Acts Of The Apostles

VIEW:54 DATA:01-04-2020

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
1. Summary of contents.—The fifth book of our NT gives the history of the Church from the Ascension till c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 61. It may be divided into two parts, one of which describes the early history (‘Acts of Peter’ and ‘Acts of the Hellenists’), and the other the life of St. Paul (‘Acts of Paul’) from his conversion to his imprisonment at Rome. The two parts overlap each other; yet a clear division occurs at Act_13:1, from which point forwards the Pauline journeys are described by one who for a considerable part of them was a fellow-traveller. The parallelism between Peter and Paul is very striking, corresponding deeds and events being related of each; and this peculiarity was thought by the Tübingen school to betray a fictitious author, who composed his narrative so as to show the equality of Peter and Paul. Though this conclusion is arbitrary, the parallelism shows us that the author, whoever he was, selected his facts with great care and with a set purpose.
2. Unity of authorship.—From Act_16:10 onwards, the writer, who never names himself, frequently betrays his presence as a fellow-traveller by using the pronoun ‘we.’ It is generally conceded that these ‘we’ sections are genuine notes of a companion of St. Paul. But some assert that the author of Acts was a later writer who incorporated in his work extracts from a diary contemporary with the events described. These critics see in the book traces of four strata, and assert that it is a compilation of the same nature as the Pentateuch, the Book of Enoch, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Now no doubt our author used sources, in some parts of his book written sources. But if he were a 2nd cent. compiler, we ought to be able to detect interpolations from differences of style (as we do in Apost. Const.), and often from anachronisms. Moreover, seeing that he was at least a man of great literary ability, it is remarkable that he was so clumsy as to retain the pronoun ‘we’ if he was a late writer copying a 1st cent. source. His style is the same throughout, and no anachronisms have been really brought home to him; his interests are those of the 1st, not of the 2nd century (§ 8). Further, the Third Gospel is clearly, from identity of style and the express claim in Act_1:1 (cf. Luk_1:3), by our author, and yet the Gospel is now generally admitted to have been written by c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 80. Thus we may, with Harnack, dismiss the compilation theory.
3. The author.—Internal evidence, if the unity of authorship be admitted, shows that the writer was a close companion of St. Paul. Now, if we take the names of the Apostle’s companions given in the Epistles, we shall find that all but four must be excluded, whether as having joined him after his arrival at Rome (for the author made the voyage with him, Act_27:1), or as being mentioned in Acts in a manner inconsistent with authorship (so, e.g., Timothy, Tychicus, Aristarchus, Mark, Prisca, Aquila, Trophimus must be excluded), or as having deserted him, or as being Roman Christians and recent friends. Two of the four (Crescens and Jesus Justus) are insignificant, and had no specially intimate connexion with the Apostle. We have only Titus and Luke left. Neither is mentioned in Acts; both were important persons. But for 2Ti_4:10 f. we must have conjectured that these were two names for the same person. We have then to choose between them, and Patristic evidence (§ 4) leads us to choose Luke. But why is Titus not mentioned in Acts? It cannot be (as Lightfoot suggests) that he was unimportant (cf. 2 Co. passim), but perhaps Luke’s silence is due to Titus being his near relation (Ramsay); cf. Exp. T. XVIII. [1907] 285, 335, 380.
The author was a Gentile, not a Jew (Col_4:10 f., Col_4:14), a conclusion to which a consideration of his interests would lead us (§ 8; see also Act_1:19 ‘in their language’). He was a physician (Col_4:14), and had quite probably studied at the University of Athens, where he seems quite at home though not present at the Athenian scenes he describes (Act_17:16 ff.). His native country is disputed. A Preface to Luke, thought to be not later than the 3rd cent., says that he was ‘by nation a Syrian of Antioch’; and Eusebius (HE iii. 4), using a vague phrase, says that he was, ‘according to birth, of those from Antioch’; while later writers like Jerome follow Eusebius. Certainly we should never have guessed this from the cold way in which the Syrian Antioch is mentioned in Acts. Some (Rackham, Rendall) conjecture that Pisidian Antioch is really meant, as the scenes in the neighbourhood of that city are so vivid that the description might well be by an eye-witness. But the ‘we’ sections had not yet begun, and this seems decisive against the writer having been present. Others (Ramsay, Renan) believe the writer to have been a Macedonian of Philippi, since he took so great an interest in the claims of that colony (Act_16:12). Indeed, Ramsay (St. Paul, p. 202 ff.) propounds the ingenious conjecture that Luke, having met Paul at Troas accidentally (Act_16:10; it could not have been by appointment, as Paul had not meant to go there), was the ‘certain man of Macedonia’ who appeared in the vision (Act_16:9); it must have been some one whom the Apostle knew by sight, for otherwise he could not have told that he was a Macedonian. This is a very tempting conjecture. Luke need not have been a new convert at that time. On the other hand, it must be said that against his having been a native of Philippi are the facts that he had no home there, but went to lodge with Lydia (Act_16:15), and that he only supposed that there was a Jewish place of prayer at Philippi (Act_16:13 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). His interest in Philippi may rather be accounted for by his having been left in charge of the Church there (Act_17:1, Act_20:5; in the interval between St. Paul’s leaving Philippi and his return there the pronoun ‘they’ is used). Yet he was quite probably a Macedonian [Act_27:2 is not against this], of a Greek family once settled at Antioch; he was a Gentile not without some contempt for the Jews, and certainly not a Roman citizen like St. Paul. His Greek nationality shows itself in his calling the Maltese ‘barbarians’ (Act_28:2), i.e. non-Greek speaking, and in many other ways.
4. Patristic testimony.—There are probable references to Acts in Clement of Rome (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 95), who seems to refer to Act_13:22, Act_20:35 etc.; and in Ignatius (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 110), who apparently refers to 4:41; also in Poly carp (c [Note: circa, about.] . 111); almost certainly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 155); and full quotations are found at the end of the 2nd cent. in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenæus, all of whom ascribe the book to Luke. So also the Muratorian Fragment (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 200). Moreover, the apocryphal Acts, some of them of the 2nd cent., are built on our canonical Acts, and their authors must have known the latter.
5. Style.—The book is not a chronological biography; there are few indications of time (Act_11:28, Act_24:27; cf. Luk_3:1), yet the writer often uses vague phrases like ‘after some days,’ which may indicate intervals of days, months, or years. He seizes critical features, and passes over unessential details. Thus he does not relate the events of the years spent by St. Paul in Tarsus (Act_9:30), probably as being years of education in which no striking event occurred. So he tells us practically nothing of the missionary journey through Cyprus (Act_13:6), though much work must have been done among the Jews then; while great space is given to the epoch-making interview with Sergius Paulus. The writer leaves a good deal to be understood; he states facts, and leaves the reader to deduce the causes or inferences; he reports directions or intentions, and leaves it to be inferred that they were carried into effect, e.g. Act_13:8 (no reason given for Elymas’ opposition, it is not explicitly said that Paul preached to the proconsul), Act_13:13 (the reason for Mark’s departure not stated, nor yet for Paul and Barnabas going to Pisidian Antioch), Act_16:35 (no reason given for the Philippi prætors’ change of attitude), Act_17:15 (not said that the injunction was obeyed, but from 1Th_3:1 we see that Timothy had rejoined Paul at Athens and was sent away again to Macedonia, whence he came in Act_18:5 to Corinth), Act_20:16 (not stated that they arrived in time for Pentecost, but it must be understood), Act_27:43 (it must be inferred that the injunction was obeyed).
