The acts of the apostles
Denton, W.
PR PN Oe eG Pel ge hea ea fala See ; rey rere +a <hybe™ CF neatly a 2 A See oo a ete Sa rEaeS 6 bint ae A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES BY THE REV. W. DENTON, M.A. WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD ; VICAR OF ST, BARTHOLOMEW, CRIPPLEGATE ; AUTHOR OF “4 COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS AND ON THE EPISTLES FOR THE SUNDAYS AND OTHER HOLY DAYS OF THE CHRISTIAN YEAR ;” \ COMMENTARY ON THE LORD'S PRAYER,” ETC, ETO, ETC. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. LONDON: ‘GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, 1874. Fuh. o. 60.7 : D4i5e eo iI ine " debe li. vi so < sem PREFACE. Tus Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles has been undertaken at the suggestion of others. In its preparation T have made use of like materials to those which are familiar to the readers of the volumes devoted to the illustration of the Gospels and Epistles in the Communion Office. Where, however, the narrative of St. Luke has been im- pugned I have examined the objections and have en- deavoured briefly to vindicate the authentic character of those portions of the sacred history which have been ob- jected to. Whether it arises from any defect or peculiarity of mind in myself or not, it appears to me that these ob- jections are generally captious, fanciful, and childish, and such as, if admitted to be sound, would destroy the credit of every historical writing which we possess, whether secular or sacred. It seems, indeed, wonderful that such objections should ever have seriously been made. Most of them are not of home growth, but are importations from abroad, and they have, perhaps, been treated with the greater tenderness because they have come to us in the garb of strangers. We must, however, remember that though to refuse to the writers of another country their fair share of consideration is an evidence of narrowness of mind, yet an equal narrowness is shown in accepting their conclusions without examination, and in exalting them 2 PREFACE, above those of the writers of our own country merely be- cause they are foreign. This latter temper is but another form of the first—an oscillation from one degree of nar- rowness to another. Whilst, then, I have sought critical and historical illus- trations from all quarters accessible to me, as well those stored up in the commentaries and homilies of ancient writers, as in the volumes of recent authors Hnglish and German, whether written by defenders or by impugners of the Bible, I cannot but express my surprise at the value frequently attributed to the writings of the German critical school. It appears to me—useful as they confessedly are— that a value has been assigned to these writings wholly disproportionate to their utility. I hope and believe that I am not insensible to the merit of Michaelis, of -the Rosenmiillers, of Kwinoel, of Wolf, and of others from whose labours I have derived assistance in the preparation of these volumes, but I must avow my conviction that the student of Holy Scripture will learn far more from the writ- ings of Biscoe, and Paley, from Hammond, and Poole, and Whitby, but above all from Lightfoot, and Gill, and Selden, _ than he will gather from the pages of-all the writers of the critical school of Germany. He who has the volumes of Bishop Wordsworth and of Dr. Hackett on his shelves has little to learn from the volumes of Olshausen, of Meyer, of Zeller, of Baumgarten, or of Stier. It has been suggested that we ought to apply the same rules of criticism alike to the examination of the books of Holy Scripture and of secular writers. Properly under- stood, there seems no reason against adopting this sug- gestion, and if we disentangle the proposition from a fallacy which clings to it, the principle is a sound one. It is, indeed, to be regretted that the same rule is not more thoroughly applied, and that in criticizing the writings. contained in the Bible the sound principles of secular a PREFACE, 3 criticism are so frequently discarded. For what are the tests which we apply in the examination of secular writings ? If the book be an historical one we take into account the nearness or remoteness of the events recorded from the life- time of the writer, whether he were a contemporary or not: we remark the opportunities within his reach for as- certaining the truth of what he narrates: his subjection to, or freedom from, such prejudices as might naturally warp his judgment and lead him, consciously or uncon- sciously, to distort the truth in order to serve the interest of party : we pass in review the extent to which his account is confirmed by independent witnesses, and above all, his perfect knowledge of the subject matter about which he is writing, however that knowledge may have been