ACHSAH (P? anklet,' 1 Ch 249 AV Achsa).-The daughter of Caleb. She was promised in marriage by her father to the man who should capture Debir or Kiriath- sepher. Othniel, the brother (nephew?) of Caleb, accomplished the feat, and obtained the promised reward. As the bride was being conducted to her home, she lighted off her ass, and besought her father to add 'springs of water' to the dowry of a south land (Negeb), which he had already given her. In response he granted her the upper springs and the nether springs' (Jos 1516-19, Jg 19-15). R. M. BOYD.

ACHSHAPH (1).-There were perhaps two towns in Galilee of this name. 1. Noticed with places in Upper Galilee, may be the present El-Kes⃠S. of the Leontes, on the mountains of Naphtali (Jos 111 122). 2. A city of Asher (Jos 1925), noticed with other towns near the coast, is more probably the modern El-Yasif near Acre. This is also noticed by the Mohar, an Egyp. traveller (14th cent. A.D.) on his way down the coast. The loss of the letter caph in this name may be compared with the well-known case of Achzib (2). See SWP vol. i. sheets ii. iii., and Chabas, Voyage d'un Egyptien. C. R. CONDER.

ACHZIB (?).-1. One of the 22 towns of Asher (Jos 1929 Β Εχοζόβ, Α Αχζείφ, in Jg 131 Β 'Ασχαζεί, A 'Aσxevõeί). It is identified as Ez-Zib on the coast between Acre and Tyre, near where the level line of sand is broken by the promontory of Rasen-Nakurah. The present village -a mere huddle of glaring huts on one of the highest eminences of the sandy sea-wall — has nothing to indicate that it was once a place of some note. It is mentioned in Jg 11 among the towns and districts that Israel failed to conquer. A. was called Aksibi by the Assyr., and Ecdippa by the Greeks and Romans. Josephus and Jerome refer to it. The Rabbin.

writers, hedging the Land as they did the Book, marked out three districts, indicated by A., Antioch, and Mesopotamia. They inclined to the view that A. was on the outside of the first boundary line. All within was Holy Land, where bread, wine, and oil could be found ceremonially clean, and where the dates of the months and their fasts could be accurately known in time for observance.

6

2. Another Achzib (B KeČeiß, A omits), situated in the Shephelah or low-land' of Judah, is mentioned along with Keilah and Mareshah in Jg 1544, and with Mareshah and Adullam in Mic 114. This neighbourhood suggests a possible identification with 'Ain-Kezbeh near Adullam. The name appears as Kezib (2, Xaoßi) in Gn 385, and as Kozêba (25, B Zwxneά, A XwSnẞá) in 1 Ch 422. Some literary interest attaches to Mic 114, where it is said that the houses of Achzib shall be a lie (Achzab) to the kings of Israel.' The resemblance seems to imply a play on the word. Occurring in a passage of vehement reproach, such derision corresponds to the spitting on the ground, which Orientals resort to when greatly excited and provoked-as an expression of uttermost nausea and contempt. G. M. MACKIE.

ACQUAINT, ACQUAINTANCE.-Acquaint as a reflexive verb, meaning to make the acquaintance of, is found in Job 2221, Ec 23. Cf. Shak.'s Temp. II. ii. 39: Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.' Acquaintance is both sing. and plur., Ps 5513 But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine a.' (RV my familiar friend'); Lk 2349 And all his a. and the women that followed him from Galilee.' Acquainted, meaning 'to be familiar with,' occurs Ps 1393, Is 533a. with grief.' J. HASTINGS.

