These social meals tv &ya\\ia.<rti /col &<pf\oTr)T 
Aco/>5iaj replace the ancient sacrificial feasts. 


Sia TOVTO tjv(f)pdv9i] /J.OV r/ KapSla Kcit ^yaXXtdo aTO 17 
y\uxrcra /u.oo . . . TT^qpuxreis fte inppO(rvi>t)s /xera TOV 
-rrpoa-wTTou <rov here we have an obvious parallel to 
the Magnificat of Elizabeth, which also stands near 
the beginning of the gospel. St. Peter s Sermon 
results in the foundation of the Church, which hence 
forth eats its bread ei/ ayaXXidaei (ii. 46). The 
disciples come with joy from the Jewish tribunal (v. 
41) ; great joy prevails among the converts of Samaria 
(viii. 8) ; the baptized eunuch goes on his way rejoic 
ing (viii. 39) ; St. Barnabas sees with joy the work of 
the mission to the Gentiles in Antioch (xi. 29) ; the 
Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch are glad because St. Paul 
teaches that the word of Salvation was intended for 
them (xiii. 48), and they are filled with great joy and 
with the Holy Spirit (xiii. 52). St. Paul holds up as 
the most striking instance of God s gracious Providence 
the fact that He fills our hearts with food and glad 
ness (xiv. 17). The reports given by St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas of their success in Asia Minor fill the 
brethren in Phoenicia and Samaria with great joy 
(xv. 3), and the converted jailor in Philippi 
<raro TravoiKel TreTTiVTevKOOs TOO Oero (xvi. 34). 

This joyous characteristic of the book, though 
there is in it no want also of tears, is not only 
important for our knowledge of St. Luke, but also 
in conjunction with the testimony of St. Paul and 
St. John (also of the First Epistle of St. Peter) for 
the accurate knowledge of the temperament of the 
Greek Christians of his times. Their sacred feasts 
were feasts of joy, and those who were leaders in the 
churches bestirred themselves to create and to pre- 


serve among Christians the atmosphere of joy. Even if 
this implied some forcing of the note, and even if the 
purpose was stronger than the result though this 
cannot be proved still the purpose must be specially 

To Joy belongs Peace. In St. Paul (also in St. 
John) they stand close together (vide Gal. v. 22 ; 
Rom. xv. 13) ; God is the God of Peace (Rom. xv. 33 ; 
xvi. 20; 1 Cor. xiv. 33; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Phil. iv. 9; 
1 Thess. v. 23 ; and the formularies of greeting) ; 
there is not only a peace of Christ (Col. iii. 15), but 
Christ is our peace (Ephes. ii. 14), &c. In St. Mark 
and St. Matthew nothing of the kind is to be found 
on the contrary, we read in St. Matthew (x. 34): OVK 
jjXOov fiaXeiv elpijvqv. It is otherwise with St. Luke. 
The word occurs no less than twenty-one times in his 
works. His gospel begins with the proclamation of 
peace " as well as of joy (i. 79 ; ii. 14, 29), and the 
greeting of peace (xxiv. 36) stands near its close. 
Though St. Luke has also taken up into his work 
the harsh-sounding saying against peace (xii. 51), 
because he could not conscientiously pass it by, still 
Christ is for him the bringer of peace (vide xix. 
38), and so we read in the Acts (x. 36) : TOV \oyov 
a7re(TTei\v TO?? vlois Io-pa>]\ evayy e\i6/JLevo$ elp^vtjv 
$ia Iqcrov Xoicrrou. In this respect also St. Luke has 
imprinted upon his work an homogeneous character. 

Finally, there is yet another word belonging to 
this sphere of feeling and forming a bond between 
St. Paul, St. John, and St. Luke I mean Trapprjcrla. 
Though it is wanting in St. Luke s gospel, yet in the 
Acts it occurs both at the beginning and at the close 


in most important passages ; in St. Paul it is found 
seven times, in St. John thirteen times. The Acts 
uses the word in ii. 29; iv. 13, 29, 31 (the two last 
instances are important), and the book closes with 
the record that in Rome St. Paul preached and taught 
concerning the Lord Christ jmera Trda-qs Trapptjcrtus 
aK(a\vTw? (with Truer/;? here compare iv. 29 and Phil. i. 
20). Xo^oa, eipi]vrj ) 7rappt]<ria, and in addition cram/D 
and a-o)rt]pia the spiritual sphere characterised by 
these words is common to the Pauline, Johannine, 
and Lukan writings. With the ultimate origin of 
these terms as denoting religious conceptions we are 
not sufficiently acquainted ; but the question of the 
origin of the terminology is of secondary importance. 
The terminology could only be accepted when men 
had the thing itself, and the thing itself was not 
imported but was a fact of Christian experience. 



When one speaks of the development of Christianity 
from the religion of a Jewish sect to a universal 
religion, one at once thinks of St. Paul, and rightly so. 
He not only laboured more than the rest, but he also 
realised the opposition between the religion of the 
Old Testament and the Gospel in its profundity. 

But one must also recollect the limitations which 
must be drawn here. St. Paul was not the first to 


begin the mission to the Gentiles the real origi 
nators were anonymous men of Cyprus and Cyrene ; 
he allowed that the Law remained in force for the 
Jewish Christians, provided only that they did not be 
lieve that righteousness was gained by keeping it ; and, 
what is more, he taught that a special role was reserved 
for the nation of Israel, that the promises given to it 
would still be fulfilled, and that the time would come 
when " all Israel will be saved." 11 In this sense he 
remained a Jewish Christian. Lastly, though his 
demonstration of universalism and of the abrogation 
of the Law is most profound, it is also most difficult 
to comprehend. Scarcely any one understood it, and 
it did not make its way into the thought of the 
Churches. St. Paul always regarded the question as 
a problem a problem capable indeed of solution 
yet still to be solved ; and so long as a man regards 
important principles as being still problems, he will 
not be able to commend his thought to others. Only 
trivial truths are successful. A thought in which 
there is still something to be thought out has no 
prospect of being widely accepted. 

Thus the teaching and the procedure of St. Paul 
left much to be desired. Ought a Jewish Christendom 
to be left in continuous existence side by side with 
Universal Christendom ? Must not its simple exist 
ence exert a perplexing and disturbing influence ? 
Could a special Hope for Israel Kara crdpica be re 
cognised side by side with the general Hope of all 
Christians ? Must it not appear a gigantic paradox 
that for this nation, in spite of the Divine sentence 
of hardening of heart, there should yet be reserved a 


special promise in the Kingdom of God ? Finally 
was it possible that the appalling contradiction which 
lies in the Pauline criticism of the Law could have 
been allowed to stand ? Could one believe at one 
and the same time that the Law in its verbal mean 
ing was Divine and holy, but that the Gentile Chris 
tian who kept it denied Christ ? ! 

Three points were here in question the Laze, the 
judgment to be passed upon the Jewish nation, and 
the property in the Old Testament as a whole. On 
all these points the attitude which St. Paul had 
adopted seemed unsatisfactory. Things must be 
carried further. The only satisfactory element was 
the fait accompli universalism, and freedom from 
the yoke of the Law. But the necessary consequences 
did not seem to have been yet drawn by St. Paul. 

In regard to the Law the Gentile Christians 
could not arrive at complete peace of mind until 
the allegorical method of interpretation became de 
cisive. Men could not believe that they were really 
freed from the Law until it was recognised that 
the import of the Law was the same as that of the 
Gospel, and that the ceremonial ordinances could all 
be spiritually interpreted. 

In respect to the Jezcish people, there could be no 
settlement of mind until it was recognised that the 
nation was not only now subject to the sentence of 
hardening, but that it had never possessed any pro 
mises for all the promises of the Old Testament 
referred to the new nation and that it therefore 
had absolutely nothing more to expect from God in 
the future. 


Lastly, in regard to the Old Testament, there 
could be no satisfaction until absolutely every 
kind of claim that the Jews might advance to 
its possession was disproved, and it was clearly 
shown that the book belonged exclusively to the 

In the writings of the Apologists, and in the Epistle 
of Barnabas, these points of view have been already 
reached. Between them and the Doctrine of St. 
Paul as the starting-point, we can distinguish stages 
of development. In regard to the question of the 
nation of Israel, these stages have been briefly sketched 
above on pp. xxv. s. What station in this process of 
development may now be assigned to the writings of 
St. Luke ? 

Let us at once say one tliat is still very ancient, one 
that by no means coincides with that of St. Paul, yet 
is of equal standing with it in point of age, and 
is more archaistic than that of " St. John," to say 
nothing of " Barnabas " and the Apologists. 

As for the Law, he has an extraordinarily high 
opinion of its importance for the Jew by birth. From 
the first leaf of his gospel he shows this. The Jew s 
pious observance of the Law is witli him a thing 
worthy of the highest honour (cf. Elizabeth and 
Zacharias, &c.). People who were to be found daily 
in the Temple are to him worthy of reverence, and it 
appears to him most praiseworthy that the members 
of the early Church were so conscientious in their 
visits thither. It has also his full approval that 
St. Paul behaved himself as a pious Jew, both in 
Jerusalem and elsewhere. The Law according to St. 


Luke maintains its authority among Jews, whether 
Christian or non-Christian. This he makes St. James 
say expressly. No one ought to offend against the 
Temple and the Law ; St. Paul also had never done 
this (Acts xxv. 8). It appears to have been other 
wise in the case of St. Stephen, but St. Luke evidently 
takes the speech which he had not drafted him 
self in such a way that its point lies in the announce 
ment of the future downfall of the Temple. This was 
a thing that St. Luke could not pass over, because it 
had been prophesied by our Lord Himself. As for 
St. Stephen s reference to a change in the customs 
delivered by Moses, St. Luke understood this to mean 
that now, seeing that the Jews had hardened their 
hearts, Salvation would pass over to those who were 
not bound to observe the Law ; for with those who 
were Gentiles by birth the Law and Circumcision 
were not in force as St. Luke had learned from St. 
Paul. Yet it was still clearly recognised by St. Luke 
that this view and the ultimate recognition of Gentile 
freedom from the Law were arrived at by a process 
of historical development which he seeks to investigate 
and to describe to his readers (ride supra, pp. xxvi. Jf.). 
But though St. Luke acknowledges that the Law was 
not in force for Gentiles by birth, he does not by 
any means therefore imply that the Law possessed 
no saving power. It is true that he not only appro 
priated the Pauline doctrine of Universalism, but also 
the Pauline doctrine of Justification. Yet in sharp 
contrast with St. Paul he regarded the latter doctrine 
as only complementary , at least for Jews by birth. 
The Gentiles must trust in Justification by Faith 


alone, 1 but for the Jews this doctrine was only neces 
sary in so far as they fell short of the fulfilment of 
the Law, and therefore, beside and apart from the Law, 
still required the forgiveness of sins in order to be 
quite righteous (xiii. 38, 39). On the whole St. Luke, 
though himself a Gentile, stands nearer than St. Paul 
to the Law we may therefore also call his attitude 
more primitive ; for it is certainly not to be regarded 
as reactionary, but as the reflexion of the historical 
conditions of a time when the Jewish Christians still 
played a very important part, and when the Gentile 
Christians had not yet lost their reverence for the 
religio antiqua, and had not yet arrived at a distinct 
self-consciousness of their own in the face of Judaism. 
Though St. Luke may even give an allegorical inter 
pretation of a passage in the Law, he still regards Law, 
Temple, and Vow as what they really were, and he values 
them as such very highly. 

This position of his becomes still more clear as we 
consider his attitude towards the Jewish nation. He 
took over from St. Paul the theory of the predeter 
mined hardening of the heart of the Jewish nation, 
and he seems here to have gone further than St. 
Paul, since he does not repeat the Pauline thought 
that still at last TTCI? IcrpaqX crwOtja-eTai. But upon 
closer consideration it will be seen that his judgment 
of the Jewish people is not sterner than that of 
St. Paul. In the first place, the disparaging " 01 
lovSaioi " of " St. John " is found very rarely in his 
writings, though it is already coming into use with 

1 Yet also this may be disputed with reference to x. 35 (iv travrl 
(popovpfvos airrbv Kal tpya6n(i>os 8iKaioffvvT)v dfKrfa aiirif iffriv). 


St. Paul. In spite of the theory of " final harden 
ing," St. Luke does not regard the Jews as a massa 
proditionis et perditionis, but differentiates between 
them according to their natural and spiritual quali 
ties (vide supra, pp. xxiii.j^.). Again, passages like St. 
Luke i. 72-79 ; ii. 31, 32, &c., show that he conceived 
of the Gospel as the " consolation of Israel," and that 
he recognised in it a twofold function : it both ful 
filled the promises given to the people of Abraham /caret 
a-dpita, and it was a light to the Gentiles. 1 If St. Luke 
held this view of the Gospel it necessarily follows that 
a thought like that of Rom. xi. 25 ff. could not have 
been so very far from him, or that he at least 
cherished similar thoughts. According to him, St. 
Paul contended for the Resurrection as for a hope that 
was common to both Jews and Christians. Above 
all, we must once again (vide supra, pp. 50 /.) point 
out that " o Xao? " (6 Xao? TOV 6eov) is for St. Luke 
the Jewish nation. Before his eyes Christendom stands 
in two camps still, indeed, separate from one another 
first the Jewish people, that is, the pious Israelites wlio 
had accepted Jesus as the I^ord ; secondly, the eOvq, who 
had been afterwards called to the standard? This 
Gentile Christian author is still very retiring, and his 
self-consciousness as a Gentile Christian is still un 
developed. He is certain that he and his fellow 

1 The canticles in St. Luke i. ii. are, in vocabulary, style, and 
thought, the property of St. Luke. If, however, it is thought that 
he received them from elsewhere, we can prove from other passages 
in the Lukan writings that these conceptions are Lukan. 

1 St. Luke nowhere regards Jewish and Gentile Christians as 
bound together in such unity as is pictured in the Epistle to tho 
Ephesians. Their separation from one another does not disturb him. 


Gentiles have been freed from the observance of the 
Law ; he knows that the great majority of the Jewish 
nation have fallen under the sentence of final har 
dening " ; but he feels that only the more respect is 
due to those Jews who, while observing the Law, 
believed in Christ. They are " the nation " for whom, 
in the first place, all the promises have been and are 
being fulfilled, and their observaiio kgis is for him an 
object of admiration. 

This attitude of St. Luke towards the Law and 
the Jewish nation x reflects very early conceptions, 
and expresses historical relations which existed at the 
time of St. Paul, but can scarcely have continued 
much later. Hitherto this has not been clearly 
recognised, rather the standpoint of St. Luke has 
been obscured by all kinds of distorting theories. 
These theories all proceed a priori from the assump 
tion that St. Luke s point of view can only be regarded 
as a stage in the development of post-Pauline doc 
trine. Hence we hear of compromises between Jewish 
and Gentile Christianity which may be discerned in 
these writings, or of a Gentile Christianity which had 
" already " absorbed Jewish Christianity and so modi 
fied itself, &c. But the real situation is much simpler. 
In these writings we must recognise a position parallel 
with that of St. Paul, just such a position as must 
have been taken up by a Christian Greek of the 
earliest period ; one who was more humane but also 

1 After what has been already said there is no need of a special 
discussion of St. Luke s attitude towards the Old Testament. It is 
now self-evident that he never doubted that this book had been 
given to and belonged to the Jewish nation. In that the Gentiles 
are called, they take a share in the inheritance of the nation. 


more superficial than St. Paul one who, with ah 1 his 
universalism, could yet feel a respect for the Jewish Law 
as well as for the Jewish religion, and more especially 
could regard devout Jewish Christians with an esteem 
and reverence such as the Apostle, who had recognised 
that Christ was the end of the Law, could no longer 
bring himself to feel. All that remained to St. Paul 
for his own nation he casts into the future (a^ot? ov 
TO TrXrwwfJLo. TWV 0va>i> etVA.00), while St. Luke, who 
had never experienced the terror of the Law, stands 
full of reverence before the antlqua religio. 

Gentile Christendom advanced in self-consciousness 
far beyond the standpoint of St. Luke, indeed even 
of " St. John." J In the interests of its own self- 
preservation it allegorised the Law, declaring that the 
verbal sense was a deception of the devil, or was a 
penal and disciplinary ordinance devoid of blessing 
and promise ; it delivered the Jewish nation to Satan 
and the daemons, and claimed the Old Testament 
with all the promises and with all the patriarchs, 
men of God, and prophets exclusively for itself. 2 But 
this attitude did not remain final in the Church; 
rather since the end of the second century it experi 
enced forcible modification. The great conflict with 
Gnosticism and Marcionitism compelled the Church 
to attend to the verbal sense of the Old Testament, 

1 For " St. John " the statement : i] <rom;pio in TUV 
tffrlv still held good. 

* This development was assisted by the enduring and increasing 
enmity of the Jews, by the numerical weakness of the Jewish 
Christians, and by the destruction of the Temple, the capital city, 
and the Jewish people as a nation. 



and to restore to it its rightful position. If the verbal 
sense were to be finally given up by the Church, the 
consequence that would be drawn by her dangerous 
opponents namely, the rejection of the whole book 
was too obvious. But when the Church again re 
quired of its members that they should attend to the 
verbal sense, indeed even regard it as divine, and 
seeing that they could not appropriate to themselves 
the difficult teaching of St. Paul, St. Lukes way of 
thinking came again to their aid. In fact, we see 
that the great early Fathers of the Church above 
all, Irenaeus in the long chapters of Book iii., where 
he follows the Acts walk in the very footsteps of 
St. Luke; with them the religion of the Old Testa 
ment is holy and good, the Law even in its verbal 
sense, and although it was a legislatio in servitutem, is 
right and good ; the saints of the Old Testament are 
worthy of reverence, &c. Of course the high esteem 
in which St. Luke held the Jewish Christians as the 
ancient people of God never returned the time for 
this had passed away ; but in all other directions it 
was St. Luke, the Hellene of the first ages, who 
marked out the paths by which the theologians and 
historians of the Church approached the problem 
of the relation between Universalism and the Old 



The following remarks are not intended actually to 
commend the earliest date for the composition of the 


Acts, but to warn critics against a too hasty closing 
of the chronological question. It is well known how 
quickly hypotheses that are questionable and bur 
dened with the greatest difficulties such, for example, 
as the hypothesis that Rom. xvi. is an epistle, or part 
of an epistle, to Ephesus have arrived at even un 
questioned recognition. 

In my Chronologic der altchristl. Litt., I. (1897), 
s. 246-250, 718, 1 have produced the reasons in favour 
of the hypothesis that the Acts was not composed 
before the year A.D. 78. They reduce themselves to 
three in number all the rest are not of great weight, 
to say nothing of being convincing : (1) The prologue 
of St. Luke s gospel seems to demand that at least 
half a century should have elapsed since the death of 
Jesus ; (2) the gospel with its detailed prophecies 
concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
Temple seems to presuppose that the catastrophe of 
the year A.D. 70 had already occurred moreover, the 
omission by St. Luke of the warning : o avayiyvuxrKGw 
voeirw (St. Mark xiii. 14 ; St. Matt. xxiv. 15) suggests 
that the fulfilment itself already lay before men^s 
eyes ; (3) the legends concerning the appearances of 
the Risen Christ and the Ascension are difficult to 
explain, on the assumption that they arose before the 
destruction of Jerusalem. 

Of these three arguments the second and third are 
weighty, while the first upon closer consideration is 
only of quite slight importance. Unfortunately we 
know absolutely nothing, nor can we form a con 
jecture as to how many, even at the earliest period, 
wrote concerning the " irfjr\t]po(poptjneva ev tjfj.iv Trody- 


/zara," nor when this literary activity began. Why 
must we suppose that the wording of the prologue 
necessitates the lapse of a period of fifty years ? 
Would not about thirty-three years be sufficient ? 
Just as to-day in reference to the restoration of the 
German Empire one could write : " Since many 
have undertaken to describe this restoration /ca$o)9 
irapeSotrav ol air apxys ai/TOirTai yei>6ju.ei>oi, &c.," 
so also an author even at the beginning of the seventh 
decade of the first century could have written con 
cerning the history of Jesus. And even if yevd/mevoi 
is pressed, no difficulty arises ; for even after the lapse 
of only thirty years the great majority of the eye 
witnesses of events are no longer alive. We must 
therefore dispense with the argument derived from 
the prologue. There remain only the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the above-mentioned legends ; for 
the arguments that are derived from the conception 
one forms of the inward development of things are 
quite unsafe, and therefore inadmissible, so long as the 
chronological question remains unsolved. But if it 
is pointed out that the idea that St. Luke wrote, so 
to say, under the eyes of St. Paul is hampered with 
psychological difficulties, it must be of course admitted 
that this is undeniable ; but seeing that we can form 
no accurate conception of the relations between these 
two great men, it is a precarious proceeding to appeal 
to such difficulties. 1 

1 If stress is laid upon the difficulties involved in the hypothesis 
that St. Luke wrote as a personal acquaintance of St. Paul, and 
even during the lifetime of the Apostle but not under his eyes it 
is only necessary to point, in the first place, to the memorabilia 
concerning great men of antiquity, which were confessedly written 


What, then, is to be said in favour of the Acts 
(and therefore also of the gospel) having been already 
written at the beginning of the seventh decade of the 
first century. There are, in my opinion, the following 
very weighty considerations : 

(1) The great difficulty presented by the conclusion 
of the Acts is undoubtedly removed in the simplest 
way if St. Luke wrote his work soon after the two 
years which St. Paul spent in Rome, and thus while 
the Apostle was still alive. 1 We can also explain 
away this difficulty on other hypotheses (vide supra, 
pp. 38^!) for it must be explained ! but none of 
them are quite satisfactory or very illuminating. 

(2) The discrepancy of the passage, Acts xx. 25 : 
" Ye will see my face no more " (cf. xx. 38), with 
the genuine information given in 2 Timothy is thus 

by their disciples or acquaintances. Does any one deny that Xeno- 
phon was personally acquainted with Socrates because his Memora 
bilia is such a defective work and betrays so little of the spirit of 
the great thinker ? Or does any one deny such acquaintance to 
Plato because he has so drawn the portrait of Socrates with such 
freedom in his dialogues ? Or must we refuse to ascribe the Life 
of Constantine to Eusebius because it contains much that is of 
questionable authority concerning the emperor? Need I even 
mention the case of Sulpicius Severus and Martin of Tours, or of 
Athanasius and Anthony ? 

1 I do see see that in any passage of the book St. Peter and St. 
Paul are so treated that we may presume that they were already 
dead ; rather the contrary. In xi. 24 we read of St. Barnabas : Sri 
Jj v O.VTIP dyaObs Kal irX-i^s irvevfj.arot aylov. It seems, therefore, to be 
presupposed that he was already dead. But even this inference is 
unsafe; compare xxi. 9: $t\liriry ^<rav Ouyartpes Ttaaaptt. It has 
been remarked above on p. 41 that the Acts could not have been 
written at the close of the ditria spoken of in the last verse; but 
the book could very well have been composed after these two years 
had elapsed, and before the death of the Apostle in Rome. 


explained. St. Luke allows St. Paul to say, or St. 
Paul said, something about his future which after 
wards proved to be incorrect. St. Luke, when he 
wrote, could not as yet have known that it was an 
incorrect prophecy. 

(3) In the Acts the Jews never appear as oppressed 
and persecuted, but rather as the persecutors. This 
seems to me a very weighty argument ! How comes 
it that the terrible events which befell this nation 
since the second half of the seventh decade, and which 
also affected the Diaspora, have left absolutely no 
trace of themselves in this historical work ? The 
Jews both in Jerusalem and in the Diaspora are 
the beati possidentes! How remarkable it is that a 
vivacious story-teller like St. Luke should remain so 
" objective " that, simply because he is dealing with 
the times before A.D. 66, he gives no hint of the tre 
mendous change that came with the year A.D. 70 ! 
Though in xi. 28 he expressly notices that the pro 
phecy of the famine was actually fulfilled in the reign 
of Claudius ; yet this historian nowhere says that the 
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, 
and though at the close of his work he casts in the 
teeth of the Jews the prophecy of Isaiah concerning 
" the hardening of their hearts," yet he does not 
think of referring to the terrible judgment that had 
actually come upon the nation. 