6. Crises in the history.—These may be briefly indicated. They include the Day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Church); the appointment of the Seven (among them Nicholas, a ‘proselyte of righteousness, i.e. a Gentile who had become a circumcised Jew); the conversion of St. Paul; the episode of Cornelius (who was only a ‘proselyte of the gate,’ or ‘God-fearing,’ one who was brought into relation with the Jews by obeying certain elementary rules, such, probably, as those of Act_15:29, but not circumcised [this is disputed; see Nicolas]; this means, therefore, a further step towards Pauline Christianity); the first meeting of Paul and Barnabas with a Roman official in the person of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, the initial step in the great plan of St. Paul to make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire (see § 7; henceforward the author calls Saul of Tarsus by his Roman name, one which he must have borne all along, for the purposes of his Roman citizenship); the Council of Jerusalem, the vindication of Pauline teaching by the Church; the call to Macedonia, not as being a passing from one continent to another, for the Romans had not this geographical idea, nor yet as a passing over to a strange people, but partly as a step forwards in the great plan, the entering into a new Roman province, and especially the association for the first time with the author (§ 3); the residence at Corinth, the great city on the Roman highway to the East, where Gallio’s action paved the way for the appeal to Cæsar; and the apprehension at Jerusalem. These are related at length. Another crisis is probably hinted at, the acquittal of St. Paul; for even if the book were written before that took place (§ 9), the release must have become fairly obvious to all towards the end of the two years’ sojourn at Rome (cf. Php_2:24).
7. Missionary plan of St. Paul.—(a) The author describes the Apostle as beginning new missionary work by seeking out the Jews first; only when they would not listen he turned to the Gentiles, Act_13:5; Act_13:14, Act_14:1, Act_16:13 (no synagogue at Philippi, only a ‘place of prayer’) Act_17:1 f. (the words ‘as his custom was’ are decisive) Act_17:10; Act_17:16 f., Act_18:4; Act_18:8; Act_18:19, Act_19:8 f., Act_28:17; we may perhaps understand the same at places where it is not expressly mentioned, Act_14:7; Act_14:21; Act_14:25, or the Jews may have been weak and without a synagogue in those places.—(b) St. Paul utilizes the Roman Empire to spread the gospel along its lines of communication. He was justifiably proud of his Roman citizenship (Act_16:37, Act_22:25 ff. etc.; cf. Php_1:27 [RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ] Act_3:20, Eph_2:19). He seems to have formed the great idea of Christianity being the religion of the Roman Empire, though not confined to it. Hence may be understood his zeal for Gentile liberty, and his breaking away from the idea of Jewish exclusiveness. In his missionary journeys he confines himself (if the South Galatian theory be accepted; see art. Galatians [Epistles to the]) to the great roads of traffic in the Empire. He utilizes the Greek language to spread Christian influence, just as the Roman Empire used it to spread its civilization in the far East, where it never attempted to force Latin (for even the Roman colonies in the East spoke Greek, keeping Latin for state occasions). Paul and Barnabas, then, preached in Greek; they clearly did not know Lycaonian (cf. Act_14:11 with Act_14:14). The Scriptures were not translated into the languages of Asia Minor, which were probably not written languages, nor even into Latin till a later age.
Following the same idea, the author represents the Roman officials in the colonies as more favourable to St. Paul than the magistrates of the ordinary Greek cities. Contrast the account of the conduct of the Greek magistrates at Iconium and Thessalonica who were active against him, or of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens who were contemptuous, with the silence about the action of the Roman magistrates of Pisidian Antioch and Lystra, or the explicit statements about Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Claudius Lysias and Julius the centurion, who were more or less fair or friendly. Even the prætors at Philippi ended by apologizing profusely when they discovered Paul’s status.
8. The writer’s interests.—It is interesting to observe these, as they will lead us to an approximate date for the work. There is no better test than such an inquiry for the detection of a forgery or of a compilation. The principal interest is obviously St. Paul and his mission. To this the preliminary history of the Twelve and of the beginnings of Christianity leads up. The writer emphasizes especially St. Paul’s dealings with Roman officials. Of minor interests we notice medicine, as we should expect from ‘the beloved physician’; and the rival science of sorcery; the position and influence of women (Act_1:14, Act_8:3; Act_8:12, Act_9:2, Act_13:50, Act_16:14, Act_17:4; Act_17:12; Act_17:34, Act_21:5; Act_21:9, Act_22:4 etc.; in Asia Minor women had a much more prominent position than in Greece proper); the organization of the Church (Act_2:41 ff., Act_4:31 ff., Act_6:1 ff., Act_8:5 ff., Act_15:2 ff., Act_19:1 ff. etc.); Divine intervention to overrule human projects (note especially the remarkable way in which St. Paul was led to Troas, Act_16:6-8); and navigation. This last interest cannot but strike the most cursory reader. The voyages and harbours are described minutely and vividly, while the land journeys are only just mentioned. Yet the writer was clearly no professional sailor. He describes the drifting in Act_27:27 as a zigzag course when it must have been straight; he is surprised at their passing Cyprus on a different side when going westward from that on which they had passed it going eastward (Act_27:4, Act_21:3), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writer’s interests and views are incompatible with the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler; e.g. the view of the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitian—or even (we may add) after that of Nero.
9. Date.—From the reasoning of §§ 2, 8 (see also § 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent. compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, Act_28:30 f. (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70–80 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke).—(a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peter’s death in Joh_21:19), or to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from Ecclesiastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Cæsar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle’s expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left Act_20:38 without remark [but see Paul, i. 4 (d)]. The optimistic tone (§ 8), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were written; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence.—(b) For the later date, a.d. 70–80, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. Act_1:1, properly ‘first treatise,’ not ‘former’; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. 1Co_13:13 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). It is also thought that Luk_21:20 must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable.
10. Sources.—The author had exceptional opportunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to Cyprus (Act_12:1 to Act_13:13). For the ‘Acts of the Hellenists’ (chs. 6–8) and for the Cornelius episode he would have Philip the Evangelist as an authority, for he spent two years at Cæsarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) information about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Luk_1:1, though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark; this is pure conjecture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic.
11. The Bezan codex.—This great Uncial MS (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , now at Cambridge), supported by some MSS of the Old Latin Version, presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great Greek MSS, and has also many additions, especially in Acts. Dr. Blass’ theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke’s having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D [Note: Deuteronomist.] are interpolations. He thinks that the ‘Bezan’ Acts represents the first draft, the ‘Bezan’ Luke the second draft. But the Bezan text of Acts is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent. by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful.—In Act_11:28 this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting ‘we,’ makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied.
12. Accuracy of Acts.—This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (a) the proconsul in Cyprus (Act_13:7), which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed—otherwise the governor would have been a ‘proprætor.’ An inscription in Cyprus is dated ‘in the proconsulship of Paulus.’ (b) So the proconsul in Achaia (Act_18:12); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a proprætor and then united, a few years before St. Paul’s visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul. (c) The ‘first men’ at Pisidian Antioch (Act_13:50), i.e. the Duumviri and the ‘First Ten.’ This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. (d) The ‘first man’ in Malta (Act_28:7) and (e) the ‘politarchs’ (‘rulers of the city’) at Thessalonica (Act_17:6; probably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions. (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (Act_17:19), which really ruled the city,—though it was a ‘free city,’—as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority. (g) The ‘Asiarchs’ at Ephesus (Act_19:31 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ), the presidents of the ‘Common Council’ of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was still green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Rev_2:13; Rev_13:15 etc. No 2nd cent. author could have written thus. (h) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course.—Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the ‘South Galatian’ theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contemporary record.