ACROSTIC.-A poem so composed that the initial letters of certain recurring periods (lines, distichs, etc.) follow some definite arrangement. In the OT all the recognised acrostics are alphabetical, i.e. the initials make up the Heb. alphabet. They are Pss 9-10. 25. 34. 37. 111. 112. 119. 145, Pr 3110-31, La 1. 2. 3. 4, Sir 5113-3). See also Hab 12-21. The periods assigned to each letter may consist of one line (Pss 111. 112), two (Pss 34. 145, etc.), three (La 3, etc.), or even sixteen lines (Ps 119); or the lines may vary in number, as esp. in La 1 and 2, and to some extent in the Psalms. Where the period consists of several lines, the initial letter is sometimes repeated with each line (La 3) or distich (Ps 119). In other respects the acrostics vary very much in style and subject, and, though usually late, undoubtedly belong to very different dates. Thus Pss 37 and 119 from their didactic style are evidently late, while the Jahwistic Ps 25 is comparatively early. The acrostic character of these poems often throws indirectly an interesting light on their history, showing us unmistakably the hand of the reviser, who sometimes did not scruple to disturb their alphabetical character. The most striking example of this is in Ps 9-10, originally one alphabetical psalm of usually four lines to each letter. This the reviser cut into two, in Ps 9 adding vv.20-21 as an appendix (comp. Ps 2522 3423), and omitting two or three verses after v.5. In Ps 10 the verses represented by were omitted to make room for the insertion of a very curious and ancient fragment in vv.2-11. Somewhat similar, but less violent, alterations occur in Pss 25. 34 and 37. Thus in Ps 25 the insertion of by the Elohistic reviser (see

HEXATEUCH) in v.2 gives instead of 2 as the initial letter. It would seem also that v.18 has been substituted for a verse, or else that the latter has been omitted. The omission of the verse in Ps 145 appears to be accidental. It is interesting to notice that when the psalms are, from their style and position in the Psalter, likely to be of late date, there is little or no interference with their alphabetical arrangement. The transposition of the letters y and è in La 2 and 3 cannot easily be accounted for.

Bickell, Zeitsch. für Kathol. Theol. (Innsbruck) 1882, p. 326 ff., has shown that the conclusion of Sir, of which the original Heb. is now lost, was alphabetical, the letters n-n, vv.21-29, being evident at once from the Syr. version. It has also been maintained that Nah 12-21.8 was originally alphabetical; but if so, the text has been so altered by revision or corruption that very few traces of this remain.

Some critics claim to have discovered a name acrostic in Ps 110, the initials of 1-4, after omitting the introductory words, spelling ; but this coincidence can hardly be considered conclusive. F. H. WOODS.

**ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.—
i. Introduction.

ii. Text and Transmission.
iii. Literary History.
iv. Modern Criticism.
v. Purpose and Contents.
vi. Analysis.

vii. Authorship and Date.
viii. The Acts and Josephus.

ix. The Historical Value of the Acts.
(1) A Priori Objections.

(2) The Acts and St. Paul's Epistles.

(3) The Archæological Evidence.

(4) The Period of Transition.

(5) The Early Community in Jerusalem.
(6) The Speeches.

x. Sources of the Acts.
xi. Conclusion.

xii. Literature.

i. The ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, the fifth book in the English Canon, is unique in its character. The verses are numbered in this article according to the Heb. Bible.

While we have four separate narratives of the life of our Lord, and a very considerable number of letters by different apostles, it is the only history of the early Church that can make any claim to be authentic. Some writers indeed, such as Holtzmann (Handkommentar, p. 307), suggest that it is to be put on the level of other works written in the second century recording the deeds of the apostles; but such a position is quite untenable. Even if some of them, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, may rest on an historical basis, that is the most which can be admitted. The greater number of them, most notably the Clementine Romances, for which there was once claimed almost an equality with the Acts, are now decisively thrown to a later date. The Acts is the sole remaining historical work which deals with the beginnings of Church history; and this amongst other causes has made it a favourite mark of modern criticism.

ii. TEXT AND TRANSMISSION.-Although our authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in the main similar to those for the Gospels, they are fewer in number. Like the Gospels, it is contained in the five leading Uncials (§ A B C D), in the Vulg., in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, in the two chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, defective. We have nothing corresponding to the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac, nor do we even know whether such a text existed; and the Old Latin is very inadequately represented. On the other hand, we possess one other Uncial of considerable importance, namely, the Codex Laudianus (E) of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS. of the Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally found forming one volume with the Catholic Epistles.