(4) But even in the case of the gospel, under the 
assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem had 
already taken place, by no means everything is quite 
clear. With the prophecy of this destruction St. 
Luke, like the other synoptists, still combines the 


proclamation of the great Final Catastrophe (xxi. 
25 jf.), of convulsions of the heavenly bodies, and of 
the Coming of the Son of Man (xxi. 27, 28), and brings 
all this to a conclusion with the words (xxi. 32) : 
Aeyco vfjttv OTI ov fj.rj TrapeXOy f] yevea. aurt] ecop av 
yevrjrat ! Are we then to suppose that the destruc 
tion of Jerusalem, which had been followed by none 
of these events, was for the author a thing of the past ? 
The supposition is exceedingly difficult ! Again he 
repeats the direction (xxi. 21) : Tore 01 ev 777 ^lovSaia 
(bewyeTw&av e/? TO. opt] yet the Christians, as is 
well known, did not flee to the mountains, but to 
Pella, and so in later days a special command from 
Heaven was invented in order to explain the discre 
pancy of this conduct with the original command. 
There is also much else in the great eschatological 
discourse that is more easily intelligible if it were 
written before the destruction of Jerusalem than on 
the contrary assumption ; and the omission of 6 ava- 
yiyvwa-Kwv voeiToo may be due to the circumstance that 
St. Luke did not intend his work for public reading. 

(5) The fact that no use is made of the Pauline 
epistles in the Acts is easily intelligible about the 
beginning of the seventh decade, it is not so about 
A.D. 80, and the later the date the more unintelligible 
it becomes. 

(6) In his use of the word " Christ," St. Luke is 
even more primitive than St. Paul ; in the Lukan writ 
ings it has not yet become a proper name, but every 
where means " the Messiah " ; the name " Christians " 
(otherwise than in the First Epistle of St. Peter, vide 
supra) is not yet applied by Christians to them selves, and 


the " nomen Christianum " as such is not yet proscribed 
(as it must already have been in the Flavian period). 
There are, besides, certain delicate terminological 
traits which seem to point to a high antiquity, 1 as well 
as the primitive standpoint adopted in the treatment 
of Judaism and Jewish Christianity (vide pp. 281^".). 
These are, so far as I see, the most important 
arguments for the composition of the Acts at the 
beginning of the seventh decade. On the other side 
unless prejudice or " critical intuition," things that 
we, of course, cannot search into, are brought into 
play we have simply the considerations that the 
prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem 
coincides in some remarkable points with what really 
happened, and that the accounts of the appearances 
of the Risen Christ and the legend of the Ascension 
are scarcely intelligible on the assumption that they 
arose before the destruction of Jerusalem. 2 A deci- 

1 Among these traits I reckon the absence of the title " 6 /3a<rt- 
Xerfs " for the emperor (vide supra, p. 36) ; the use of the name " oi 
/j.a6r)Tal " for the Christians (not used even by St. Paul) as the more 
solemn and ceremonious term (vide supra, p. 265) ; the application of 
the designation 6 Xaos [TOV Oeov] exclusively to the Jewish nation, 
not to the Christians (vide supra, pp. 50/.) ; the fact that ira.poi.Kia. and 
wdpotKos have not acquired a technical significance, the as yet 
undeveloped conception of the Church (vide " Luke the Physician," 
pp. 34 /".), and much else. 

2 Here, however, we are ought to forget that in reference to the 
origin of these legends we are destitute of the help of any accom 
panying tradition, and are left simply to considerations of proba 
bility, which at all events are not in favour of an early date. A 
further great difficulty lies outside the Lukan writings, but at once 
announces itself. Is it possible that the Gospel of St. Mark, the 
source of St. Luke, could have been already written about the year 
A,D. 60 this would be the latest date on the assumption of the 
earlier date for St. Luke ? I cannot here enter into this question. 


sion here is difficult. These remarks, which contain 
scarcely anything that is new, though much that has 
not been sufficiently considered, are only intended to 
help a doubt to its just dues. It is not difficult to 
judge on which side lies the greater weight of argu 
ment ; but we must remember that in such cases of 
doubt the more far-reaching are the effects of definite 
decision the greater is the demand for caution. There 
fore, for the present, we must be content to say : 
St. Luke wrote at the time of Titus or in the earlier years 
of Domitian, but perhaps even so early as the beginning 
of the seventh decade ofthejirst century. The political 
rule : Qideta non movere " does not hold good for 
science. She must therefore determine also to submit 
this question to fresh investigation or if convincing 
arguments are wanting *,o leave it open. 


THE truth of the description of the characteristics of 
the Acts of the Apostles which I have given in the 
first pages of these investigations is, I hope, proved. 
The book has now been restored to the position of 
credit which is its rightful due. It is not only taken 
as a whole a genuinely historical work, 1 but even in 
the majority of its details it is trustworthy. Except 
for a few panegyric aberrations in the direction of 
the Primitive Community, it follows no bias that 
distorts its representation of the actual course of 

1 According to von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff , Die griech, Literatur 
des Altertums, s. 188 /., " The Acts of the Apostles has as little inten 
tion of being history as the Res yestce divi Augusti. A record is 
given of "Acts" in which the supernatural mission of a hero was 
revealed ; with a god they would have been aperal. We possess 
the Acts of Heracles graven in stone ; we may compare the 
legends of St. Francis." It seems to me that this piece of criticism 
may serve as a warning against the too hasty subsuming of ancient 
Christian literature under the same category as the general Greek 
literature of the same period. While attending exclusively to the 
points in which the two appear to be similar, the critic shuts his 
eyes to the points in which they differ, and by his demonstration 
of real or supposed analogies obliterates the peculiar characteristics 
of ancient Christian literature. This is not what von Wilamowitz 
has done elsewhere ; cf. his excellent review of the characteristics 
of St. Paul and St. John. Certainly St. Luke, in higher measure 
than these, invites illustration of his work by comparison with the 
contemporary literature ; but by this means we are only brought 
into little closer touch with the objects, the character, and the 
essential value of his work. 



events, and its author had sufficient knowledge to 
justify him in coming forward as an historian. Judged 
from almost every possible standpoint of historical 
criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects 
an extraordinary work ; and its author s courage is 
also extraordinary the courage with which he ap 
proaches the task of describing the complicated history 
of a religious movement still in process of most active 
development. The talent of personal characterisation 
was certainly wanting to the author; miracles and 
supernatural cures so fascinated him that he practi 
cally dispensed himself from all profounder considera 
tion of the inner life of his characters. Neither is 
this to be wondered at. In these workers of miracles 
nothing seemed so great as the very fact that they 
worked miracles, that they possessed this gift, that 
the Divine power had become their own. What 
value in comparison could be assigned to the personal 
qualities of these men, however rich tuoir characters 
might have been ? All these things necessarily paled 
in the light of that tremendous gift ! 

If the results that we have arrived at are correct, 
it will be necessary to revise no small portion of the 
history of the Apostolic Age as it is related by critics 
of to-day. A work like Weizsiicker s " Apostolic 
Age," with its thorough-going depreciation of, indeed 
contempt for, the Acts of the Apostles, will need 
correction in many chapters. Moreover, we now 
learn that St. Paul ought no longer to be judged 
so exclusively by his own works. This has been done 
by critics since Baur with a self-confident exclusive- 
ness such as they are not accustomed to show when 


dealing with the autobiographical notices of other 
heroes especially in letters. For their mistrust of 
the Acts they had, of course, the very best excuse 
that could be given : they possessed no other sources ! 
But even because of this indeed still more because 
of this in dealing with the epistles of the Apostle 
as the sole authorities for his history, they ought to 
have treated these with more caution and with more 
elasticity of judgment, and above all, with a greater 
sense of proportion and with more impartiality in 
regard to all the traits which appear therein. Here 
the work of Weinel on St. Paul forms an honourable 
exception ; it would be difficult to name a work in 
which these necessary critical qualities are more bril 
liantly displayed. But even his representation would 
have gained if he had placed more dependence upon 
the Acts. St. Paul was not so " Pauline " if I may 
venture the word as his biographers would have us 
think. This has been already shown by Weinel, but 
we may and must go a step further. The Apostle 
will lose nothing thereby : the man who did the most 
to deliver the faith in God and in Christ from the 
fetters of Judaism, who recognised the Gospel as a 
new stage in the development of religion, superior to 
the earlier Revelation, and who conceived it both in 
his thought and his life as a religion of the Spirit 
and of Freedom he has nothing to fear from any cor 
rection of the impression men have formed of him. 
And even if he had, criticism would have no right 
to trouble itself about such consequences. 

The process of crystallisation of the primitive 
Christian tradition in the Acts, where it deals with 


the appearances of the Crucified and the events which 
immediately followed, lies entirely within the charmed 
circle of a legend whose development was almost in 
comprehensibly speedy. Yet the sacred historian ex 
traordinarily quickly extricates himself from the bonds 
of enchantment. He at first walks upon quaking 
ground, but soon finds firm footing and, thanks to 
his sources and his own personal experience, up to 
the end of his course he never again, or only seldom, 
loses it. Thus in the Acts he has created an historical 
work which upon the whole gives a correct representa 
tion of the actual development of events. But he 
has done much more than this ! In that he has set 
this historical work side by side with his gospel as a 
second and equally important part of one and the 
same work, he laid the foundation both of the New 
Testament and of that reverence for the Apostolic 
side by side with the Evangelic, from which arose the 
conception of Apostolic tradition. It is true that St. 
Peter, and above all St. Paul himself, laid the deepest 
foundation for this reverence. But if these heroes 
had found no historian, it is highly probable that in 
spite of Marcion we should have had no New Testa 
ment ; for in the Catholic Church the combination 
of the isolated Pauline epistles with the Gospel would 
have been an impossibility. Accordingly St. Luke is 
really the creator of the New Testament, and in the 
same sense the creator of the Apostolic, side by side 
with the Evangelic tradition. 

In conclusion, I owe an explanation to Professor 
Blass (lately deceased), and to Professors It am say, 


Weiss, and Zahn. The results at which I have 
arrived not only approach very nearly to, but are 
often coincident with, the results of their research. 
The conclusion will be at once drawn that in my 
case as in theirs there is little prospect of claiming 
the attention of critics, and compelling them to re 
consider their position. So it may actually happen 
to be. But the cases present points of difference. 
These scholars are influenced partly by prepossessions 
in reference to the Canon of the New Testament, 
partly by the conviction that miracles really happened, 
partly by both these prejudices. This attitude of 
theirs has most unfortunately rendered their research 
and their demonstrations subject to suspicion, even in 
those points that have nothing to do with the afore 
said prepossessions. In the history of the criticism 
of the New Testament an Apologetic with a dogmatic 
bias has always promoted radicalism, or has at least 
made critics deaf to proofs. This is just the effect 
that it has had upon its opponents in the case of 
the Acts. They were led to imagine that every 
thing must be cleared away, and thus together with 
what is worthless they cast from them traditions 
that are certainly historical and information that is 
most valuable. To make matters worse, Blass went 
on to insult the work that had been hitherto done 
by the critical school, though at the same time he 
betrayed a very slight conception of deeper historical 
questions ; again Ramsay set his clear eye, his powers 
of picturesque description, and his great learning, 
at the service of a method which seeks to extract 
from the sources more than is really in them; while 


Zahn cannot efface the impression that he conducts 
historical investigations like a counsel for the defence 
a tout prix. Moreover, all these scholars, and those 
allied with them, showed little sense of the debt we 
owe to Baur and his followers, of the deepening of 
our insight into historical questions, and the broaden 
ing of our outlook that have been brought about by 
their labours. Thus it is that the criticism of the 
Acts of the Apostles has arrived at the position in 
which it now stands. This book may perhaps suc 
ceed in effecting some alteration, and in bringing the 
opposing camps nearer to one another. Perhaps it 
will at last be seen that criticism, after its long and 
painful exertions, must return to the occupation of 
positions that it has deserted. These exertions were 
certainly not fruitless, but they sought to facilitate 
the solution of difficult historical problems by extend 
ing the periods of time traditionally assigned to the 
processes of historical development, by the rejection 
of some traditional authorities, and by the analysis of 
others into various sources a method well known, 
very popular, and quite justifiable in every branch of 
historical criticism whenever there is absolutely no 
other way out of a difficulty ! In this case, however, 
the witness of the source in most points, and those 
essential points, stands the test of reliability, and on 
this assumption the historical problems admit of a 
solution which does no violence to probability. 

A Catalogue 


Williams & Norgate s 


Divisions of the Catalogue 


I. THEOLOGY . . . . . . . . 2 




LANEOUS . . ... . . .55 


For Full List and Particulars of Educational Works, 
see separate Catalogue. 

Williams & Norgate 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, W.C. 

I. Theology and Religion. 


IRevv Series. 

A Series of Translations by which the best results of recent Theological 
Investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference to doctrinal 
considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at the truth, are 
placed -within reach of English readers. 

Vols. I. -XII. were edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., 
Oriel Professor of Interpretation in the University of Oxford, Canon 
of Rochester; and the late Rev. A. B. Bruce, D. D., Professor of 
Apologetics, Free Church College, Glasgow. 

Vol. XIII. was edited by Rev. Allan Menzies, D. D., Professor of 
Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University, St Andrews. 

Vols. XV., XVII., XVIII., and XXI.-XXVI. are edited by Rev. 
W. D. Morrison, M.A., LL.D. 

Vols. XIX. and XX. are edited by Rev. James Moffatt, B.D. , 
D. D., St Andrews. 

The Price of Vols. I.-XXI. is IDS. 6d. ; 
Vol. XXII. and after, los. 6d. net. 

Subscribers to the Series obtain three volumes for 22S. 6d. carriage 
free, payable before publication, which only applies to the current year s 
volumes, viz., XXV.-XXVIL, which are as follows. 

Vol. XXV. Almost Ready. los. 6d. net. 

Professor of New Testament Dogmatics and Ethics at Tubingen. 

Vol. XXVI. 

ings in their Historical Connections. By Otto Pfleiderer, of 
Berlin. Vol. II. The Historical Books. 

The third volume completing this subscription has not yet been decided 

The following Volumes are published at los. 6d. net. 

Vol. XXII. Ready. los. 6d. net. 

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY, Vol. I. : Its Writings and 
Teachings in their Historical Connections. By Otto Pfleiderer, 
Professor of Practical Theology in the University of Berlin. 

Vol. XXIII. Ready. los. 6d. net. 

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Carl Cornill, Professor 
of Old Testament Theology at the University of Breslau. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Vol. XXIV. Ready. IDS. 6d. net. 

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. By Hans von Schubert, Pro 
fessor of Church History at Kiel. Translated from the Second 
German Edition. By arrangement with the author, an Additional 
Chapter has been added on "Religious Movements in England in 
the Nineteenth Century," by Miss Alice Gardner, Lecturer and 
Associate of Newnham College, Cambridge. 

The following- Volumes are published at IDS. 6d. per Volume, 
excepting Vols. XIX. and XX. 

Vol. XXI. 

ST. PAUL: The Man and his Work. By Prof. H. Weinel of 
the University of Jena. Translated by Rev. G. A. Bienemann, 
M.A. Edited by Rev. W. D. Morrison, M.A., LL.D. 

" Prof. Weinel may be described as the Dean Farrar of Germany ; the work 
is quite equal to Dean Farrar s work on the same subject. In some respects it 
is better." Daily News. 

Vols. XIX. and XX. 

Harnack, Ordinary Professor of Church History in the University, 
and Fellow of the Royal Academy of the Sciences, Berlin. 
Second, revised and much enlarged edition, 2$s. net. 

Vol. XVIII. 

Ernst von Dobschiitz, D. D., Professor of New Testament Theology 
in the University of Strassburg. Translated by Rev. G. Bremner, 
and edited by the Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. 

" It is only in the very best English work that we meet with the scientific 
thoroughness and all-round competency of which this volume is a good speci 
men ; while such splendid historical veracity and outspokenness would hardly 
be possible in the present or would-be holder of an English theological chair." 
Dr RASHDALL in The Speaker. 

Vol. XVI. 

LIGION OF THE SPIRIT. By the late Auguste Sabatier, 
Professor of the University of Paris, Dean of the Protestant Theo 
logical Faculty. With a Memoir of the Author by Jean Reville, 
Professor in the Protestant Theological Faculty of the University 
of Paris, and a Note by Madame Sabatier. 

"Without any exaggeration, this is to be described as a great book, the 
finest legacy of the author to the Protestant Church of France and to the theo 
logical thought of the age. Written in the logical and lucid style which is 
characteristic o( the best French theology, and excellently translated, it is a 
work which any thoughtful person, whether a professional student or not, 
might read without difficulty." Glasgow Herald. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Vols. XV. and XVII. 

Professor Extraordinary of Modern Church History at the Uni 
versity of Basel. Revised by the Author, and translated by the 
Rev. G. A. Bienemann, M.A. , and edited, with an Introduction, 
by the Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. 

Vol. I. The Rise of the Religion. 

Vol. II. The Development of the Church. 

Dr. Marcus Dods in the British Weekly " We cannot recall any work by 
a foreign theologian which is likely to have a more powerful influence on the 
thought of this country than Wernle s Beginnings of Christianity. It is well 
written and well translated ; it is earnest, clear, and persuasive, and above all 
it is well adapted to catch the large class of thinking men who are at present 
seeking some non-miraculous explanation of Christianity." 

The Earlier Works included in the Library are : 

HISTORY OF DOGMA. By Adolf Harnack, Berlin. Translated 
from the Third German Edition. Edited by the Rev. Prof. A. 
B. Bruce, D.D. 7 vols. (New Series, Vols. II., VII., VIII., IX., 
X., XI., XII.) 8vo, cloth, each loj. 6J. ; half-leather, suitable for 
presentation, 12s. 6d. 

DUCTORY DIVISION : I. Prolegomena to the Study of the History 
of Dogma. II. The Presuppositions of the History of Dogma. 
DIVISION I. The Genesis of Ecclesiastical Dogma, or the 
Genesis of the Catholic Apostolic Dogmatic Theology, and the 
first Scientific Ecclesiastical System of Doctrine. BOOK I. : 
The Preparation. Vol. II. : DIVISION I. BOOK II. :The 
Laying of the Foundation. I. Historical Survey. /. Fixing and 
gradual Secularising of Christianity as a Church. //. Fixing and 
gradual Hellenising of Christianity as a System of Doctrine. Vol. 
III. : DIVISION I. BOOK II. : The Laying of the Fotmdation 
continued. DIVISION II. The Development of Ecclesiastical 
Dogma. BOOK I. : The History of the Development of Dogma as 
the Doctrine of the God-man on the basis of Natural Theology. 

A. Presuppositions of Doctrine of Redemption or Natiiral Theology. 

B. The Doctrine of Redemption in the Person of the God-man in 
its historical development. Vol. IV.: DIVISION II. BOOK I. : 
The History of the Development of Dogma as the Doctrine of the 
God-man on the basis of Natural Theology continued. Vol. V. : 
DIVISION II. BOOK II. : Expansion and Remodelling of Dogma 
into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and Means of Grace on the basis of 
the Church. Vol. VI. : DIVISION II. BOOK II. -. Expansion 
and Remodelling of Dogma into a Doctrine of Sin, Grace, and 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Means of Grace on the basis of the Church continued. Vol. VII. : 
DIVISION II. BOOK III. -. The Threefold Issue of the History of 
Dogma. Full Index. 

"No work on Church history in recent times has had the influence of Prof. 
Harnack s History of Dogma." Times. 

" A book which is admitted to be one of the most important theological works 
of the time." Daily News. 

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? Sixteen Lectures delivered in 
the University of Berlin during the Winter Term, 1899-1900. By 
Adolf Harnack. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. (New 
Series, Vol. XIV.) Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. ; can only be 
supplied when complete set of the New Series is ordered. 

Prof. W. Sanday of Oxford, in the examination of the work, says : "I may 
assume that Harnack s book, which has attracted a good deal of attention in this 
country as in Germany, is by this time well known, and that its merits are 
recognised its fresh and vivid descriptions, its breadth of view and skilful 
selection of points, its frankness, its genuine enthusiasm, its persistent effort to 
get at the living realities of religion." 

"Seldom has a treatise of the sort been at once so suggestive and so 
stimulating. Seldom have the results of so much teaming been brought to bear 
on the religious problems which address themselves to the modern mind." 

" In many respects this is the most notable work of Prof. Harnack. . . . 
These lectures are most remarkable, both for the historical insight they display 
and for their elevation of tone and purpose." Literature. 

A Discussion in Agreement with the View of Luther. By 
W. Herrmann, Dr. Theol., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the 
University of Marburg. Translated from the Second thoroughly 
revised Edition, with Special Annotations by the Author, by J. 
Sandys Stanyon, M.A. (New Series, Vol. IV.) 8vo, cloth. 
IOJ. 6ii. 

" It will be seen from what has been said that this book is a very important 
one. . . . The translation is also exceedingly well done." Critical Review. 

"We trust the book will be widely read, and should advise those who read it 
to do so twice." Primitive Methodist Quarterly. 

" Instinct with genuine religious feeling ; . . . exceedingly interesting and 
suggestive." Glasgow Herald. 

A HISTORY OF THE HEBREWS. By R. Kittel, Ordinary 
Professor of Theology in the University of Breslau. In 2 vols. 
(New Series, Vols. III. and VI.) 8vo, cloth. Each volume, 
IOJ. 6d. 

Vol. I. Sources of Information and History of the Period 
up to the Death of Joshua. Translated by John Taylor, 
D.Lit., M.A. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Vol. II. Sources of Information and History of the 
Period down to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by Hope 
W. Hogg, B.D., and E. B. Speirs, D.D. 

" It is a sober and earnest reconstruction, for which every earnest student of 
the Old Testament should be grateful." Christian World. 

" It will be a happy day for pulpit and pew when a well-thumbed copy of 
the History of the Hebrews is to be found in every manse and parsonage." 
Literary World. 

" It is a work which cannot fail to attract the attention of thoughtful people 
in this country." Pall Mall Gazette. 

Eberhard Nestle, of Maulbronn. Translated from the Second 
Edition, with Corrections and Additions by the Author, by William 
Edie, B.D., and edited, with a Preface, by Allan Menzies, D.D. , 
Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism in the University of St. 
Andrews. (New Series, Vol. XIII.) With eleven reproductions 
of Texts. Demy 8vo, icxr. 6d. ; half-leather, izs. 6d. 

"We have no living scholar more capable of accomplishing the fascinating 
task of preparing a complete introduction on the new and acknowledged prin 
ciples than Prof. Nestle. This book will stand the most rigorous scrutiny ; it 
will surpass the highest expectation." Expository Times. 

"Nothing could be better than Dr. Nestle s account of the materials which 
New Testament textual criticism has to deal with." Spectator. 

"We know of no book of its size which can be recommended more cordially 
to the student, alike for general interest and for the clearness of its arrangement. 
. . . In smoothness of rendering, the translation is one of the best we have 
come across for a considerable time." Manchester Guardian. 

THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By Prof. Carl von Weizsacker. Trans 
lated by James Millar, B.D. 2 vols. (New Series, Vols. I. and 
V.) Demy 8vo, cloth. Each icxr. 6d. 

" Weizsacker is an authority of the very first rank. The present work marks 
an epoch in New Testament criticism. The English reader is fortunate in 
having a masterpiece of this kind rendered accessible to him." Expository 

" . . . No student of theology or of the early history of Christianity can 
afford to leave Weizsacker s great book unread." Manchester Guardian. 