acquired. In a word, we give not merely his intellectual, but also his moral faculties their due weight and consideration: his knowledge and honesty of character. Whenever we are satis- fied that it possesses these qualities we accept the chronicle as a true record of facts. In scientific treatises we make, if not the same, yet a similar distinction. In Astronomy we do not think it necessary to subject the writings of a Herschel to the same kind of examination which we use in the case of a man confessedly unversed in the science about which he is writing. We defer to the profound knowledge of veteran anatomists like Hunter or Owen. We do not defer—in other words, we apply a different rule—to the statements of a tyro. We take into consideration the different amount of intellectual enlightenment which each writer brings to the examination of a matter within the reach of the intellect, adding, however, a consideration of moral qualities if the subject matter be of a complex nature. To weigh and determine the relation of mind to the matter discoursed of is an essential feature of all true criticism and cannot be disregarded. Nor is it possible— without shocking the moral sense of the world, which we haye no right to do—to treat all kinds of facts in the same 4 PREFACE. way as though they were pure abstractions like the cha- racters in Algebraic notation. The interests of the living make necessary the examination of the corpse of the dead ; but he who would illustrate an anatomical lecture by the body of a parent, a wife, or a child, would be less praised for his science than execrated for his want of natural affec- tion. Again, we are required by that consensus of man- kind which is not an accidental aberration of the mind to regard the probable or possible effects of our treatment of facts. The stone at our feet is a fact, and so is a fellow- creature; but to hurl the one into water may be an in- different action, to hurl the other there might amount to murder. Nor is it the same thing for a man to speculate in the same way upon the atmosphere of the moon or the qualities of carbon, and on the indifferency of injuries to our fellow-men and the violation of the laws of property or marriage ; since the one is free from harm, the other may probably lead to crime against society. A law of philology may be discussed, and, however imperfect our knowledge, little mischief can follow ; but to sap the principles of morals by way of a tour de force, or an academical exercise is either a piece of great wickedness, or madness. It is necessary to consider this when we examine any work, sacred or secular. If, then, in secular criticism and the treatment of facts so wide a distinction is preserved, it follows that the claim to treat the books of Scripture without considering any distinction which may exist between them and other books with regard to the qualification of their writers, and to ex- amine the facts contained in each kind of record as if they possessed the same weight, is not to pursue the same rule that we use in the criticism of secular books, but the re- verse. To do so, therefore, would be a violation of the principle assumed, and an instance alike of unfairness and of want of common sense. Much, however, of modern criticism on the books of the Old and New Testament goes even far beyond this in PREFACE. 5 the violation of this canon of the new school of Biblical critics. The same amount of imaginative criticism which is commonly applied by the Neo-Germanic school of English critics to the books of Holy Scripture is not permitted to be applied—common sense forbids its being applied—to the narratives of Herodotus, Thucydides, or Tacitus; and if the canons which are made use of by Dr. Davidson, Theodore Parker, and Paulus were applied to Whitelock and Clarendon among our historians, or to Shakespere and Spenser among our poets, we should be led to doubt, to dis- believe, and deny the historical character of the books of the historians, and to question the genuineness of the writings which pass under the names of the poets, and thus facts would cease to be facts to us. We hear much of the “ higher criticism” and of the ‘‘inner consciousness” which are to be applied to the examination of the Bible; we never hear of these qualities or rules, be they what they may, applied to Tacitus and Pliny, so that the claim to apply the same rules in the criticism of the sacred and of secular writings ends practically with the application of a different rule in the one case from that made use of in the other. A celebrated and erudite writer in the last century, in several learned treatises written with much apparent earnest- ness, denied the existence of almost all the authors of classical antiquity, and asserted, and supported his assertion with much learning and some plausibility, that the works