A. J. Maclean.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

The second treatise, in continuation of the Gospel as recorded by Luke. The style confirms the identity of authorship; also the address to the same person, Theophilus, probably a man of rank, judging from the title "most excellent." The Gospel was the life of Jesus in the flesh, the Acts record His life in the Spirit; Chrysostom calls it "The Gospel of the Holy Spirit." Hence Luke says: "The former treatise I made of all that Jesus began to do and teach;" therefore the Acts give a summary of what Jesus continued to do and teach by His Spirit in His disciples after He was taken up. The book breaks off at the close of Paul's imprisonment, A.D. 63, without recording his release; hence it is likely Luke completed it at this date, just before tidings of the apostle's release reached him.
There is a progressive development and unity of plan throughout. The key is Act_1:8; "Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in (1) Jerusalem, and (2) in all Judaea, and (3) in Samaria, and (4) unto the uttermost part of the earth." It begins with Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish dispensation, and ends with Rome, the metropolis of the whole Gentile world. It is divisible into three portions:
I. From the ascension to the close of Acts 11, which describes the rise of the first purely Gentile church, at Antioch, where the disciples consequently were first called See CHRISTIANS (see);
II. Thence down to the special vision at Troas (Acts 16), which carried the gospel, through Paul, to Europe;
III. Thence onward, until it reached Rome. In each of the three periods the church has a distinct aspect: in the first, Jewish; in the second, Gentile with a strong Jewish admixture; in the third, after the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), Gentile in a preponderating degree. At first the gospel was preached to the Jews only; then to the Samaritans (Act_8:1-5); then to the Ethiopian eunuch, a proselyte of righteousness (Act_8:27); then, after a special revelation as Peter's warrant, to Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate; then to Gentile Greeks (not Grecians, i.e. Greek speaking Jews, but pagan Greeks, on the whole the best supported reading, Act_11:20); then Peter, who, as "the apostle of the circumcision," had been in the first period the foremost preacher, gives place from Acts 13 to Paul, "the apostle of the uncircumcision," who successively proclaimed the word in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome. Luke joined Paul at Troas (about A.D. 53), as appears from the "we" taking the place of "they" at that point in his history (Act_16:8-10). The repetition of the account of the ascension in Acts 1 shows that an interval of some time had elapsed since writing the more summary account of it at the end of Luke 24; for repetition would have been superfluous unless some time had intervened.
Matthew's Gospel, as adapted to Jewish readers, answers to the first period ending about A.D. 40, and was written probably in and for Jerusalem and Judaea; Mark answers to the second or Judaeo-Gentile period, A.D. 40-50, as his Gospel abounds in Latinisms, and is suited to Gentile converts, such as were the Roman soldiers concentrated at Caesarea, their head quarters in Palestine, the second great center of gospel preaching, the scene of Cornelius' conversion by Mark's father in the faith, Peter. Luke's Gospel has a Greek tinge, and answers to the third period, A.D. 50-63, being suited to Greeks unfamiliar with Palestinian geography; written perhaps at Antioch, the third great center of gospel diffusion.
Antioch is assigned by tradition as his residence (A.D. 52) before joining Paul when entering Europe. Beginning it there, he probably completed it under Paul's guidance, and circulated it from Philippi, where he was left behind, among the Greek churches. Probably Paul (A.D. 57) alludes to his Gospel in 2Co_8:18; "the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches." Certainly he quotes his Gospel as Scripture, and by inspiration stamps it as such in 1Ti_5:18. His having been chosen by the Macedonian churches joint trustee with Paul of their contributions to Jerusalem implies a long residence, during which he completed and circulated his work. As Acts was the fruit of his second connection with Paul, whose labors down to his imprisonment in Rome form the chief part of the book, so he wrote the Gospel through the help he got in his first connection with him, from Troas down to Philippi. (See Birks' Horse Evarig., 192, etc., for the probability that Theophilus lived at Antioch.) Jerome says Luke published his Gospel "in the parts of Achaia and Baeotia."
The Book of Acts links itself with the Gospels, by describing the foundation and extension of the church, which Christ in the Gospels promised; and with the Pauline epistles by undesigned, because not obvious, coincidences. It forms with the Gospels a historical Pentateuch, on which the Epistles are the inspired commentary, as the Psalms and Prophets are on the Old Testament historical books. Tertullian De Bapt., 17, and Jerome, Vir. Illustr., Luc., 7, mention that John pronounced spurious the Acts of Paul and Thecla, published at Ephesus. As Luke's Acts of the Apostles was then current, John's condemnation of the spurious Acts is a virtual sanction of ours as genuine; especially as Rev_3:2 assigns this office of testing the true and the false to John's own church' of Ephesus. The epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienna to those of Asia and Phrygia (A.D. 177) quotes it. Irenseus, Adv.
Hser., 1:31, Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., 5, and Origen, in Euseb. H. E., 6:23, attest the book. Eusebius, H.E., 3:25, ranks it among "the universally recognized Scriptures." Its rejection by the Manicheans on purely doctrinal grounds implies its acceptance by the early church catholic. Luke never names himself. But the identity of the writer with the writer of the Gospel (Luk_1:3) is plain, and that the first person plural (Act_16:10; Act_16:17; Act_21:1; Act_21:18; Act_27:1; Act_28:16) includes the writer in the first person singular (Act_1:1). Paul's other companions are distinguished from the writer (Act_20:4-5-6; Act_20:15). The sacred writers keep themselves in the background, so as to put forward their grand subject. The first person gives place to the third at Act_17:1, as Paul and Silas left Luke behind at Philippi. The nonmention of Luke in Paul's epistles is due to his not having been with him at Corinth (Acts 18), whence the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written; nor at Ephesus (Acts 19), whence he wrote to the Romans; nor at Corinth again, whence he wrote to the Galatians.
The first person is not resumed until Act_20:5-6, at Philippi, the very place where the first person implies he was with Paul two years before (Acts 16); in this interval Luke probably made Philippi his head quarters. Thenceforward to the close, which leaves Paul at Rome, the first person shows Luke was his companion. Col_4:14; Phm_1:24, written there and then, declare his presence with Paul in Rome. The undesigned coincidence remarkably confirms the truth of his authorship and of the history. Just in those epistles written from places where in Acts the first person is dropped, Luke is not mentioned, but Silas and Timothy are; 1Th_1:1; 2Th_1:1; 2Co_1:19 compared with Act_18:5.
But in the epistles written where we know, from Acts 28, the writer was with Paul we find Luke mentioned. Alford conjectures that as, just before Luke's joining Paul at Troas (Act_16:10), Paul had passed through Galatia, where he was detained by sickness (Gal_4:13, Greek "Ye know that because of an infirmity of my flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first"), and Phrygia, and as the epistle to Colossae in Phrygia terms Luke "the beloved physician," Luke became Paul's companion owing to the weak state of the apostle's health, and left him at Philippi when he was recovered, which would account for the warm epithet "beloved."