The inadequate representation of the Old Latin and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be regretted, owing to the fact that the particular textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in some authorities of the Acts in a very conspicuous form, namely, what is called the Western text (by Sanday and Headlaın, Romans, p. lxxi, the & text; by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 24, the 8 text). This is represented more or less definitely by the two bilingual MSS. D E, by the marginal readings of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, edited by M. Berger), and by Western Fathers, esp. Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer, Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed text). The characteristics of this text are well known; it adds passages of considerable length, it paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the shorter text; and all these characteristics appear, but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts; it sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage by the variations from the shorter text, sometimes its variations give additional and apparently authentic information. The problem of the origin of this text has caused in recent years a considerable amount of discussion. Some few critics, such as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to consider it the original text; but that opinion has found few followers. Rendel Harris, in 1891, started a series of modern discussions by suggesting that the variations of Codex Beza were due to Latinisation, and implied the existence of a bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 A.D. He also found signs of Montanist influence. His main theory was adequately refuted by Sanday in the Guardian (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed the recension suggested by the Western text to Antioch. Ramsay, in 1892 (Church in Rom. Emp. p. 151, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser

who lived in Asia before the year 150, a locality which had already been suggested by Lightfoot (Smith's DB i. p. 42), while WH suggest N.W. Syria or Asia Minor (Gr. Test. ii. p. 108). Dr. Chase, in 1893, attacked the problem from another side, accepting Antioch as the locality, and finding the principal cause of the variations in retranslation from the Syriac, a position he failed to make good. Lastly, Dr. Blass has suggested that the author issued two editions, and that both forms of the text are due to himself personally, the one representing a rough draft, the other a revision: again, a theory which is hardly satisfactory (see Chase, Crit. Rev. 1894, p. 300 ff.; Blass' reply begins in Hermathena, No. xxi. p. 122).

A definite solution of the problem has not been attained, nor has it yet been attacked in a really scientific manner. A careful study of the MSS. D and E, and their relations, is necessary in order to eliminate their individual peculiarities. But in all probability the solution lies in the direction suggested by WH (p. 122 f.). If we compare the phenomena presented by the text of apocr. writings we find just the same tendency to variation, but in an even more exaggerated form. Popular literature was treated with great freedom by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or convenience was the one thing considered. During the first seventy years of their existence, i.e. up to the year A.D. 150, the books of NT were hardly treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interpretation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. These could be exhibited most easily in early and popular translations into other languages. It was a process which would have a tendency to continue until the book was treated as canonical, and its text looked on as something sacred. Although some whole classes of readings may be due to one definite place or time, yet for the most part they represent rather a continuous process, and it is not probable that any theory which attempts to tie all variations down to a special locality or a definite revision will now be made good.

In one point, however, WH's conclusions will require modification. It must not be forgotten that Western authorities represent ultimately an independent tradition from the Archetype. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single reading, which is clearly not Western in its character, they may preserve a better tradition than the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We must, in other words, distinguish Western readings from readings in Western authorities. For example, "Exλvas read by AD in 1120 may be correct.

iii. The LITERARY HISTORY of the Acts is similar to that of the great number of books of NT. In the last quarter of the second century, when we begin to have any great extent of Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. Luke. This is the case esp. with Irenæus, who cites passages so continuous as to make it certain that he had the book before him substantially as we have it, but with many of the readings we call Western. He lays stress on the fact that there is internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and is followed in this by the Muratorian Fragment (Iren. Adv. Hær. i. 23.1; iii. 12. 12, 13. 3, 14. 1, 15. 1; iv. 15. 1). The book is also ascribed to St. Luke by Tertullian (De Ieiunio, 10) and Clement of Alex. (Strom. v. 12. § 83, p. 696, cf. Sanday, BL, p. 66 f.) ; while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), in the letter concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons (ib. v. 1), and a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth (ib. iv. 23). By this date the work is an

integral portion of the Canon in all Churches, and there are no signs of any difference of opinion. Nor is there any reason for arguing that because our knowledge of it begins suddenly, therefore the book suddenly appeared in the Canon. We have no decisive evidence earlier, because we have no books to contain that evidence. Moreover, the wide area over which our evidence extends seems to imply that the ascription to St. Luke is a genuine tradition, and not a mere critical deduction.

