The problem of the sources used by the author of 'Acts' is of special interest. The narrative, as far as XV, 35, as has been shown above, relates facts that transpired or were well known in the Aramaic-speaking circles of the early Jewish-Christian church. This is especially true of Chs. i-xii. The remainder of the narrative is mainly concerned with Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Recent investigations (such as those by Dr. C. C. Torrey, noted be low) have only made quite probable what had been suggested earlier, namely, that for the material given in i, 1— xv, 35, Luke depended in the main on written Aramaic sources, which he himself translated quite literally, adding only a comparatively small amount of his own free composition. It must be said, however, that this view needs a thorough testing and sifting before it can be accepted as final.
For the remainder of his narrative (xv, 36 to the end), Luke must have depended partly on the results of his own inquiries of those cognizant with the facts, including the Apostle Paul himself, and partly on his own memory concerning those events with which he was personally acquainted. This personal respon sibility is probably indicated by the author in the use of the first person plural in the so called ewes sections (xvi, 10-17, and xx, 5, to the end of the book), sometimes called °the travel-document." Closely related to the problem of the sources is that of the credibility and accuracy of (Acts.> Of the credibility of the narrative in its general outline there can be no reason able question. But its accuracy in detail, in many instances, is open to doubt. Such errors as exist may be due in some cases to the source Luke was using; in others, to imperfect or in correct information which he took to be re liable; in others, to simple omissions of facts which Luke may have known but chose not to mention, and in still others to a failure on Luke's part to grasp the significance of events, or to carelessness in the way he set them down. The differences e. g., between the story of Paul's conversion, in Ch. ix, and the sub sequent accounts in Chs. xxii and xxvi, may be due to the fact that in Ch. ix Luke has simply transcribed without alteration a written source, while in the later passages he set down Paul's own account as he remembered hearing it given. The discrepancies between Ch. xv and Paul's own account in Gal. ii, 1-10, of his experiences at the council, may be due to Luke's faithful transcription of an Aramaic source written from a point of view entirely different from that of Paul himself. If the Kwen sections alone cover the events and period of Paul's career with which Luke was personally ac quainted or connected, it is not surprising that Luke may not have been minutely acquainted with the small details of Paul's relations to the churches of Corinth and Ephesus as these are revealed in Paul's letters. But such discrepan
cies, which are doubtless to be found in con siderable numbers between 'Acts' and some parts of Paul's Epistles, are more than offset by the numerous and often reciprocally ex planatory agreements between the two. This is the more significant when we consider that there is no probability that Luke had read these Epistles when he wrote 'Acts.' That Luke always caught Paul's viewpoint and ac curately comprehended the motives and prin ciples that actuated the apostle cannot be as sumed. Paul was admired and loved by many, but thoroughly understood by very few in the early church. Luke's aim was not, however, to give a biography of Paul, but, as has been stated, to write a history of the spread of the Gospel, under the guidance of the Spirit, until it readied Rome, the world-capital. So viewed, the author's work must be pronounced a re markable achievement, one of the greatest books ever written. It is the worthy com panion and sequel to the author's Gospel, in which he set forth "the things Jesus began both to do and teach* (Acts i, 1).
Besides the standard com mentaries, e. g., by H. H. Wendt in the Meyer Weiss series (in German), by R. J. Knowling in the (Expositor's Greek Testament,'J. R. Lumby in the (Cambridge Bible,' or by J. Ver 7 non Bartlett in (The New Century Bib the most up-to-date discussions will be found in 'The Acts of the Apostles,' by A. Harnack (London 1909) ; (Introduction to the Litera ture of the New Testament,' by James Mof fatt (New York 1911), and Composition and Date of the Acts of the Apostles,' by C. C. Torrey (Cambridge 1916).
The following works also may be consulted: COMMENTARIES: Andrews, in (The Westmin ster New Testament' (New York and London 1908) ; Holtzmann, H. J., (Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen Testament' (Freiburg 1892) ; Gil bert, in (Bible for Home and School) (New York 1908) ; Lietzmann, (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament' (Tubingen 1908). IwritonucTiorrs: Bacon, in (New Testament Handbook (New York 1903) ; Von Soden 'Early Christian Literature' (ib., 1906). GENERAL WORKS: Balmer, (Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus rind die See fahrtskunde im rOmischen Kaiser zeitalter' (Bern-Miinchenbuchsee 1905) ; Chase, (the Historical Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles' (London 1902) ; Clemen, (Die Apos (Giessen 1905); Ritschl, Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche) (Bonn 1857) ; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire before 170 A.D.' (New York 1893); Weizsacker, (The Apostolic Age' (Edinburgh 1894) ; (Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gos pels' (New York and London 1911).