In Act_21:10 Agabus is introduced as if he had never been mentioned before, which he was in Act_11:28. Probably Luke used different written sources of information, guided in the selection by the Holy spirit. This view accounts for the Hebraistic style of the earlier parts (drawn from Hebrew sources), and the Grecian style of the latter (from Luke himself). The speeches remarkably and undesignedly accord with all that is known of the speakers from other sources. Compare Peter's speeches, Act_2:23; Act_4:11; Act_10:34, with 1Pe_1:17; 1Pe_1:19; 1Pe_2:7; Paul's, Act_14:15-17; Act_17:24-31, with Rom_1:19-25; Rom_2:5; Rom_3:25 (Greek "the pretermission," or passing over of sins, "winking" at them), Col_1:17; 2Th_2:4 (margin of Act_17:23 "gods worshipped," the same Greek); Act_20:19; Act_20:31 with Php_3:18; Act_20:32 with Eph_2:20; Act_20:24 with 2Ti_4:7; "seed according to the promise," Act_13:23, with Rom_4:13; Gal_3:16.
The Hebraisms mostly found in the speeches, and not in the narrative, prove that the speakers' very words are essentially though summarily given. Providence so ordered it that during Paul's two years' imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea, Luke his companion had the best opportunities for ascertaining the facts of the early part of his work from the brethren on the spot. At Caesarea dwelt Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven (Act_21:8), the best authority for Acts 6; 7; 8; also Cornelius the centurion, or at least some witnesses of the events (Acts 10) which initiated the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. Probably the portion Act_17:15-18;Act_17:5 was inserted by Paul himself, for he was then alone, and none but he could have supplied the facts. Moreover, in Act_17:16-21 eleven expressions foreign to Luke's style occur, and in the speech 20 besides, some of which are found nowhere else but in Paul's epistles.
Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given (Mat_16:19), opens it as the central figure of the first part, both to the Jews (Acts 3) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Another instrument was needed for evangelizing the world, combining the learning of both Hebrew and Greek, which the twelve had not, with the citizenship of Rome, the political mistress of the Gentile world; Paul possessed all these qualifications. A Jew by birth; educated in Hebrew divine truth at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem; in Greek literature at Tarsus, one of its most eminent schools (whence he derived his acquaintance with the writings of Aratus, a Cilician poet, his own countryman,
Act_17:28, and Epimenides, Tit_1:12, and Menander, 1Co_15:33); and a Roman citizen, a privilege which would gain him influence and protect him from lawless and fanatical violence everywhere.
Hence Paul by his catholicity of qualifications and spirit (when his old pharisaism was completely eradicated by the revulsion of feeling attendant on his miraculous conversion) occupies the central place in which records the extension of the gospel to the metropolis of the world. Baumgarten remarks: "the twelve did not enter so fully into the catholic spirit of the new dispensation; a new intervention of the Lord was needed to create a new apostolate, not resting on the Israelite organization." Three civilizations meet in the introduction of the gospel to the world: the polity of Rome, binding all nations together, securing peace, and facilitating the circulation of the gospel of peace; the intellectual and aesthetic culture of Greece, revealing man's impotence by his own reasoning to find out God's law, and yet preparing him for it when divinely revealed in the gospel; and the Judaic law, divinely perfect, but impotent to justify through man's inability to keep it.
Alford rightly reasons that the date of composition must have been before the fulfillment of the prophecy, Act_27:24, "thou must be brought before Ceasar"; else Luke would have recorded it, as he does Paul's trials before Felix and Festus. The most certain date from the New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus, is that of Porcius Festus arriving in Palestine in Felix' room, A.D.
60. Paul therefore went to Rome A.D. 61, when Burrbus, a humane man, was captain of the guard. His successor, the cruel Tigellinus, would not have been likely to have left him "in free custody."
Herod Agrippa's death was A.D.
44. Therefore Paul's second visit to Jerusalem with the contributions was about A.D. 42 (Act_11:30). 2Co_12:2 (written about A.D. 55-57) refers to this visit. "Fourteen years before" will bring us to about A.D. 41-42. The visit to Antioch, and Agabus' prophecy fulfilled in Claudius' reign (A.D. 41) preceded Act_11:28, namely, A.D.
40. The silence as to Paul, Act_12:1-19, shows he was not at Jerusalem then, A.D. 43-44, but just before it, A.D. 41-42. The stoning of Stephen was probably A.D. 33, Saul's conversion A.D. 37, his first visit to Jerusalem A.D. 40, his third visit (Acts 15) fourteen years subsequently to his conversion, A.D. 51 (Gal_2:1).
After his conversion he went to Arabia, then back to Damascus, whence he escaped under Aretas (2Co_11:32); then to Jerusalem, after three years. His first visit was then A.D. 40 or 41, being succeeded by a cessation of persecution, owing to Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the temple. Next he was brought to Tarsus, to escape from Grecian conspirators in Jerusalem (Act_9:30; Gal_1:21). Thus only the period from A.D. 30 to A.D. 32-33 elapses between Christ's ascension and the stoning of Stephen. All the hints in the first six chapters imply a miraculously rapid growth of Christianity, and an immediate antagonism on the part of the Jews. The only other cardinal point of time specified is in Act_18:2, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius Ceasar, A.D. 52.
No book of the New Testament has suffered more from variations of text. Probably these are due to attempts at clearing supposed difficulties, harmonizing Paul's different accounts of his conversion, and bringing the text into exact likeness to the Gospels and Epistles. The book of Acts was so little read in the churches publicly that there was less opportunity to expunge interpolations by comparing different copies. The principal interpolations alleged are Act_8:37; Act_9:5-6; Act_24:6-8; Act_28:29.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Acts of the Apostles. The fifth book in the New Testament and the second treatise by the author of the third Gospel, traditionally known as Luke. The book commences with an inscription to one Theophilus, who was probably a man of birth and station. The readers were evidently intended to be the members of the Christian Church, whether Jews or Gentiles; for its contents are such as are of the utmost consequence to the whole Church. They are the fulfillment of the promise of the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the results of that outpouring by the dispersion of the gospel among the Jews and Gentiles.
Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may be arranged. First, St. Peter becomes the prime actor under God in the founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first group of sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews, Acts 2, and Gentiles, Acts 10, is his office, and by him, in good time, is accomplished.
Then the preparation of Saul of Tarsus for the work to be done, the progress, in his hand, of that work, his journeyings, preachings and perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem and being brought to testify in Rome, ? these are the subjects of the latter half of the book, of which the great central figure is the apostle Paul.
The history given in the Acts occupies about 33 years, and the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. It seems most probable that the place of writing was Roma, and the time about two years from the date of St. Paul's arrival there, as related in Act_28:30. This would give us fro the publication about 63 A.D.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

This book, in the very beginning, professes itself to be a continuation of the Gospel of St. Luke; and its style bespeaks it to be written by the same person. The external evidence is also very satisfactory; for besides allusions in earlier authors, and particularly in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, the Acts of the Apostles are not only quoted by Irenaeus, as written by Luke the evangelist, but there are few things recorded in this book which are not mentioned by that ancient father. This strong testimony in favour of the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles is supported by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, Eusebius, Theodoret, and most of the later fathers. It may be added, that the name of St. Luke is prefixed to this book in several ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and also in the old Syriac version.
2. This is the only inspired work which gives us any historical account of the progress of Christianity after our Saviour's ascension. It comprehends a period of about thirty years, but it by no means contains a general history of the church during that time. The principal facts recorded in it are, the choice of Matthias to be an Apostle in the room of the traitor Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the Apostles at Jerusalem; the death of Stephen, the first martyr; the persecution and dispersion of the Christians; the preaching of the Gospel in different parts of Palestine, especially in Samaria; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies, were not necessary in Gentile converts; and the latter part of the book is confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom St. Luke was the constant companion for several years.