=

For an earlier period the industry of critics has collected a number of parallels, on which indeed, for the most part, no great stress can be laid; but two lines of argument enable us to take the book farther back. The unity of authorship of the Acts and St. Luke's Gospel must be admitted as axiomatic, and it is quite clear that Tatian, Justin, and Marcion were acquainted with St. Luke's Gospel. Now, the existence of St. Luke's Gospel implies the existence of the Acts, and this conclusion is supported by a number of parallels between the Acts and Justin, which would not perhaps be by themselves of great weight (Ac 18 Ap. i. 50, 230 Dial. 68, 752: Dial. 16, 1728 = Ap. ii. 10, 2623 Dial. 36, 76). The use of St. Luke by Marcion clearly carries the Acts back to the early part of the second century; but we can go still earlier. Among the apostolic Fathers there are suggestions of contact with Barnabas, Hermas, and Clement on which little stress can be laid, while Papias shows himself acquainted with the persons mentioned by St. Luke; but in Ignatius and Polycarp (Ac 24 = Pol. 1, 102 Pol. 2, 2035 = Pol. 2, 752 = Pol. 6, 821 = Pol. 12, 125 = Ign. Mag. 5, 653 = Ign. Phil. 11, 10+1 = Ign. Smyn. 3) there are resemblances which, although slight, are so exact as to make the hypothesis of literary obligation almost necessary, as Holtzmann even seems to think (Einleitung,3 1892, p. 406, 'there are still more noteworthy resemblances with Justin, Polycarp, and Ignatius '). This last evidence is of increasing importance, as not only the genuineness but also the early date of the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius is becoming daily better established, and these quotations almost compel us to throw back the writing of the Acts into the 1st cent. this is, of course, provided we accept the literary unity. If we accept the elaborate distinction of sources (see § x.) which has become fashionable lately, no evidence at an early date is valuable except for the words quoted.

=

The history subsequent to the second century need not detain us. Some few heretics appear to have left the work out of the Canon, and Chrysostom complains that it was not much read in his time; but it is always with him as with all other Church writers, one of the accepted books. Its place in the Canon varies. The ordinary position is immediately after the Gospels (Evv. Act. Cath. Paul. or Evv. Act. Paul. Cath.), and this is the place it occupies in almost all Gr. MSS. from the Vatican onwards, in the Muratorian Fragment | and later lists, in Syr. and Lat. MSS. The order, Evv. Paul. Act. Cath., is that of the Sin., some Minuscules, MSS. of the Peshitta of the 5th and 6th cent., the Codex Fuldensis and Vulg. MSS. from the 13th cent. A third order is Evv. Paul. Cath. Act., which is found in the Apostolic Canons, 85, the Bohairic and perhaps the Sahidic MSS., in Jerome's Bible and Spanish Vulg. MSS. The only point of importance in the order would be whether there was an early tradition grouping the writings of St. Luke together. There is very little evidence of this. In some cases St. Luke's was placed fourth among the Gospels, but this happened, as a rule, in authorities which do not put the Acts next; for example, the Codex Claromontanus and some Coptic authorities. There seems, however, some evidence for thinking that in

Origen's time the order of the Gospels was Jn Mt Mk Lk, and that these were followed by the Acts. In the case of Irenæus, however, our oldest evidence for Asia and the West, we find the Gospel already separated from the Acts and definitely grouped with the other Gospels (Zahn, Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, ii. 343-383).

iv. MODERN CRITICISM.-1. By far the most prevalent opinion concerning the Acts has always been, and still is, that which ascribes it to St. Luke the companion of St. Paul. This is the opinion, not only of those critics who are classed as orthodox, but of Renan, whilst it has recently been maintained with great vigour by Ramsay and Blass. It is, of course, compatible with very varying estimates of its historical authority. While Renan considers it valuable mainly as a witness to the opinions and ideas of the author's own time, Ramsay, on the other hand, claims for St. Luke a place in the very first rank of historians-i.e. amongst those who have good material, who use it well, and who write their history with a very clear insight into the true course of events. Even he, however, admits that for the earlier portion its value is dependent on the value of the sources used.

