A more important inquiry respects the design of the evangelist in writing this book. A prevalent popular opinion on this head is, that Luke, having in his Gospel given a history of the life of Christ, intended to follow that up by giving in the Acts a narrative of the establishment and early progress of his religion in the world. That this, how ever, could not have been his design is obvious from the very partial and limited view which his narrative gives of the state of things in the church generally during the period through which it ex tends. As little can we regard this book as de signed to record the official history of the apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars con cerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2 Cor. xi. ; Gal, i. 17; ii. I I ; I Pet. v. 13. See also Michaelis, introduction, vol. iii. p. 32S. Haenlein's Einkitung; th. iii. s. 150). Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others are of opinion that no particu lar design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this hook beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own personal notice, either immediately through the testimony of his senses or through the medium of the reports of others; but such a view savours too much of the lax opinions which these writers un happily entertained regarding the sacred writers, to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the church universal. Much more deserving of notice is the opinion of Haenlein, with which that of Michaelis substantially accords, that ' the general of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-ope ration of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the dignity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion' (Einleitung, th. s. 156. Comp. Michaelis, Introduction, vol. iii. p. 330). Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder ; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to shew how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by Whom it was to be an nounced all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luke xxiv. 47). In this point of view the recitals in this book present a theme that is practically inte resting to Christians in all ages of the church and all places of the world ; for they exhibit to us what influences guided the actions of those who laid the foundations of the church, and to whose authority all its members must defer—what courses they adopted for the extension of the church— what ordinances they appointed to be observed by those Christians who, under their auspices, associated together for mutual edification—and what diffi • culties, privations, and trials were to he expected by those who should zealously exert themselves for the triumph of Christianity. We are thus taught not by dogmatical statement, but by instructive narrative, under what sanctions Christianity appears in our world, what blessings she offers to men, and by what means her influence is most extensively to be promoted and the blessings she offers to be most widely and most fully enjoyed.
Respecting the time when this book was comp posed it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been completed before A. D. 63 ; it was pro bably, however, finished very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the interval between the year 63 and the year 65 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared.
The style of Luke in the Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. These speeches are indeed, for the most part, to be regarded rather as summaries than as full reports of what the speaker uttered ; bet as these summaries are given in the speakers' own words, the appearance of Hebraisms in them is as easily accounted for as if the addresses had been reported in full. His mode of narrating events is
clear, dignified, and lively ; and, as Michaelis observes, he `has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public haranguer and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators' (Introduction, vol. in. p. 332)1 Whilst, as Lardner and others have very satis factorily shewn (Lardner's Credibility, Works, vol. i. ; Biscoe, On the Acts; Paley's lion e ; Benson's History of theFerst Pla nti mg of Christianity, voL ii. etc.),, the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Of the many con flicting systems which have been published far the purpose of settling the questions that have arisen on this head, it is impossible within such limits as those to which this article is necessarily confined, to give any minute account. As little do we feel ourselves at liberty to attempt an original investigation of the subject, even did such promise to be productive of any very satisfactory result. The only course- that appears open to us is to present,. in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writers whose authority is most deserving of consideration in such an inquiry.
The majority of these date•can only be regarded as approximations to the truth, and the diversity which the above table presents shews the uncertainty of the whole matter. The results at which Mr. Greswell and Dr. Anger have arrived are,. in many cases, identical, and upon the whole the earlier date which they assign. to the ascension of Christ seems worthy of adoption. We cannot help think ing, however, that the interval assigned by these writers to the events which transpired between the ascension of Christ and the-stoning of is much too great. The date which they assign to Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. is also plainly too late, for Paul himself tells us that his flight from Damascus occurred whilst that town was unanthe authority of Aretas, whose tenure of it cannot be extended beyond the year 33 of the common atta (2 Cor. xi. 32. See also Neander's remarks on these in Geschichte der pflanzung send Lertung der Christlichen Kirche,. Bd. i. s. So). Perhaps the following is the true order of the events of the apostle's early career as a Christian. In Gal. ii. 1, he-speaks himself of going up to Jerusalem fourteen years, or about fourteen years, after his conversion (for so we understand his words). Now this visit could not have been that recorded in Acts xv., because we cannot conceive that after the events detailed in that chapter Peter would have acted as Paul describes in Gal. ii. I I. We conclude, there fore, that the visit here referred to was one earlier than that mentioned in Acts xv. It must, therefore, have been that mentioned in Acts xi. 3o. Now, this being at the time of the famine, its date is pretty well fixed to the year 45, or thereabouts. Subtract 14 from this, then, and we get 31 as the date of Paul's conversion, and adding to this the three years that elapsed between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), we get the year 34 as the date of this latter event. If this arrangement be not adopted, the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. ii. 1, must, for the reason just mentioned, be intercalated between the commence ment of Paul's first missionary tour and his visit to Jerusalem at the time of the holding of the so-called council ; so that the number of Paul's visits to that city would be six, instead of five. Schrader adopts somewhat of a similar view, only he places this additional visit between the fourth and fifth of those mentioned in the Acts (Der Apostel Paulus, 4 Th. Leipz. Comnzentaries. —De Veil Explicatio literalis Actor. Apost. Lond. 1684, translated into Engl. 1685 ; Limborch, Commentariunz in Acta Aposto Zenon, etc. fol., Roterod. 1711 ; J. E. M. Wald:, Dissertt. in Acta App 3 tom. 4to, Jena, 1756-61 ; Sam. F. N. Morus, Versio et Explicatio Act. App. ed. Dindorf, 2 tom. 8vo, Lips. 1794 ; Richard Biscoe's History of the Acts, confirmed, etc. 8vo. Oxf. 1829; Kuinoel, Comment. in Acta App. which forms the fourth vol. of his comment. in Litres Hist. A. T. Lips. r818 ; Heinrichs, Acta App. perpet. Annott. illustruta, being the third vol. of the Nov. Test Roppianzim ; Baumgarten, Acts of the App. 3 vols. 8vo, Ed. 1854 ; Humphrey, Com. on Act:. Lond. 1347 ; Alexander, J. A., Comment. on the Acts, 2 vols. Lond. 1860. The works of Benson on the Planting of the Christian Churches, 3 vols. 4to ; of Neander, Geschichte der Leitung rind Pflanzung der Christlichen larche durch die Apostel (recently translated into English) ; and of Lange, Das Apost. Zeitalter, 2 vols. 1853, may be also viewed in the light of Commentaries on the Acts. —W. L. A.