ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This book of the Bible was originally the sequel of the Gospel of Luke. Its separation was due to a growing view of the Gospels as a unit of sacred records, to which Acts stood as appendix. Historically it is of unique interest and value. The Apocryphal Acts of certain apostles, witnessing to the impression produced by our Acts, only emphasize this. It is the one really primitive Church history, primitive in spirit as in substance; apart from it a real picture of the Apostolic age would be impossible. With it, the Pauline Epistles are of priceless historical value; without it, they would remain bafflingly frag mentary, often even misleading owing to their "occasional" nature and emphasis.
These, then, seem to be the author's main motifs:—the univer sality of the Gospel, the jealousy of national Judaism, and the Divine initiative, manifest particularly in the gradual stages by which men of Jewish birth were led in spite of their own prej udices, to recognize the Divine will in the setting aside of national restrictions, alien to the universal destiny of Messiah's Church. The practical moral is the Divine character of the Christian re ligion, as evinced by the manner of its extension in the empire, no less than by its original expression in the Founder's life and death. Thus both parts of the author's work alike tend to produce assured conviction of Christianity as of Divine origin (Luke i. 1, 4; Acts i. I seq.).
This view gives the book a practical religious aim—a sine qua non to any theory of an early Christian writing. In spite of all difficulties, this religion is worthy of belief, even though it mean opposition and suffering. To meet this source of doubt the author holds up the picture of earlier days, when the great Apostle of the Gentiles enjoyed protection at the hands of Roman justice. It is implied that the present distress is but a passing phase, resting on misunderstanding; for Christianity, as the true fulfilment of Israel's religion, had once been (and might again be) treated as a recognized or lawful (licita) religion, the more so that it had deep kinship with non-Jewish philosophic monotheism. Meantime the example of apostolic constancy should inspire like fidelity. Acts is in fact an Apology for the Church as distinct from Judaism, the breach with which is accordingly traced with fulness and care.
From this standpoint Acts no longer seems to end abruptly. Whether as exhibiting the Divine leading and aid, or as recording the normal attitude of the Roman State, the writer has reached a climax, "Paulus Romae, apex Evangelii" (Bengel). In keeping with this, verses 26-28 of chap. xxviii. are the solemn close of the work, while verses 3o, 31 are an appended observation. Yet even here, by the final word of all "unmolested," the writer ends most fitly on one of his keynotes.
The full force of this is missed by those who, rightly rejecting the idea that he had in reserve enough history to furnish another work, hold that Paul was freed from the imprisonment in which Acts leaves him (see PAUL). For those, on the other hand, who see in the writer's own comment in xx. 38, uncontradicted by what follows, a broad hint that Paul never saw his Ephesian friends again, the view is open that his end was too well known to call for explicit record. Nor would such silence be disin genuous, any more than on the theory that martyrdom overtook him later. (The view that Acts was written before Paul's death is excluded by the date of Luke's Gospel.) To the writer Paul's death (like the horrors of Nero's Vatican Gardens in 64) was a monstrous exception to the rule of Roman policy heretofore illustrated. Not even by the Romans themselves were all Nero's acts regarded as precedents.
p. 145; see also LUKE).
In the second or strictly Pauline half, two main theories of the so-called "we" passages are possible : (I) that which sees in them traces of an earlier document—whether a travel-diary or a more consecutive narrative written later; and (2) that which regards the "we" as due to the author's breaking instinctively into the first person plural where he felt himself specially identified with the history. On the former hypothesis, it is still in debate whether the "we" document lies behind more of the narrative than is definitely indicated by the formula in question (e.g., chaps. xiii.– xv., xxi. 19–xxvi.). On the latter, the presence or absence of "we" may well be due to psychological causes, rather than to the writer's mere presence or absence. Sometimes, he may be writing as a member of Paul's mission at the critical stages of onward advance (xvi. io seq., xx. 5 seq., xxvii. i seq.) ; sometimes rather as a witness absorbed in his hero's words and deeds (so "we" ceases between xx. 15 and xxi. I). In the former cases the whole "mission" was on the move.
