"THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES"

Its Author.— There can be no doubt that the Book of Acts is from the same pen as the third Gospel. This is evident from the preface at the head of each book, and from the similarity of their general style and structure.

An attempt has been made, however, to raise a distinction, as regards authorship, between different portions of the book. There are certain passages whose genuineness has scarcely ever been disputed — those, namely, in which the writer uses the first person plural, as having been himself present on the occasions referred to.¹ It is generally acknowledged that these passages are the genuine work of a companion of the apostle. But by a certain school of critics the rest of the book has a very different character assigned to it. According to them, the "we" passages formed the original notes of an eyewitness, which were made use of by a subsequent writer in the second century, as the nucleus of a history in great part fictitious, which was designed to bridge over the gulf between Paul and the rest of the apostles.

Even if this theory could be proved to be correct, it would not get rid of the supernatural element to which these critics have such an aversion, for in the passages thus admitted to be genuine there are statements that imply miraculous occurrences (xvi. 18, 26; xxviii. 8, 9).

But in reality there is no evidence whatever to warrant such a view. With regard to external testimony, we find in some of the earliest Christian writers (Clement of Rome,² Ignatius, Polycarp, Hennas, Justin Martyr, etc) not a few expressions which seem to reproduce the language of this book — drawn not only from the "we" sections but from other parts of it as well. The impression thus made upon us in favour of the book as it now stands is confirmed by finding it in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and also in the Muratorian Canon.

But it is the internal character of the book that affords the best refutation of the theory in question. It has a natural unity of diction and style which forbids us to assign it to more than one author, and its several parts are so interlaced by corresponding observations and allusions as to confirm us in the belief that it forms me consistent whole.³

That it is a work of the first century is proved by the fact that it does not contain the slightest allusion to St. Paul's epistles. In the second century these epistles were so widely circulated that no historian giving a sketch of Paul's life-work could have passed them over in silence. But during the greater part of the period covered by the Book of Acts few of them were yet in existence; and for some years they would be very little known except in the Churches to which they were addressed. There is no notice taken of them in the Book of Acts, nor is there any echo of their teaching; while there b a remarkable absence of information on several important points mentioned in them which would naturally have called for explanation had they come under the notice of the writer of this book (e.g. Gal. i. 17; ii. 11; 2 Cor. xi 24).

But although there Is no sign of acquaintance with the epistles themselves, there are, as we shall see when we come to deal with these writings, many "undesigned coincidence" between statements contained in them and in the Book of Acts, which can only be accounted for by the fact that the writers in both cases were guided by a strict regard for truth.

It has also to be noted that while there is no sign of acquaintance with Paul's letters, there is in the speeches attributed to him an admitted resemblance to his style and diction, which is best accounted for by the writer's having been present at the delivery of the speeches, or having received an authentic report of them. It is interesting in this connection to observe that the speech which Paul delivered in Hebrew (xxii. 1-21), and which was no doubt translated into its present Greek form by Luke (judging from the number of Luke's favourite words to be found in it), is far less Pauline in character than the speech at Athens (xvii. 22-31), which was spoken in Greek, and was in all probability reported to Luke by Paul himself. We may add that this latter speech is not only Pauline in its diction, but reflects very plainly the apostle's training in the schools of Tarsus, where the Stoic philosophy was in great repute. We hare a similar token of genuineness in the harmony between the speeches of Peter reported in this book and the first epistle written by that apostle.⁴

Of the writer's accuracy in matters of fact abundant evidence can be adduced. In the titles which he gives to the magistrates of the various cities he has occasion to mention, he is supported by the testimony of ancient writings, coins, and inscriptions in a most remarkable

manner; e.g. the name of politarchs ("rulers of the city"), which he applies to the magistrates of Thessalonica (xvii. 6), though otherwise unknown, has been discovered on an arch still in comparatively good preservation in the principal street of the city.⁵ His many allusions also to historical characters and events that are otherwise known to us, are almost invariably found to be true to fact; while the precision of his nautical expressions and minute geographical allusions in his account of Paul's voyage and shipwreck, has been found so remarkable as to form the subject of a special dissertation.⁶

As a last token of genuineness may be mentioned the fact that in the Book of Acts the positions taken up by the Pharisees and Sadducees respectively with reference to Christ's cause are almost the reverse of what they are in the Gospel. This change of attitude was due to the apostles' preaching of the Resurrection, after their Master's departure; but it is a circumstance which only a contemporary would have been likely to realise and represent in such a vivid manner.