attributed to them were forged by certain obscure monks in the middle ages, and he even so far anticipated the theories of some modern Biblical critics as to declare that the Afneid was an allegorical poem of comparatively recent times written to commemorate the triumph of Christianity over the Jewish synagogue. Nor does Father Hardonin stand alone in the promulgation of these reveries. Not long since one of his disciples amused himself—it is diffi- cult to suppose that he had any higher aim than that of amusement—in arguing, again with much apparent learn- 6 PREFACE. ing, that the writings which pass under the names of Homer, of Virgil, and of Tacitus, were written in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and that under fictitious names they recount the struggles of the Neri and Bianchi ; the Guelfs and the Ghibelines of that tempest-tost penin- sula. These absurdities of what a modern French writer calls ‘le démon de l’érudition critique,’+ are now almost for- gotten. They have hardly left any impress behind them because there were no moral reasons for their survival. The self-same absurdities, however, when applied to the books of Holy Scripture, possess a greater amount of vitality ; not, indeed, because of any intrinsic probability which they possess, but from accidental circumstances. They spring, - not froma true critical spirit, and exist, not because of any critical value which they possess, but only because they fall in with certain theological prejudices and necessities. Can any one for a moment suppose, if there were no moral interests involved, that the feeble objections which have been urged against the historical books of the New Testa- ment would have been ever heard of, or if heard of for a moment, that they would have been sustained by a school — of writers down to our own days? Speculative, theolo- gical, or sceptical motives, however, for the production and perpetuation of the absurd critical and historical theories by which men attempt to account for the Scriptural narra- tive or to explain away its teaching, do not make their theories the less uncritical, nor render the fancies of the new Anglo-Germanic school a whit more plausible than that of Hardouin in the last, or of Nordin in the present, century. The fact that the authenticity or genuineness of the Acts of _the Apostles has been impugned in some recent popular treaties and introductions to Holy Scripture, has led me to give to this Commentary more of an apologetic character 1 Geflroy, Rome et les Barbares, p. 56, PREFACE. Z than I have attempted in my previous volumes. In doing so, however, I have endeavoured to keep in view the value of the Acts of the Apostles for devotional and homiletic pur- poses; and I trust that these volumes may be found useful to those who consult them in the course of preparation for the pulpit. This book of the Acts is of especial value in seasons of activity within the Church, not so much, indeed, because it contains rules for the direction of the Church in doubtful matters of government as because it affords prin- ciples to be studied and applied, and shows us the early dogmatic use of the facts of our Lord’s life. For as in the Gospels Christ sets before us the model of a spiritual life not by means of axioms and a scheme of divinity but by the concrete form of His own exemplary life, so in the Acts of the Apostles we have Church life presented to us, not in canons ecclesiastical and in disciplinary rules, but in the actions of a living body. Here especially the missionary to the heathen may gather principles to guide and lessons to encourage him in his toils for his Master’s cause; and in the Acts of the Apostles more than in the Epistles of St. Paul—since these latter are all addressed to those already Christians—he may sit at the feet of the great Apostle to the Gentiles and learn how best to prepare him- self for his arduous work and to falfil the mission entrusted to him. It were a mistake, however, to suppose that the life of St. Paul appeals only to the missionary to the heathen: the Christian pastor and teacher will, the more he studies the life of this great Apostle and apply its les- sons, be the better furnished in every spiritual work in which he may be called upon to engage, whether at home or abroad. One remark I would make as to the references in the margin of these and of my former volumes. The books which I have consulted are, as is evident, of very different - degrees of value, nor are the names of the writers cited an indication that the remark borrowed from them is ever in b 8 PREFACE. the words, or that the text represents the whole opinion, of the writer named, but they are merely given to point out the source from whence the observation has been derived or suggested. More than this, when the observation or explanation given has