2. As soon as Baur began to develop his theory of Church history, it became apparent that it was inconsistent with the Acts; and partly arising from a comparison with the history recorded in the Galatians and for other critical reasons, but partly owing to a different à priori conception of what was the nature of the development of the early Church, an opinion has widely prevailed that the Acts presents us with a fancy picture written in the second century in the interests of the growing Catholicism of the day. This has been the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller (to whom we owe by far the fullest investigation on this side), Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Hausrath, Holsten, Lipsius, Davidson, van Manen, and others. But in the extreme form in which it was held it is gradually being given up. Neither the late date nor the exaggerated view of the differences of parties in the early Church is really tenable. The unhistorical character comes, it is now said, rather from defective knowledge and insight, not from deliberate purpose, and the writer wrote as he could rather than as he would. He represents, in fact, the opinions of his day, those of Heathen Christianity developing into Catholicity' (Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, Eng. tr. i. 56). Moreover, few would care for a much later date than 100 A.D. 'The authorship by St. Luke would be just conceivable if some time about the year 80 were taken as the terminus ad quem' (Holtzmann, Handkomm. p. 312).

3. The school of Baur had the great merit of establishing the fact that the Acts is an artistic whole, that the writer had a clear conception of the manner in which the Church developed, and wrote with that idea always before him. In the last ten years a series of writers have attacked the question of the sources of the book (see § x.) in a manner quite inconsistent with this. They have imagined a number of writers who have gradually compiled the book by collecting and piecing together scraps of other books, and by altering or cutting out such passages in the same as seemed inconsistent with their particular opinions. This view, in anything like an extreme form, is absolutely inconsistent with the whole character of the work.

A sufficient amount has been said about the various opinions which have been held, and it will be most convenient to pursue our subsequent investigations from the point of view which we consider most probable.

v. PURPOSE AND CONTENTS.-The purpose which the writer of the Acts had before him may be

gathered from his own preface, corresponding as it does with the plan and arrangement of the work. There is indeed a slight obscurity. He begins by referring to his previous book in the words Tòv uèv πρῶτον λόγον, and very clearly sums up the contents of the work as being περὶ πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς Toleîv Te Kal didáσkei; but he never gives the second part of the sentence. Its purport, however, may be gathered from the following verses. The apostles were to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and of power, and were to be witnesses of the Lord in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. In other words, the subject of the book is (1) the divine credentials of the apostles as exhibited in their power, and (2) the extension of the gospel in the stages marked by the words Jerusalem, Judæa, and Samaria, the uttermost parts of the earth.

When we examine the structure of the book, we find that it almost exactly corresponds with these words. There is clear evidence of method. The writer begins with the enumeration of the names of the apostles and the members of the coramunity. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the immediate outburst of power. Then the preaching in Jerusalem. In this we notice that all signs of the apostolic power and all points which lead to the spread of the gospel are specially noted. An instance of the first is the story of Ananias and Sapphira; of the last, the way in which the different stages in the growth of the Church are continually emphasised (241.47 44). In ch. 6 there is clearly a new start. The appointment of the seven is dwelt on, both because of the immediate exhibition of power (67), and because of the immense results which followed from the preaching of Stephen and the persecution which followed his death.

In 8 the second stage of progress is entered upon. The word spreads to Samaria (84-25). The extension of the gospel is suggested by the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (826-40). In 91-30 comes Saul's conversion, an event of extreme importance for the writer's purpose. In 931 is given another summary of the progress of the Church-by this time throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria. A series of incidents relating to the missionary work of St. Peter now follows (932-1118), selected as containing the first definite signs of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, 'Apa kal τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ θεὸς τὴν μετάνοιαν εἰς ζωὴν ἔδωκεν. In 1119 we reach a further stage. The word is preached in Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, and the Church of Antioch is founded the word being preached there to those who are not Jews. In 1224 again the spread of the word is dwelt on. Another stage in the narrative is ended.