"In every direction in this work we find the mark of the independent 
thinker and investigator . . . this remarkable volume . . . this able and 
learned work. . . ." Christian World. 

" The book itself . . . is of great interest, and the work of the translation 
has been done in a most satisfactory way." Critical Review, 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



ID Series. 

Uniform Price per Volume, 6s. 

THREE CENTURIES. Translated from the Third German 
Edition. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. I2.r. 


TRINE. A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive 
Christianity. Edited by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2nd Edition. 
2 vols. 8vo, cloth. I2J. 


Translated. Edited by the Rev. Dr. S. Davidson. 8vo, cloth. 

the Rev. J. F. Smith. [Vol. I. General Introduction, Yoel, Amos, 
Hosea, and Zakharya 9-11. Vol. II. Yesaya, Obadya, and Mikah. 
Vol. III. Nahfim, Ssephanya, Habaqquq, Zakharya, Yeremya. 
Vol. IV. Hezekiel, Yesaya xl.-lxvi. Vol. V. Haggai, Zakharya, 
Malaki, Jona, Baruc, Daniel, Appendix and Index.] 5 vols. 8vo, 
cloth. 30*. 


the Rev. E. Johnson, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 125. 

Translation. Translated from the German by the Rev. J. 
Frederick Smith. 8vo, cloth. 6^. 

TESTAMENT TIMES. The Time of Jesus. Translated 
by the Revs. C. T. Poynting and P. Quenzer. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 


The second portion of this work, "The Times of the Apostles, 
was issued apart from the Library, but in uniform volumes ; see 
p. 1 8. 

in its connection -with the National Life of Israel, and 
related in detail. Translated from the German by Arthur Ransom 
and the Rev. E. M. Geldart. [Vol. I. Second Edition. Intro 
duction, Survey of Sources, Sacred and Political Groundwork. 
Religious Groundwork. Vol. II. The Sacred Youth, Self-recog 
nition, Decision. Vol. III. The First Preaching, the Works of 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Jesus, the Disciples, and Apostolic Mission. Vol. IV. Conflicts 
and Disillusions, Strengthened Self-confidence, Last Efforts in 
Galilee, Signs of the Approaching Fall, Recognition of the Messiah. 
Vol. V. The Messianic Progress to Jerusalem, the Entry into 
Jerusalem, the Decisive Struggle, the Farewell, the Last Supper. 
Vol. VI. The Messianic Death at Jerusalem. Arrest and Pseudo- 
Trial, the Death on the Cross, Burial and Resurrection, the 
Messiah s Place in History, Indices.] Complete in 6 vols. 
8vo. 36^. 

(Vol. I. only to be had when a complete set of the work is 


Kuenen, Professor of Theology at the University, Leiden. Trans 
lated from the Dutch by A. H. May. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth, i&s. 

PFLEIDERER (O.). PAULIN1SM : A Contribution to the 
History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated by E. 
Peters. 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s. 


ITS HISTORY. (Vols. I. II. History of the Philosophy of 
Religion from Spinoza to the Present Day ; Vols. III. IV. Genetic- 
Speculative Philosophy of Religion.) Translated by Prof, Allan 
Menzies and the Rev. Alex. Stewart. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 245. 

TORY OF RELIGIONS. With an Introduction by Prof. 
F. Max Miiller. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

TAMENT. With General and Special Introductions. Edited 
by Profs. P. W. Schmidt and F. von Holzendorff. Translated 
from the Third German Edition by the Rev. F. H. Jones, B.A. 
3 vols. 8vo, cloth. iSs. 

from the Second Enlarged Edition, with Additions by the Author, 
and an Introduction by the Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A. 
2 vols. (Vol. I. not sold separately.) With a Map. 8vo, cloth. 


INVESTIGATED. Preceded by Dr. Fr. Overbeck s Intro 
duction to the Acts of the Apostles from De Wette s Handbook. 
Translated by Joseph Dare. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 12s. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



The volumes are uniform in size (crown octavo] and binding, but the 
price varies according to the size and importance of the work. 

A Few Opinions of the Series. 

Professor Marcus Dods : "By introducing to the English-speaking public 
specimens of the work of such outstanding critics and theologians, your 
Crown Theological Library has done a valuable service to theological 
learning in this country." 

Dr. John Watson : " The Library is rendering valuable service to lay theologians 
in this country, as well as to ministers." 

Rev. Principal P. T. Forsyth : " As a whole it is an admirable series, and 
opens to the English reader at a low price some books which are of prime 
importance for religious thought." 

Rev. Principal D. L. Ritchie: "I have read many of the volumes in the 
Crown Library, and I think it an admirable and useful series." 

Sir Edward Russell : " I have formed the highest opinion of this series. Each 
of the books is animated by a fine intelligent and at the same time devout 

Rev. Professor A. E. Garvie : " I am very grateful for the publication of these 
volumes, as they bring within the reach of the English student, in a correct 
translation and at cheap price, important theological works, which other 
wise would be accessible only to those familiar with French or German." 

Rev. R. J. Campbell : " Your Crown Theological Library" is invaluable, and 
is doing excellent service for liberal Christianity." 

Professor G. Currie Martin : " I think you are rendering a most valuable service 
to all serious students of theology by your publication of the Crown 
Theological Library. " 

Vol. I. BABEL AND BIBLE. By Dr. Friedrich Delitzsch, Pro 
fessor of Assyriology in the University of Berlin. Authorised 
Translation. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. C. H. W. 
Johns. Crown 8vo, with 77 illustrations, cloth. 5^- 

and Critical Essay. By Paul Lobstein, Professor of Dogmatics 
in the University of Strassburg. Translated by Victor Leuliette, 
A.K.C., B.-es-L., Paris. Edited, with an Introduction, by Rev. 
W. D. Morrison, LL. D. Crown 8 vo. y. 

Vol. III. MY STRUGGLE FOR LIGHT: Confessions of a 
Preacher. By R. Wimmer, Pastor of Weisweil-am-Rhein in 
Baden. Crown 8vo, cloth. $s. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Vol. IV. LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY: Its Origin, Nature, and 
Mission. By Jean Reville, Professeur adjoint a la Faculte de 
Theologie Protestante de 1 Universite de Paris. Translated and 
edited by Victor Leuliette, A.K.C. , B.-es-L. Crown 8vo, 
cloth. 45. 

Vol. V. WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? By Adolf Harnack, 
Professor of Church History in the University, Berlin. Translated 
by Thomas Bailey Saunders. Crown 8vo. $s. 

Vol. VI. FAITH AND MORALS. By W. Herrmann, Professor of 
Systematic Theology at the University of Marburg; Author of "The 
Communion of the Christian with God." Crown 8vo, cloth. 51. 

Vol. VII. EARLY HEBREW STORY. A Study of the Origin, 

the Value, and the Historical Background of the Legends of Israel. 
By John P. Peters, D.D., Rector of St. Michael s Church, New 
York ; author of " Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the 
Euphrates." Crown 8vo, cloth. 55. 

Thoroughness of Investigation, addressed to Churchmen 
and Scholars. By the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.Litt., D.D., 
Fellow of the British Academy ; Oriel Professor of Interpretation 
in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Rochester. Crown 
8vo. 5.J. 

AND MODERN CULTURE. By the late Auguste Sabatier, 
Professor in the University of Paris. Translated by Victor Leuliette, 
A. K. C. , B.-es-L. Crown 8vo. 4$. 6d. 

CHRIST: Its Value and Significance in the History of 
Religion. By Otto Pfleiderer, D.D. , Professor of Practical 
Theology in the University, Berlin. Crown 8vo. 31. 6d. 

Vol. XL THE CHILD AND RELIGION. Eleven Essays. By 
Prof. Henry Jones, M.A., LL.D. , University of Glasgow ; C. F. G. 
Masterman, M.A. ; Prof. George T. Ladd, D.D., LL.D., Uni 
versity of Yale; Rev. F. R. Tennant, M.A. , B.Sc., Hulsean 
Lecturer ; Rev. J. Cynddylan Jones, D.D. ; Rev. Canon Hensley 
Henson, M.A. ; Rev. Robert F. Horton, M.A., D.D. ; Rev. G. 
Hill, M.A., D.D. ; Rev. J. J. Thornton; Rev. Rabbi A. A. 
Green ; Prof. Joseph Agar Beet, D. D. Edited by Thomas 
Stephens, B.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

" No fresher and more instructive book on this question has been issued for 
years, and the study of its pages will often prove a godsend to many perplexed 
minds in the church and in the Christian home." British Weekly. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



pological Study. By L. R. Farnell, D.Litt., Fellow and Tutor 
of Exeter College, Oxford ; University Lecturer in Classical 
Archaeology, etc., etc. Crown 8vo, cloth. $s. 

By H. von Soden, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University 
of Berlin. Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, and edited by 
Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5.?. 

Vol. XIV. JESUS. By Wilhelm Bousset, Professor of Theology in 
Gottingen. Translated by Janet Penrose Trevelyan, and edited by 
Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 4^. 

" It is true the writers, von Soden and Bousset, have in the course of their 
papers said things that I regard as as nothing less than admirable. I very 
much doubt whether we have anything so admirable in English." Rev. Dr. 
Sanday in the Guardian. 


WITH GOD. By Prof. Wilhelm Herrmann. Translated from 

the new German Edition by Rev. J. S. Stanyon, M.A., and Rev. 

R. W. Stewart, B.D., B.Sc. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. 

M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^. 


Otto, Professor of Theology in the University of Gottingen. Trans 
lated by J. Arthur Thomson, Professor of Natural History in the 
University of Aberdeen, and Margaret R. Thomson. Edited with 
an Introduction by Rev. W. D. Morrison, LL.D. Crown 8vo. 6s. 

"... A valuable survey, and a critical estimate of scientific theory and 
kindred ideas as they concern the religious view of the world. . . . It is well 
written, clear, and even eloquent." Expository Times. 

fessor Adolf Harnack, of Berlin, and Professor W. Herrmann, of 
Marburg. Crown 8vo, cloth. 4^. 6d. 

Its Place among the Religions of the Nearer East. By 
Karl Marti, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Bern. Crown 
8vo, cloth. 45. 6d. 

In a leading review The Spectator says: "It is a valuable contribution 
to a great theme by one who has devoted his life to its study. Not only the 
general reader, for whom it is specially intended, but the theologian will learn 
not a little from its pages." 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Vol. XX. LUKE, THE PHYSICIAN. By Adolf Harnack, D.D. 
Translated by the Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, M.A. Crown 8vo, 
cloth. 6s. 

"What is new and interesting and valuable is the ratiocination, the theorising, 
and the personal point of view in the book under review. We study it to under 
stand Professor Harnack, not to understand Luke ; and the study is well worth 
the time and work. Personally, I feel specially interested in the question of 
Luke s nationality. On this the author has some admirable and suggestive 
pages." Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor. 

Lake, Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of 
Leiden, Holland. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^. 

MENT. By E. F. Scott, M.A., author of " The Fourth Gospel : 
Its Purpose and Theology." Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^. 

Vol. XXIII. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. By Adolf Harnack, 
D.D. Being Vol. II. of Dr Harnack s New Testament Studies. 
Crown 8vo, cloth. 65. 

men. Rev. Hubert Handley, Prof. F. C. Burkitt, M.A., D.D., 
Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, M.A., Rev. C. R. Shaw Stewart, M.A., 
Rev. Hastings Rashdall, D.Litt., D.C.L., Prof. Percy Gardner, 
Litt.D., LL.D., Sir C. T. Dyke Acland, Rev. A. J. Carlyle, M.A., 
Rev. H. G. Woods, D.D., Rev. A. Caldecott, D.Litt., D.D., Rev. 
W. D. Morrison, LL.D., Rev. A. L. Lilley, M.A. Crown 8vo, 
cloth. 53. 

"This is a stimulating volume, and we are glad to see an able body of 
writers uniting to claim the free atmosphere as the condition of spiritual 
progress. " Westminster Gazette. 

CHRISTIAN RELIGIpN. By R. Seeberg, Professor of 
Systematic Theology in Berlin. Sixteen Lectures delivered before 
the Students of all Faculties in the University of Berlin. Crown 
8vo, 350 pp. 5*. 

Being Vol. III. of Dr Harnack s New Testament Studies. Crown 
8vo, cloth. 6s. 

In the Press. Almost Ready. 

THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT. By Rudolf Eucken, Professor 

of Philosophy in Jena. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Library Edition, demy 8vo, los. 6d. per volume. Cheap Popular 
Edition, $s. 6d, per volume. 

AND HISTORY. Translated by the Rev. P. H. Wicksteed. 
(Hibbert Lectures, 1891.) Cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3*. 6d. 

LEDGE. (Hibbert Lectures, 1883.) 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. 
Cheap Edition, 3rd Edition, 3^. 6d. 

Lee., 1881.) 2nd Ed. 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. Cheap Ed., 31. 6d. 

Christianity in its most Simple and Intelligible Form. (The 
Hibbert Lectures, 1894.) los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 3^. 6d. 

CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Edited by Dr. Fairbairn. (Hibbert 
Lectures, 1888.) 3rd Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap 
Edition, 3^. 6d. 

Hibbert Lectures, 1882.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 
3*. 6d. 

OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. (The Hibbert Lectures, 
1892.) 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Edition, 31. 6d. 

the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. (Hibbert Lectures, 1885.) 2nd 
Edition. 8vo, cloth, los. &/. Cheap Edition, y. 6d. 

OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Translated by the Rev. 
Charles Beard. (Hibbert Lectures, 1880.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 
Cheap Edition, 3rd Edition, 31. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



ANCIENT EGYPT. (Hibbert Lectures, 1879.) 3rd Edition. 
8vo, cloth. IDS. 6d. Cheap Edition, T,S. 6d. 

HEATHENDOM. (Hibbert Lectures, 1886.) 8vo, cloth. 
los. 6d. Cheap Edition, y. 6d. 

MEXICO AND PERU. Translated by the Rev. P. H. 
Wicksteed. (Hibbert Lectures, 1884.) 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. 
Cheap Edition, 35. 6d. 

(Hibbert Lectures, 1887.) 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. Cheap Ed., 3.?. 6d. 

LIGIOUS BELIEF. (Hibbert Lectures, 1893.) Demy 8vo, 
cloth. IOJ-. 6d. Cheap Edition, y. f>d. 


ADDIS (W. E.). HEBREW RELIGION. 5*. See Crown 
Theological Library, p. II. 

HOLY SCRIPTURE. With a Preface by Edna Lyall, and a 
Letter from Canon Wilberforce. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. 

the French by the Rev. J. Moden. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 


Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

ANGLICAN LIBERALISM. By Twelve Churchmen. $s. See 
Crown Theological Library, p. 12. 

ANNOTATED CATECHISM. A Manual of Natural Religion 
and Morality, with many practical details. 2nd Edition. Crown 
8vo, cloth, is. 

THREE CENTURIES. 2 vols., 12s. See Theological 
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 


2 vols., 1 2s. See Theological Translation Library. Old Series, p. 7. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



AND OTHER SERMONS. Crown 8vo, cloth. 75. 6d. 



Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

BEEBY (Rev. C. E., B.D., Author of "Creed and Life"). 
Primary Questions. Demy 8vo, cloth. qs. (>d. 

BIBLE. Translated by Samuel Sharpe, being a Revision of the 
Authorised English Version. 6th Edition of the Old, loth Edition 
of the New Testament. 8vo, roan. $s. See also Testament. 


Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 


With an Introduction by Rev. George Tyrrell, M.A. Medium 8vo, 
cloth. los. 6d. ttet. 

" From France comes a remarkable volume, excellently translated, which 
endeavours to probe the mystery ; to realise, as it were, the soul of Newman, 
to describe to us justly and truthfully the personality of the man." Daily 

" No subsequent work can deprive M. Bremond s book of its great psycho 
logical interest ; it is a work that, unlike many books on Newman and the 
Tractarians, no student of modem Christianity can afford to miss." Pall Mai. 

BROADBENT (The late Rev. T. P., B.A.). THIRTEEN 
a Prefatory Note by Rev. Prof. J. Estlin Carpenter, M.A. Crown 
8vo, cloth. 41. net. 

GOSPELS IN GREEK. 3*. 6d net. See Testament, New, 
p. 26. 

Perfect Life," with a Memoir. Centennial Edition. 410 Edition. 
Cloth. 7J. 6d. 

See Crown Theological Library, p. IO. 

CHILD AND RELIGION. Edited by Thomas Stephens, B.A. 
6s. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10. 

CHRISTIAN CREED (OUR). 2nd and greatly Revised Edition. 
Crown 8vo, cloth. 31. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 




" No one reading this book could miss its interest and ability. . . . Criticises 
existing Christianity along lines almost literally opposite to those of Herbert 
Spencer and the majority of the critics. . . . Great clearness and eloquence. " 
G. K. CHESTERTON in The Nation. 


COMMON PRAYER. An Essay in Re-Interpretation and 
Revision. Demy 8vo, cloth. JO.T. 6d. net. 

Ten Services for Morning and Evening. 32010, cloth, i s. 6d. 
Also in 8vo, cloth. 35. 


With numerous Portraits, a facsimile of the original MS. of the 
hymn, "Nearer, my God, to Thee," and Appendices. Crown 
8vo, half vellum, paper sides. $s. 


Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d, net. See Theological Translation 
Library, New Series, p. 2. 

ISM. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 


delivered before the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in the presence 
of the German Emperor. $s. See Crown Theological Library, 
p. 9. See also Harnack, A., "Letter to Preuss. fahrbiicher," p. 18. 

PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Demy 8vo. IQS. 6d. 5 Theo 
logical Translation Library, New Series, p. 3. 

DRIVER (S. R.). See Mosheh ben Shesheth, p. 22. 

DRUMMOND (JAMES, M.A., LL.D., Hon. LittD., late 
Principal of Manchester College, Oxford). AN INQUIRY 
THE FOURTH GOSPEL. Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 

" The book is not only learned, but also reverent and spiritual in tone, and 
ought to find its way into the libraries of students of all shades of belief, as a 
very notable attempt to solve one of the most important of New Testament 
problems." Christian World. 

VIA, VERITAS, VITA. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

PHILO JUD^EUS. Seep. 28. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



ECHOES OF HOLY THOUGHTS : Arranged as Private 
Meditations before a First Communion. 2nd Edition, with a 
Preface by Rev. J. Hamilton Thorn. Printed with red lines. 
Fcap. 8vo, cloth, is. 


See page 12. 

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. See Theological Transla 
tion Library, Old Series, p. 7. 

Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 

JOB. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 

An Anthropological Study. By L. R. Farnell, D.Litt, Fellow 
and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford. 5^. See Crown Theo 
logical Library, p. II. 


AND REVEALED. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

FORMBY (Rev. C. W.). RE-CREATION: A New Aspect 
of Evolution. Large Crown 8vo, cloth. $s. 


8vo, cloth. 15^. 


By Charles Gill. 2nd Edition. With Dissertations in answer to 
Criticism. 8vo, cloth. 12$. 

lated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library, by the late 
Richard Laurence, LL. D., Archbishop of Cashel. The Text 
corrected from his latest Notes by Charles Gill. Re-issue, 8vo, 
cloth. 5*. 


See Crown Theological Library, p. 12. 

MONASTICISM : Its Ideals and History ; and THE 

by Adolf Harnack. Translated into English by E. E. Kellett, 
M.A., and F. H. Marseille, Ph.D., M.A. Crown 8vo, cloth. 45. 

" The lectures impart to these old subjects a new and vivid interest which 
cannot but win this faithful version many admiring readers." Scotsman. 

" One might read all the ponderous volumes of Montalembert without 
obtaining so clear a view or so rare a judgment of this immense subject as are 
offered in these luminous pages. . . . The translation is excellent, and gives us 
Harnack in pure and vigorous English." Christian World. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



HARNACK (ADOLF). LETTER to the " Preussische Jahr- 
biicher " on the German Emperor s Criticism of Prof. 
Delitzsch s Lectures on " Babel and Bible." Translated into 
English by Thomas Bailey Saunders. 6d. net. 

-LUKE, THE PHYSICIAN. 6s. See Crown Theological 
Library, p. 12. 

- HISTORY OF DOGMA. 7 vols., los. 6d. each. See Theo 
logical Translation Library, New Series, p. 4. 

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS. 6s. See Crown Theological 

Library, p. 12. 

- WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY ? 55. See Theological Trans 
lation Library, New Series, p. 5. Also Crown Theological Library, 
p. II. See Saunders (T. B.), " Professor Harnack and his Oxford 
Critics," p. 24. 


Harnack, D. D., Berlin. Entirely new edition, re-written, with 
numerous additions and maps. 2 vols. demy 8vo, cloth. 2$s. net. 


THE SOCIAL GOSPEL. 45. 6d. Translation edited by 
Maurice A. Canney, M.A. See Crown Theological Library, p. n 

CHRISTIAN CHURCH. See The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

TESTAMENT TIMES. The Time of the Apostles. Trans 
lated by Leonard Huxley. With a Preface by Mrs Humphry 
Ward. 4 vols. 8vo, cloth. 425-. (Uniform with the Theological 
Translation Library, Old Series.) 

NEW TESTAMENT TIMES. The Times of Jesus. 

2 vols. \2s. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 

HEBREW TEXTS, in large type for Classes : 

Genesis. 2nd Edition. i6mo, cloth, is. 6d. 
Psalms. 161110, cloth, is. 
Isaiah. i6mo, cloth, is. 
Job. i6mo, cloth, is. 

TION ; or, Natural Theology reconsidered. 8vo, cloth, is. 

or, The Garden of God. 8vo, cloth, is. 

- THE AT-ONE-MENT ; or, The Gospel of Reconciliation. 

8vo, cloth, is. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



OF CHRIST S LIFE. 8vo, cloth. 55. net. 

cloth, is. 

- VULGATE, THE : The Source of False Doctrines. 

A work specially applicable to the Clergy, Bible Teachers, and 
other exponents of the Gospel of Christ. Crown 8vo, cloth. 
2s. 6d. net. 

TALMUD AND MIDRASH. Demy Svo, cloth. iSs. net. 

CONTENTS : Introduction. Division I. Passages from the 
Rabbinical Literature : A. Passages relating to Jesus. B. Passages 
relating to Minim, Minuth. Division II. General Results. Appen 
dix containing the Original Texts of the Passages translated. 

CHRISTIAN WITH GOD. 5*. See Theological Translation 
Library, New Series, p. 5. 

- FAITH AND MORALS. $ s - See Crown Theological 
Library, p. 10. 


SOCIAL GOSPEL. 4?. 6<f. See Crown Theological Library, 
p. ii. 

HIBBERT JOURNAL: A Quarterly Review of Religion, 
Theology, and Philosophy. Edited by L. P. Jacks and G. 
Dawes Hicks. Vol. I. Royal 8vo, 856 pp. Vol. II., 864 pp. 
Vol. III., 869 pp. Vols. IV., V., and VI., 960 pp. Cloth. 
Each I2s. 6d. net. Annual Subscription, IDS. post free. 

MUSEUM. The Karaite Exodus (i. to viii. 5) in Forty-two 
Autotype Facsimiles, with a Transcription in ordinary Arabic type. 
Together with Descriptions and Collation of that and five other 
MSS. of portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic characters in the 
same Collection. Royal 4to, cloth, gilt top. 2os. 

and Other Sermons. Large Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. net. 

THE COMING CHURCH. A Plea for a Church simply 

Christian. Cloth, is. 6d, net 

DOM. Demy Svo, cloth. Js. bd. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



of Christian Origins. Crown 8vo, cloth, zs. 6d. 

cloth. 1 5.5-. net. 

FAITH. Selected and Arranged. 247 pp. Fcap. 8vo, cloth. 
2nd Edition. 35. 6d. 

and Pointed for Chanting. iSmo, cloth. is. 6d. 

ANTHEMS. With Indexes and References to the Music. 

i8mo, cloth, is. $d. 

THE CHANTS AND ANTHEMS. Together in i vol., 

cloth, zs. 