appeared to myself at first sight original, and was in some degree so, yet if subsequently I have found a similar observation or explanation in any volume made use of in writing this Commentary, I have preferred to recommend my own thought with the authority of another rather than to claim it as my own. In the Introduction to these volumes I have noted that the materials for a doctrinal and spiritual Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles are scanty in comparison with the ample stores of thought devoted to other parts of Holy Scripture. Such books as I have been able to procure, have been laid under contribution in the same way as those which give any value to the volumes already published by me on the Gospels and Epistles. In addition to this I have sought the assistance of friends, and acknowledge with thanks the help kindly afforded me by the Rey. 8. C. Malan, Vicar of Broadwindsor, on such questions as I sub- mitted to him, and by the Rev. J. J. Lias, Professor of English Literature in the College at Lampeter, for the | trouble taken in reading a portion of the proof-sheets. ‘To the Rey. J. M. Rodwell—whose rare and extensive philolo- gical knowledge has been always at my service, and to my friend from college days, the Rey. Dr. Fraser, Vicar of Alton, Staffordshire,—both of whom have examined the whole of the sheets of this Commentary as they passed through the press,—I have to acknowledge assistance re- ecived as well on this as on former @ccasions. To these friends I am indebted for suggestions which inerease the value of my book.. 22, Westnourne Square, April, 1874. ; INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. CHAPTER I.—SECTION I. NAME OF BOOK, Tue name of this book is with little variation the same in all the earliest manuscripts and versions:! the Ipd€es,the Acts, or, as in the Peshito Syriac, ‘the Acts, that is, the His- tories of the Blessed Apostles.’? Fora similar use of the word mpdéeis the student is referred by critics to the Cyro- pedia of Xenophon (I. iii. 1), where mpdgées is used for Acta or Res geste.’ In the Ethics of Aristotle (x. c. 8) and in Plutarch in Rom. it bears the sense rather of Actiones, and of Res agendz vel gerende, than of Acta or Gestz (Scapula in mpdéoowm). Four uncial manuscripts read rév ayiwv droordédwr, as in the textus receptus ;* the other uncial manuscripts however have merely ‘ Acts of Apostles,’? a 1 “«T), has wpaticg dmoorbAwy. The 3 Justin Martyr quotes the Gospel, common reading is rpdéetg rév dao- orédwy, contrary to the Vatican MS., which omits the article. The Sinaitic has wpaéec alone.’’—Dr. Samuel Da- vidson, Introduction to the Study a! the New Testament. 2 In the Muratorian sfaagatit (circa A.p. 170) it is called Acta om- nium Apostolorum; by Clem. Alex- andrinus (died A.D. 220), in his Stro- mata, y. 12, § 83, and Tertullian (a,p. 150—220), adv. Mare. vy. 2, it is cited as the Acts of the Apostles. ACTS, under the title of ra aopynpoved- para tév arooré\wy, borrowing a word from Xenophon, who has a7ro- prnpovedpara Lwxparove.— Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, p. 95. (Second edition.) + ASE Be 5 Note that the title in B.D, 1s with- out the definite article, it is rpd&tc or mpaterc droorédwy, Which Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bornemann, Alford, and Wordsworth have adopted in their re-_ spective editions, 1 - il INTRODUCTION TO reading now generally acquiesced in. The word mpdées was so identified with this book that some of the oldest versions, as the Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic of Erpenius, have retained this word, though it was not otherwise used in these languages, whilst the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sla- vonic, and Georgian versions render the Greek ampdges by a term equivalent. Though the use of the word mpd€es in this precise sense was unusual, and was nowhere used in the meaning of a history before the publication of the Acts of the Apostles, yet the popularity of this ‘treatise’ or ‘history’ became so general from the moment of such pub- ~ lication, that a number of spurious or apocryphal writings were circulated, some in the first and many more in the second centuries, which both copied the idea of this book and borrowed its distinctive title. Although then we may not be able to attach any value to the statements in these apocryphal volumes, nor to decide as to the amount of real history which may possibly be mingled with the fables which they contain, their number, and the fact that their writers have borrowed this title of the Acts for their own compositions, are proofs of the early date of the pub- lication, and also of the general reception of the Acts of the Apostles, in the same degree that the publication of spurious Gospels and Epistles are evidences of the exist- ence and popularity of the genuine.’ The chief of these apocryphal books, so far as known to us, are, (1) The Acts of Peter—Acta Petri, condemned by Pope Gelasius (a.p. 492—496), and known to us from such condemnation; though no copy has reached our times, unless this be a portion of the same book now known as the Acts of Peter and Paul (Acta Petri et Pauli),* of 1 Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. ‘‘Interdum Greecam vocem etiam Latini servant. Hilarius ad Mattheeum, ‘Nam sicut libro Praxeon continentur,’”—Heinsit Exercit. sacre ad Acta Apost, 2 “Non tam actis quam fabulis,”’ —Gasp. Sanchez. 8 Origen speaks of a Gospel put forth by Basilides, who “lived on the verge of the Apostolic times,” and speaks of it as rd xa? éavrovc evayyé- Avov.— Hom. FI. in Lue. The Valen- tinians had their “ Gospel of Truth,’’ and they or other Gnosties the “‘ Gos- pel of Eve,” “the Gospel of Vespa- sian,” &c. wt 4 TIpateg TMérpov kai Maddow sive mpatacrévayluy ATooroAwy Iétpov cai Tavdov. : ; 4 _ circulation about a.p. 80. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. iil which Tischendorf has published a critical edition, and which Thilo believes to have been written by the anonym- ous author in imitation of the genuine Acts of the Apo- stles, and as a supplement or rpiros Adyos to the writings of St. Luke.t This Acta is cited by Origen,’ and is un- doubtedly of very early date, even if it be not a pro- duction of the last half of the first century. In it the writer attempted to fill up the brief notice of St. Paul’s journey through Italy to Rome, and professes to detail the life of the Apostle during his two years’ imprisonment in that city. It is a book which pre-supposes the existence of the genuine Acta Apostolorwum. (2) The next apocryphal Acta is the Acts of Paul and Thecla,‘ undoubtedly of very early date, according to Tertullian, by whom it was quoted in the second century. He tells us also that the writer was degraded from the priesthood for writing it.6 (3) The Acts of Barnabas, which professes to be the work of John Mark, and was written probably by a native of Cyprus, though much later than Apostolic times. (4) The Acts of Philip, also condemned by Pope Gelasius, and (5) The Acts of Philip in Hellas,’ of a later date. (6) The Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthew,’ or, as some MSS. read, of Matthias; the former of these is considered by Woog, who first edited the Greek original, to be cotemporaneous with the times of the Apostles, and even to have been in (7) The Acts of Matthew, later in date than the preceding book. (8) The Acts of Thomas, known in the first century, and esteemed by the heretics of 1 J.C. Thilo in Prolegomena ad Acta §. Thome Apostoli. Leip. 1823. 2 Origenis Comment. in Evang. Joann. edit. Huet, pt. 2, p. 298. 3 “Hie defectus ut quodammodo suppleretur paulo post mortem hujus Apostoli [Pauli], cirea annum Christi lxixnum, @ fidelibus quidam, prolixa de yita ac morte D. Pauli commen- taria seu Acta ediderunt.”’—Jo, Milli in Prolegomena ad Novum Testamen- tum, Oxonii, 1707, p. xv. 4 Todtec MatvAov cai OéxAne. 5 In his treatise, De Baptismo, cap. xvii. “If the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name claim Thecla’s example as a licence for woman’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that in Asia the presbyter who com- posed that writing as if he were aug- menting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted and con- fessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office.”’ 6 TIpdkac rod ayiov DiXimrov row améaroXouTou B’ cig Tv ’EAAGCa rev "AOnvar. 7 TIpakec ’Avdpiov cai MarOaiov Tov ’ArooréAwy. iV INTRODUCTION TO that time. (9) The Acts of Thaddeus, of which the present text is probably not much older than the sixth or seventh century ; and (10) The Acts of John, mentioned by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Augustine, and Photius, and attributed by Innocent the First to the Manichzean, Leucius Charinus.! This enumeration, it must be borne in mind, is only of Acta which have descended to our times, which have this special title pages, and are at present known to us. No reasonable doubt exists but that the books which remain are only a small part of the apocryphal books put forth in imitation of the genuine Acts of the Apostles, and that the number of those which have perished must have been very large, and that many of those which have been lost were probably of an earlier date than those which remain. It is thought that the Acta Pilati, mentioned by Justin Martyr (a.p. 114—165), has disappeared; and that the second part of the Gospel of Nicodemus, which is sometimes quoted by this name, is a different book from this Acta.2 Whilst the Acts of the Apostles were from the earliest times re- ceived by the Church, read in the services, and inserted in the list of canonical books, these apocryphal Acts were as uniformly rejected.? These spurious Acts, therefore, even if the date of their publication did not forbid any such con- clusion, could hardly have suggested the genuine, but the genuine must have suggested the fictitious books. An. examination of these apocryphal writings will satisfy every one that the critical judgment of the ancient Church was right in rejecting and condemning them.