In regard to the first point, differences as to Paul's movements before his return to his native province of Syria-Cilicia (see PAUL) can be explained by the different interests of Paul and our author respectively. But what of the visits of Gal. ii. o and Acts xv.? If they refer to the same occasion, as is usually assumed, it is hard to see why Paul should omit reference to the public occasion of the visit and to the public vindication of his policy. But in fact the issues of the visits, as given in Gal. ii. 9 seq. and Acts xv. 20 seq., are not at all the same (Harnack [op. cit. pp. seq.] and others vainly argue that the Abstinences defined for Gentiles were in the original text of Acts xv. 20 purely moral, and had no reference to Jewish scruples as to eating blood). Nay more, if Gal. ii. I–to = Acts xv., the historicity of the "Relief visit" of Acts xi. 3o, xii. 25, seems excluded by Paul's narrative before the visit of Gal. ii. i seq. Accordingly, Sir W. M. Ramsay and others argue that the latter visit itself coincided with the Relief visit, and see in Gal. ii. io witness thereto. But why, then, does not Paul refer to the public charitable object of his visit? It seems easier therefore to admit that the visit of Gal. ii. i seq. is one unrecorded in Acts, owing to its private nature as prepar ing the way for public developments—with which Acts is mainly concerned. In that case it would fall shortly before the Relief visit, to which there may be indirect explanatory allusion in Gal. ii. to (see further PAUL) ; and it will be shown below that such a conference of leaders in Gal. ii. i seq. leads up excellently both to the First Mission Journey and to Acts xv. (For other views see The Beginnings of Christianity, 273 seq., 321 seq.) We pass next to the Paul of Acts. In his epistles Paul insists that he was the apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was to the Circum cision; and that circumcision and the observance of the Jewish law were of no importance to the Christian as such. But in Acts it is Peter who first opens up the way for the Gentiles. It is Peter who used the strongest language in regard to the intolerable burden of the Law as a means of salvation (xv. io seq. cf. i.). Not a word is said of difference between Peter and Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. I t seq.). The brethren in Antioch send Paul and Bar nabas up to Jerusalem to ask the opinion of the apostles and elders; they state their case, and carry back the decision to Antioch. Throughout Acts Paul never stands forth as the unbend ing champion of the Gentiles. He seems anxious to reconcile the Jewish Christians by personally observing the law of Moses. He circumcises the semi-Jew, Timothy ; and he performs his vows in the temple. He is particularly careful in his speeches to show how deep is his respect for the law of Moses. In all this the letters of Paul are very different from Acts. In Galatians he claims perfect freedom in principle, for himself as for the Gentiles, from the obligatory observance of the Law ; and neither in it nor in Corinthians does he take any notice of a decision reached at Jerusalem. The narrative of Acts, too, itself implies something other than what it sets in relief ; for why should the Jews hate Paul so much, if he was not in some sense disloyal to their Law? There is, nevertheless, no essential contradiction here, only such a difference of emphasis as belongs to the standpoints and aims of the two writers and to different historical conditions. Peter's function in relation to the Gentiles belongs to early Palestinian conditions, before Paul's distinctive mission had taken shape. Once Paul's apostolate—parallel with the more collective aposto late "the Twelve"—has proved itself by tokens of Divine approval, Peter and his colleagues frankly recognize the distinction of the two missions, and are anxious only that the two shall not fall apart by religiously and morally incompatible usages (Gal. ii. 1o, cf. Acts xv.). Paul, on his side, clearly implies that Peter felt that the Law could not justify (Gal. ii. t5 seq.), and argues that it could not now be made obligatory in principle (cf. "a yoke," Acts xv. io) ; yet for Jews it might continue for the time (pend ing the Parousia) to be seemly and expedient, especially for the sake of non-believing Judaism. To this he conformed his own conduct as a Jew, so far as his Gentile apostolate was not involved (I Cor. ix. 19 seq.). There is no reason to doubt that Peter largely agreed with him, since he acted in this spirit in Gal. ii. it seq., until coerced by Jerusalem sentiment to draw back for ex pediency's sake. This incident it did not fall within the scope of Acts (see above) to narrate, since it had no abiding effect on the Church's extension. As to Paul's submission of the issue in Acts xv. to the Jerusalem conference, Acts does not imply that Paul would have accepted a decision in favour of the Judaizers, though he saw the value of getting a decision for his own policy in the quarter to which they were most likely to defer. If the view that he already had an understanding with the "Pillar" Apostles, as recorded in Gal. ii. (see further PAUL), be correct, it gives the best of reasons why he was ready to enter the later public Conference of Acts xv. Paul's own "free" attitude to the Law, when on Gentile soil, is just what is implied by the hostile rumours as to his conduct in Acts xxi. 21, which he was glad to disprove as at least exaggerated (ib. 24 and 26). What is clear is that such lack of formal accord as here exists between Acts and the Epistles tells against its author's dependence on the latter, and so favours his having been a comrade of Paul himself.