3. As this account of St. Paul is not continued beyond his two years' imprisonment at Rome, it is probable that this book was written soon after his release, which happened in the year 63; we may therefore consider the Acts of the Apostles as written about the year 64.
4. The place of its publication is more doubtful. The probability appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria in Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of some Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the best critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this case they are not supported by any ancient authority.
5. It must have been of the utmost importance in the early times of the Gospel, and certainly not of less importance to every subsequent age, to have an authentic account of the promised descent of the Holy Ghost, and of the success which attended the first preachers of the Gospel both among the Jews and Gentiles. These great events completed the evidence of the divine mission of Christ, established the truth of the religion which he taught, and pointed out in the clearest manner the comprehensive nature of the redemption which he purchased by his death.
OEcumenius calls the Acts, the “Gospel of the Holy Ghost; and St. Chrysostom, the “Gospel of our Saviour's resurrection,” or the Gospel of Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Here, in the lives and preaching of the Apostles, we have the most miraculous instances of the power of the Holy Ghost; and in the account of those who were the first believers, we have received the most excellent pattern of the true Christian life.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

a-pos?ls:
I. Title
II. Text
III. Unity of the Book
IV. The Author
V. Canonicity
VI. Date
VII. Sources Used by Luke
VIII. The Speeches in the Acts
IX. Relation of Acts to the Epistles
X. Chronology of Acts
XI. Historical Worth of Acts
XII. Purpose of the Book
XIII. Analysis
Literature
I. Title
It is possible, indeed probable, that the book originally had no title. The manuscripts give the title in several forms. Aleph (in the inscription) has merely ?Acts? (Praxeis). So Tischendorf, while Origen, Didymus, Eusebius quote from ?The Acts.? But BD Aleph (in subscription) have ?Acts of Apostles? or ?The Acts of the Apostles? (Praxeis Apostolon). So Westcott and Hort, Nestle (compare Athanasius and Euthalius). Only slightly different is the title in 31, 61, and many other cursives (Praxeis tōn Apostolōn, ?Acts of the Apostles?). So Griesbach, Scholz. Several fathers (Clement of Alex, Origen, Dionysius of Alex, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom) quote it as ?The Acts of the Apostles? (Hai Praxeis tōn Apostolōn). Finally A2 EGH give it in the form ?Acts of the Holy Apostles? (Praxeı̄s tōn Hagiōn Apostolōn). The Memphitic version has ?The Acts of the Holy Apostles.? Clearly, then, there was no single title that commanded general acceptance.
II. Text
(1) The chief documents. These are the Primary Uncials (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae), Codex Laudianus (E) which is a bilingual Uncial confined to Acts, later Uncials like Codex Modena, Codex Regius, Codex the Priestly Code (P), the Cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the Harclean Syriac and quotations from the Fathers. We miss the Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus, and have only fragmentary testimony from the Old Latin.
(2) The modern editions of Acts present the types of text (Textus Receptus; the Revised Version (British and American); the critical text like that of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek or Nestle or Weiss or von Soden). These three types do not correspond with the four classes of text (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, Neutral) outlined by Hort in his Introduction to the New Testament in Greek (1882). These four classes are broadly represented in the documents which give us Acts. But no modern editor of the Greek New Testament has given us the Western or the Alexandrian type of text, though Bornemann, as will presently be shown, argues for the originality of the Western type in Acts. But the Textus Receptus of the New Testament (Stephanus' 3rd edition in 1550) was the basis of the King James Version of 1611. This edition of the Greek New Testament made use of a very few manuscripts, and all of them late, except Codex Bezae, which was considered too eccentric to follow. Practically, then, the King James Version represents the Syriac type of text which may have been edited in Antioch in the 4th century. Various minor errors may have crept in since that date, but substantially the Syriac recension is the text of the King James Version today. Where this text stands alone, it is held by nearly all modern scholars to be in error, though Dean Burgon fought hard for the originality of the Syriac text (The Revision Revised, 1882). The text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is practically that of Codex Vaticanus, which is held to be the Neutral type of text. Nestle, von Soden, Weiss do not differ greatly from the text of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, though von Soden and Weiss attack the problem on independent lines. The text of the Revised Version (British and American) is in a sense a compromise between that of the King James Version and the critical text, though coming pretty close to the critical text. Compare Whitney, The Reviser's Greek Text, 1892. For a present-day appreciation of this battle of the texts see J. Rendel Harris, Side Lights on the New Testament, 1908. For a detailed comparison between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Acts see Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, xxii.
(3) In Acts the Western type of text has its chief significance. It is the meet of the late Friedrich Blass, the famous classicist of Germany, to have shown that in Luke's writings (Gospel and Acts) the Western class (especially D) has its most marked characteristics. This fact is entirely independent of theory advanced by Blass which will be cussed directly. The chief modern revolt against theories of Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek is the new interest felt in the value of the Western type of text. In particular Codex Bezae has come to the front in the Book of Acts. The feeble support that Codex Bezae has in its peculiar readings in Acts (due to absence of Curetonian Syriac and of the Old Latin) makes it difficult always to estimate the value of this document. But certainly these readings deserve careful consideration, and some of them may be correct, whatever view one holds of the Codex Bezae text. The chief variations are, as is usual with the Western text, additions and paraphrases. Some of the prejudice against Codex Bezae has disappeared as a result of modern discussion.
(4) Bornemann in 1848 argued that Codex Bezae in Acts represented the original text. But he has had very few followers.
(5) J. Rendel Harris (1891) sought to show that Codex Bezae (itself a bilingual MS) had been Latinized. He argued that already in 150 ad a bilingual manuscript existed. But this theory has not won a strong following.
(6) Chase (1893) sought to show that the peculiarities were due to translation from the Syriac
(7) Blass in 1895 created a sensation by arguing in his Commentary on Acts (Acta Apostolorum, 24ff) that Luke had issued two editions of the Acts, as he later urged about the Gospel of Luke (Philology of the Gospels, 1898). In 1896 Blass published this Roman form of the text of Acts (Acta Apostolorum, secundum Formam quae videtur Romanam). Blass calls this first, rough, unabridged copy of Acts b and considers that it was issued at Rome. The later edition, abridged and revised, he calls alpha. Curiously enough, in Act_11:28, Codex Bezae has ?when we had gathered together,? making Luke present at Antioch. The idea of two editions is not wholly original with Blass. Leclerc, a Dutch philologist, had suggested the notion as early as the beginning of the 18th century. Bishop Lightfoot had also mentioned it (On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, 29). But Blass worked the matter out and challenged the world of scholarship with his array of arguments. He has not carried his point with all, though he has won a respectable following. Zahn (Einl, II, 338ff, 1899) had already been working toward the same view (348). He accepts in the main Blass' theory, as do Belser, Nestle, Salmon, Z?ckler. Blass acknowledges his debt to Corssen (Der cyprianische Text der Acta Apostolorum, 1892), but Corssen considers the a text as the earlier and the b text as a later revision.
(8) Hilgenfeld (Acta Apostolorum, etc., 1899) accepts the notion of two edd, but denies identity of authorship.
(9) Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) vigorously and at much length attacks Blass' position, else ?the conclusions reached in the foregoing sections would have to be withdrawn.? He draws his conclusions and then demolishes Blass! He does find weak spots in Blass' armor as others have done (B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, 1897; Page, Class. Rev., 1897; Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, 45). See also Knowling, The Acts of the Apostles, 1900, 47, for a sharp indictment of Blass' theory as being too simple and lacking verification.
(10) Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 48) doubts if Luke himself formally published the book. He thinks that he probably did not give the book a final revision, and that friends issued two or more editions He considers that the so-called b recension has a ?series of interpolations? and so is later than the a text.