-We get in 131 or 1225 what is clearly intended to be a new departure. The amount of preparation shows us the importance that the author attaches to the first setting out of Paul and Barnabas together, and from this time onwards the narrative proceeds very definitely forward until the time when St. Paul reaches Rome. We may again mark stages in the narrative-134-1426-commonly called the first missionary journey of St. Paul; in which we notice the emphasis laid on the exhibition of duvauis on the part of the apostle. In 151-29 comes the apostolic council; then 15362116 the further missionary enterprise of St. Paul. Here we notice how it is always the points of departure which are dwelt on, as, for example, the first preaching in Europe and in great and important towns. Then 2117-2816 the series of events which ultimately lead St. Paul to Rome. Here the great fulness of detail arises partly from the better knowledge of the author, partly from the important character of the events, - St. Paul preaches before rulers and kings, Lk 2112, — partly

because they are all events which help in taking the gospel to Rome. There the author leaves St. Paul preaching, because he has then accomplished the purpose of his narrative. Rome is typical of the ends of the earth. A definite point is reached, and the narrative is definitely concluded. arguments in favour of the definite conclusion of the work, see Lightfoot in Smith's DB2 i. 27, as against Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 23.)

(For

The above sketch of the plan of the work has, at any rate, the merit of being an attempt to discover the author's purpose by an examination of his own language. The fault of other views is that they exaggerate points of minor importance. A series of writers from Schneckenburger (1841) onwards have seen in the work a book of conciliating tendency, based on the parallelism between St. Peter and St. Paul; and this view in a more or less modified form has been the prevailing one. It has, as will be suggested, this much truth, that the writer would pass over for the most part incidents of a less creditable character; he did not, however, do so, as this theory implies, because he wished to conceal anything (he gives us quite sufficient hints of the existence of difference of opinion, 157.57 f. 2120 f), but because they did not help in the aim of his work. He looks upon Christianity as a polity or society, and it is the growth of this society he depicts. The internal history is looked at in so far as it leads to external growth. The view of Pfleiderer and some others is that the book was written from an apologetic point of view to defend Christianity against Judaism and paganism. With this object, like the later Christian apologists, the writer depicts the Roman authorities as, on the whole, favourable to Christianity, while he represents the attacks as coming from the Jews. There is no doubt that he does so; but the obvious reason for doing so was the fact that the author was narrating things as they happened, while he gives no hint that his work is intended to be apologetic. It is addressed to a believing Christian, not to any outsider.

vi. ANALYSIS. - A certain amount of discussion has taken place as to whether the Acts should be divided into two or three main parts. All such discussions are thoroughly fruitless. There are quite clearly definite stages in the narrative, and the writer is systematic. We must observe the structure, but we are at liberty to make such divisions as seem convenient - remembering that the divisions are not the writer's, but our own. The following is suggested as a convenient analysis on the lines of the previous summary. The speeches are italicised:

23-31 Prayer of the Church on their release. 32-516. Communism of the early Church - Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira.

17-42. Second imprisonment of Peter and John. Speech
of Gamaliel.

61-7. The appointment of the Seven.
8-15. The preaching of Stephen.
71-53 The speech of Stephen.

3. Death of Stephen and persecution of the Church.

THE CHURCH IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA.

84-25. Philip in Samaria. Simon Magus.
26-40. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.
91-30. Conversion of Saul.

