We do not here enter into the question whether, according to St. Matthew xxiv :29, it was expected that the second advent should directly follow the destruction of Jerusalem; we merely observe that a petitio principii runs through the whole train of this argument, since it sets out with assuming the impossibility of detailed predictions.
3. The Acts of The Apostles. Besides the gospel which bears his name, Luke wr6te the Acts of the Apostles. This work contains the history of the foundation of the Christian church in two great sections: the first embracing the spread of Christianity among the Jews, chiefly by the .in strumentality of Peter (chapters i-xii) ; and the second, its spread among the heathen, chiefly by the instrumentality of Paul (chapters xiii-xxviii).
Schneckenburger has strongly endeavored, in his work Uebcr den Zweck dcr Apostelgeschichtc. 1841, to prove that the Acts had an apologetical tendency, called forth by the particular circum stances of the times. He especially appeals to the manner in which Paul refutes all objections of the Judaizers, who were his enemies.
In those portions of the Acts in which Luke speaks as the companion of Paul, and, conse quently, as an eye-witness, his Greek style is more classical than in the rest of the work. This circumstance supports the opinion that Luke fol lowed some written documents in the earlier part of the Acts, as well as in the gospel.
(1) Relation to St. Paul. From the cir cumstance that the hook of Acts leaves St. Paul a captive, without relating the result of his cap tivity, most critics have, with considerable proba bility, inferred that' Luke accompanied St. Paul to Rome, that he employed his leisure while there in composing the Acts, and that he left off writing before the fate of Paul was decided. Now, since the Gospel of St. Luke was writeen before the Acts, it seems to follow that it was written a considerable time before the destruction of Je rusalem. De Wette meets this argument merely by his petitio principii, that from the detailed na ture of the predictions on that head in the gospel, tt would follow that they were written after the events to which they refer, and consequently after the destruction of Jerusalem.
It is likely that Luke, during Paul's captivity at C7csarea, employed his leisure in collecting.the accounts contained in his gospel in the localities where the events to which they relate happened. The most ancient testimonies in behalf of Luke's Gospel are those of Marcion, at the beginning of the second century, and of Irenmus, in the latter half of that century.
According to Meyer's opinion, Luke terminates the Acts with Paul's captivity, because the later events were well known to Theophilus, to whom the Acts are dedicated. We do not know who this Theophilus was. Hug, however, infers, from the manner in which Luke mentions Italian lo calities, that they were well known to Theophilus, and that consequently it was likely he resided in Italy.
(2) Authentic Account. That the accounts of Luke are authentic may be perceived more es pecially from a close examination of the inserted discourses and letters. The characteristic marks of authenticity in the oration of the Roman law yer Tertullus, in ch. xxiv, and in the official let ters in ch. xxiii :26, sq.; xv :23, sq.; can scarcely be overlooked. The address of Paul to the elders of the Ephesian church is characteristically Pauline, and even so full of definite allusions and of similarity to the Epistle t'o the Ephesians, that it furnishes a confirmation of the authenticity of that letter, which has lately been questioned.
Characteristic also are the discourses of Ste phen (ch. vii), and those of Peter, concerning which compare Seyler's Abhandlungen fiber die Reden des Petrus, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1.832, p. 53, sq. Even De Wette, in his Introduc I:on, sec. 115 a, admits the appropriateness of these discourses.
(3) Chronological Difficulties. It is, ever, difficult to reconcile some of Luke's state ments with the chronological notices in the Epis tles of Paul. Very important investigations on this subject are to be found in the work of Angar, De temporal,: in Actis Apostolorunt ratione. As for the testimonies in behalf of the authenticity of the Acts, they are the same as for Luke's Gospel. Clemens Alexandrinus, Iremetis, and Tertullian, expressly mention the Acts, and Eusebius reckons them among the Homologoumena. However, the book of Acts was not read and quoted so often in the early church as other parts of Scripture. Chrysostom, in his first homily In Acttzs Aposto !orlon, says that many Christians in Asia knew neither the book nor its author. The Manichees rejected it for dogmatical reasons (Augustinus, De utilitate credendi, ii:7). So also did the Sev eriani (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv:2g). Since the book of Acts was not' much read, it is surprising that its text is particularly corrupt. It does not, however, by any means appear that these corrup tions arose from intentional alterations made for dogmatical purposes (comp. Eichhorn's Einkit ting ins New' Testament, ii, 154).
The most complete commentary on the Acts is that of Kuinoel, 2d ed., 1827. There are also some valuable manuals, as Meyer's Commentary, 1835, and that of De Wette, 2nd ed., 1841. (See also Lange, Com., and Alford, Conz.) LUMP (limp), (Heb. deb-ee-lawh').
1. Bunch of dried figs; a round mass of any kind closely pressed together, especially figs (z Kings xx:7; Is. xxxviii:20. It is rendered "cake" (I Sam. xxv;i8; xxx:12; Chron. xii:4o).
2. A mass of things mixed. In Rom. ix :2t, it means "kneaded clay" for moulding; and in Cor. v :6, Gal. v :9, "dough."