A BOOK OF PRAYER. In Thirty Orders of Worship, with 

Additional Prayers and Thanksgivings. i8mo, cloth. 2s. 6d. 
With Chants, in I vol. i8mo, cloth. 3^. 

MENT. With Chronological Tables for the History of the 
Israelites, and other Aids to the Explanation of the Old Testament. 
Reprinted from the "Supplement to the Translation of the Old 
Testament." By E. Kautzsch, Professor of Theology at the Uni 
versity of Halle. Edited by the Author. Translated by John 
Taylor, D.Lit., M.A., etc. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. 6d. 

" This English translation . . . is likely to prove very acceptable to all those 
students who desire to see for themselves the view taken by the higher critics 
of the growth of the Old Testament." The Guardian. 

"Dr. Taylor has rendered a great service to the English readers by his 
excellent translation of this important work." British Weekly. 

6s. each. See Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 7. 

See p. 34. 

I or. 6d. each. See Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 5. 

UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS. See The Hibbert Lectures, 
P- 13- 


THE JEWISH STATE. 3 vols. i8j. See Theological 
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 8. 

CHRIST. $s. $ ee Crown Theological Library, p. 12. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



CHURCH. Third Edition. Thoroughly Revised and Reset. 
2 vols. Medium 8vo, cloth. 2 is. net. 

OF CHRIST. 35. See Crown Theological Library, p. 9. 

LODGE (Sir O.). LIFE AND MATTER. A Criticism of 
Professor Haeckel s "Riddle of the Universe." Fourth 
Impression. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. 

CHRIST. An Essay in Three Chapters. 8vo, cloth. $s. 


RECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. Crown 8vo, stiff covers, 
2s. net ; superior cloth binding, 3.5-. 

MENT. 4J. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 11. 

8vo, sewed, is. 

WARDS THEOLOGY. A Critique and Defence. 8vo, 
sewed. 21. 6d. 


Menegoz, Professor of the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Paris. 
Stiff boards, is. net. 

OF PROGRESS. Being the Moorhouse Lectures for 1907. 
Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

" To be congratulated on an effective and freshly thought out exposure of 
the familiar failure of materialism to account for evolution, humanity or 
progress in any intelligible sense." The Christian World, 


2nd Edition, thoroughly revised and reset. Crown Svo, cloth. 
2s. 6d. 

" The lectures are marked by much insight and moderation. The book is 
notable also for its gracious and cultured note, and for the quiet persuasiveness 
with which a revolutionary reform is advocated. 1 Sunday School Chronicle. 

tures, p. 13. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



JEREMIAH AND EZEKIEL. Edited from a Bodleian 
MS., with a Translation and Notes, by S. R. Driver. 8vo, 
sewed. 3^. 


I2s. 6d. net. See p. 29. 


See Theological Translation Library, New Series, p. 6. 


Crown Theological Library, p. n. 


Essays on the Spiritual Unity of Life. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. 

A Review of Philosophy. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

is. net. 


Study of the Origin, the Value, and the Historical Background 
of the Legends of Israel. 5^. See Crown Theological Library, 
p. 10. 


Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

PAULINISM : A Contribution to the History of Primitive 

Christianity. 2 vols. izs. See Theological Translation Library, 
Old Series, p. 8. 


ITS HISTORY. 4 vols. 245. See Theological Translation 
Library, Old Series, p. 8. 


CHRIST: Its Significance and Value in the History of 
Religion. y. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10. 


8vo, cloth, los. 6d. net each. See Theological Translation Library, 
New Series, p. 2. 

ASTICAL POLITICS. 8vo, cloth. 10^. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



TAMENT. 3 vols. i&s. See Theological Translation Library, 
Old Series, p. 8. 

OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. See Hibbert Lectures, 
P- 13- 

ANCIENT EGYPT. See Hibbert Lectures, p. 14. 

REVILLE (A.). THE SONG OF SONGS, Commonly called 
the Song of Solomon, or the Canticle. Translated from the 
French. Crown 8vo, cloth, u. dd. 


See Hibbert Lectures, p. 14. 

LIGIONS. 6s. See Theological Translation Library, Old 
Series, p. 8. 

Crown Theological Library, p. 10. 

See also Sabatier s " Religions of Authority and Religion of the 

Spirit," p. 3. 

ing Tour in Palestine, with some Notes on Scripture Sites. With 
61 Illustrations, Frontispiece, and Maps. Demy Svo, cloth. 
Ss. 6d. net. 

A DAWNING FAITH. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. 

Edition. Revised and partly re-written. Demy Svo, cloth. $s. net. 


A Sketch. Crown Svo, cloth. 2s. 6d. 


With a Memoir by Professor J. Reville. los. 6d. See Theologi 
cal Translation Library, New Series, p. 3. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 




4s. 6d. See Crown Theological Library, p. 10. 

WORSHIP. Crown 8 vo, cloth. 3*. 6d. 

- CLOSET PRAYERS, Original and Compiled. i8mo, 
cloth, is. 6d. 

AND HIS OXFORD CRITICS. Crown Svo, cloth. 
U. 6d. net. 

" It gives thoughtful and acutely reasoned support to the great historical 
student of Christianity who represents Berlin in theology against the pig- 
tailed opposition which Oxford has offered to his learning. A spirited piece of 
controversial writing, it cannot but prove stimulating to readers interested in 
modern divinity, no matter to which side of the debate their private preposses 
sions incline them. " Scotsman. 

"Mr. Saunders writes with sobriety and with a knowledge of the points 
at issue. Readers of Harnack and his Critics will do well to read his 
comments." Sheffield Daily Telegraph. 

cloth. TS. 6d. 

ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA. See Hibbert Lectures, 
p. 14. 

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2 vols. izs. See Theological 
Translation Library, Old Series, p. 8. 

HISTORY. See Theological Translation Library, New Series, 
P- 3- 

NEW TESTAMENT. 55. See Crown Theological Library, 
p. 12. 

SCULLARD (Rev. Prof. H. H., M.A., D.D.). EARLY 
CLEMENT TO AMBROSE. Large crown Svo, cloth. 6s. 

fessor of Systematic Theology in Berlin. 5^. See Crown Theo 
logical Library, p. 12. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



SEVERUS (Patriarch of Antioch). THE SIXTH BOOK 
PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH, in the Syriac Version of 
Athanasius of Nisibis. Edited and translated by E. W. Brooks. 
Vol. I. (Text), Part I, and Vol. II. (Translation), Part i. 2 vols. 
8vo, cloth. 42s. net. Vol. I. (Text), Part 2, and Vol. II. (Trans 
lation), Part 2. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 425-. net. See Text and 
Translation Society, p. 37. 

TESTAMENT. 2nd Edition. I2mo, cloth, is. 6d. 

CHILDREN. 2nd Edition, Revised. Crown 8vo, cloth. 
3*. 6rf. 

TESTAMENT. $s. See Crown Theological Library, p. n. 

RACY AND CHARACTER. Being the Moorhouse Lectures 
for 1908. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. 

unedited Ethiopic and Arabic Texts. Edited, with an Introduc 
tion and Translations of the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Coptic Texts, 
by Rev. G. Homer, M.A. With an Appendix a recently dis 
covered variant of the Coptic Text. iSs. net. 

GOSPEL, especially in its Relation to the First Three. 

2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 5.?. 

INTERPRETED. 8vo, cloth, y. 

MICAH. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5*. 

See also Kautzsch, " Outline," p. 20. 

Collects. 8vo, cloth, 31. ; or 32mo, cloth, is. 6d. 

- PSALMS AND CANTICLES. 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. 

- PSALMS AND CANTICLES, with Anthems. 8vo, 
cloth. 2s. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



stance from the Common Prayer for Christian Worship, 
with a few additional Prayers for particular Days. 8vo, 
cloth, 2s. 6d. ; or 321110, cloth, u. 

"jos. net. 

CAMPBELL (Rev. Canon COLIN, M.A., D.D.). THE 

parallel columns. 2nd Edition, Revised. Crown 8vo, cloth. 
3-r. 6d. net. 

CHURCH. Crown 8vo, cloth, ij. 6d. net. 

BELIEF. See Hibbert Lectures, p. 14. 

VICKERS (J.). THE REAL JESUS : a Review of his Life, 
Character, and Death, from a Jewish Standpoint. Crown 
8vo. 6s. 


35-. 6d. 


Thomas H. Weir, Assistant to the Professor of Oriental Languages 
in the University of Glasgow. 2nd Edition, with Additions. 
Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

Demy 8vo. 215. See Theological Translation Library, New 
Series, p. 6. 

TIANITY. 2 vols. 8vo. 2is. See Theological Translation 
Library, New Series, p. 4. 

INSTITUTIONS OF HOLLAND, treated with Special 
Reference to the Position and Prospects of the Modern 
School of Theology. A Report presented to the Hibbert 
Trustees, and published by their direction. 8vo, sewed, is. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



fessions of a Preacher. y. 6d. See Crown Theological 
Library, p. 9. 

HEBREW TEXT. With a critically revised Text, various 
Readings, and Grammatical and Critical Notes. Demy 8vo. 

cally revised Text, various Readings, including a new Collation of 
Twenty-eight Hebrew MSS. , and a Grammatical and Critical 
Commentary ; to which is appended the Chaldee Targum. Demy 
8vo. js. 6d. 

cloth, js. 6d. 

DANIEL AND ITS CRITICS. A Critical and Gram 
matical Commentary with Appendix. Demy 8vo, cloth, "js. 6d. 

HISTORY BEFORE CHRIST. Crown 8vo, cloth, y. net. 


new critically revised Translation, with Essays on Scansion, Date, 
etc. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

Tradition. By G. H. Bateson Wright, D.D., Queen s College, 
Oxford ; Headmaster Queen s College, Hong- Kong ; Author of 
"A Critical Revised Translation of the Book of Job." 8vo, art 
linen. ~js. 6d. 

WRIGHT (W. ALOIS), Edited by, and Dr S. A. HIRSCH. 
a Hebrew MS. in the University Library, Cambridge. Med. 8vo, 
cloth. 21 s. net. 

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. See Theological Translation 
Library, Old Series, p. 8. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


II. Philosophy, Psychology. 

Introduction and Analytical Table, by John Henry Bridges, Fellow 
of Royal College of Physicians, sometime Fellow of Oriel College. 
Complete in 3 vols. , $is. 6d. ; Vol. III. sold separately, Js. 6d. 

AND OF LAW. A Midnight Debate. Crown 8vo, parch 
ment. $s. 

THE PRISON. A Dialogue. Crown 8vo, parchment. $s. 


Crown 8vo, parchment. 45. 

PHILOSOPHY. By F. Howard Collins. With a Preface by 
Herbert Spencer. 5th Edition. The Synthetic Philosophy Com 
pleted. 8vo, cloth. 21 s. 

DRUMMOND (Dr.). PHILO JUD^EUS ; or, The Jewish 
Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion. 

By James Drummond, LL.D., Principal of Manchester New 
College, Oxford. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 2\s. 


An Address delivered before the Aristotelian Society. 8vo, 
sewed. 2s. 


Address. 8vo, sewed, is. 

LAURIE (Professor SIMON). ETHICA: or, The Ethics of 
Reason. By Scotus Novanticus. 2nd Edition. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

Dualism. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

LODGE (Sir O.). LIFE AND MATTER. 2s. 6d. net. See 
Religion, p. 21. 

DYNAMICS. An Exposition of the Function of Money as the 
measure of Contract, Trade, and Government, viewed from the 
Principles of Natural Philosophy and Jurisprudence, in refutation 
of Economic Dogmas. Demy 8vo, cloth. los. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


MUNSTERBERG (HUGO, Professor of Psychology at 
Harvard University). THE AMERICANS. Translated by 
Edwin B. Holt, Ph.D., Instructor at Harvard University. Royal 
8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net. 

THE. A Review of Philosophy. 6s. See Religion, p. 22. 

cloth. 4J. 6d. 

OPHY. Proceedings. Vol. I., 4 Nos., 1890-91. 8vo, 12s. 
Discontinued after Vol. III. Part 2. Or each Part separately. 
Vol. I. No. I, 2s. 6d. ; No. 2, 2s. 6d. ; No. 3, Part I, is. 6d. ; 
Part 2, 2J. ; No. 4, Part I, is. 6d. ; Part 2, 2s. Vol. II. No. I, 
Part I, is. 6d. ; Part 2, 2s. No. 2, Part I, is. f>d. ; Part 2, 2s. ; 
No. 3, Part I, 2s. ; Part 2, 2s. Vol. III. Part I, 2s. 6d. ; 
Part 2, 2s. NEW SERIES, Vols. I.-VIII. Demy 8vo, buckram, 
each los. 6d. net. 

AND COLLECTIVISM. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 

THE ETHICS OF EVOLUTION. 8vo, cloth. 5*. 


8vo, cloth. 55-. 

I. -VI., each 4*. zd. net 

SCULLARD (Rev. Prof. H.H., M.A., D.D.). EARLY 
CLEMENT TO AMBROSE. Large crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

SYMBOLIC LOGIC. A Critical Historical Study of the 
Logical Calculus. Crown 8vo, cloth. 51. net. 

From the Contents. 

Symbols as representing Terms and as representing Propositions 
Symbols of Operation The Process of Solution Concerning a 
Calculus Based on Intension The Doctrines of Jevons and of Mr. 
MacColl Later Logical Doctrines The Utility of Symbolic 

" Its style is smooth, pleasant, and lucid." Athcnaitm. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



2 vols. demy 8vo. With Portraits. Popular Edition, I2s. 6d. net. 
Library Edition, 2&s. net. 

It is not too much to say tliat we close this book, the most interesting, and 
certainly one of the most important we have ever opened, feeling better, wiser, 
and humbler for having thus hastily read it." Academy. 

" It is a book for all men and for all time. In its pages the thinker may 
trace, step by step, the synthesis of synthetic philosophy. Here the poet will 
find not only a worthy inspiration, but a possibly surprising vein of sympathy. 
The statesman, the inventor, the litterateur, the man of theory, and the man of 
practice will find alike, within the covers of these two massive volumes, an 
almost inexhaustible treasury of interest and constructive thought. There is 
suggestion and instruction for all the world, and an almost indefinable fascina 
tion whether it be due to the mere intrinsic beauty of the picture itself, or to 
the dignity of its execution, or to the sense of its almost laborious faithfulness, 
or to the combined attraction of all three." St. James s Gazette. 


Vol. I. First Principles. With an Appendix and a 
Portrait. Finally revised. New Edition, large crown 8vo, cloth. 
7s. 6d. 

Vols. II. and III. The Principles of Biology. 6th 

Thousand. 8vo, cloth. Revised and greatly enlarged. Vols. I. 
and II. i8s. each. 

Vols. IV. and V. The Principles of Psychology. 5th 

Thousand. 2 vols. 8vo, cloth. 365-. 

Vol. VI. The Principles of Sociology. Vol. I. Part i, 
The Data of Sociology ; Part 2, The Inductions of Sociology ; 
Part 3, Domestic Institutions. 4th Thousand, revised and 
enlarged. 8vo, cloth. 2is. 

Vol. VII. The Principles of Sociology. Vol. II. Part 4, 
Ceremonial Institutions ; Part 5, Political Institutions. 3rd 
Thousand. 8vo, cloth. i8s. 

Vol. VIII. The Principles of Sociology. Vol. III. Part 6, 
Ecclesiastical Institutions ; Part 7i Professional Institutions ; Part 
8, Industrial Institutions. 2nd Thousand. 8vo, cloth. i6s. 

Vol. IX. The Principles of Ethics. Vol. I. Part i, The 
Data of Ethics ; Part 2, The Inductions of Ethics ; Part 3, The 
Ethics of Individual Life. 2nd Thousand. 8vo, cloth. i$s. 

Vol. X. The Principles of Ethics. Vol. II. Part 4, 
Justice ; Part 5, Negative Beneficence ; Part 6, Positive 
Beneficence ; Appendices. Demy 8vo, cloth. I2s, 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Also to be had separately : 

uniform with popular edition of " First Principles." Sewed, 2s. 6d. 
net ; cloth 35. net. 

- JUSTICE. Being Part 4 of the Principles of Ethics. 2nd 
Thousand. 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

Other Works. 

- THE STUDY OF SpCIOLOGY. Library Edition (2ist 
Thousand), with a Postscript. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 

- EDUCATION : Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. Cheap 
Edition. Entirely reset. 46th Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth. 
2s. 6d. 

ESSAYS : Scientific, Political, and Speculative. A new 

Edition, rearranged, with additional Essays. 3 vols. 8vo, cloth. 
(Each ioj.) 30? 

- SOCIAL STATICS. Abridged and revised, together with 
"The Man v. The State." 8vo, cloth, los. 

- VARIOUS FRAGMENTS. Uniform in Library binding. 
Demy 8vo, cloth. Enlarged Edition. 6s. 

- FACTS AND COMMENTS. Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

- THE MAN versus THE STATE. 1410 Thousand. 
Sewed, is. 

Sewed. 6d. 

OSOPHY OF M. COMTE. Sewed. 6rf. 

-DESCRIPTIVE SOCIOLOGY; or, Groups of Socio 
logical Facts. Compiled and abstracted by Professor D. 
Duncan of Madras, Dr. Richard Scheppig, and James Collier. 
Folio, boards. 

No. i. English. iSs. 

No. 2. Ancient American Races. i6s. 

No. 3. Lowest Races, Negritto Races, Polynesians. i8j. 

No. 4. African Races. i6s. 

No. 5. Asiatic Races. iSs. 

No. 6. American Races. iSs. 

No. 7. Hebrews and Phoenicians. 21 s. 

No. 8. The French Civilisation. 30^. 

New volumes in preparation. 
14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



By F. Howard Collins. Being a Digest of Mr. Herbert Spencer s 
Works. 5th Edition, the Synthetic Philosophy Completed. With 
a Preface by Herbert Spencer. 8vo, cloth. 2is. 


RELIGION AND MORALITY. By Sylvan Drey. 8vo, 
sewed, is. 


EVOLUTION PHILOSOPHY. Demy 8vo, sewed, is. 

SPINOZA : Four Essays. By Professors Land, Van Vloten, and 
Kuno Fischer, and by E. Renan. Edited by Professor Knight, of 
St. Andrews. Crown 8vo, cloth. $s. 

LABORATORY. Edited by Professor E. W. Scripture. 
With many Illustrations. 8vo, sewed, qs. zd. each net. Vol. I. 
1892-93, 100 pages. Vol. II. 1894, 124 pages. Vol. III. 1895, 
no pages. Vol. IV. 1896, 141 pages. Vol. V. 1897, 105 pages. 
Vol. VI. 1898, 105 pages. 

OGY. Translated, with the co-operation of the Author, by 
Charles Hubbard Judd, Ph.D., Instructor in the Wesleyan 
University. 3rd Enlarged Edition Demy 8vo, cloth. Ss. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


III. Oriental Languages, Literature, 
and History. 


A Sanskrit Vocabulary (120 pp.)- Edited, with a Sanskrit -English 
Glossary (180 pp.), by Dr. T. Aufrecht. 8vo, cloth. (Published 
at i8.r.) IOJ. 

in Honour of the late SHAMS-UL-ULAMA DASTUR 
Paper cover, 12s. 6d. net; cloth, i$s. 6d. net. 

AND LEXICON (Chrestomathia Syriaca cum Lexico). 
2 vols. in I. 8vo, cloth boards. "js. (>d. I. Chrestomathia, 
separately. Sewed. 3*. 

The Hibbert Lectures, p. 13. 

Paradigms, Exercises, Glossary, and Bibliography. Translated by 
the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. Crown 8vo, cloth. 15*. 


cloth. 4^. 

BABEL AND BIBLE. 5*. See Crown Theological Library, 

p. 9. 

from C. Bezold s Second German Edition. By Rev. J. A. 
Crichton, D. D., with Index of Passages, Philological Tables, etc. 
I vol., Royal 8vo. 251. net. 

DIPAVAMSA (THE): A Buddhist Historical Record in the 
Pali Language. Edited, with an English Translation, by Dr. 
H. Oldenberg. 8vo, cloth. 2ls. 

The "Dipavamsa" is the most ancient historical work of the Ceylonese ; it 
contains an account of the ecclesiastical history of the Buddhist Church, of the 
conversion of the Ceylonese to the Buddhist faith, and of the ancient history of 

ERMAN S EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR. Translated, under 
Professor Erman s supervision, by J. II. Breasted, Professor of 
Egyptology in the University of Chicago. Crown 8vo, cloth. l8j. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



With 410 Tables of Assyrian Inscriptions. 8vo, cloth. $s. 

PRESENT. Part I. , containing the famous poem of Al-Busaree. 
With an English Version and Notes. 8vo, cloth. 4$. 


POETRY, with special reference to the Seven Suspended 
Poems. 8vo, sewed. 4^. 

FLINDERS PETRIE PAPYRI. See Cunningham Memoirs, 
vols. 8, 9, and II, p. 45. 

an Elementary Grammar, a Chrestomathy, and a Glossary. 

8vo, cloth. i6s. 

improved and enlarged. Translated by Rev. Dr. Samuel Davidson. 
Royal 8vo, cloth. 2is. 

Singhalese MSS. 2nd Edition, with a complete Index and 
Glossary. 8vo, cloth. 2is. 

HEBREW TEXTS. Large type. i6mo, cloth. 

Genesis. (2nd Edition. Baer and Deli tzsch s Text.) is. 6d. 
Psalms, is. 
Job. is. 
Isaiah, is. 

HEBREW, presenting Graduated Instruction in the 
Language of the Old Testament. By James Kennedy, B. D., 
Acting Librarian in the New College, and one of the additional 
Examiners in Divinity at the University, Edinburgh. 8vo, cloth. 


cloth. 5j. 

POETRY^ CHIEFLY PR^E-ISLAMIC. Translations, with 
an Introduction and Notes. Fcap. 410, cloth. IDS, 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


MACHBEROTH ITHIEL. By Yehuda ben Shelomoh Alcharizi. 
Edited from the MS. in the Bodleian Library, by Thomas 
Chenery, M.A. 8vo, cloth. 31. 

MILANDA PANHO, THE: Being Dialogues between King 
Milanda and the Buddhist Sage Nagasena. The Pali Text, 
edited by V. Trenckner. 440 pp. 8vo, sewed. 2is. See also 
" Pali Miscellany." 


THE ASSYRIAN LANGUAGE (Assyrian -English- 
German). By W. Muss-Arnolt. Completed in 19 parts. Each 
5*. net. ; or bound in 2 vols., $ net. 

ARABIAN EPOCH. Selected Texts with Introduction, Notes, 
and Dictionary. Edited by H. Brody, Ph.D., Rabbi in Nachod 
(Bohemia), and K. Albrecht, Ph.D., Professor in Oldenburg 
(Grand Duchy). English translation of the Introduction, etc., by 
Mrs Karl Albrecnt. Cloth. 75. 6d. net. 

NOLDEKE (THEODOR, Professor of Oriental Languages 
in the University of Strassburg). COMPENDIOUS 
SYRIAC GRAMMAR. With a Table of Characters by Julius 
Euting. Translated (with the sanction of the author) from the 
second and improved German Edition by Rev. James A. Crichton, 
D.D. Royal 8vo. iSs. net. 



Crown 8vo, cloth, "js. 6d. 

further the Study of the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Assyria and 
Babylonia. Vols. I. to III. 410, cloth. Each 2&s. 

OLDENBERG (Prof. H.). BUDDHA : His Life, his Doctrine, 
his Order. By Dr. Hermann Oldenberg, Professor at the 
University of Berlin. Translated by W. Hoey, M.A. 8vo, cloth 
gilt i8j. 

PALI MISCELLANY. By V. Trenckner. Part I. The Intro 
ductory Part of the Milanda Panho, with an English Translation 
and Notes. 8vo, sewed. $s. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


LANGUAGE. By John T. Platts, Hon. M.A. (Oxon.), Teacher 
of Persian in the University of Oxford ; late Inspector of Schools in 
the Central Provinces of India. Part I. Accidence. Broad crown 
8vo. los. 6d. 