* This sudden appearance of books bearing the title spd&ers, explicable on the hypothesis that they were put out in consequence of the general reception and popularity of the Acts of the Apostles, and were intended, at least some of them, to fill up with 1 See the Codex Apocryphus, Nov. Test., by Fabricius, ii, 768—775, and Tischendorf in Prolegomena to his edi- tion of the Apocryphal writings. 2 See Les Etudes sur les Evangiles Apocryphes, par Michel Nicolas (Paris, 1866). 3 “ Cetera que sub nomine Mathie, sive Jacobi minoris; yel sub nomine Petri et Joannis, que & quodam Leucio scripta sunt; vel sub nomine Andres, que & Nexocharide et Leonide Philoso- phis ; et sub nomine Thoma, et si qua sunt alia, non solum repudianda, verum etiam noveris esse damnanda, ieareut. ; dnnocent, A chires 4J. ©. Thilo in Prolegomena ad Acta 8, Thome, pp. ii—iy. — ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. ‘o details more or less trustworthy what had been passed over by the original writer, is scarcely explicable on any other hypothesis." St. Chrysostom calls the Acts of the Apostles, rather as it seems, however, from its subject matter than as though this were its title, ‘The doctrine of the Holy Spirit,’ and (cumenius terms it ‘ The Gospel of the Holy Spirit” It was, however, from the first cited by the Church as the History or ‘ Acts of the Apostles,’ for, though all they did in the work of their mission, and all that they spoke, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, yet the outward Acts were those of the Apostles. Objection has been made to the sufficiency and relevancy of the title on the grounds that the book does not contain the whole of the actions of the Apostles; that it does not take notice of all the actions of all the Apostles, but is almost wholly taken up with the Acts of St. Peter and St. Paul, some of St. John’s being only incidentally recorded; and, lastly, that the book contains some actions of others who were not Apostles, as St. Stephen and St. Philip the deacon.’ As, however, the writer of this book nowhere states that he is about to record all the actions of all the Apostles, and the title of the ‘ treatise’ is literally only ‘ Acts of Apostles,’ mpates andoTtoAwy, not even acts of the Apostles; and since he doesnot profess torelate all the actions of any one Apostle, this objection cannot be allowed to have any weight.‘ If this objection were accepted as valid, we should be compelled for the same reason to reject the title of almost every book secular as well as inspired. A history of Greece is pro- perly so described, even though the writer pauses to notice cotemporary events which took place in Persia, in Parthia, in Rome, or elsewhere, if they have an influence upon the course of Grecian history ; and the title of a ‘ History of stricted, because individual teachers of Christianity, who were not Apostles, are mentioned more or less fully.”— Dr. Samuel Davidson’ s Introduction to 1 See on these Apocryphal Acts, Jones on the canonical authority of the New Testament, vol. i.; Thilo and Tischendorf, as cited in preceding notes, 2 Sylveira in Opuscula, queestio viii. p- 100, edit. Lugd. 1726. 3 «The title is not well selected . . it is too comprehensive, it is also too re- the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 206. 4 F. X. Patritii in Act. Apost. Com- ment, p. 1, vi INTRODUCTION TO England’ has never been supposed ill-selected because some notice is there taken of cotemporary events which happened in France, Scotland, and Ireland, so long as they affect the current of events in England. SECTION II. DATE WHEN WRITTEN. WE are not dependent for evidence of the early date of the Acts of the Apostles upon direct quotations and refer- ences to this book in early writers, nor even upon its in- sertion in early lists of the acknowledged books of Holy Scripture, nor yet upon the early date of the number of Spurious imitations, the various Acta or mpdagers men- tioned in the previous section. Quotations occurring in the writings of the early Fathers are usually made memori- ter and without regard to literal accuracy, so that we cannot always be sure that the quotation is made from a book where the same sentiment, but not always the same words, occur, and it was not the practice of these early writers to add the name of the book of Holy Scripture from which their quotations were taken. Thus, so far as we know, Trenzeus was the first who named Luke as the author of this book.1 There is another piece of evidence, however, which is peculiar to the Acts of the Apostles. In one conclusion almost all critics — whatever their belief or unbelief may be—are agreed, which is, that the Acts of the Apostles was written by the author of the third Gospel.? A common style, a common vocabulary, and minute agreement clear to the critical eye, support the 1 Treneus adv. Her. iii. 14, 1. 