(11) Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, 150; St. Paul the Traveler, 27; The Expositor, 1895) considers the b text to be a 2nd-century revision by a copyist who has preserved some very valuable 2nd-century testimony to the text.
(12) Headlam (HDB) does not believe that the problem has as yet been scientifically attacked, but that the solution lies in the textual license of scribes of the Western type (compare Hort, Introduction, 122ff). But Headlam is still shy of ?Western? readings. The fact is that the Western readings are sometimes correct as against the Neutral (compare Mat_27:49). It is not necessary in Act_11:20 to say that Hellenas is in Western authorities (AD, etc.) but is not a Western reading. It is at any rate too soon to say the final word about the text of Acts, though on the whole the a text still holds the field as against the btext. The Syriac text is, of course, later, and out of court.
III. Unity of the Book
It is not easy to discuss this question, apart from that of authorship. But they are not exactly the same. One may be convinced of the unity of the book and yet not credit it to Luke, or, indeed, to anyone in the 1st century. Of course, if Luke is admitted to be the author of the book, the whole matter is simplified. His hand is in it all whatever sources he used. If Luke is not the author, there may still have been a competent historian at work, or the book may be a mere compilation. The first step, therefore, is to attack the problem of unity. Holtzmann (Einl, 383) holds Luke to be the author of the ?we? sections only. Schmiedel denies that the Acts is written by a companion of Paul, though it is by the same author as the Gospel bearing Luke's name. In 1845 Schleiermacher credited the ?we? sections to Timothy, not to Luke. For a good sketch of theories of ?sources,? see Knowling on Acts, 25ff. Van Manen (1890) resolved the book into two parts, Acta Petri and Acta Pauli, combined by a redactor. Sorof (1890) ascribes one source to Luke, one to Timothy. Spitta also has two sources (a Pauline-Lukan and a Jewish-Christian) worked over by a redactor. Clemen (1905) has four sources (History of the Hellenists, History of Peter, History of Paul, and a Journey of Paul), all worked over by a series of editors. Hilgenfeld (1895) has three sources (Acts of Peter, Acts of the Seven, Acts of Paul). Jungst (1895) has a Pauline source and a Petrine source J. Weiss (1893) admits sources, but claims that the book has unity and a definite aim. B. Weiss (1902) conceives an early source for the first part of the book. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 1909, 41 f) has small patience with all this blind criticism: ?With them the book passes as a comparatively late patchwork compilation, in which the part taken by the editor is insignificant yet in all cases detrimental; the 'we' sections are not the property of the author, but an extract from a source, or even a literary fiction.? He charges the critics with ?airy conceit and lofty contempt.? Harnack has done a very great service in carefully sifting the matter in his Luke the Physician (1907). He gives detailed proof that the ?we? sections are in the same style and by the same author as the rest of the book (26-120). Harnack does not claim originality in this line of argument: ?It has been often stated and often proved that the 'we' sections in vocabulary, in syntax, and in style are most intimately bound up with the whole work, and that this work itself including the Gospel), in spite of all diversity in its parts, is distinguished by a grand unity of literary form? (Luke the Physician, 26). He refers to the ?splendid demonstration of this unity? by Klostermann (Vindiciae Lucanae, 1866), to B. Weiss, who, in his commentary (1893, 2 Aufl, 1902) ?has done the best work in demonstrating the literary unity of the whole work,? to ?the admirable contributions? of Vogel (Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, etc., 2 Aufl, 1899) to the ?yet more careful and minute investigations? of Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, 1899, 2nd edition, 1909), to the work of Hobart (The Medical Language of Luke, 1882), who ?has proved only too much? (Luke the Physician, 175), but ?the evidence is of overwhelming force? (198). Harnack only claims for himself that he has done the work in more detail and with more minute accuracy without claiming too much (27). But the conversion of Harnack to this view of Acts is extremely significant. It ought not to be necessary any more to refute the partition theories of the book, or to set forth in detail the proofs for the unity of the book. Perhaps the compilation theory of Acts is nowhere set forth more cogently than in McGiffert's The Apostolic Age (1897). See a powerful refutation of his argument by Ramsay in Pauline and Other Studies (1906, 302-21). ?I think his clever argumentation is sophistical? (305). Harnack is fully aware that he has gone over to the rode of ?Ramsay, Weiss and Zahn?: ?The results at which I have arrived not only approach very nearly to, but are often coincident with, the results of their research? (The Acts of the Apostles, 302). He is afraid that if these scholars failed to get the ear of critics ?there is little prospect of claiming the attention of critics and compelling them to reconsider their position.? But he has the advantage of coming to this conclusion from the other side. Moreover, if Harnack was won by the force of the facts, others may be. This brief sketch of Harnack's experience may take the place of detailed presentation of the arguments for the unity of the book. Harnack sets forth in great wealth of detail the characteristic idioms of the ?we? sections side by side with parallels in other parts of Acts and the Gospel of Luke. The same man wrote the rest of Acts who wrote the ?we? sections. This fact should now be acknowledged as proven. This does not mean that the writer, a personal witness in the ?we? sections, had no sources for the other parts of Acts. This aspect of the matter will be considered a little later.
IV. The Author
Assuming the unity of the book, the argument runs as follows: The author was a companion of Paul. The ?we? sections prove that (Act_16:10-17; Act_20:6-16; 21; 27; 28). These sections have the fullness of detail and vivid description natural to an eye-witness. This companion was with Paul in the second missionary journey at Troas and at Philippi, joined Paul's party again at Philippi on the return to Jerusalem during the third tour, and probably remained with Paul till he went to Rome. Some of Paul's companions came to him at Rome: others are so described in the book as to preclude authorship. Aristarchus, Aquila and Priscilla, Erastus, Gaius, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Trophimus, Tychicus and others more or less insignificant from the point of view of connection with Paul (like Crescens, Demas, Justus, Linus, Pudens, Sopater, etc.) are easily eliminated. Curiously enough Luke and Titus are not mentioned in Acts by name at all. They are distinct persons as is stated in 2Ti_4:10. Titus was with Paul in Jerusalem at the conference (Gal_2:1) and was his special envoy to Corinth during the time of trouble there. (2Co_2:12; 2Co_12:18.) He was later with Paul in Crete (Tit_1:5). But the absence of mention of Titus in Acts may be due to the fact that he was a brother of Luke (compare 2Co_8:18; 2Co_12:18). So A. Souter in DCG, article ?Luke.? If Luke is the author, it is easy to understand why his name does not appear. If Titus is his brother, the same explanation occurs. As between Luke and Titus the medical language of Acts argues for Luke. The writer was a physician. This fact Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882) has demonstrated. Compare Zahn, Einl, 2, 435ff; Harnack's Luke the Physician, 177ff. The arguments from the use of medical terms are not all of equal weight. But the style is colored at points by the language of a physician. The writer uses medical terms in a technical sense. This argument involves a minute comparison with the writings of physicians of the time. Thus in Act_28:3 katháptō, according to Hobart (288), is used in the sense of poisonous matter invading the body, as in Dioscorides, Animal. Ven. Proem. So Galen, De Typis 4 (VII, 467), uses it ?of fever fixing on parts of the body.? Compare Harnack, Luke the Physician, 177 f. Harnack agrees also that the terms of the diagnosis in Act_28:8 ?are medically exact and can be vouched for from medical literature? (ibid., 176 f). Hobart has overdone his argument and adduced many examples that are not pertinent, but a real residuum remains, according to Harnack. Then pı́mprasthai is a technical term for swelling. Let these serve as examples. The interest of the writer in matters of disease is also another indication, compare Luk_8:43. Now Luke was a companion of Paul during his later ministry and was a physician. (Col_4:14). Hence, he fulfils all the requirements of the case. The argument thus far is only probable, it is true; but there is to be added the undoubted fact that the same writer wrote both Gospel and Acts (Act_1:1). The direct allusion to the Gospel is reinforced by identity of style and method in the two books. The external evidence is clear on the matter. Both Gospel and Acts are credited to Luke the physician. The Muratorian canon ascribes Acts to Luke. By the end of the 2nd century the authority of the Acts is as well established as that of the Gospel (Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1885, 366). Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, all call Luke the author of the book. The argument is complete. It is still further strengthened by the fact that the point of view of the book is Pauline and by the absence of references to Paul's epistles. If one not Paul's companion had written Acts, he would certainly have made some use of them. Incidentally, also, this is an argument for the early date of the Acts. The proof that has won Harnack, the leader of the left in Germany, to the acknowledgment of the Lukan authorship of Acts ought to win all to this position.