LIGION OF ANCIENT EGYPT. See Hibbert Lectures, 
p. 14. 

SADI OF SHIRAZ. A new Edition of the Persian Text, with 
a Vocabulary, by F. Johnson. Square royal 8vo, cloth. i$s. 


Hibbert Lectures, p. 14. 

AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2 vols. 125. See 

Theological Translation Library, Old Series, p. 8. 

Conquest of Abyssinia. By Shinab al Din Ahmad B. Abd al 
Kadir B. Salim B. Uthman. Edited, from an Arabic MS., by 
S. Arthur Strong. Part I. 8vo, sewed. 35. net. 

SOCIN (Dr. A.). ARABIC GRAMMAR. Paradigms. Litera 
ture, Exercises, and Glossary. 2nd Edition. Translated from the 
3rd German Edition by the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy, D. D, 
Crown 8vo, cloth. New Edition in preparation. 


SORENSEN (S., Ph.D.), Compiled by. AN INDEX TO 
explanations. Royal 4to, in twelve parts, which are not sold 
separately, at "js. 6d. per part net. Parts I. and IV. now ready. 

unedited Ethiopic and Arabic Texts, with translations of Ethiopic, 
Arabic, and Coptic Texts, by G. Homer, M. A. See p. 25. 

purpose of editing and translating Oriental Texts chiefly preserved 
in the British Museum. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Volumes, already issued 

the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis. Edited 
and translated by E. W. Brooks, M.A. Vol. I. Text, Parts I. 
and II. Vol. II. Translation, Parts I. and II. 841. net. 

ANDRIA, in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Coptic. Edited 
and Translated by Prof. W. Riedel (Griefswald) and W. E. 
Crum. 2is. net. 

JOB, contained in a unique MS. at Cambridge. 
Edited, with Translation and Commentary, by W. Aldis 
Wright, LL.D. 2is. net. 

LANGUAGE. Containing Grammar of the Biblical Chaldee 
and of the Targums, and a Chrestomathy, with a Vocabulary. 
Square 8vo, cloth. Js. 

VINAYA PITAKAM : One of the Principal Buddhist Holy 
Scriptures. Edited in Pali by Dr. H. Oldenberg. 5 vols. 8vo, 
cloth. Each 21 s. 

VEDA : An Essay. 8vo, cloth. 5.1. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


IV. Modern Languages & Literature. 

A complete list of Messrs. Williams &* Norgate s Educational Publi 
cations on Modern Languages may be had on application. 


Edited, with short Notes, by J. T. W. Perowne, M.A. 

This series is equally well adapted for general reading, and for those 
preparing lor the Army, Oxford and Cambridge Certificates, and other 
Examinations in fact, for all who wish to keep up or improve their French 
and German. The notes are as concise as possible, with an occasional 
etymology or illustration to assist the memory. The books selected being 
by recent or living authors, are adapted for the study of most modern French 
and German. 

LE COUP DE PISTOLET, etc. Prosper Merimee. 2s. 6d. 

" A book more admirably suited toils purpose could not be desired. The 
Editors deserve to be congratulated." National Observer. 

VAILLANTE. Jacques Vincent. 2s. 6d. 

" The books are well got up, and in Vaillante an excellent choice has been 
made." Guardian. 

DANTI. Johannes v. Dewall. 3^. 

"Well piinted, well bound, and annotated just sufficiently to make the 
reading of them sure as well as easy." Educational Times. 

CONTES MILITAIRES. A. Daudet. 2s. 6d. 

" These stories are mainly culled from a series called Conies du Lundi, 
originally contributed by their author to the Figaro. Written at fever heat 
immediately after the great 1870 war, they show Daudet s power in many ways 
at its highest. . . . We therefore do more than recommend we urge all 
readers of French to get the stories in some form, and the present one is both 
good and cheap." The Schoolmaster. 

ERZAHLUNGEN. E. Hofer. 3^. 

"The series has brought fascinating examples of fiction under the eyes of 
English readers in a neat and handy form. Besides having the military flavour, 
they are models of style." Scotsman. 


Elementary Grammar of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language. 
8vo, cloth. 7^. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


LpRD MACAULAY S ENGLISH. Edited, with Notes, 
Hints, and Introduction, by the late James Boielle, B.A. (Univ. 
Gall.), Officier d Academic, Senior French Master, Dulwich 
College, etc., etc. Crown 8vo, cloth. Vol. I. Frederick the 
Great. 3*. Vol. II. Warren Hastings. y. Vol. III. Lord 
Clive. 3J. 

See Victor Hugo, " Les Miserables" and " Notre Dame." 


With Notes and Tables. For the use of Naval Officers and Naval 
Cadets. By Leon Delbos, M.A. , of H.M.S. Britannia, Dart 
mouth. 4th Edition, thoroughly revised and considerably 
enlarged, with additional Plates. Crown 8vo, cloth. Js. 6d. net. 

OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE, with an Historical 
Sketch of the Formation of French. For the use of Public 
Schools. With Exercises. By G. Eugene- Fasnacht, late French 
Master, Westminster School. 23rd Edition, thoroughly revised. 
Square crown 8vo, cloth, 5^- > r separately, Grammar, 31. ; 
Exercises, 2s. 6d. 

GOETHE (W. v.). ANNOTATED TEXTS. See Educational 

CATION. Translated from Second German Edition by R. H. 
Hoar, Ph.D., and Richmond Barker, M.A. Cr. 8vo, cl., 2s. 6d. net. 

Preface, Translation, and Indices ; also a Treatise on Irish Neuter 
Substantive;:, and a Supplement to the Index Vocabulorum of 
Zeuss s "Grammatica Celtica." Todd Lecture Series, Vol. IV. 
8vo, sewed. 3^. 6J. 


ARY. By Edmund Hogan, S.J., F.R.U.I., M.R.I.A., Royal 
Irish Academy s Todd Professor of Celtic Languages. Todd 
Lecture Series, Vol. V. 2s. 6d. 



Alphabetical Index of Irish Neuter Substantives. Todd Lecture 
Series, Vol. VI. 2s. 6d. 

Episodes. Edited, with Life and Notes, by the late J. Boielle. 
2 vols. 6th Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. Each y. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


for the use of Schools and Colleges. By the late J. Boielle. 
2 vols. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. Each 3^. 

LEABHAR BREAC. The "Speckled Book," otherwise styled, 
"The Great Book of Dun Doighre": a Collection of Pieces in 
Irish and Latin, transcribed towards the close of the Fourteenth 
Century. "The oldest and best Irish MS. relating to Church 
History now preserved" (G. Petrie). Now first published, from 
the original MS. in the Royal Irish Academy s Library. In 
imperial folio, on toned paper. In one vol., half-calf, ^4, 4^. 
(200 copies only printed.) 

LEABHAR NA H-UIDHRI. A Collection of Pieces in Prose 
and Verse, in the Irish Language, transcribed about A.D. noo; 
the oldest volume now known entirely in the Irish language, 
and one of the chief surviving native literary monuments not 
ecclesiastical of ancient Ireland ; now for the first time pub 
lished, from the original in the Library of the Royal Irish 
Academy, with account of the Manuscript, description of its 
contents, index, and facsimiles in colours. In folio on toned 
paper, half-calf. $, 3^. (200 copies only printed.) 

LILJA (The Lily). An Icelandic Religious Poem. By Eystein 
Asgrimson. Edited, with Translation, Notes, and Glossary, by 
E. Magnusson. Crown 8vo, cloth extra. los. 6d. 

REFORM. A Course of Four Lectures on School Curricula 
and Methods, delivered to Secondary Teachers and Teachers in 
Training at Birmingham during February 1905. 3^. 

" The work of a sensible iconoclast, who does not pull down for the sake of 
mere destruction, but is anxious to set up something more worthy in place of 
the medievalism he attacks." Outlook. 

" Let me commend this wise volume not only to teachers but to all concerned 
in national education. And especially to the politician. Half an hour with 
Sir Oliver Lodge would make him realise that there are problems on the inner 
side of the school door not dreamt of in his philosophy would make him feel 
that the more he knows of these the better will he be able wisely to handle those 
others about which he is glibly talking every day." Dr MACNAMARA in the 
Daily Chronicle. 

MAORI CONVERSATIONS. Containing Phrases and 
Dialogues on a variety of Topics, together with a few general 
rules of Grammar, and a comprehensive Vocabulary. 4_r. net. 
See also Williams. 

OF PERU. Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. 

NIBELUNGENLIED. "The Fall of the Nibelungens," other 
wise "The Book of Kriemhild." An English Translation by 
W. N. Lettsom. 5th Edition. 8vo, cloth. $s. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


XXXI.). A Collection of Tales in Irish, with Extracts illus 
trating Persons and Places. Edited from MSS. and translated. 
2 vols. royal 8vo, cloth. 425. Or separately, Vol. I., Irish 
Text; and Vol. II., Translation and Notes. Each vol. 2ls. 

OORDT (J. F. VAN, B.A.). CAPE DUTCH. Phrases and 
Dialogues, with Translations, preceded by short- Grammatical 
Notes. Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. 

GERMAN LITERATURE, for Schools. By Vivian 
Phillipps, B.A., Assistant Master at Fettes College, Edinburgh. 
2nd Edition, revised. Pott 8vo, cloth, is. 

FRENCH. History, Grammar, Chrestomathy, and Glossary. 
2nd Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth. 6s. 

TURE, AND PHILOLOGY. For Candidates for the Scotch 
Leaving Certificate Examinations, the various Universities Local 
Examinations, and the Army Examinations. 4th Edition. Crown 
8vo, cloth. 5.5-. 

See also Voltaire. 


Edition. Large 8vo, strongly bound, half-roan, its. 6d. 

POEMS. Translated into English Verse by Gilbert Clark. 
Fcap. i>vo, cloth. $s. 

ANNOTATED TEXTS. See Educational Catalogue. 

GERMAN OF EBEL. With an Introduction on the Roots, 
Stems, and Derivatives, and on Case-endings of Nouns in the 
Indo-European Languages. 8vo, cloth, los. 

TODD LECTURE SERIES (Royal Irish Academy) 

Vol. I. Part i. Mesca Ulad ; or, The Intoxications of the 
Ultonians. Irish Text, with Translation and Notes, by W. M. 
Hennesy. 8vo, sewed, is. 6d. 

Vol. II. Leabhar Breac, Passions and Homilies from. 
Irish Text, Translation, and Glossary, with Lecture on Irish 
Lexicography, by Dr. R. Atkinson. 8vo, cloth. Part I, pages 
1-34, out of print. Part 2, pages 35-958, 6s. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



Vol. III. The Codex Palatine- Vaticanus. No. 830. Texts, 
Translations, and Indices, by B. MacCarthy, D. D. 8vo, sewed. 
2s. 6d. 

Vol. IV. Cath Ruis na Rig for Boinn. With Preface, Trans 
lation, Indices, a Treatise on Irish Neuter Substantives, and a 
Supplement to the Index Vocabulorum of Zeuss s " Grammatica 
Celtica." By E. Hogan. 8vo, sewed. y. 6d. 

Vol. V. The Latin Lives of the Saints as aids towards the 
Translation of Irish Texts and the Production of an Irish 
Dictionary. By Edmund Hogan, S.J., F. R.U.I., M.R.I. A., 
Royal Irish Academy s Todd Professor of the Celtic Languages. 
2s. 6d. 

Vol. VI. The Irish Nennius from L. Na Huidre, and 
Homilies and Legends from L. Breac. Alphabetical Index of 
Irish Neuter Substantives. By Edmund Hogan, S.J., F. R.U.I., 
M.R.I. A., Royal Irish Academy s Todd Professor of the Celtic 
Languages. 2s. 6d. 


Composed from the Dictionaries of the Spanish Academy, Terreros 
and Salva. Spanish- English and English-Spanish. 1279 pp., 
triple columns. 2 vols. in I. Imp, 8vo, cloth. 245. 

VIGA GLUMS SAGA. Translated from the Icelandic, with Notes 
and an Introduction, by Sir Edmund Head, Bart. Fcap. 8vo, 
cloth. Sj. 

Course of Exercises instructing in Simpler Composition. Crown 
Svo, cloth. 31. 


Grammar. New Edition. Crown Svo, cloth. (Key, $s. net.) 
y. 6d. 


Collection of the Idioms most in use. With Examination 
Papers. 3rd Edition. Cloth. 2s. 

G. Hunt. i6mo, cloth, is. 6d. 

" We most cordially recommend this book to anyone going out to settle in 
South Africa. . . . The dialogues and exercises are admirably planned." 

"To those outward bound such a book is sure to be useful." Practical 

WILLIAMS (The Right Rev. W. L., D.C.L.). A DICTION 

Edition. Edited by the Right Rev. Bishop W. L. Williams, with 
numerous additions and corrections. Demy Svo, cloth. 125. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W,C. 


WILLIAMS (The Right Rev. W. L., D.C.L.). LESSONS 
IN MAORI. 3rd Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth. 3*. 

YELLOW BOOK OF LEG AN. A Collection of Pieces (Prose 
and Verse) in the Irish Language, in part compiled at the end of 
the Fourteenth Century ; now for the first time published from the 
original Manuscript in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, by 
the Royal Irish Academy. With Introduction, Analysis of Con 
tents, and Index, by Robert Atkinson. 30 and 468 pp. (Royal 
Irish Academy s Irish facsimiles.) Large post folio, 1896, half- 
roan, Roxburghe, cloth sides. 4, 41. 

8vo, cloth. 6s. net. 

GREEK ; or, The Greek Language of the Present Day. 
I. The Elementary Method. Crown 8vo, cloth. 5^. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


V. Science. 


M.B., B.Ch., and J. H. ELLIOTT, M.D., Toronto. 
NIGERIA (1900). Part I. Malarial Fever, etc. (Liverpool 
School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir III.). los. 6d. Part II. 
Filariasis (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir IV.). 
Out of print separately, but is contained in the Thompson- Yates 
Laboratory Reports, Vol. IV., Part /. Price 2Os. 

tions from Photomicrographs. Royal 8vo, cloth. 31.?. 6d. 

ANALYSIS. Small 8vo. Pages vi + 82. 15 Illustrations. 
45. 6d. net. 

GIENE. Small 8vo. Pages v+ 164. 

lated by Jones. Small 8vo. Pages viii + 245. 44 Illustrations. 
8s, 6d. net. 

I2mo. 96 pages. 6 Illustrations. 45. 6d. net. 

MEASURES AT ISMAILIA. (Liverpool School of Tropical 
Medicine, Memoir XII.) Price is. 

LEANS, 1905. (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir 
XIX.) sj. net. 

BOYCE (RUBERT), A. EVANS, M.R.C.S., and H. H. 
FREETOWN (1905). (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, 
Memoir XIV.) With 8 Plates. <js. 

BRUCE (ALEX., M.A., M.D., F.R.C.P.E., F.R.S.E.). A 
Fcap. folio, half-leather. 2, 2s. net. 

TUMOURS OF THE BREAST. Researches showing 
their true seat and cause. With 24 Lithographic Plates containing 
138 figures from the Author s drawings. Royal 8vo, cloth. 
I2s. 6d. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


CULOSIS. By Charles Creighton, M.D., sometime Demon 
strator of Anatomy, Cambridge Medical School, author of " Bovine 
Tuberculosis in Man," etc. Royal 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net. 


1. Cubic Transformations. By John Casey, LL. D. 4to, 
sewed. 2s. 6d. 

2. On the Lumbar Curve in Man and the Apes. By 
D. J. Cunningham, M.D. 13 Plates. 410, sewed. $s. 

3. New Researches on Sun-heat, Terrestrial Radiation, 
etc. By Rev. Samuel Haughton, M.A., M.D. 9 Plates. 410, 
sewed, is. 6d. 

4. Dynamics and Modern Geometry. A New Chapter in 
the Theory of Screws. By Sir Robert S. Ball, LL. D. 410, 
sewed. 2s. 

5. The Red Stars. Observations and Catalogue. New 
Edition. Edited by Rev. T. Espin, M.A. 4to, sewed. y. 6d. 

6. On the Morphology of the Duck Tribe and the Auk 
Tribe. By W. K. Parker, F.R.S. 9 Plates. 410, sewed. 3^. 6</. 

7. Contribution to the Surface Anatomy of the Cerebral 
Hemispheres. By D. J. Cunningham, M.D. With a Chapter 
upon Cranio-Cerebral Topography by Victor Horsley, M.B., 
F.R.S. 410, sewed. 8s. 6d. 

8. On the Flinders Petrie Papyri. Part I. Out of Print. 

9. On the Flinders Petrie Papyri. Part II. With 18 Auto 
types. 4to, sewed. 42$. net. Appendix to 8 and 9. $s. net. 

10. The Decorative Art of British New Guinea. A Study 
in Papuan Ethnography. By Alfred C. Haddon, M.A. With 
12 Plates, and numerous other Illustrations. 4to, sewed, i^s. net. 

11. On the Flinders Petrie Papyri. With Transcriptions, 
Commentaries, and Index. By John P. MahafTy, D.D. , and Prof. 
J. Gilbert Smyly. With 7 Autotypes. 410, sewed. 42^. net. 

DURHAM (H. E., M.A., M.B., F.R.C.S.), and the late 
(Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir VII.) 410, 
7s. 6d. 

pool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir X.) 4to. IO.T. 6d. net. 

and JOHN L. TODD, B.A., M.D., CM., M Gill. FIRST 

TION TO SENEGAMBIA (1902). (Liverpool School of 
Tropical Medicine, Memoir XI.) 410. IO.T. 6d. net 


1903-5- price s s - 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


BUTTON (J. E., M.B., Ch.B.) and JOHN L. TODD, B.A., 
CONGO FREE STATE. (Liverpool School of Tropical 
Medicine, Memoir XVII.) 4to. With Map, 4 Plates, and 9 
Temperature Charts. Price "js. 6d. net. 

WATER. 8vo. Pages x+ 140. 90 Illustrations. 

of Tropical Medicine, Memoir XV. ) 410. Price 7^. 6d. net. 

ISTRY. Translated by Wolf. I2mo. Pages viii + 2o6. 26 
Figures. 6s. 6d. net. 


8vo. Pages iv + 365. 163 Figures. 85. 6d. net. 


22 pp. 6 Figures. 15. net. 

CALCULUS. From the German. Royal 8vo, cloth, IQS. 6d. 

GINNERS. Small I2mo. 

Vol. I. Inorganic. Pages viii+i88. 55 Illustrations and 2 

Plates. Fourth Edition. 45-. 6d. net. 

Vol. II. Organic. Pages iv + gS. u Illustrations. 2s. net. 
Vol. III. Experiments. Separately. 60 pages. 15. net. 

SECOND YEAR CHEMISTRY. Small i2mo. 165 pages. 

31 Illustrations. $s. net. 

DYNAMICS. Revised and enlarged by Dr. Ernst Cohen, 
Assistant in the Chemical Laboratory of the University of Amster 
dam. Translated by Thomas Ewan, M.Sc., Ph.D., Demonstrator 
of Chemistry in the Yorkshire College, Leeds. Royal 8vo, cloth. 
IOJ-. 6d. 

Washington and Lee University. Being a Second Edition of 
" Inorganic Chemistry according to the Periodic Law." By 
F. P. Venable and J. L. Howe. Demy 8vo, cloth. I2s. 6d. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


ministration and their Problems. A short account of the 
Origin and Growth of British Sea Fishery Authorities and Regu 
lations, los. 6d. net. 

THE HORSE. To be completed in 4 Parts. With above 100 
Illustrations, a number being in colour. Part I. Head and Neck. 
Part II. Fore Limb. Part III. Hind Limb. Price per part, 15^. 
net, sewed; cloth, i6s. 6d. net. 

- LIFE-SIZE MODELS, Illustrating the Superficial 
Anatomy of the Limbs of the Horse. Price per set of four 
models, 21 ; or separately Fore Limb, Inner and Outer 
Aspects, 6, i6s. 6d. each ; Hind Limb, Inner and Outer 
Aspects, 6, 6s. each. 

vii + 64. 14 Illustrations, y. net. 


various prices. Index to Journal (Botany), zos. Zoology. At 
various prices. General Index to the first 20 vols. of the Journal 
(Zoology) and the Zoological portion of the Proceedings, zos. 

SOCIETY, containing its transactions and Proceedings, with 
other Microscopical information. Bi-monthly. Previous to 1893 
at various prices ; after that date bi-monthly, each 6s. net. 

CLUB. Nos. 1-26, is. net; Nos. 27-31, 2s. 6d. net. 1893, 
No. 32, and following Nos., half-yearly, 3^. 6d. net. 

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS. 8vo. Pp. xxi + 7Si. 83 
Illustrations. 315. 6d. net. 

Small I2mo. Pages viii-f 197. Illustrated. Out of Print. 8.r. 6d. net. 

vi+i54. 6s. 6d. net. 

OF THE ELECTRIC CURRENT. 8vo. 122 pages. 

PLANTS AND ANIMALS. Edited by W. A. Herdman, 
t.Sc., F.R.S. All demy 8vo, stiff boards. 

i. Ascidia. By W. A. Herdman. With 5 Plates. Price 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


2. Cardium. By J. Johnstone, Fisheries Assistant, University 
College, Liverpool. With 7 Plates. Price 2s. 6rf. net. 

3. Echinus. By Herbert Clifton Chadwick, Curator of the Port 
Erin Biological Station. With 5 Plates. Price 2s. net. 

4. Codium. By K. J. Harvey Gibson, M.A. , F.L.S., Professor of 
Botany in University College, Liverpool, and Helen P. Auld, B.Sc., 
With 3 Plates. Price is. 6rf. net. 

5. Alcyonium. By Sydney J. Hickson, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., 
Beyer Professor of Zoology in Owens College, Manchester. With 
3 Plates. Price is. 6rf. net. 

6. Lepeophtheirus and Lernea. By Andrew Scott, Resident 
Fisheries Assistant at the Peel Hatchery. With 5 Plates. 2s. net. 

7. Lineus. By R. C. Punnett, B.A. , with 4 Plates. 2s. net. 

8. Pleuronectes. By Frank J. Cole, Jesus College, Oxford, 
Lecturer in the Victoria University, Demonstrator of Zoology, 
University, Liverpool, and James Johnstone, B.Sc. Lond. , Fisheries 
Assistant, University, Liverpool. With 1 1 Plates. Js. net. 

9. Chondrus. By Otto V. Darbishire, Owens College, Man 
chester. With 7 Plates. 2s. 6d. net. 

10. Patella (the Common Limpet). By J. R. Ainsworth 
Davis, M.A., Professor of Zoology in the University College of 
W T aks, Aberystwyth, and H. J. Fleure, B.Sc., Fellow of the 
University of Wales. With 4 Plates. 2s. 6rf. net. 

11. Arenicola (the Lug- Worm). ByJ. H. Ashworth, D.Sc., 
Lecturer in Invertebrate Zoology in the University of Edinburgh. 
With 8 Plates. Price 4$. 6d. net. 

12. Gammarus. By Margaret Cussans, B.Sc., Zoological 
Department, University of Liverpool. With 4 Plates. 25. net. 

13. Anurida. By A. D. Imms, B.Sc. (Lond.). With 7 
Plates. Price 45. net. 

14. Ligia. By C. Gordon Hewitt, B.Sc., Demonstrator in 
Zoology. University of Manchester. With 4 Plates. 2s. net. 

15. Antedon. By Herbert Clifton Chadwick. With 7 Plates. 
2s. 6rf. net. 

1 6. Cancer. By Joseph Pearson, M. Sc., Demonstrator in 
Zoology, University of Liverpool. With 13 Plates. 6s. 6rf. net. 


Small Svo. Pages v + 2^g. 31 Illustrations. 6s. 6rf. net. 