2 “Une chose hors de doute c’est que les Actes ont eu le méme auteur que le troisiéme évangile et sont une contin. uation de cet éyangile. On ne s’ar- rétera pas a prouver cette proposition, laquelle n’a jamais été sérieusement contestée. Les préfaces qui sont en téte des deux écrits, la dédicace de l’un et de l’autre 4 Théophile, la parfaite ressemblance du style et des idées four- nissent a cet égard d’abondantes démon- strations.”—Renan, Les Apétres, In- troduction, p. x. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. vil early tradition and the authority of the Church in this respect. If, then, the Gospel according to St. Luke is early quoted—and of this there isno doubt—this is a proof not only of the early existence of the Gospel, but also of the like early existence of the Acts of the Apostles, which, according to this test, cannot be of a date much posterior to the Gospel of the same writer. Now, from the time of St. Paul, who quotes this Gospel, and calls the quotation Scripture,’ and places it in the same rank as the Old Testa- ment Scriptures, from which he also quotes, down to com- paratively recent times, there is hardly a Christian writer who does not make use of the Gospel of St. Luke and name it as the source from which he is quoting. Justin Martyr makes use of it repeatedly, and, as Dr. Davidson allows, is as familiar with it as he is with the Gospel according to St. Matthew and St. Mark.? As to the Acts of the Apostles, Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Church at Philippi, the city where St. Luke so long abode, cites it,* and it appears in the very earliest list of books read in the churches, and of acknowledged authority among Christians. In opposition to this evidence, Dr. Davidson, without, however, giving any reason for his opinion, thinks that the Acts is not earlier than a.p. 125; but even if we set aside the testimony afforded by quotations as not altogether con- clusive, it is not only highly improbable but it is impos- sible that this book could have been written at so late a date as this, unless we accept a series of suppositions which are alike opposed to the received rules of criticism, the teaching of history, and the weight of probability. If the Gospel which bears the name of St. Luke was not written by him; if the distinct quotations made by ecclesiastical writers of the first and second centuries from his Gospel 1 1 Tim. v. 18, Aéyee yap 1) ypagn. Boby adodyra ob pyswaoerc. Kai aéeog 6 épyatne Tov pucOov avrov, quoted from St. Luke x. 7, not from St. Matt. x. 10, where the same sentiment occurs, but not in the same words. 2 “Justin Martyr was familiar with the Gospel of Luke as he was with those of Matthew and Mark, though he never assigns them to these authors. Their contents he quotes freely.’’— Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, p. 19. 3 dy Evewper 6 Oe0g “ Nbcac Tac WOI- vag Tov tov.’ —S, Polycarpi ad Phi- lippenses Epist, A’, Compare this with “dy 6 O&0¢ aviornoe, AVoag Tac wdivag Tov Oavdrov,”’ Acts ii, 14, vill INTRODUCTION TO were taken from some book which has since perished with- out leaving any trace of its existence behind: if the ancients were all deceived as to its authorship, and also as to the time of its publication, then it might be possible that the Acts is of as late a date as that assigned to it by Dr. Davidson; but, then, it is in the highest degree impro- bable that these suppositions are more than suppositions, since all evidence which we possess is opposed to their truth. And if, as almost all critics agree in supposing, the title apafevs was not given to this book by the writer, but was afterwards affixed to it,' then the number of Acta circulated throughout the Church and written in imita- tion of this book, many of them early in the second and some even in the first century, most, if not all, of which bear the title spdée1s, must be taken as an additional pre- sumption that this book cannot be of a date later than tkat usually assigned to it, a.p. 62 or 63. In the Muratorian fragment, which most critics agree was written between the years 170? and 196 a.p.,° the book of the Acts is enumerated as received by the Church, and its authorship is assigned to St. Luke; and the writer of this fragment of a catalogue of the books of Scripture lived too near the date suggested by Dr. Davidson not to have known whether