V. Canonicity
The use of the Acts does not appear so early or so frequently as is true of the gospels and the Pauline epistles. The reason obvious. The epistles had a special field and the gospels appealed to all. Only gradually would Acts circulate. At first we find literary allusions without the name of book or author. But Holtzmann (Einl, 1892, 406) admits the use of Acts by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp. The use of the Gospel according to Luke by Tatian and Marcion really revolves knowledge of the Acts. But in Irenaeus frequently (Adv. Haer., i. 23, 1, etc.) the Acts is credited to Luke and regarded as Scripture. The Canon of Muratori list it as Scripture. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria attribute the book to Luke and treat it as Scripture. By the times of Eusebius the book is generally acknowledged as part of the canon. Certain of the heretical parties reject it (like the Ebionites, Marcionites, Manicheans). But by this time the Christians had come to lay stress on history (Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament, 1907, 184), and the place of Acts is now secure in the canon.
VI. Date
1. Luke's Relations to Josephus
The acceptance of the Lukan authorship settles the question of some of the dates presented by critics. Schmiedel places the date of Acts between 105 and 130 ad (Encyclopedia Biblica). He assumes as proven that Luke made use of the writings of Josephus. It has never been possible to take with much seriousness the claim that the Acts shows acquaintance with Josephus. See Keim, Geschichte Jesu, III, 1872, 134, and Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas, 1894, for the arguments in favor of that position. The words quoted to prove it are in the main untechnical words of common use. The only serious matter is the mention of Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Act_5:36 and Josephus (Ant., XX, v, 1 f). In Josephus the names occur some twenty lines apart and the resemblance is only slight indeed. The use of peı́thō in connection with Theudas and apōstḗsai concerning Judas is all that requires notice. Surely, then, two common words for ?persuade? and ?revolt? are not enough to carry conviction of the writer's use of Josephus. The matter is more than offset by the differences in the two reports of the death of Herod Agrippa (Act_12:19-23; Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 7, XIX, viii, 2). The argument about Josephus may be definitely dismissed from the field. With that goes all the ground for a 2nd-century date. Other arguments have been adduced (see Holtzmann, Einl, 1892, 405) such as the use of Paul's epistles, acquaintance with Plutarch, Arrian and Pausanias, because of imitation in method of work (i.e. parallel lives of Peter and Paul, periods of history, etc.), correction of Gal in Acts (for instance, Gal_1:17-24 and Act_9:26-30; Gal_2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-33). The parallel with Plutarch is fanciful, while the use of Panl's epistles is by no means clear, the absence of such use, indeed, being one of the characteristics of the book. The variation from Galatians is far better explained on the assumption that Luke had not seen the epistles.
2. 80 ad Is the Limit if the Book Is to Be Credited to Luke
The majority of modern critics who accept the Lukan authorship place it between 70 and 80 ad. So Harnack, Lechler, Meyer, Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn. This opinion rests mainly on the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad. It is claimed that Luk_21:20 shows that this tragedy had already occurred, as compared with Mar_13:14 and Mat_24:15. But the mention of armies is very general, to be sure. Attention is called also to the absence of the warning in Luke. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 291 f) admits that the arguments in favor of the date 70 to 80 are by no means conclusive. He writes ?to warn critics against a too hasty closing of the chronological question.? In his new book (Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, etc., 1911, S. 81) Harnack definitely accepts the date before the destruction of Jerusalem. Lightfoot would give no date to Acts because of the uncertainty about the date of the Gospel.
3. Before 70 Ad
This date is supported by Blass, Headlam, Maclean, Rackham, Salmon. Harhack, indeed, considers that ?very weighty considerations? argue for the early date. He, as already stated, now takes his stand for the early date. It obviously the simplest way to understand Luke's close of the Acts to be due to the fact that Paul was still in prison. Harnack contends that the efforts to explain away this situation are not ?quite satisfactory or very illuminating.? He does not mention Paul's death because he was still alive. The dramatic purpose to bring Paul to Rome is artificial. The supposition of a third book from the use of protō̇n in Act_1:1 is quite gratuitous, since in the Koinē, not to say the earlier Greek, ?first? was often used when only two were mentioned (compare ?our first story? and ?second story,? ?first wife? and ?second wife?). The whole tone of the book is that which one would naturally have before 64 ad. After the burning of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem the attitude maintained in the book toward Romans and Jews would have been very difficult unless the date was a long times afterward Harnack wishes ?to help a doubt to its lust dues.? That ?doubt? of Harnack is destined to become the certainty of the future. (Since this sentence was written Harnack has settled his own doubt.) The book will, I think, be finally credited to the time 63 ad in Rome. The Gospel of Luke will then naturally belong to the period of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea. The judgment of Moffatt (Historical New Testament, 1901, 416) that ?it cannot be earlier? than 80 ad is completely upset by the powerful attack of Harnack on his own previous position. See also Moffatt's Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911) and Koch's Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes (1911).