MASON (W. P., Prof, of Chem.). NOTES ON QUALITA 
TIVE ANALYSIS. Sm. I2mo. 56 pp. 

MANUAL. i6mo. Leather. Pocket Edition. Pages vii + 204. 
Out of Print. Ss. 6rf. net. 


ANALYSIS. Second Edition. With 100 Illustrations. 145. 6rf. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



I. Ross (R.) Malarial Fever : Its Cause, Prevention, 
and Treatment. 8vo. zs. 6d. 

II. Ross (R.), H. E. Annett, and E. E. Austen. Report 
of the Malaria Expedition to Sierra Leone (1899). 4to. zis. 

III. Annett (H. E.), J. E. Button, and J. H. Elliott. 
Report of the Malaria Expedition to Nigeria (1900). I. 
Malarial Fever. 4to. los. 6d. 

V. Ross (R.) and M. L. Taylor. Progress Reports of 
the Campaign against Mosquitoes in Sierra Leone. Part I. 
1901. With a Letter from Dr. Daniels regarding the results 
arrived at to date. 8vo. is. Part II. 1902. 8vo. is. 

VI. [Not issued yet.} 

VII. Durham (H. E.) and W. Myers. Report of the 
Yellow Fever Expedition to Para (1900). 410. "]s. 6d. 

VIII. Taylor (M. L.). Report on the Sanitary Conditions 
of Cape Coast Town. 8vo. is. 

IX. Ross (R.). Report on Malaria at Ismailia and 
Suez. 8vo. is. 

X. Duttpn (J. E.). Report of the Malaria Expedition to 
the Gambia. 410. ics. 6d. net. 

XL Dutton (]. E.) and J. L. Todd. First Report of the 
Trypanosomiasis Expedition to Senegambia (1902). 410. 
los. 6d. net. [Also contained in Thompson-Yates Laboratories 
Reports, V. 2.] 

XII. Boyce(R.). The Anti-Malaria Measures at Ismailia. 
8vo. is. 

XIII. Dutton (J. E) and J. L. Todd. Reports of the 
Trypanosomiasis Expedition to the Congo (1903-1904). With 
a Comparison of the Trypanosomes of Uganda and the Congo Free 
State by H. W. Thomas, M.D. M Gill, and Stanley F. Linton, B.Sc., 
M.B. Liverpool ; and a Note on Tsetse Flies by E. E. Austen, 
Zoological Department, British Museum. Paper covers. 155. net. 

XIV. Boyce (Rubert, M.B., F.R.S.), Arthur Evans, 
M.R.C.S., H. Herbert Clarke, M.A., B.C., Cantab. 
Report on the Sanitation and Anti-Malarial Measures in 
practice in Bathurst, Conakry, and Freetown (1905). 4to. 
8 Plates. Price 5*. 

XV. Giles (Lieut. -Colonel). General Sanitation and Anti- 
Malarial Measures in Sekondi, the Goldfields, and Kumassi, 
and a Comparison between the Conditions of European 
Residence in India. 410. Price js. 6d. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



XVI. Thomas (H. Wolferstan, M.D., M Gill) and 
Anton Breinl, M.U.Dr., Prag. Trypanosomes, Trypano- 
somiasis, and Sleeping Sickness : Pathology and Treatment. 

4to. 6 Plates (5 coloured) and 7 Charts. Price I2.T. 6d. net. 

XVII. Dutton (J. Everett, M.B.) and John L. Todd, B.A., 
M.D., M Gill. The Nature of Human Tick- Fever in the 
Eastern Part of the Congo Free State. 4to. With Map, 4 
Plates, and 9 Temperature Charts. Price 7^. 6d. net. 

XVIII. i. Dutton (J. Everett, M.B.) and John L. Todd, 
B.A., M.D., C.M., M Gill. Gland Palpation in Human 
Trypanosomiasis ; and 2. The Distribution and Spread of 
" Sleeping Sickness " in the Congo Free State. With 4 
Maps (2 colours) and 4 Plates. 3. Newstead (R., A.L.S., 
F.E.S.) and John L. Todd, B.A., M.D., C.M., M Gill. 
A New Dermanyssid Acarid. With i Plate. 4. Newstead 
(R., A.L.S., F.E.S.). Another New Dermanyssid Acarid. 
With i Plate. 5. Stephens (J. W. W., M.D., Cantab.) and 
R. Newstead, A.L.S., F.E.S. Anatomy of the Proboscis of 
Biting Flies. With 6 Plates. Imp. Svo. Price Js. 6d. net. 

XIX. Boyce (Rubert, M.B., F.R.S.). Yellow Fever 
Prophylaxis in New Orleans in 1905. Imp. Svo. Maps and 
6 Plates. Price $s. net. 

XX. i. Dutton (J. Everett, M.B.) and John L. Todd, 
B.A., M.D. La prophylaxie de la Malaria dans les 
principaux postes de 1 Etat Independant du Congo. With 
4 Maps, and 4 Illustrations. Imp. Svo. 2. Breinl (Anton, 
M.D.) and A. Kinghorn, M.B. The Animal Reactions of 
the Spirochaeta of African "Tick Fever." Imp. 8vo. 3. 
Breinl (Anton, M.D.). The Specific Nature of the Spiro 
chaeta of African " Tick Fever." Imp. Svo. Price 55. 

XXI. Runcorn Research Laboratories. An Experimental 
Study of the Parasite of the African "Tick Fever." Note 
on a new Spirochseta found in a Mouse. Comparison between the 
Trypanosomes, and other articles. 4to. JS. 6d. net. 

Pages x + 3O5. 41 Illustrations. 105. 6d. net. 

LYTIC LABORATORIES. Svo. 81 pages. 52 Illustra 
tions. 5^ . net. 

PARA. By the Members of the Yellow Fever Expedition. 
(Published by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.) is. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


FOR THE LABORATORY. Small i2mo. Pages xii + 257. 
22 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. net. 

STANCES. 8vo. 8l pp. 2s. net. 


See Crown Theological Library, p. 11. 

8vo, cloth, y. 6d. net. Nearly 100 pages, 17 full-page Plates. 

fessor of Anatomy in the University of Liverpool, Hunterian 
Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons of England). 
THE HUMAN STERNUM. Three Lectures delivered at 
the Royal College of Surgeons, England, November 1903. With 
10 Plates. Crown 4to. los. net. 


Edition. 8vo. Pages viii -f 1 70. 3 Illustrations. 45. 6d. net. 

FOR THE LAW OF STORMS. Being a Practical Exposi 
tion of the Theory of the Law of Storms, and its uses to Mariners of 
all Classes in all Parts of the World. Shown by transparent Storm 
Cards and useful Lessons. 7th Ed. Demy 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 

PRAY (Dr.). ASTIGMATIC LETTERS. Printed on Mill 
board, size 22 by 14 inches. is. 

No. I, 1905. Crown 4to, cloth. lor. net. 

RANSOM (W. H., M.D., F.R.S., F.R.C.P.). THE IN 
Demy Svo, cloth. "js. 6d. 

Texts, Variants, Translation, and Illustrations. Vol. I. Second 
Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


STON LABORATORIES. Demy 410, with Illustrations. 
Vol. I. 1898-9. los. (>d. Vol. II. 1898-9. z$s. Vol. III. 
Part I. 1900. 7s. 6d. Vol. III. Part 2. 1901. 12s. 6d. Vol. 

IV. Part I. 1901. 20s. Vol. IV. Part 2. 1902. 215. New 
Series. Vol. V. Part I. 1903. Limp, 2Os. ; cloth, 2is. Vol. 

V. Part 2. 1903. Limp, I2s. 6d. ; cloth, 135-. 6d. Vol. VI. 
Part i. 1905. Limp, I2s. 6d. ; cloth, 135-. 6d. Vol. VI. Part 
2. 151. Vol. VII. Part I. IDS. 6d. 

ROSS (RONALD, C.B., F.R.S., etc., Major I. M.S. (retired) ). 
MALARIAL FEVER : Its Cause, Prevention, and Treat 
ment. (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir I.) 8vo, 
cloth. 2s. 6d. 

H. E. ANNETT, M.D., D.P.H., and E. E. AUSTEN. 
SIERRA LEONE (1899). (Liverpool School of Tropical 
Medicine, Memoir II.) 4to. 2is. 



With a Letter from Dr. Daniels regarding the results arrived at to 
date. (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir V. i.) is. 


(1902). By M. Logan Taylor, M.B. (Liverpool School of 
Tropical Medicine, Memoir V. 2.) is. 


SUEZ. (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir IX.) 

SANG S LOGARITHMS. A new Table of Seven-place Loga 
rithms of all Numbers continuously up to 200,000. 2nd Edition. 
Royal 8vo, cloth. 2is. 

TICS, or a System of Hygienic Exercises for Home Use, to be 
practised anywhere, without apparatus or assistance, by young and 
old of either sex, for the preservation of health and general activity. 
Revised and Supplemented by Rudolf Graefe, M. D. With a 
large plate and 45 illustrations in the text. Royal 8vo, cloth, 
3.5-. net. 

"The exercises described, when efficiently used, will undoubtedly be of value 
in strengthening and developing the muscular system. The descriptions of the 
exercises and the figures in the text are excellent." Physician and Surgeon. 

" Well worthy of the attention of those who go in for regular physical train 
ing as a means for the preservation of health." Scotsman. 

"A very sensible little treatise." Glasgow Herald. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


NUMBERS from i to 108,000, and of Sines, Cosines, 
Tangents, Cotangents to every 10 Seconds of the Quad 
rant. With a Table of Proportional Parts. By Dr. Ludwig 
Schroen, Director of the Observatory of Jena, etc., etc. 5th 
Edition, corrected and stereotyped. With a description of the 
Tables by A. De Morgan, Professor of Mathematics in University 
College, London. Imp. 8vo, cloth, printed on light green paper. 

AUGUST SEGER. (Papers on Manufacture of Pottery.) 
2 vols. Large 8vo. .3, $s. net per set; per volume, 315. 6d. 

for the Determination of the Acuteness of Vision. I4th Edition, 
considerably augmented and improved. 8vo, sewed. 4^. Single 
Sheets : E T B, MOV, B D E, til UJ UJ, and Large Clock Sheet. 
&/. each. Small Clock Sheet and R T V Z. 4^. each. 


Second Edition. 8vo. Pages x + 294. i Plate. 40 Illustrations. 
6s. 6d. net. 


A Collection and full Description of all Phanerogamic and the 
principal Cryptogamic Plants, classified after the Natural System, 
with an artificial Key and a Glossary of Botanical Terms. By the 
late C. O. Sonntag, the Royal High School, Edinburgh ; formerly 
Secretary of the Microscopical Society of Glasgow, etc. Fcap. 8vo, 
limp cloth, round corners, with Map of the Environs of Edinburgh. 
31. 6d. net. 

STEPHENS (T. W. W., M.D. Cantab., D.P.H.) and S. R. 
SITES. (Published for the Liverpool School of Tropical Medi 
cine). 8vo, cloth. 3rd Edition, izs. 6d. net. 

CHEMISTRY. Third Edition. 8vo. Pages x + 597. 139 
Illustrations. 191. net. 


(Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir VIII.) 8vo. 



14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


School of Tropical Medicine, Memoir XVI.) 6 Plates (5 coloured) 
and 7 Charts. Price js. 6d. net. 

LIQUIDS. 8vo. Pages iv+igo. 20 Illustrations. 6s. 6d. 

EDINBURGH. Vol. XXXVIII. Part i, 405. Part 2, 25*. 
Part 3, 305-. Part 4, "js. 6d. Vol. XXXIX. Part I, $os. Part 
2,195-. Part 3, 435. Part 4, 9.5-. Vol. XL. Part 1,251. Complete 
parts only we do not supply separate papers. General Index to 
First Thirty-four Volumes (1783-1888), with History of the 
Institution. 4to, cloth. 2is. 

DUBLIN. Vols. I.-XX. 4to. ^22, 5*. 6d. Vols. XXI.- 
XXXI. Various prices. 


Various volumes at various prices. 

the 4Oth, or Dr. Bremiker s Edition, thoroughly revised and en 
larged, by W. L. F. Fischer, M.A., F.R.S., Fellow of Clare 
College, Cambridge ; Professor of Natural Philosophy in the 
University of St. Andrews. 75th Stereotyped Edition. Royal 8vo, 
cloth. TS. 

THE PERIODIC LAW. Small I2mo. Pages viii + 32i. 
Illustrated. IQS. 6d. net. 

THE STUDY OF THE ATOM. i2mo. Pages vi + 29o. 

8s. 6d. net. 

ING TO THE PERIODIC LAW. Second Edition. See 
under Howe, p. 46. 

ANALYSIS. 3 vols. 8vo. New Edition in preparation. Vol.1. 
Soils. Ready. i8s. net. Vol. II. Fertilizers. 

WYSOR (HENRY, B.S., Assistant Professor of Analytical 
Chemistry, Lafayette College). METALLURGY. A 

Condensed Treatise. Demy 8vo, cloth. 125. 6d. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


VI. Miscellaneous. 


AVEBURY (Lord, D.C.L., F.R.S., etc.) (Sir John Lubbock). 
PREHISTORIC TIMES, as Illustrated by Ancient Re 
mains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. 

6th Edition, revised, with 239 Illustrations, a large number of 
which are specially prepared for this Edition. Demy 8vo, cloth, 
gilt tops. 185. 

" To anyone who wishes to obtain a succinct conspectus of the present state 
of knowledge on the subject of early man, we recommend the perusal of this 
comprehensive volume." Jour. Brit. Archa-olog. Assoc. 

" The fact that this well-known standard work has reached a sixth edition is 
evidence of its value to ethnologists and archaeologists. The many and beautiful 
illustrations are most helpful in better understanding the plain but accurate 
letterpress. Lord Avebury is to be congratulated on the new edition, which 
is sure to further popularise a fascinating subject for investigation by cultured 
people. " Science Gossip. 

" It is necessary to compare the present volume with the fifth edition in 
order to see how much it has been improved. The illustrations to this sixth 
edition are immeasurably superior to the fifth. " Knowledge. 


Record of the Women s Suffrage Movement in the British Isles, 
with a Biographical Sketch of Miss Becker. Portraits. Crown 8vo, 
cloth. 6s. 

See also Vynne, Nora, and Blackburn, " Women under the Factory 


reference to the recent mythological works of the Right Hon. 
Prof. Max Muller and Mr. Andrew Lang. Demy 8vo, cloth. 
75. (td. 


map of the Northern Hemisphere as viewed at Phoenicia 1200 B.C., 
and other maps. 2 vols. demy 8vo, cloth. lOs. (>d. each. 


Essays. Demy 8vo, cloth. 7*. 6d. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Square. By C. T. Hagberg Wright, LL. D., etc. xiv+i626 pp. 
4to, cloth. 42s. net. Supplement I., 1902-3. Buckram, I vol., 
196 pp. 5^. net. Supplement II. 198 pp. 1903-4. Buckram. 
$s. net. Supplement IV. 1905-6. $s. net. 

" The present catalogue is essentially a working catalogue. . . . The general 
level of accuracy in the printing and editing of the work appears to us to be an 
unusually high one. . . . We heartily applaud the work, both as a landmark 
in library land, and as a monument standing upon a firm foundation of its own." 
The Times. 


Norsemen in the Orkneys, and the Monuments they have left, 
with a Survey of the Celtic (Pre-Norwegian) and Scottish (Post- 
Norwegian) Monuments on the Islands. With original drawings 
and some Chapters on St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall, by Johan 
Meyer, Architect. Demy 4to, cloth. ^3 net. 

IRON AGE. Illustrated by recent Discoveries in the Peat- 
Mosses of Slesvig. 33 Plates (giving representations of upwards of 
a thousand objects), Maps, and numerous other Illustrations on 
wood. 1866. 410, cloth. 315 . 6d. 

to Frobel s Method of Education. 2 vols. in I. 120 pp. of Illus 
trations. 8vo, cloth, los. 6d. 

LIVERPOOL. An Inquiry into the Economic Effects of Legisla 
tion regulating the Labour of Women. 8vo. y. 

HENRY (JAMES). ^ENEIDEA ; or, Critical, Exegetical and 
^Esthetical Remarks on the ^Eneis. With a personal collation 
of all the first-class MSS., and upwards of 100 second-class MSS. , 
and all the principal editions. Vol. I. (3 Parts), Vol. II. (3 Parts), 
Vol. III. (3 Parts), Vol. IV. (i Part). Royal 8vo, sewed. 
2, 2s. net. 

TION TO EXAMINATION. Letters from "All Sorts and 
Conditions of Men." Edited by Auberon Herbert. Half-cloth 
boards. 2s. 


HEALTH. Dedicated to Professor Clifford Allbutt. Reprinted 
from the " Contemporary Review." 8vo, cloth, is. 6d. : sewed, is. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 



With a brief account of the Author s Life and Writings. Demy 
8vo, cloth. 15.5-. net. 

the Ancient World, for Schools and Colleges. Third hundred 
thousand. I2th Edition, with a complete Geographical Index. 
Folio, boards. 6s. Strongly bound in cloth. 75. did. 


Wall-map of Ancient Italy. Italia antiqua. For the study of 
Livy, Sallust, Cicero, Dionysius, etc. Scale I : 800,000. Mounted 
on rollers, varnished. 2Os. 

General Wall-map of the Old World. Tabula orbis terrarum 
antiqui ad illustrandam potissimum antiquissimi aevi usque ad Alex- 
andrum M. historiam. For the study of ancient history, espe 
cially the history of the Oriental peoples : the Indians, Medes, 
Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, etc. 
Scale I : 5,400,000. Mounted on rollers, varnished, 2os. 

General Wall-map of the Roman Empire. Imperii Romani 
tabula geographica. For the study of the development of the Roman 
Empire. Scale I : 300,000. Mounted on rollers, varnished. 24$. 

Wall-map of Ancient Latium. Latii Veteris et finitimarum 
regionum tabula. For the study of Livy, Dionysius, etc. Scale 
1:125,000. With supplement: Environs of Rome. Scale 
I : 25,000. Mounted on rollers, varnished. iSs. 

Wall-map of Ancient Greece. Graeciae Antiquae tabula. For 
the study of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Strabo, Cornelius 
Nepos, etc. Scale I : 500,000. Mounted on rollers, varnished. 

Wall- Map of the Empires of the Persians and of 
Alexander the Great. Imperia Persarum et Macedonum. For 
the study of Herodotus, Xenophon, Justinian, Arian, Curtius. 
Scale I : 300,000. Mounted on rollers and varnished. 2os. 

Wall Map of Gaul, with portions of Ancient Britain and 
Ancient Germany. Gallioe Cisalpinae et Transalpine cum parti- 
bus Britanniae et Germanise tabula. For the study of Ccesar, 
Justinian, Livy, Tacitus, etc. Scale I : 1,000,000. Mounted on 
rollers and varnished. 24J. 

Wall-Map of Ancient Asia Minor. Asiae Minoris Antiquae 
Tabula. For the study of Herodotus, Xenophon, Justinian, Arian, 
Curtius, etc. Scale I : 800,000. Mounted on rollers and var 
nished. 2OJ. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


MARCKS (ERICH, Professor of Modern History at the 
University of Leipzig). ENGLAND AND GERMANY: 
Their Relations in the Great Crises of European History, 
1500-1900. Demy 8vo, stiff wrapper. is. 


With Maps, Illustrations. Crown 8vo, art linen. 6s. net. 


From the Earliest Times to the Municipal Reform Act of 1835. 
4to, cloth. 2is. net. 

OTIA MERSEIANA. The Publication of the Arts Faculty of the 
University of Liverpool, Vols. I.-III. 8vo. 1899-1903. Each 
IDS. 6d. 

FIFTEENTH CENTURY. A List of the Issues. 

REMUNERATION. 3rd Edition, revised and enlarged. 
Crown 8vo, cloth. TS. 6d. Popular Edition, y. 6d. 

" In its new as in its old form the book is well nigh indispensable to the 
student who desires to get some insight into the actual facts about the various 
methods of industrial remuneration, and the degree of success with which they 
have been applied in the various trades." Manchester Guardian. 

" More useful than ever to the students of the labour problem." Political 
Science Quarterly. 


P- 30. 



AMINED. Illustrations. 8vo, cloth. 8s. 



Folio. 2Os. net. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


VEILED FIGURE (THE), and Other Poems. Large post 8vo, 
buckram, gilt, cover designed by Mr. T. Blake Wirgman. 
2s. 6d. 

the Assistance of H. W. ALLASON. WOMEN UNDER 
THE FACTORY ACTS. 1 art I. Position of the Employer. 
Part 2. Position of the Employed. Crown 8vo, cloth, is. net. 

SOME OF HIS FRIENDS. With an Appendix by the late 
Bertram Tennyson. Illustrated with Portraits in photogravure 
and colour, and with a facsimile of a MS. poem. Fcap. 8vo, 
art linen. 41. 6d. net. 

" This is a delightful little book, written by one who has all the qualifications 
for the task the opportunities of observation, the interest of relationship, and the 
sympathetic and appreciative temper. . . . We do not attempt to criticise, 
but only to give such a description as will send our readers to it " Spectator. 

" Everyone who reads the book will understand Tennyson a little better, 
and many will view him in a new aspect for the first time." Daily Chronicle. 

"It is quite worthy of a place side by side with the larger Life. " Glasgow 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 






THE HIBBERT JOURNAL: A Quarterly Review of 
Religion, Theology, and Philosophy. Single numbers, 2s. 6J. 
net. Subscription, los. per annum, post free. 

MUSEUMS. Issued quarterly. Single numbers, 15-. 6d. net. 
Subscription, $$. per annum. 

SOCIETY, containing its Transactions and Proceedings, with 
other Microscopical Information. Bi-monthly. 6s. net. Yearly 
subscriptions, 37^. 6d. , post free. 

CLUB. Issued half-yearly, April and November. Price 3^. 6d. 
net. "js. 6d. per annum, post free. 

LINNEAN SOCIETY OF LONDON. Journal of Botany and 
Journal of Zoology. Published irregularly at various prices. 

irregularly at various prices. 


Memoirs. I. -XVI. already published at various prices. Fauna of 
Liverpool Bay. Fifth Report written by Members of the Com 
mittee and other Naturalists. Cloth. 8.r. 6d. net. See p. 47. 

Notices. Yearly volumes at various prices. 

ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY. Transactions and Proceedings 
issued irregularly ; prices vary. Cunningham Memoirs. Vols. 
I.-X. already issued at various prices. 

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY. Transactions and Proceedings. 

Issued irregularly at various prices. 

14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Abhidhanaratnamala. Aufrecht, 33. 
Acland, Sir C. T. D. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 
Acts of the Apoitles. Adolf Harnack, 12. 
Addis, W. E. Hebrew Religion, n. 
yEneidea. James Henry, 56. 
African Tick Fever, 50 

Agricultural Chemical Analysis. Wiley, 54. 
Alcyonium. Vide L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Allin, Rev. Thos. Universalism Asserted, 14. 
Alviella, Count Goblet D . Contemporary 

Evolution of Religious Thought, 14. 
Alviella, Count Goblet D . Idea of God, 13. 
Americans, The. Hugo Miinsterberg, 22. 
Analysis of Ores. F. C. Phillips, 51. 
Analysis of Theology. E. G. Figg, 17. 
Ancient Arabian Poetry. C. J. Lyall, 34. 
Ancient Assyria, Religion of. Sayce, 14. 
Ancient World, Wall Maps of the, 57. 
Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

Annett, H. E. Malarial Expedition, Nigeria, 49. 
Annotated Catechism, 14. 
Annotated Texts. Goethe, 30. 
Antedon. Vide L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Anthems. Rev. R. Crompton Jones, 20. 
Anti-Malaria Measures. Rubert Boyce, 44. 
Antigua Mater. Edwin Johnson, 20. 
Anurida. Vide L..M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Apocalypse. Bleek, 7, 

Apologetic of the New Test. E. F. Scott, 12. 
Apostle Paul, the, Lectures on. Pfleiderer, 13. 
Apostolic Age, The. Carl von Weizsacker, 6. 
Arabian Poetry, Ancient, 34. 
Arenicola. Vide L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Argument of Adaptation. Rev. G. Henslow, 18. 
Aristotelian Society, Proceedings of, 29. 
Army Series of French and German Novels, 38. 
Ascidia. Johnstone, L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 47. 
Ashworth, J. H. Arenicola, 48. 
Assyrian Dictionary. Norris, 35. 
Assyrian Language, A Concise Dictionary of. 