this book were a recent writing, unwritten and unknown until his own days, or that it was well known. throughout the Church, and that it had been handed down from previous times. There was hardly time sufficient, within the brief space between A.D. 125, the date according to Dr. Davidson of the publication of this ‘ treatise,’ and the date of the Muratorian fragment, for a book written at Rome to be circulated in Syria and Africa, to be translated into the languages of those countries, to be accepted 1 Beleen, in Prolegomena tohis Com- ment. onthe Acts of the Apostles, § 1. Bleek, in Introduction to New Testa- ment, II. p. 347. Hackett on the Acts, p- 19 (edit. 1872). Davidson, in In- troduction, vol. ii. p. 206. Alford, in Introduction, ch. 1, § 4, 10. 2 See for an account of the ‘ Mura- torian fragment’ Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, Part 1, chap. 2, § 12 (pp. 284-293) ; and Appendix C. pp. 466-+480 (2nd edition). 3 Kirchofer following Muratori says that the Presbyter Caius, the author of this Fragment, lived about 196 a.p, Others think 170 a. p, the more likely date, ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 1X as of Ecclesiastical authority, and to have lost all trace of its novelty, so that none, even among the heretical bodies who rejected its teaching, should venture to challenge its authenticity and deny the claims of the Acts of the Apostles to be accepted as the genuine writing of St. Luke. Again, the ‘ Peshito’ Syriac version is assigned by competent critics to the first half of the second century, and this con- tains the Acts of the Apostles, with no note of any kind that would lead us to believe it was a writing of so recent a date as that given by Dr. Davidson. The most ancient of the two Coptic versions, the Thebaic or Sahidic, was pro- bably made as early as the ‘ Peshito’; and the old Latin (Vetus Latina), in use in the African provinces of the Roman Empire, was known and commonly read before the time of Tertullian, though we are not able to say how long before -his time. It existed, however, before a.p. 170.2. So that, apart from the testimony afforded by quotations in early writers, this book must have been known and received even by distant Churches as early as the time suggested by Dr. Davidson as the date of its publication. When, therefore, the slowness with which a book wins its way and establishes its authority is considered, the Acts of the Apo- stles must needs have- been far older than a.p. 125, a date, for which no authority is assigned and no reason given by the objector. The best critics, and even those who reject its contents, fix the period of the publication of the Acts of the Apostles 1 « Theodotus quotes the Acts in a treatise appended to the works of Clem. Alex. It is true his work (being a polemic against Valentinianism) cannot have been written before the close of the second century. But the other circumstances give to the citation in question great value. In the first place, it occurs in the works of a Gnos- tie. The separation of the Gnostics from the Church commenced before the second century. From that time to this they were in direct hostility ; and it is yeryimprobable that the Gnostics would accept from the Church a work which arose after their time, and which was directly at variance with their doctrines. And, secondly, the expression which he employs, ot amdaroXo év Toic moak- eo. tpnoay, shows that the book must have been in existence for a consider- able time; not only because it proves that the title was generally adopted then, but because a title so inapplicable to the general contents of the book could not have been given till some time after the book itself was written,” — LEbrard in the Gospel History, p. 498, Eng. ed. 2 See Westcott, Part 1, ch. 3, § 2, pp. 215—236, 2nd edit., for account of the Vetus Latina. x INTRODUCTION TO within the years a.p. 58 to a.p. 70.1 Were we discussing the date of the publication of a book of ordinary history no objection would be raised to the earliest of these years. The abrupt conclusion, whilst Paul is a prisoner at Rome, does not admit of our believing that it was written after many other important events in the life of this Apostle had happened, as in that case St. Luke would not have failed to note them in his narrative of the acts done by the Apostle.’ If, as Baur and others suggest, it was written in order to extend and strengthen the reputation of St. Paul, the book would not have ended without recording his sub- sequent labours, crowned as they were by his sufferings and martyrdom. ‘That no notice is taken of anything after his arrival at Rome, his imprisonment in that city, and his con- ference with the Christians there, is sufficieht indication that it was written whilst the imprisonment of St. Paul continued, or immediately after its close. 