Its Date. — As to the date of its composition, its abrupt termination — leaving us in ignorance of Paul's fate and of his subsequent labours (if he was set free from his imprisonment at Rome) — has led some to suppose that the author brought up his narrative to the very moment when he closed the book and despatched it to his friend Theophilus. In that case it must have left the writer's hands about 63 A.D. But it may be that the work was broken off owing to Luke's death, or he may have had it in view to complete his narrative in another volume, or he may have felt it dangerous to go farther. Yet another view is that the apostle's preaching at Rome was purposely selected by the writer as a suitable finish to his narrative of the Church's progress. On the whole, we may be content with the assurance that it was written by a contemporary and companion of the apostle.

Its Character and Contents. — The keynote of the book is struck in i. 8; "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." The entire book records the fulfilment of this prophecy. It may be roughly divided into three parts corresponding to the widening spheres of labour which were thus indicated — "Jerusalem" (i. 13-vii.); "all Judaea and Samaria" (viii.-ix.); "unto the uttermost part of the earth" (x.-xxviii.) Each of the three is marked by a notable outpouring of the Holy Spirit (ii 1-4; viii. 17; x. 44-48).

Throughout the whole narrative prominence is given to the Lord Jesus Christ as the subject of apostolic testimony (ii. 32; iii. 13-15; v. 31, 32, 42; viii. 5; X. 36-42), as the bestower of the Holy Spirit (ii. 33), with His miraculous gifts (iii. 16; ix. 34), and divine guidance (i. 24; x. 19; xvi. 6-10), as personally visible to the martyr Stephen (vii. 56), and as the personal agent in Paul's conversion (ix. 3-5).

There is great significance in the description of Luke's Gospel, given in the opening verse of this book, as a treatise " concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up." The position of the word "began" is very emphatic in the original, as if to imply that the Acts of the Apostles formed a continuation of Christ's work. The writer conceives of Him as still carrying on His work in virtue of His Resurrection and Ascension; and in the introduction to the book he refers to these events as well as to the prediction of His second Advent (i. i-ii).

The continuity of the divine work is indeed the ruling idea of the whole book. The Gospel kingdom is described as advancing steadily onwards, beginning at Jerusalem (in the same upper room, perhaps, as had been the scene of the Last Supper), and extending finally to Rome, the great metropolis of the Gentiles. More than half the book is devoted to the labours of the Apostle of the Gentiles, and three of his missionary journeys are recorded — with Antioch for his headquarters, where the " disciples were first called Christians "(xi. 26).

Of necessity it is a mere selection of incidents that is given, both as regards the labours of Paul (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 24-27), and the history of the Church during the thirty-three years or more over which the book extends. The selection was no doubt determined partly by the information which Luke had gathered from his own observation as an eyewitness or from trustworthy reporters,⁷ and partly by the great object he had in view, namely, to trace the gradual expansion of the Church from its first beginnings as a seeming phase of Judaism to its full development as a catholic communion, in which there was to be no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and where the Law, on which the former prided himself so greatly, was to be superseded by the grace⁸ of God freely offered in the Gospel.

1) From these passages it appears that the writer joined Paul's company at Troas (xvi. 10), that he accompanied him to Philippi, where he was left behind when Paul departed to another city, that after an interval of six or seven years he rejoined the apostle on the latter's return to Philippi, and accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem (xx. 5-xxi. 18) and afterwards from Caesarea to Rome (xxvii. x-xxviii. 16).

2) E.g. In his 1 Ep. xviii. there is a reproduction of Acts xiii. 22, in hi combination of 1 Sam. xiii. 14 and Ps. Ixxxix. 20, its addition of the phrase "son of Jesse," and its allusion to the divine testimony. In the Greek the resemblance is even more striking.

3) Cf. vi. 5, viii. 40, xxi. 8; vii. 58, viii. i, xxii. 20; i. 5, xi. 16 in saying of our Lord's being here twice quoted which does not occur in any of the four Gospels); x. 47, xv. 8; x. 30, xi. 25, etc.

4) Cf. ii. 23, iv. 28, and 1 Peter i. 2, 20; also iv. 21 and 1 Peter ii. 4-8

5) Similar instances are found at xiii. 7; xvi. 20; xviii. 10; xxviii. See Salmon's Introduction, pp. 348-49,

6)  By James Smith, Esq., F.R.S.. of Jordanhill.

7) E.g. the account of the mission in Samaria and elsewhere In chap. viii. would, no doubt, be mainly derived from Philip, with whom the writer had spent many days at Caesarea (xxi. 8-10)

8) A favourite word both with St. Luke and St. Paul.