W. Muss-Arnolt, 35. 

Assyriology, Essay on. George Evans, 34. 
Astigmatic Letters. Dr. Pray, 51. 
Athanasius of Alexandria, Canons of, 37. 
Atlas Antiquus, Kiepert s, 57. 
Atonement, Doctrine of the. Sabatier, 10. 
At-one-ment, The. Rev. G. Henslow, 18. 
Aufrecht, Dr. T. Abhidhanaratnamala, 33. 
Auf Verlornem Posten. Dewall, 38. 
Autobiography. Herbert Spencer, 30. 
Avebury, Lord. Prehistoric Times, 55. 
Avesti, Pahlavi. Persian Studies, 33. 

Babel and Bible. Friedrich Delitzsch, 9. 
Bacon, Roger, The "Opus Majus"of, 28. 
Bad Air and Bad Health. Herbert and Wager, 


Ball, Sir Robert S. Cunningham Memoir, 45. 
Ballads. F. von Schiller, 41. 
Bases of Religious Belief. C. B. Upton, 14, 26. 
Bastian, H. C. Studies in Heterogenesis, 44. 
Baur. Church History, 7 ; Paul, 7. 
Bayldon, Rev. G. Icelandic Grammar, 38. 
Beard, Rev. Dr. C. Universal Christ, 15 ; 

Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 13. 
Beeby, Rev. C. E. Doctrine and Principles, 1 5. 

Beet, Prof. J. A. Child and Religion, 10. 

Beginnings of Christianity. Paul Wernle, 4. 

Beliefs about the Bible. M. J. Savage, 24. 

Benedict, F. E. Organic Analysis, 44. 

Bergey, D. G. Practical Hygiene, 44. 

Bernstein and Kirsch. Syriac Chrestomathy, 33. 

Bible. Translated by Samuel Sharpe, 15. 

Bible, Beliefs about, Savage, 24 ; Bible Plants, 
Henslow, 18 ; Bible Problems, Prof. T. K. 
Cheyne, 10 ; How to Teach the, Rev. A. F. 
Mitchell, 21. 

Biblical Hebrew, Introduction to. Rev. Jas. 
Kennedy, 20, 34. 

Biltz, Henry. Methods of Determining Mole 
cular Weights, 44. 

Biology, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30. 

Blackburn, Helen. Women s Suffrage, 55. 

Bleek. Apocalypse, 7. 

Boielle, Jas. French Composition, 40 ; Hugo, 
Les Miserables, 39 ; Notre Dame, 40. 

Bolton. History of the Thermometer, 44. 

Book of Prayer. Crompton Jones, 20. 

Books of the New Testament. Von Soden, n. 

Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesus, n. 

Boyce, Rubert. Anti-Malarial Measures, 49 ; 
Yellow Fever Prophylaxis, 44, 50 ; Sanita 
tion at Bathurst, Conakry and Freetown, 49. 

Breinl, A. Animal Reactions of the Spiro- 
clutta of Tick Fever, 50; Specific Nature 
of the Spirochacta of Tick Fever, 50. 

Bremond, Henri. Mystery of Newman, 15. 

Brewster, H. B. The Prison, 28; The Statu 
ette and the Background, 28 ; Anarchy and 
Law, 28. 

British Fisheries. J. Johnstone, 47. 

Broadbent, Rev. T. B. Sermons, 15. 

Brown. Robert. Semitic Influence, Origin of 
the Primitive Constellations, 55 ; Gladstone 
as I Knew Him, 55. 

Bruce, Alex. Topographical Atlas of the 
Spinal Cord, 44. 

Buddha. Prof. H. Oldenberg, 35. 

Burkitt, Prof. F. C. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

Calculus, Differential and Integral. Harnack, 


Caldecott, Dr. A. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 
Campbell, Rev. Canon Colin. First Three 

Gospels in Greek, 15. 
Cancer. Vide L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Cancer and otherTumours. Chas. Creighton,44. 
Canonical Books of the Old Testament, 2. 
Cape Dutch. J. F. Van Oordt, 41. 
Cape Dutch, Werner s Elementary Lessons in, 


Cardium. Vide L. M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Carlyle, Rev. A. J. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 
Casey, John. Cunningham Memoirs, 45. 
Catalogue of the London Library, 56. 
Cath Kuis Na Rig For Boinn. E. Hogan, 39. 
Celtic Heathendom. Prof. J. Rhys, 14. 
Celtic Studies. Sullivan, 41. 
Centenary History of South Place Society. 

Moncure D. Conway, 16. 
Chadwick, Antedon, 48 ; Echinus, 48. 
Chaldee Language, Manual of. Turpie, 37. 


INDEX Continued. 

Channing s Complete Works, 15. 

Chants and Anthems, 20 ; Chants, Psalms and 
Canticles. Crompton Jones, 20. 

Character of the Fourth Gospel. Rev. John 
James Tayler, 25. 

Chemical Dynamics, Studies in. J. H. Van t 
Hoff, 46. 

Chemistry for Beginners. Edward Hart, 46. 

Chemistry of Pottery. Langenbeck, 47. 

Cheyne, Prof. T. K. Bible Problems, 10. 

Child and Religion, The, 10. 

Chondrus. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 

Christ no Product of Evolution. Rev. G. 
Henslow, 19. 

Christian Creed, Our, 15. 

Christian Life, Ethics of the, 2. 

Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Dob- 
schutz, 3. 

Christian Religion, Fundamental Truths of 
the. R. Seeberg, 12. 

Christianity, Beginnings of. Wernle, 4. 

Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. R. 
Travers Herford, 19. 

Christianity? What is. Adolf Harnack, 5. 

Chromium, Production of. Max Leblanc, 47. 

Church History. Baur, 7. Schubert, 3. 

Clark, H. H. Anti-Malaria Measures at Bath- 
urst, 44. 

Closet Prayers. Dr. Sadler, 24. 

Codium. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 

Coit, Dr. Stanton. Idealism and State Church, 
16 ; Book of Common Prayer, 16. 

Cole, Frank J. Pleuronectes, 48. 

Collins, F. H. Epitome of Synthetic Philo 
sophy, 28. 

Coming Church. Dr. John Hunter, 19. 

Commentary on the Book of Job. Ewald, 7 ; 
Commentary on the Book of Job. Wright 
and Hirsch, 27 ; Commentary on the Old 
Testament. Ewald, 7 ; Commentary on the 
Psalms. Ewald, 7 ; Protestant, 8, 24. 

Common Prayer for Christian Worship, 16. 

Communion with God. Herrmann, 5, n. 

Conductivity of Liquids, 54. 

Confessions of St. Augustine. Harnack, 17. 

Contemporary Evolution of Religious Thought. 
Count Goblet D Alviella, 14. 

Contes Militaires. Daudet, 38. 

Conway, Moncure D. Centenary History, 16. 

Cornill, Carl. Introduction to the Old Testa 
ment, 2. 

Cosmology of the Rigveda. H. W. Wallis, 37. 

Creighton, Chas. Cancer and other Tumours, 
44 ; Tuberculosis, 45. 

Crucifixion Mystery. J. Vickers, 26. 

Cuneiform Inscriptions, The. Schrader, 8. 

Cunningham Memoirs, 45. 

Cunningham, D. J., M.D. Lumbar Curve in 
Man and the Apes, 45 ; Surface Anatomy 
of the Cerebral Hemispheres. Cunningham 
Memoir, 45. 

Cussans, Margaret. Gammarus, 48. 

Daniel and its Critics; Daniel and his Pro 
phecies. Rev. C. H. H. Wright, 27. 
Darbishire, Otto V. Chondrus, 48. 
Daudet, A. Contes Militaires, 38. 

Davids, T. W. Rhys. Indian Buddhism, 13. 

Davis, J. R. Ainsworth. Patella, 48. 

Dawning Faith. H. Rix, 23. 

Delbos, L. Nautical Terms, 39. 

Delectus Veterum. Theodor Noldeke, 35. 

Delitzsch, Friedrich. Babel and Bible, 9 ; 
Hebrew Language, 33. 

Democracy and Character. Canon Stephen, 25 . 

Denmark in the Early Iron Age. C. Engel- 
hardt, 56. 

De Profundis Clamavi. Dr. John Hunter, 19. 

Descriptive Sociology. Herbert Spencer, 31. 

Development of the Periodic Law. Venable, 54. 

Dewall, Johannes v., Auf Verlornem Posten 
and Nazzarena Danti, 38. 

Dietrichson, L. Monumenta Orcadica, 56. 

Differential and Integral Calculus, The. Axel 
Harnack, 46. 

Dillmann, A. Ethiopic Grammar, 33. 

Dipavamsa, The. Edited by Oldenberg, 33. 

Dirge of Coheleth. Rev. C. Taylor, 25. 

Dobschutz, Ernst von. Christian Life in the 
Primitive Church, 3, 16. 

Doctrineand Principles. Rev. C. E. Beeby, 15. 

Dogma, History of. Harnack, 18. 

Drey, S. A Theory of Life, 32. 

Driver, S. R. Mosheh ben Shesheth, 16. 

Drummond, Dr. Jas. Character and Author 
ship of the Fourth Gospel, 16; Philo Judasus, 
28 ; Via, Veritas, Vita, 13. 

Durham, H. E. Yellow Fever Expedition to 
Para, 49. 

Durham, J. E., and Myers, Walter. Report 
of the Yellow Fever Expedition to Para, 45. 

Dutton, J. E. Vide Memoirs of Liverpool 
School of Tropical Medicine, 49, 50. 

Dutton, J., and Todd. Vide Memoirs of Liver 
pool School of Tropical Medicine, 45, 49, 50. 

Early Hebrew Story. John P. Peters, 10. 
Early Christian Conception. Pfleiderer, 10. 
Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland. Rev. 

P. H. Wicksteed, 26. 
Echinus. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Echoes of Holy Thoughts, 17. 
Education. Spencer, 31 ; Lodge, School 

Reform, 40. 

Egyptian Grammar, Erman s, 33. 
Electric Furnace. H. Moisson, 50. 
Electrolysis of Water. V. Engelhardt, 46. 
Electrolytic Laboratories. Nissenson, 50. 
ElementaryOrganic Analysis. F.E.Benedict, 44. 
Engelhardt, C. Denmark in Iron Age, 56. 
Engelhardt, V. Electrolysis of Water, 46. 
Engineering Chemistry. T. B. Stillman, 53. 
England and Germany. Erich Marcks, 58. 
English Culture, Rise of. E. Johnson, 57. 
English-Danish Dictionary. S. Rosing, 41. 
English-Icelandic Dictionary. Zoega, 43. 
Enoch, Book of. C. Gill, 17. 
Epitome of Synthetic Philosophy. Collins, 28. 
Epizootic Lymphangitis. Capt. Pallin, 51. 
Erman s Egyptian Grammar, 33. 
Erzahlungen. Hofer, 38. 
Espin, Rev. T., M.A. The Red Stars, 45. 
Essays on the Social Gospel. Harnack and 

Herrmann, n. 

INDEX Continued. 

Essays. Herbert Spencer, 31. 
Ethica. Prof. Simon Laurie, 28. 
Ethical Import of Darwinism. Schurman, 29. 
Ethics, Data of. Herbert Spencer, 31. 
Ethics, Early Christian. Prof. Scullard, 24. 
Ethics, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30. 
Ethiopic Grammar. A. Dillmann, 33. 
Eucken, Prof. Life of the Spirit, 12. 
Eugene s Grammar of French Language, 39. 
Evans, A. Anti-Malaria Measures at Bath- 

urst, etc., 44. 

Evans, George. Essay on Assyriology, 34. 
Evolution, A New Aspect of. Formby, 17. 
Evolution, Christ no Product of, 19. 
Evolution of Christianity. C. Gill, 17. 
Evolution of Knowledge. R. S. Perrin, 22. 
Evolution of Religion, The. L. R. Farnell, n. 
Ewald. Commentary on Job, 7 ; Commentary 

on the Old Testament, 7 ; Commentary on 

the Psalms, 7. 

Facts and Comments. Herbert Spencer, 31. 
Faith and Morals. W. Herrmann, 10. 
Faizullah-Bhai, Shaikh, B.D. A Moslem 

Present ; Pre-Islamitic Arabic Poetry, 34. 
Farnell, L. R. The Evolution of Religion, n. 
Fertilizers. Vide Wiley s Agricultural Analysis, 

Figg, E. G. Analysis of Theology, 17. 

First Principles. Herbert Spencer, 30. 

First Three Gospels in Greek. Rev. Canon 
Colin Campbell, 15. 

Flinders Petrie Papyri. Cunn. Memoirs, 34. 

Formby, Rev. C. W. Re-Creation, 17. 

Four Gospels as Historical Records, 17. 

Fourth Gospel, Character and Authorship of, 16. 

Frankfurter, Dr. O. Handbook of Pali, 34. 

Free Catholic Church. Rev. J. M.Thomas, 26. 

Freezing Point. The, Jones, 47. 

French Composition. Jas. Boielle, 39. 

French History, First Steps in. F. F. Roget, 41. 

French Language, Grammar of. Eugene, 39. 

Fuerst, Dr. Jul. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexi 
con, 34. 

Gammarus. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 

Gardner, Prof. Percy. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

General Language of the Incas of Peru, 40. 

Genesis, Book of, in Hebrew Text. Rev. C. 
H. H. Wright, 27. 

Genesis, Hebrew Text, 34. 

Geometry, Analytical, Elements of. Hardy, 46. 

German Idioms, Short Guide to. Weiss, 42. 

German Literature, A Short Sketch of. V. 
Phillipps, B.A., 41. 

German, Systematic Conversational Exercises 
in. T. H. Weiss, 42. 

Gibson, R. I. Harvey. Codium, 48. 

Giles, Lt.-Col. Anti-Malarial Measures in 
Sekondi, etc., 49. 

Gill, C. Book of Enoch ; Evolution of Chris 
tianity, 17. 

Gladstone as I Knew Him. Robert Brown, 55. 

Glimpses of Tennyson. A. G. Weld, 59. 

Goethe, W. v. Annotated Texts, 39. 

Goldammer, H. The Kindergarten, 56. 

Gospels in Greek, First Three, 15. 

Greek Ideas, Lectures on. Rev. Dr. Hatch, 13. 
Greek, Modern, A Course of. Zompolides, 43. 
Greek New Testament, 6. 
Green, Rev. A. A. Child and Religion, 10. 
Gulistan, The (Rose Garden) of Shaik Sadi ot 

Shiraz, 36. 
Gymnastics, Medical Indoor. Dr. Schreber, 52. 

Haddon, A. C. Decorative Art of British 
Guinea, Cunningham Memoir, 45. 

Hagmann, J. G. , Ph.D. Reform in Primary- 
Education, 39. 

Handley, Rev. H. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

Hantzsch, A. Elements of Stereochemistry, 46. 

Hardy. Elements of Analytical Geometry, 46 ; 
Infinitesimals and Limits, 46. 

Harnack, Adolf. Acts of the Apostles, 12 ; 
History of Dogma, 4; Letter to the " Preus- 
sische Jahrbucher," 18 ; Luke the Physician, 
12 ; Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 
3; Monasticism, 17; The Sayings of Jesus, 
12 ; What is Christianity? 5, 10. 

Harnack, Adolf, and Herrmann, W. Essays 
on the Social Gospel, n. 

Harnack and his Oxford Critics. Saunders, 24. 

Harnack, Axel. Differential and Integral 
Calculus, 46. 

Harrison, A. Women s Industries, 56. 

Hart, Edward, Ph.D. Chemistry for Begin 
ners, 46 ; Second Year Chemistry, 46. 

Hatch, Rev. Dr. Lectures on Greek Ideas, 13. 

Haughton, Rev. Samuel, M.A., M.D. New 
Researches on Sun-Heat, 45. 

Hausrath. History of the New Test. Times, 7. 

Head, Sir Edmund, translated by. Viga 
Glums Saga, 42. 

Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Dr. Fuerst, 34. 

Hebrew Language, The. F. Delitzsch, 33. 

Hebrew, New School of Poets, 35. 

Hebrew Religion. W. E. Addis, n. 

Hebrew Story. Peters, 10. 

Hebrew Texts, 18. 

Henry, Jas. /Eneidea, 56. 

Henslow, Rev. G. The Argument of Adapta 
tion, 18 ; The At-pne-ment, 18 ; Christ no 
Product of Evolution, 19 ; Spiritual Teach 
ings of Bible Plants, 18 ; Spiritual Teaching 
of Christ s Life, 19; The Vulgate, 19. 

Henson, Rev. Canon Hensley. Child and 
Religion, 10. 

Herbert, Hon. A. Sacrifice of Education, 56. 

Herbert, Hon. A., and Wager, H. Bad Air 
and Bad Health, 56. 

Herdman, Prof. W. A. Ascidia, 47. 

Herford, R. Travers, B.A. Christianity in 
Talmud and Midrash, ip. 

Herrmann, W. Communion, 5, n ; Faith and 
Morals, 10. 

Herrmann and Harnack. Essays on the Social 
Gospel, ii. 

Heterogenesis, Studies in. H. Bastian, 44. 

Hewitt, C. Gordon. Ligia, 48. 

Hibbert Journal, The, 19. 

Hibbert, Lectures, The, 13, 14. 

Hickson, Sydney J. Alcyonium, 48. 

Hill, Rev. Dr. G. Child and Religion, 10. 

Hindu Chemistry. Prof. P. C. Ray, 51. 

I N D EX Continued. 

Hirsch, Dr. S. A., and W. Aldis Wright, 

edited by. Commentary on Job, 27. 
History of the Church. Hans von Schubert, 3. 
History of Dogma. Adolf Harnack, 4. 
History of Jesus of Nazara. Keim, 7. 
History of the Hebrews. R. Kittel, 5. 
Historyof the Literature of theO.T. Kautzsch, 


History of the New Test. Times. Hausrath, 7. 
Hodgson, S. H. Philosophy and Experience, 

28 ; Reorganisation of Philosophy, 28. 
Hoerning, Dr. R. The Karaite MSS., 19. 
Hofer, E. Erzahlungen, 38. 
Hoff, J. H. Van t. Chemical Dynamics, 46. 
Hogan, E. Cath Ruis Na Rig For Boinn. 39 ; 

Latin Lives, 39; Irish Nennius, 39. 
Horner, G. Statutes, The, of the Apostles, 36. 
Horse,Life-SizeModelsof. J.T. Share Jones,47; 

the, Surgical Anatomy of, 47. 
Horton, Dr. R. Child and Religion, 10. 
Howe, J. L. Inorganic Chemistry, 46. 
How to Teach the Bible. Mitchell, 21. 
Hugo, Victor. Les Miserables, 39 ; Notre 

Dame, 40. 

Human Sternum, The. A. M. Paterson, 51. 
Human Tick Fever, Nature of. J. E. Dutton 

and J. L. Todd, 46. 
Hunter, Dr. John. De Profundis Clamavi, 19; 

The Coming Church, 19. 
Hygiene, Handbook of. Bergey. 44. 
Hymns of Duty and Faith. Jones, 20. 

Icelandic Grammar. Rev. G. Bayldon, 38. 
Idea of God. Alviella, Count Goblet D , 13. 
Imms, A. D. Anurida, 48. 
Incarnate Purpose, The. Percival, 22. 
Indian Buddhism. Rhys Davids, 13. 
Individualism and Collectivism. Dr. C. W. 

Saleeby, 29. 

Indoor Gymnastics, Medical, 52. 
Industrial Remuneration, Methods of. D. F. 

Schloss, 58. 

Infinitesimals and Limits. Hardy, 46. 
Inflammation Idea. W. H. Ransom, 51. 
Influence of Rome on Christianity. Renan, 13. 
Inorganic Chemistry. J. L. Howe, 46. 
Inorganic Qualitative Chemical Analysis. 

Leavenworth, 47. 

Introduction to the Greek New Test. Nestle, 6. 
Introduction to the Old Test. Cornill, 2. 
Irish Nennius, The. E. Hogan, 39. 
Isaiah, Hebrew Text, 34. 
Ismailia, Malarial Measures at. Boyce, 49. 

Jesus of Nazara. Keim, 7. 

Jesus. Wilhelm Bousset, u. 

Jesus, Sayings of. Harnack, 18. 

Jesus, The Real. Vickers, 26. 

Job, Book of. G. H. Bateson Wright, 27. 

Job, Book of. Rabbinic Commentary on, 37. 

Job. Hebrew Text, 34. 

Johnson, Edwin, M.A. Antiqua Mater, 20; 

English Culture, 20; Rise of Christendom, 19. 
Johnstone, J. British Fisheries, 47 ; Cardium, 


Jones, Prof. Henry. Child and Religion, 10. 
Jones, Rev. J. C. Child and Religion, 10. 

Jones, Rev. R. Crompton. Hymns of Duty 

and Faith, 20 ; Chants, Psalms and Canticles, 

20; Anthems, 20; The Chants and Anthems, 

20 ; A Book ot Prayer, 20. 
Jones, J. T. Share. Life-Size Models of the 

Horse, 47 ; Surgical Anatomy of the Horse, 


Jones. The Freezing Point, 47. 
Journal of the Federated Malay States, 60. 
Journal of the Linnean Society. Botany and 

Zoology, 47, 60 
Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club, 

47, 60. 
Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society, 

47, 60- 
Justice. Herbert Spencer, 31. 

Kantian Ethics. J. G. Schurman, 29. 

Karaite MSS. Dr. R. Hoerning, 19. 

Kautzsch, E. History of the Literature of the 
Old Testament, 20. 

Keim. History of Jesus of Nazara, 7. 

Kennedy, Rev. Jas. Introduction to Biblical 
Hebrew, 34 ; Hebrew Synonyms, 34. 

Kiepert s New Atlas Antiquus, 57. 

Kiepert s Wall-Maps of the Ancient World, 57. 

Kindergarten, The. H. Goldammer, 56. 

Kittel, R. History of the Hebrews, 5. 

Knight, edited by. Essays on Spinoza, 32. 

Knowledge, Evolution of. Perrin, 22. 

Kuenen, Dr. A. National Religions and Uni 
versal Religion, 13 ; Religion of Israel, 8. 

Laboratory Experiments. Noyes and Mulli- 

ken, 51. 

Ladd, Prof. G. T. Child and Religion, 10. 
Lake, Kirsopp. Resurrection, 12. 
Landolt, Hans. Optical Rotating Power, 47. 
Langenbeck. The Chemistry of Pottery, 47. 
Latin Lives of the Saints. E. Hogan, 39. 
Laurie, Prof. Simon. Ethica, 28 ; Meta- 

physica Nova et Vetusta, 28. 
Lea, Henry Chas. Sacerdotal Celibacy, 21. 
Leabhar Breac, 40. 
Leabhar Na H-Uidhri, 40. 
Leavenworth, Prof. W. S. Inorganic Quali 
tative Chemical Analysis, 47. 
Leblanc, Dr. Max. The Production of 

Chromium, 47. 

Le Coup de Pistolet. Merimee, 38. 
Lepeophtheirus and Lernea. Vide L.M.B.C. 

Memoirs, 48. 
Letter to the " Preussische Jahrbucher." 