31. Extension of the Church.
32-43 Peter at Lydda and Joppa.

vii. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE. - The following arguments enable us to fix with a considerable approach to certainty the authorship of the Acts. (1) It is quite certain that it is written by the author of the third Gospel. This is shown by the preface, which, like that of the Gospel, is addressed to Theophilus, and shows that the author claims to have written such a Gospel, and by the identity Lof style between the two books (the best and most recent demonstration is that of Friedrich). This fact may be taken as admitted on all sides. (2) The presence of certain portions written in the first person, seems to imply that the writer was an eye-witness of some of the events he describes, and a companion of St. Paul. In the Acts there are certain passages which are technically known as the 'we' sections, viz. 1610-17 205-15 211-18 271-2816. Here the writer speaks in the first person. Moreover, these sections and also the accompanying incidents, in which the writer does not take part, but at which he was probably present, are presented with great fulness and exactness of detail, and seem to imply that the writer was an eye-witness. So far there is general agreement. But two explanations then become possible. Either the author of these sections was the author of the Acts, who changes the person when he becomes himself one of the companions of St. Paul, or these passages are one of the sources which the compiler of the work makes use of. All probability is in favour of the first view. The style of the 'we' sections is that of the author. It is perfectly true, indeed, that the author works up his sources in his own phraseology, as may be seen by a study of the third Gospel; but it is hardly possible to believe that a writer so artistic as the author of the Acts certainly is should have left these exceedingly incongruous first persons.

So

keenly has this been felt, that it has been suggested that the author introduced these sections in the first person to give an appearance of genuineness to his narrative-a suggestion which refutes both itself and some other theories. An examination of the scope of these sections lends itself to thesame view. The first section begins at Troas (1610) and continues to Philippi (1616); the second begins at Philippi (205) and continues over the whole period to the end of the book, the third person being occasionally adopted, as in 1617, when the event recorded concerns only St. Paul and some of his companions, and not the whole party, nor the author personally. The most reasonable explanation of that fact is that the writer of these sections joined the party at Troas and went to Philippi; that after an interval of some years he again joined St. Paul at Philippi, perhaps his native place, and accompanied him first to Jerusalem and then to Rome. If any other hypothesis be adopted, it is difficult to account for the exceedingly fragmentary character of the sections. On the other side, it is argued that the 'we' sections are so much more historical in their character than some of the other sections, and so much fuller in detail, that they clearly betray a different hand. But the difference is never greater than would be found in passing from the work of an eye-witness to the work of one who, although a contemporary, is not an eye-witness. It is urged, again, that the work cannot be from the hand of a contemporary because of the inexactness and incorrectness of the knowledge of apostolic times which it exhibits. But this is really begging the whole question. We have no right to argue that a book is late because it is unhistorical, unless we have objective reasons for stating that it is so, which overpower the positive evidence for the early date. The balance of probability is in favour of the author of the Acts being identical with the author of the 'we' sections, and therefore of being a companion of St. Paul, but a companion who joined the apostle somewhat late in his career, and who therefore could only have a second-hand acquaintance with earlier events.

(3) The tradition of the Church from the end of the second century is that the author was Luke, a companion of St. Paul; and this exactly corresponds with the circumstances already described. St. Luke is the only companion of St. Paul, so far as our knowledge goes, who fulfils the conditions. The Acts could not have been written by Timothy, for Timothy was a companion during an interval when the 'we' sections cease (Ac 1714); nor by Titus, for we know from Gal 28 that he was with St. Paul earlier; nor by Silas, who was at the council (Ac 1522). St. Luke is never mentioned in any of the earlier Epistles, but he is in the later. Corroborative evidence of the Lucan authorship has been found in the medical terms used (Col 414, Lk 843, Ac 288 etc.).

(4) The argument in favour of the Lucan authorship of both the Gospel and Acts, based on a chain of coincidences, has been put very strongly by Bp. Lightfoot. (a) Tradition gives to the Gospel the name of St. Luke, a companion of St. Paul. (b) Internal but unobtrusive evidence shows its Pauline character. It dwells particularly on the universality and freedom of the gospel; and it refers to less obvious incidents in our Lord's life mentioned by St. Paul (1 Co 1128 = Lk 2219, 1 Co 155 Lk 2484). (c) The Acts of the Apostles was certainly written by the same person as the Gospel. (d) An independent line of argument shows that it was written by a companion of St. Paul. (e) It, too, is Pauline in its character (so far as we are at liberty to use that word). It represents the same universality and freedom of the gospel, and the