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 Headlam, Romans, p. lxxi, the & text; by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 24, the ẞ 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 Bezæ 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 DB2 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, "EXX.vas read by AD in 112) 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, ef. 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, 23) = Dial. 68, 752 Dial. 16, 1723 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, 1011 = 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, Evr. 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 Erv. 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, Ivan 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. 6 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 Tov μèr πρῶτον λόγον, and very clearly sums up the contents of the work as being περὶ πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν; 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 Judea 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 (2.47 4). 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 (6), 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 (982–1118), selected as containing the first definite signs of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, 'Apa кal τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ θεὸς τὴν μετάνοιαν εἰς ζωὴν ἔδωκεν. 11 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 122 again the spread of the word is dwelt on. Another stage in the narrative is ended.

In

We get in 131 or 125 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 duvaus on the part of the apostle. In 15-29 comes the apostolic council; then 152116 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 2117-281 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

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. 212) 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:

24. Progress of the Church.

1225-133. Barnabas and Saul sent forth from Antioch.

FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL AND BARNABAS.
13-12. Cyprus. Elymas and Sergius Paulus.
13-2. Antioch in Pisidia. Speech of Paul to the Jews.
141-7. Iconium.

8-20. Lystra. Speech of Paul to the Gentiles.
21-28. Visit to Derbe and return journey to Antioch on
the Orontes.

151-35. The apostolic council in Jerusalem. Speeches of
Peter und James. Letter to the Churches.

SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF ST. PAUL. 1536-165. The Churches revisited

6-40. Journey into Europe. Philippi. 171-15. Thessalonica and Berca.

16-34. Athens. Speech of Paul in the Areopagus. 181-18, Corinth.

19-21. Return to Antioch in Syria.

22. Visit to Jerusalem.

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 of 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

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 the same view. The first section begins at Troas (16) and continues to Philippi (16); 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 813, 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 15o = 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

=

same idea of the Christian Church, but more in the concrete (see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 124-128).

(5) The balance of argument is clearly, then, in favour of St. Luke as author of the Acts. There is, however, still room for doubt as to the time when it was written. (a) One theory places it almost immediately after the close of the narrative, and just before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. The book, it is urged, comes to an abrupt conclusion, and the only explanation is that it is unfinished. As has been pointed out above, there is no real reason for saying the book is unfinished. The arrival of St. Paul in Rome formed a suitable conclusion, and the ending is similar in character to the ending of the Gospel. In the extreme form this argument is untenable, but it is still quite possible to hold that the narrative concluded here, because not many more events had occurred. Moreover, it might be held that the tone in relation to the empire represented the period before rather than after the Neronian persecution. The early date is still held by Blass, and the arguments against it are not very strong.

(b) The argument for a later date is generally based on Lk 2120 as compared with Mt 2415, Mk 1344. It is stated that the form of the prophecy there recorded has been modified by the knowledge of what happened at the siege of Jerusalem. The Gospel therefore was written after that event, and the Acts somewhat later, under the Flavians. The criticism of Blass, however, has very considerable weight, that there is little in the prophecies recorded by St. Luke which goes much beyond the language of Dn 926; and the reason given for a late date can hardly be considered demonstrative. Neither can that of Ramsay, who thinks that the Gospel must have been written just after Titus was associated in the empire with his father, so as to explain the incorrect date of Tiberius (Lk 31). No arguments are certain, and the language of Lk 212) would in any case be quite compatible with a date some time before A.D. 70; but perhaps on the whole the amount of perspective contained in the book is hardly compatible with the earlier date, just as the relation of the third Gospel to the other two suggests the later date, and a period shortly after 70 is the most probable. Whether we can, as Ramsay suggests, press the prov of 11, and argue that a third treatise was in contemplation, is very doubtful.