Speeches.—Thespeeches in Acts deserve special notice. An cient historians (like many of modern times) used the liberty of working up in their own language the speeches recorded by them. They did not dream of verbal fidelity; they preferred to mould a speaker's thoughts to their own methods of presentation. Besides this, some did not hesitate, for vividness' sake, to give to their characters speeches which were never uttered. Now how far has the author of Acts followed these practices? Some of its speeches are evidently bare summaries. Others claim to be reports of speeches really delivered. But all have been passed through one mind, and some mutual assimilation in phraseology and idea may well have resulted. They are, moreover, all of them, mere ab stracts. Yet these circumstances, while inconsistent with verbal accuracy, do not destroy authenticity; and in most cases (e.g. xiv. 15-17) there is a varied appropriateness, as well as an allusiveness, pointing to good information (see under Sources). There is no evidence that any speech in Acts is the free composition of its author, without either written or oral basis; and in general he seems nearer than most ancient historians to the essentials of historical accuracy.
Miracles.—Objectionsto the trustworthiness of Acts on the ground of its miracles require to be stated more carefully than has usually been the case especially as bearing on authorship. For the idea of the "miraculous" or supernormal is hardly if at all, less marked in the "we" sections (where efforts to dissect it out are fruitless) than in the rest of the work. The scientific method, then, is to consider each "miracle" on its own merits, according as we may suppose that it has reached our author more or less directly. But even the form in which the gift of Tongues at Pentecost is conceived does not exclude Luke's authorship, since it may have stood in his source ; and the first outpouring of the Messianic Spirit may soon have come to be thought of as unique by some Jewish Christians, parallel in form to the Rabbinic tra dition as to the inauguration of the Old Covenant at Sinai (cf. Philo, De decem oraculis, 9, 11, and the Midrash on Ps. lxviii. I I).
As to such historical difficulties in Acts as still remain, there are various possibilities of mistake intervening between the facts and the accounts which reached its author, at second or even third hand (see further under Date). Also recent research in antiquity has tended to verify such parts of the narrative as can be tested, as Sir W. M. Ramsay in particular has shown. The proofs of trustworthiness extend also to the theological sphere. What was said of the Christology of the Petrine speeches applies to the whole conception of Messianic salvation, the eschatology, the idea of Jesus as equipped by (the) Holy Spirit for His Messianic work. These and other forms of very primitive witness in Acts have not indeed the value of shorthand notes or even of abstracts based thereon. But they suggest that our author gave a faithful account of such words and deeds as had come to his knowledge. The perspective of the whole is no doubt his own ; and as his materials furnished but few hints for a continuous narrative, this perspective, especially in things chronological, may sometimes be faulty. Yet when one remembers that by A.D. 70-80 it must have been a matter of small interest by what tentative stages the Messianic salvation was first extended to the Gentiles, it is surely surprising that Acts enters into any detail on the subject, and is not content with a summary account such as the mere logic of the matter would naturally suggest.
"Study of Sources" (Quellenkritik), then, solves many diffi culties in the way of treating Acts as an honest narrative by a companion of Paul. In addition, we may also count among recent gains a juster method of judging such a book. For among the results of the Tiibingen criticism was what Dr. W. Sanday called "an unreal and artificial standard, the standard of the 19th cen tury rather than the 1st, of Germany rather than Palestine, of the lamp and the study rather than of active life." This has a bearing, for instance, on the differences between the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the recovery of a more real standard, we owe much to men like Mommsen, Ramsay, Blass and Harnack, trained amid methods and traditions other than those which had brought the constructive study of Acts almost to a deadlock. Nor have the results of recent similarly jealous suspicion (of which Loisy is the type) won any wide consensus among scholars.
Date.—Externalevidence points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century. The traces of it in Polycarp and Ignatius, when taken together, are highly probable; and the resemblance of Acts xiii. 22, and I Clem. xviii. I, in features not found in the Psalm (lxxxix. 20) quoted by each, can hardly be accidental (see The N.T. with Apostolic Fathers, 48 seq.). That is, Acts was probably current in Rome as early as c. A.D. 95. With this view internal evidence agrees. In spite of some advocacy of a date prior to A.D. 70, the bulk of critical opinion is against it. The prologue to Luke's Gospel implies the dying out of eye-witnesses as a class. Many support a date about A.D. 8o; some prefer 75 to 8o; while a date even before 75 seems possible. Of the reasons for a date in one of the earlier decades of the 2nd century, as argued by the Tubingen school, most are now untenable. Among these are the supposed traces of 2nd century Gnosticism and "hierarchical" ideas of organization; while the argument from the relation of the Roman state to the Chris tians has been turned by Ramsay into proof of an origin prior to Pliny's correspondence with Trajan, c. 112. Another fact tells against a 2nd-century date, viz. the failure of a writer devoted to Paul's memory to avoid seeming conflict with his Epistles. If, indeed, Acts uses the later works of Josephus, we should have to place it about A.D. But this is far from proved.
Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited. (I) The circumstances attending the death of Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44. Here Acts xii. 21-23 is largely parallel to Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2 ; but the latter adds an omen of coming doom, while Acts alone gives a circumstantial account of the occasion of Herod's public appearance. Hence the parallel, when analysed, tells against dependence. So also with (2) the case of the Egyptian pseudo prophet in Acts xxi. 37 seq., Jos. Jewish War, ii. 13. 5, Antt. xx. 8. 6; for the numbers do not agree with either of Josephus's rather divergent accounts, while Acts alone speaks of Sicarii. With these instances in mind, it is best to regard (3) the curious resemblance in v. 36 seq. and Jos. Antt. xx. 5. I as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both as accidental, the more so that again there is difference as to num bers. There may well have been another Theudas, in the period of many tumults after the death of Herod the Great to which Josephus refers in Antt. xvii. 4, whom as a pseudo-Messiah on so small scale he might not think worth while mentioning of ter A.D. 70; whereas to Gamaliel the case was not long before his own time ("before these days"). Further, to make out a case for de pendence, one must assume the mistaken order in Gamaliel's speech as due to gross carelessness in the author of Acts. Such a mistake, if really there, was far more likely to arise in oral transmission of the speech, before it reached Luke at all.
Place.—Theplace of composition is still an open question. Rome and Antioch have been in favour; and Blass combined both views in his theory of two editions (see further, Text). But internal evidence points to the Roman province of Asia, and the neigh bourhood of Ephesus. Note the confident local allusion in xix. 9 to "the school of Tyrannus"—not "a certain Tyrannus," as in the inferior text—and in xix. 33 to "Alexander"; also the very minute topography in xx. 13-15. Affairs in that region, including the future of the church of Ephesus (xx. 28-30), are treated as though they would specially interest "Theophilus" and his circle : also an early tradition makes Luke die in the adjacent Bithynia. An apologia for the Church against the Synagogue's attempts to influence Roman policy to its harm would be much to the point in "Asia" (cf. Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9, and Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, ch. xii.).
Text.—Theapparatus criticus of Acts has grown considerably of recent years ; mainly in one direction, that of the so-called "Western text." This misleading term really stands for a glossing or paraphrastic text, comparable to a Targum on an Old Testa ment book, which became very widespread, in both east and west, for some 200 years or more from early in the 2nd century. The sifting, however, of the readings in all our witnesses (mss., ver sions, Fathers) has not yet gone far enough to yield final results as to the history of this text—what in its extant forms is primary, secondary, and so on. Beginnings only have been made towards grouping our authorities (see J. H. Ropes' fine study in Beginnings of Christianity, pt. i., vol. iii. pp. ccxv.). Assuming, however, that the original form of the "Western" text had been reached, the question of its historical value, i.e. its relation to the original text of Acts, would remain. On this point the highest claims were made by Blass (1894 and later), who held that both the "Western" text of Acts (styled the text) and its rival, the text of the great uncials (the a text), are due to the author's own hand; and that the former (Roman) is more original than the latter (Antiochene) ; but the theory (as Ropes shows) is untenable. Sir W. M. Ram say pointed the way to sounder views. Already in The Church in the Roman Empire (1893) he held that the "Western" text in the Codex Bezae rested on a recension made not later than about the middle of the 2nd century. Though "some at least of the altera tions in Codex Bezae arose through a gradual process," the revision as a whole was the work of a single reviser. His aim, in suiting the text to the views of his place and time, was to make it at once more intelligible and more complete. In his later work, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895), Ramsay's views gained in breadth by looking beyond the Bezan text to the "West ern" text as a whole.
But all earlier work on the text of Acts is summed up and im proved in Ropes' monumental edition (as above). Generally speaking, the text as printed by Westcott and Hort, on the basis of the earliest mss. (S3), seems in Acts, as elsewhere, to be nearest to the autograph : the "Western" text, even in its earliest form, was a deliberate revision. This does not mean that it has no his torical value (If its own. Certain of its readings (e.g. xi. 28, xii. o) may even date from the end of the 1st century and preserve living memories. But their value is mainly that of an early com mentary, and lies in the light cast on ecclesiastical thought in cer tain quarters and epochs. Acts, from its very scope, was least likely to be viewed as sacrosanct in its text. Indeed there are signs that its undogmatic nature caused it to be comparatively neglected at certain times and places, as, e.g., Chrysostom explicitly witnesses.