Adolf Harnack, 18. 
Lettsom, W. N., trans, by. Nibelungenlied, 


Liberal Christianity. Jean Reville, 10. 
Life and Matter. Sir O. Lodge, 21. 
Life of the Spirit, The. Eucken, 12. 
Lilja. Edited by E. Magnusson, 40. 
Lilley, Rev. A. L. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 
Lineus. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 
Linnean Society of London, Journals of, 60. 
Liverpool, A History of. Miiir, 58. 
Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, 

I. XVI., 47. 

INDEX Continued. 

Liverpool, Municipal Government in. Muir 

and Platt, 58. 
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine 

Memoirs, 49. 

Lobstein, Paul. Virgin Birth of Christ, 9. 
Lodge, Sir O. Life and Matter, 21 ; School 

Teaching and School Reform, 40. 
Logarithmic Tables. Sang, 52 ; Schroen, 53. 
London Library, Catalogue of, 56. 
Long, J. H. A Text-book of Urine Analysis, 


Luke the Physician. Adolf Harnack, 12. 
Lyall, C. J., M.A. Ancient Arabian Poetry, 


Macan, R. W. The Resurrection of Jesus 

Christ, 21. 

Machberoth Ithiel. Thos. Chenery, 35. 
Mackay, R. W. Rise and Progress of Chris 
tianity, 21. 
Mackenzie, Malcolm. Social and Political 

Dynamics, 28. 

Magnusson, edited by. Lilja, 40. 
Mahabharata, Index to. S. Sorensen, 36. 
Mahaffy, J. P., D.D. Flinders Petrie Papyri. 

Cunningham Memoirs, 45. 
Malaria Expedition to Nigeria, Report of. 

Annett, Dutton, and Elliott, 44. 
Man versus the State. Herbert Spencer, 31. 
Maori, Lessons in. Right Rev. W. L. 

Williams, 43. 

Maori, New and Complete Manual of, 40. 
Marchant, James. Theories of the Resurrec 
tion, 21. 

Marcks, Erich. England and Germany, 58. 
Markham, Sir Clements, K.C.B. Vocabularies 

of the Incas of Peru, 40. 
Martineau, Rev. Dr. James. Modern 

Materialism, 21 ; Relation between Ethics 

and Religion, 21. 
Mason, Prof. W. P. Notes on Qualitative 

Analysis, 48. 

Massoretic Text. Rev. Dr. J. Taylor, 25. 
Masterman, C. F. G. Child and Religion, 10. 
Meade, R. K., Portland Cement, 48. 
Medueval Thought, History of. R. Lane 

Poole, 22. 
Memoirs of the Liverpool School of Tropical 

Medicine, 49, 50. 

Menegoz, E. Religion and Theology, 21. 
Mercer, Right Rev. J. Edward, D.D. Soul 

of Progress, 21. 

Merimie, Prosper. Le Coup de Pistolet, 38. 
Metallic Objects, Production of. Dr. W. 

Pfanhauser, 51. 
Metallurgy. Wysor, 54. 
Metaphysica Nova et Vetusta. Prof. Simon 

Laurie, 28. 

Midrash, Christianity in. Herford, 19. 
Milanda Panho, The. Edited by V. 

Trenckner. 35. 
Mission and Expansion of Christianity. Adolf 

Harnack, 3. 
Mitchell, Rev. A. F. How to Teach the 

Bible, ai. 

Modern Materialism. Rev. Dr. James 
Martineau, 21. 


Moisson, Henri. Electric Furnace, 50. 
Molecular Weights, Methods of Determining. 

Henry Biltz, 44. 

Monasticism. Adolf Harnack, 17. 
Montefiore, C. G. Religion of the Ancient 

Hebrews, 13. 

Monumenta Orcadica. L. Dietrichson. 56. 
Moorhouse Lectures. Vide Mercer s Soul of 

Progress, 21 ; Stephen, Democracy and 

Character, 25. 

Morrison, Dr. \V. D. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 
Mosheh ben Shesheth. S. R. Driver. Edited 

by, 16. 
Moslem Present. Faizullah-Bhai, Shaikh, 

B.D., 34- 
Muir and Plait. History of Municipal 

Government in Liverpool, 58. 
Muir, Prof. Ramsay. History of Liverpool, 58. 
Miinsterberg, Hugo. The Americans, 22. 
Muss-Arnolt, W. A Concise Dictionary of 

the Assyrian Language, 35. 
My Struggle for Light. R. Wimmer, 9. 
Mystery of Newman. Henri Bremond, 15. 

National Idealism and State Church, 16 ; and 

the Book of Common Prayer, 16. 
National Religions and Universal Religion. 

Dr. A. Kuenen, 13. 
Native Religions of Mexico and Peru. Dr. A. 

Reville, 14. 
Naturalism and Religion. Dr. Rudolf Otto, 


Nautical Terms. L. Delbos, 39. 
Nestle. Introduction to the Greek New lest. ,6. 
New Hebrew School of Poets. Edited by H. 

Brody and K. Albrecht, 35. 
Newstead, R. Another New Dermanyssid 

Acarid, 50; Newstead, R., and J L. Todd. 

A New Dermanyssid Acarid, 50. 
New Zealand Language, Dictionary of. Rt. 

Rev. W. L. Williams, 42. 
Nibelungenlied. Trans. W. L. Lettsom, 40. 
Nissenson. Arrangements of Electrolytic 

Laboratories, 50. 
Noldeke, Theodor. Delectus Veterum, 35 ; 

Syriac Grammar, 35. 
Norris, E. Assyrian Dictionary, 35. 
Norseman in the Orkneys. Dietrichson, 56. 
Noyes, A. A. Organic Chemistry, 51. 
Noyes, A. A., and Milliken, Samuel. Labora 
tory Experiments, 51. 

O Grady, Standish, H. Silva Gadelica, 41. 
Old and New Certainty ol the Gospel. Alex. 

Robinson, 23. 
Oldenberg, Dr. H., edited by. Dipavamsa, 

The, 33 ; Vinaya Pitakam, 37. 
Old French, Introduction to. F. F. Roget, 41. 
Oordt, I. F. Van, B.A. Cape Dutch, 41. 
Ophthalmic Test Types. Snellen s, 53. 
Optical Rotating Power. Hans Landolt, 47. 
" Opus Majus " of Roger Bacon, 28. 
Organic Chemistry. A. A. Noyes, 51. 
Otia Merseiana, 58. 

Otto, Rudolf. Naturalism and Religion, n. 
Outlines of Church History. Von Schubert, 3. 
Outlines of Psychology. Wilhelm Wundt, 32. 


INDEX Continued. 

Pali, Handbook of. Dr. O. Frankfurter, 34. 

Pali Miscellany. V. Trenckner, 35 

Pallin, Capt. W. A. A Treatise on Epizootic 
Lymphangitis, 51. 

Parker, W. K., F.R.S. Morphology of the 
Duck Tribe and the Auk Tribe, 45. 

Patella. Vide L.M.H.C. Memoirs, 48. 

Paterson, A. M. The Human Sternum, 51. 

Paul. Baur, 7; Pfleiderer, 13; Weinel, 3. 

Paulinism. Pfleiderer, 8. 

Pearson, Joseph. Cancer, 48. 

Peddie, R. A. Printing at Brescia, 58. 

Percival, G. H. The Incarnate Purpose, 22. 

Perrin, R. S. Evolution of Knowledge, 22. 

Persian Language, A Grammar" of. J. T. 
Plaits, 36. 

Peters, Dr. John P. Early Hebrew Story, 10. 

Pfanhauser, Dr. W. Production of Metallic 
Objects, 51. 

Pfleiderer, Otto. Early Christian Conception, 
10 ; Lectures on Apostle Paul, 13 ; Paulinism, 
8 ; Philosophy of Religion, 8 ; Primitive 
Christianity, 2. 

Phillips, F. C. Analysis of Ores, 51. 

Phillipps, V., B.A. Short Sketch of German 
Literature, 41. 

Philo Judaeus. Dr. Drummond, 16. 

Philosophy and Experience. Hodgson, 28. 

Philosophy of Religion. Pfleiderer, 8. 

Piddington, H. Sailors Horn Book, 51. 

Pikler, Jul. Psychology of the Belief in 
Objective Existence, 29. 

Platts, J. T. A Grammar of the Persian 
Language, 36. 

Pleuronectes. Vide L.M.B.C. Memoirs, 48. 

Pocket Flora of Edinburgh. C. O. Sonntag, 53. 

Poole, Reg. Lane. History of Mediaeval 
Thought, 22. 

Portland Cement. Meade, 48. 

Pray, Dr. Astigmatic Letters, 51. 

Prayers for Christian Worship. Sadler, 24. 

Prehistoric Times. Lord Avebury, 55. 

Pre-Islamitic Arabic Poetry. Shaikh Faizul- 
lah-Bhai, B.D., 34. 

Primitive Christianity. Otto Pfleiderer, 2. 

Primitive Constellations, Origin of. Robt. 
Brown, 55. 

Printing at Brescia. R. A. Peddie, 58. 

Prison, The. H. B. Brewster, 28. 

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 29. 

Proceedings of the Optical Convention, 51. 

Prolegomena. Reville, 8. 

Protestant Commentary on the New Testa 
ment, 8, 23. 

Psalms, Hebrew Text, 34. 

Psychology of the Belief in Objective Exist 
ence. Jul. Pikler, 29. 

Psychology, Principles of, Spencer, 30 ; Out 
lines of, Wundt, 32. 

Punnett, R. C. Lineus, 48. 

Qualitative Analysis, Notes on. Prof. W. P. 
Mason, 48. 

Ransom, W. H. The Inflammation Idea, 51. 
Rapport sur 1 Expedition au Congo. Dutton 
and Todd, 45. 

Rashdall, Dr. Hastings. Anglican Liberalism, 


Ray, Prof. P. C. Hindu Chemistry, 51. 
Real Jesus, The. J. Vickers, 26. 
Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of 

M. Comte. Herbert Spencer, 31. 
Re-Creation. Rev. C. W. Formby, 17. 
Reform in Primary Education. J. G. Hag- 

mann, 39. 
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Rev. 

Dr. C. Beard, 15. 
Rejoinder to Prof. Weismann, 31. 
Relation between Ethics and Religion. Rev. 

Dr. James Martineau, 21. 

Religion and Modern Culture. Sabatier, 10. 
Religion and Theology. E. Menegoz, 21. 
Religion of Ancient Egypt. Kenouf, 14. 
Religion of the Ancient Hebrews. C. G. 

Montefiore, 13. 

Religion of Israel. Kuenen, 8. 
Religions of Ancient Babylonia and Assyria. 

Prof. A. H. Sayce, 36. 
Religions of Authority and the Spirit. Auguste 

Sabatier, 3. 
Renan, E. Influence of Rome on Christianity, 

Renouf, P. L. Religion of Ancient Egypt, 


Reorganisation of Philosophy. Hodgson, 28. 
Report of Malarial Expedition to Nigeria, 44. 
Report of the Yellow Fever Expedition to 

Para, 1900. Durham and Myers, 49. 
Reports on the Sanitation and Anti-Malarial 

Measures at Bathurst, 44. 

Reports of Thompson-Yates Laboratories, 52. 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Lake, 20 ; 

R. W. Macan, 21 ; Marchant, 21. 
Reville, Dr. A. Native Religions of Mexico 

and Peru, 14. 
Reville. Prolegomena, 8. 
R6ville, Jean. Liberal Christianity, 10. 
Rhys, Prof. J. Celtic Heathendom, 14. 
Rise and Progress of Christianity. R. W. 

Mackay, 21. 

Rise of Christendom. Edwin Johnson, 19. 
Rise of Knglish Culture. Edwin Johnson, 20. 
Rix, Herbert. Dawning Faith, 22 ; Tent and 

Testament, 22. 
Robinson, Alex. Old and New Certainty of 

the Gospel, 23 ; Study of the Saviour, 23. 
Roget, F. F. First Steps in French History, 

41 ; Introduction to Old_ French, 41. 
Rosing, S. English-Danish Dictionary, 41. 
Ross, R. Campaign against Mosquitos in 

Sierra Leone, 49 ; Malaria at Ismailia and 

Suez, 49; Malarial Expedition to Sierra 

Leone, 49 ; Malarial Fever, 49. 
Royal Astronomical Society. Memoirs and 

Monthly Notices, 60. 
Royal Dublin Society. Transactions and 

Proceedings, 60. 
Royal Irish Academy. Transactions and 

Proceedings, 60. 
Royal Society of Edinburgh. Transactions 

of, 60. 

Runcorn Research Laboratories. Parasite of 
Tick Fever, 50. 

INDEX Continued. 


Runes, The. Geo. Stephens, 58. 

Runic Monuments, Old Northern. Geo. 

Stephens, 58. 
Ruth, Book of, in Hebrew Text. Rev. C. H. 

H. Wright, 27. 

Sabatier, Auguste. Doctrine of the Atone 
ment, 10 ; Religions of Authority and the 
Spirit, 3. 

Sacerdotal Celibacy. Henry Chas. Lea, 21. 

Sacrifice of Education. Hon. A. Herbert, 56. 

Sadi. The Gulistan (Rose Garden) of Shaik 
Sadi of Shiraz, 36. 

Sadler, Rev. Dr. Closet Prayers, 24 ; Prayers 
for Christian Worship, 24. 

Sailors Horn Book. H. Piddington, 51. 

Saleeby, C. W. Individualism and Collec 
tivism, 29. 

Sang s Logarithms, 52. 

Sanitary Conditions of Cape Coast Town. 
Taylor, M. L., 49. 

Sanitation and Anti - Malarial Measures. 
Lt.-Col. Giles, 46. 

Saunders, T. B. Harnack and his Critics, 24. 

Savage, M. J. Beliefs about the Bible, 24. 

Sayce, Prof. A. H. Religion of Ancient 
Assyria, 14. 

Sayings of Jesus, The. Adolf Harnack, 12. 

Schiller. Ballads, 41. 

Schloss, D. F. Methods of Industrial Re 
muneration, 58. 

School Teaching and School Reform. Sir O. 
Lodge, 40. 

Schrader. The Cuneiform Inscriptions, 8. 

Schreber, D. G. M. Medical Indoor Gym 
nastics, 52. 

Schroen, L. Seven-Figure Logarithms, 53. 

Schubert, Hansvon. History of the Church, 3. 

Schurman, J. Gould. Ethical Import of 
Darwinism, 29 ; Kantian Ethics, 29. 

Scott, Andrew. Lepeophtheirus and Lernea, 

Scott, E. F. Apologetic of the New Test., 12. 

Scripture, Edward W., Ph.D. Studies from 
the Yale Psychological Laboratory, 29. 

Second Year Chemistry. Edward Hart, 46. 

Seeberg, R. Fundamental Truths of the 
Christian Religion, 12. 

Seger. Collected Writings, 53. 

Semitic Influence. Robt. Brown, 55. 

Seven- Figure Logarithms. L. Schroen, 53. 

Severus, Patriarch of A ntioch. Letters of, 25. 

Sharpe, Samuel. Bible, translated by, 15. 

Shearman, A. T. Symbolic Logic, 29. 

Shihab Al Din. Futuh Al-Habashah. Ed. 
by S. Strong, 36. 

Short History of the Hebrew Text. T. H. 
Weir, 16. 

Sieira Leone, Campaign against Mosquitoesin. 
Ross and Taylor, 49. 

Sierra Leone, The Malarial Expedition to, 
1899. Ross, Annett, and Austen, 49. 

Silva Gadelica. Standish H. O Grady, 41. 

Sleeping Sickness, Distribution and Spread 
of, 50. 

Smith, Martin R. What I Have Taught My 
Children, 25. 

Snellen s Ophthalmic Test Types, 53. 
Snyder, Harry. Soils and Fertilisers, 53. 
Social and Political Dynamics. Malcolm 

Mackenzie, 28. 

Social Gospel, Essays on the, n. 
Social Statics. Herbert Sjwncer, 31. 
Sociology, Principles of. Herbert Spencer, 30. 
Sociology, Study of. Herbert Spencer, 31, 

Soden, H. von, D D. Books of the New 
Testament, n. 

Soils and Fertilisers. Snyder, 53. 

Soils. Vide Wiley s Agricultural Analysis, 54. 

Sonntag, C. O. A Pocket Flora ol Edin 
burgh, 53. 

SSrensen, S. Index to the Mahabharata, 36. 

Soul of Progress. Bithop Mercer, 21. 

Spanish Dictionary, Larger. Velasquez, 42. 

Spencer, Herbert. Drey on Herbert Spencer s 
Theory of Religion and Morality, 32. 

Spencer, Herbert. An Autobiography, 30 ; 
A System of Synthetic Philosophy, 30; De 
scriptive Sociology, Nos. 1-8, 31 ; Works by, 
30-32 ; Theory of Religion and Morality, 32. 

Spinal Cord, Topographical Atlas of. Alex. 
Bruce, M.A., etc., 44. 

Spinoza. Edited by Prof. Knight, 32. 

Spiritual Teachingof Christ s Life, Henslow, 18. 

Statuette, The, and the Background. H. B. 
Brewster, 28. 

Statutes, The, of the Apostles. G. Homer, 
25. 36- 

Stephen, Canon. Democracy and Character, 25. 

Stephens, Geo. Buggr s Studies on Northern 
Mythology Examined, 58 ; Old Northern 
Runic Monuments, ";8 ; The Runes, 58. 

Stephens, J. W. W. Study of Malaria, 53. 

Stephens, Thos., B.A., Editor. The Child 
and Religion, 10. 

Stephens and R. Newstead. Anatomy of the 
Proboscis of Kiting Flies, 50. 

Stereochemistry, Elements of. Hantzsch, 46. 

Stewart, Rev. C. R. S. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

Stillman, T. B. Engineering Chemistry, 53. 

Storms. Piddington, 51. 

Strong, S. Arthur, ed. by. Shihab Al Din, 36. 

Study of the Saviour. Alex. Robinson, 23. 

Studies on Northern Mythology. Geo. 
Stephens, 58. 

Studies from the Yale Psychological Laboratory. 
Edward W. Scripture, Ph.D., 29. 

Sullivan, W. K. Celtic Studies, 41. 

Surgical Anatomy of the Horse. J. T. Share 
Jones, 47. 

Symbolic Logic. A. T. Shearman, 29. 

Synthetic Philosophy, Epitome of. F. H. 
Collins, 32. 

Syriac Chrestomathy. Bernstein and Kirsch, 

Syriac Grammar. Theodor Noldeke, 35. 
System of Synthetic Philosophy. Herbert 
Spencer, 30. 

Tayler, Rev. John James Character of the 

Fourth Gospel, 25. 

Taylor, Rev. C. Dirge of Coheleth, The, 25. 
Taylor, Rev. Dr. J. Massoretic Text, 25. 


INDEX Continued. 

Taylor. Sanitary Conditions of Cape Coast 

Town, 49. 

Ten Services and Psalms and Canticles, 25. 
Ten Services of Public Prayer, 25-26. 
Tennant, Rev. F. R. Child and Religion, 10. 
Tent and Testament. Herbert Rix, 23. 
Testament, Old. Canonical Books of, 2 ; Re 
ligions of, ii ; Cuneiform Inscriptions, 24; 

Hebrew Text, Weir, 26 ; Literature, 20. 
Testament, The New, Critical Notes on. C. 

Tischendorf, 26, 27. 
Testament Times, New. Acts of the Apostles, 

12; Apologetic of, 12; Books of the, n ; 

Commentary, Protestant, 8; History of, 7; 

Luke the Physician, 12 ; Textual Criticism, 6 ; 
Test Types, -fray, 51 ; Snellen, 53. 
Text and Translation Society, Works by, 36. 
Theories of Anarchy and of Law. H. B. 

Brewster, 28. 
Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

James Marchant, 21. 

Thermometer, History of the. Bolton, 44. 
Thomas, Rev. J. M. L. A Free Catholic 

Church, 26. 
Thomas and Breinl. Trypanosomiasis and 

Sleeping Sickness, 50. 

Thornton, Rev. J. J. Child and Religion, 10. 
Tischendorf, C. The New Testament, 26. 
Todd Lectures Series, 41. 42. 
Tower, O. F. Conductivity of Liquids, 54. 
Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, 54. 
Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 54. 
Transactions of the Royal Societyof Edinburgh, 


Trenckner, V. Pali Miscellany, 35. 
Trypanosomiasis Expedition to Senegambia. 

J. E. Button and J. L. Todd, 45, 49. 
Turpie, Dr. D. M C. Manual of the Chaldee 

Language, 37. 

Universal Christ. Rev. Dr. C. Beard, 15. 
Universalism Asserted. Rev. Thos. Allin, 14. 
Upton, Rev.C. B. Bases of Religious Belief, 14. 
Urine Analysis, A Text-Book of Long, 48. 

Vaillante, Vincent, 38. 

Various Fragments. Herbert Spencer, 31. 

Vega. Logarithmic Tables, 54. 

Veiled Figure, The, 59. 

Velasquez. Larger Spanish Dictionary, 42. 

Venable, T. C. Development of the Periodic 
Law, 54 ; Study of Atom, 54. 

Via, Veritas, Vita. Dr. Drummond, 13. 

Vickers, J. The Real Jesus, 26 ; The Cruci 
fixion Mystery, 26. 

Viga Glums Saga. Sir E. Head, 42. 

Vinaya Pitakam. Dr. Oldenberg, 37. 

Vincent, Jacques. Vaillante, 38. 

Virgin Birth of Christ. Paul Lobstein, 9. 
Vulgate, The. Henslow, 19. 
Vynne and Blackburn. Women under the 
Factory Acts, 59. 

Wallis, H. W. Cosmology of the Rigveda, 37. 

Was Israel ever in Egypt? G. H. B. Wright, 27. 

Weir, T. H. Short History of the Hebrew 
Text, 26. 

Weisse, T. H. Elements of German, 42 ; Short 
Guide to German Idioms, 42 ; Systematic 
Conversational Exercises in German, 42. 

Weiz.-sacker, Carl von. The Apostolic Age, 6. 

Weld, A. G. Glimpses of Tennyson, 59. 

Werner s Elementary Lessons in Cape Dutch, 

Wernle, Paul. Beginnings of Christianity, 4. 

What I Have Taught my Children. Martin 
R. Smith, 25. 

What is Christianity ? Adolf Harnack, 5, 10. 

Wicksteed, Rev. P. H. Ecclesiastical Institu 
tions of Holland, 26. 

Wiley, Harvey W. Agricultural Chemical 
Analysis, 54. 

Wilkinson, Rev. J. R. Anglican Liberalism, 

Williams, Right. Rev. W. L., D.C.L. Diction 
ary of the New Zealand Language, 42. 

Williams, Right Rev. W. L., D.C.L. Lessons 
in Maori, 42. 

Wimmer, R. My Struggle for Light, 9. 

Women under the Factory Acts, Vynne and 
Blackburn, 59. 

Women s Industries. A. Harrison, 56. 

Women s Suffrage. Helen Blackburn, 55. 

Woods, Dr. H. G. Anglican Liberalism, 12. 

Wright, Rev. C. H. H. Book of Genesis in 
Hebrew Text, 27 ; Book of Ruth in Hebrew 
Text, 27 ; Daniel and its Critics, 27 ; Daniel 
and his Prophecies, 27 ; Light from Egyptian 
Papyri, 27. 

Wright, G. H. Bateson. Book of Job, 27 ; 
Was Israel ever in Egypt? 27. 

Wright, W., and Dr. Hirsch, edited by. Com 
mentary on the Book of Job, 27. 

Wundt, Wilhelm. Outlines of Psychology, 32. 

Wysor. Metallurgy, 54. 

Vale Psychological Laboratory, Studies from, 


Yellow Book of Lecan, 43. 
Yellow Fever Expedition, Report of. Durham 

and Myers, 45. 
Yellow Fever Prophylaxis. Rubert Boyce, 44. 

Zoega, G. T. English-Icelandic Dictionary, 43. 
Zompolides, Dr. D. A Course of Modern 
Greek, 43.