The following are dates suggested by various writers, and are for the most part taken from Holtzinann: -64-70 (Hug, A. Maier, Schneckenburger, Hitzig, Grau, Nösgen, Blass), c. 80 (Ewald, Lechler, Bleek, Renan, Meyer, Weiss, Ramsay), 75-100 (Wendt, Spitta), 90 (Köstlin, Mangold), 95 (Hilgenfeld), c. 100 (Volkinar), 110-120 (Pfleiderer), Trajan and Hadrian (Schwegler, Zeller, Overbeck, Davidson, Keim, Hausrath), 125-150 (Straatman, Meijboom, van Manen).

The arguments for a later date are given most fully among recent writers by Holtzmann (Einleitung,3 1892, p. 405) as follows:-(1) Acquaintance with the Pauline Epistles (Rom, Gal, Cor, Eph, Thess, and Heb), also with Josephus. (2) Deliberate correction of the narrative of Gal 117-24 in Ac 926-39, of Gal

21-10 in 151-33, of Gal 211 in Ac 1535-39. (3) Unhistorical account of speaking with tongues (Ac 24-11), of St. Paul's relations with the law, and legendary narratives such as that of the death of Agrippa, 1223. (4) The writer is contemporary in time with the literary activity of Plutarch as shown by the parallel lives; and of Arrian and Pausanias (narratives of Journey), also of the mepiodol of different apostles. (5) Atmosphere of the Catholic Church; parallelism of St. Peter and St. Paul; traces of the hierarchical view of the Church and esp. the sacramental theory of laying on of hands. (6) Resem blances with the Pastoral Epistles. (7) Importance assigned to the political side of Christianity; the Roman Empire always représented as favourable to Christianity.

It is very difficult to deal with some of these objections quite seriously. Even if the use of the Pauline Epistles were proved, it is difficult to see what that has to do with the late date of the Acts. The contradictions with the Pauline Epistles are largely dependent on à priori views of Church history. Some points, as the resemblance

to Plutarch, are purely fanciful. The political point of view is exactly that of St. Paul's Epistles. One point requires perhaps slightly fuller investigation; and the remaining points, so far as they are serious, will be best dealt with in an independent survey of the historical character of the work.

viii. THE RELATION OF THE ACTS TO JOSEPHUS presents to us, under the auspices of modern criticism, a curious double problem. While older critics, like Zeller, contented themselves with pointing out historical discrepancies, later critics since Keim (Gesch. Jesu, iii. 1872, 134, and Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, 18) have attempted to show that St. Luke made use of Josephus. The crucial passage is that concerning Theudas (Ac 536). In his speech Gamaliel is made to refer to a rebellion under a leader of that name; but according to Jos. this took place at least ten years later, under Cuspius Fadus, and long after that of Judas the Galilæan. So far the problem was simple, but it is now maintained that the mistake arose from the misapprehension of a passage of Josephus. In one paragraph he speaks about Theudas, in the next of the Sons of Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the origin of the mistake. The two passages are quoted thus

Now, whatever plausibility this comparison may have at first sight is very inuch diminished when we remember that the two passages in Jos. do not immediately follow one another, but are separated by an interval of 20 lines or more. Nor when we come to examine them do we find any close resemblance in the language. There are words common to both accounts, but they are none of them characteristic; it is not easy to describe a revolt without using the word àоoтσа in some form, while the details are different in the two accounts; the Acts give 4000 men, Jos. gives no number. This is recognised by Clemen (SK, 1895, p. 339), who is of opinion that the author of the Acts had read Jos. but forgotten him. Is this resemblance, or fancied resemblance, supported by any other Keim and the author of Supernatural passages ? Religion have collected a large number of parallel passages, but they are not of a character to bring conviction. On the other hand, the argument of Zeller (Eng. tr. i. p. 232) on the discrepancy between the Acts and Jos. in the case of the death of Herod Agrippa is quite sufficient to prove independence; and this argument has been very well brought out by Schürer. Whatever the differences between the Acts and Jos. prove, they are only conceivable on the supposition of independence. Most of these do not affect our estimate of the historical character of the work; the difficulty about Theudas, even if it admits of no solution, may cast doubts on the historical character of Gamaliel's speech; it does not really affect the question of the Lucan authorship of the Acts.