VII. Sources Used by Luke
If we now assume that Luke is the author of the Acts, the question remains as to the character of the sources used by him. One is at liberty to appeal to Luk_1:1-4 for the general method of the author. He used both oral and written sources. In the Acts the matter is somewhat simplified by the fact that Luke was the companion of Paul for a considerable part of the narrative (the ?we? sections, Act_16:11-17; Act_20:5; Act_21:18; 27 and 28). It is more than probable that Luke was with Paul also during his last stay in Jerusalem and during the imprisonment at Caesarea. There is no reason to think that Luke suddenly left Paul in Jerusalem and returned to Caesarea only when he started to Rome (Act_27:1). The absence of ?we? is natural here, since it is not a narrative of travel, but a sketch of Paul's arrest and series of defenses. The very abundance of material here, as in Acts 20 and 21, argues for the presence of Luke. But at any rate Luke has access to Paul himself for information concerning this period, as was true of the second, from Acts 13 to the end of the book. Luke was either present or he could have learned from Paul the facts used. He may have kept a travel diary, which was drawn upon when necessary. Luke could have taken notes of Paul's addresses in Jerusalem (Acts 22) and Caesarea (Acts 24 through 26). From these, with Paul's help, he probably composed the account of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-30). If, as I think is true, the book was written during Paul's first Roman imprisonment, Luke had the benefit of appeal to Paul at all points. But, if so, he was thoroughly independent in style and assimilated his materials like a true historian. Paul (and also Philip for part of it) was a witness to the events about Stephen in Acts 6:8 through 8:1 and a participant of the work in Antioch (Act_11:19-30). Philip, the host of Paul's company (Act_21:8) on the last journey to Jerusalem, was probably in Caesarea still during Paul's confinement there. He could have told Luke the events in Act_6:1-7 and 8:4-40. In Caesarea also the story of Peter's work may have been derived, possibly even from Cornelius himself (9:32 through 11:18). Whether Luke ever went to Antioch or not we do not know (Codex Bezae has ?we? in Act_11:28), though he may have had access to the Antiochian traditions. But he did go to Jerusalem. However, the narrative in Acts 12 probably rests on the authority of John Mark (Act_12:12, Act_12:25), in whose mother's house the disciples were assembled. Luke was apparently thrown with Mark in Rome (Col_4:10), if not before. For Acts 1 through 5 the matter does not at first seem so clear, but these chapters are not necessarily discredited on that account. It is remarkable, as ancient historians made so little mention of their sources, that we can connect Luke in the Acts with so many probable fountains of evidence. Barnabas (Act_4:36) was able to tell much about the origin of the work in Jerusalem. So could Mnason. Philip also was one of the seven (Act_6:5; Act_21:8). We do not know that Luke met Peter in Rome, though that is possible. But during the stay in Jerusalem and Caesarea (two years) Luke had abundant opportunity to learn the narrative of the great events told in Acts 1 through 5. He perhaps used both oral and written sources for this section. One cannot, of course, prove by linguistic or historical arguments the precise nature of Luke's sources in Acts. Only in broad outlines the probable materials may be sketched.
VIII. The Speeches in Acts
This matter is important enough to receive separate treatment. Are the numerous speeches reported in Acts free compositions of Luke made to order ? la Thucydides? Are they verbatim reports from notes taken at the times and literally copied into the narrative? Are they substantial reports incorporated with more or less freedom with marks of Luke's own style? In the abstract either of these methods was possible. The example of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and Josephus shows that ancient historians did not scruple to invent speeches of which no report was available. There are not wanting those who accuse Luke of this very thing in Acts. The matter can only be settled by an appeal to the facts so far as they can be determined. It cannot be denied that to a certain extent the hand of Luke is apparent in the addresses reported by him in Acts. But this fact must not be pressed too far. It is not true that the addresses are all alike in style. It is possible to distinguish very clearly the speeches of Peter from those of Paul. Not merely is this true, but we are able to compare the addresses of both Paul and Peter with their epistles. It is not probable that Luke had seen these epistles, as will presently be shown. It is crediting remarkable literary skill to Luke to suppose that he made up ?Petrine? speeches and ?Pauline? speeches with such success that they harmonize beautifully with the teachings and general style of each of these apostles. The address of Stephen differs also sharply from those of Peter and Paul, though we are not able to compare this report with any original work by Stephen himself. Another thing is true also, particularly of Paul's sermons. They are wonderfully stated to time, place and audience. They all have a distract Pauline flavor, and yet a difference in local color that corresponds, to some extent, with the variations in the style of Paul's epistles. Professor Percy Gardner (The Speeches of Paul in Acts, in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909) recognizes these differences, but seeks to explain them on the ground of varying accuracy in the sources used by Luke, counting the speech at Miletus as the most historic of all. But he admits the use of sources by Luke for these addresses. The theory of pure invention by Luke is quite discredited by appeal to the facts. On the other hand, in view of the apparent presence of Luke's style to some extent in the speeches, it can hardly be claimed that he has made verbatim reports. Besides, the report of the addresses of Jesus in Luke's Gospel (as in the other gospels) shows the same freedom in giving the substance exact reproduction of the words that is found in Acts. Again, it seems clear that some, if not all, the reports in Acts are condensed, mere outlines in the case of some of Peter's addresses. The ancients knew how to make shorthand reports of such addresses. The oral tradition was probably active in preserving the early speeches of Peter and even of Stephen, though Paul himself heard Stephen. The speeches of Paul all show the marks of an eyewitness (Bethge, Die paulinischen Reden, etc., 174). For the speeches of Peter, Luke may have had documents, or he may have taken down the current oral tradition while he was in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Peter probably spoke in Greek on the day of Pentecost. His other addresses may have been in Aramaic or in Greek. But the oral tradition would certainly carry them in Greek, if also in Aramaic. Luke heard Paul speak at Miletus (Acts 20) and may have taken notes at the time. So also he almost certainly heard Paul's address on the steps of the Tower of Antonia (Acts 22) and that before Agrippa (Acts 26). There is no reason to think that he was absent when Paul made his defenses before Felix and Festus (Acts 24 through 25) He was present on the ship when Paul spoke (Acts 27), and in Rome when he addressed the Jews (Acts 28) Luke was not on hand when Paul delivered his sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13), or at Lystra (Acts 14), or at Athens (Acts 17) But these discourses differ so greatly in theme and treatment, and are so essentially Pauline that it is natural to think that Paul himself gave Luke the notes which he used. The sermon at Antioch in Pisidia is probably given as a sample of Paul's missionary discourses. It contains the heart of Paul's gospel as it appears in his epistles. He accentuates the death and resurrection of Jesus, remission of sins through Christ, justification by faith. It is sometimes objected that at Athens the address shows a breadth of view and sympathy unknown to Paul, and that there is a curious Attic tone to the Greek style. The sermon does go as far as Paul can (compare 1Co_9:22) toward the standpoint of the Greeks (but compare Col and Eph). However, Paul does not sacrifice his principle of grace in Christ. He called the Athenians to repentance, preached the judgment for sin and announced the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man here taught did not mean that God yanked at sin and could save all men without repentance and forgiveness of sin. Chase (The Credibility of Acts) gives a collection of Paul's missionary addresses. The historical reality and value of the speeches in Acts may be said to be vindicated by modern scholarship. For a sympathetic and scholarly discussion of all of Paul's addresses see Jones, St. Paul the Orator (1910). The short speech of Tertullus (Acts 24) was made in public, as was the public statement of Festus in Acts 26. The letter of Claudias Lysias to Felix in Acts 23 was a public document. How Luke got hold of the conversation about Paul between Festus and Agrippa in Acts 26 is more difficult to conjecture.
IX. Relation of Acts to the Epistles
There is no real evidence that Luke made use of any of Paul's epistles. He was with Paul in Rome when Col was written (Luk_4:14), and may, indeed, have been Paul's amanuensis for this epistle (and for Eph and Philem). Some similarities to Luke's style have been pointed out. But Acts closes without any narrative of the events in Rome during the years there, so that these epistles exerted no influence on the composition of the book. As to the two preceding groups of Paul's epistles (1 and 2 Thess, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, Romans) there is no proof that Luke saw any of them. The Epistle to the Romans was probably accessible to into while in Rome, but he does not seem to have used it. Luke evidently preferred to appeal to Paul directly for information rather than to his epistles. This is all simple enough if he wrote the book or made his data while Paul was alive. But if Acts was written very late, it would be strange for the author not to have made use of some of Paul's epistles. The book has, therefore, the great advantage of covering some of the same ground as that discussed in the earlier epistles, but from a thoroughly independent stand-point. The gaps in our knowledge from the one source are often supplied incidentally, but most satisfactorily, from the other. The coincidences between Acts and Paul's epistles have been well traced by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, still a book of much value. Knowling, in his Witness of the Epistles (1892), has made a more recent study of the same problem. But for the apparent conflict between Gal_2:1-10 and Acts 15 the matter might be dropped at this point. It is argued by some that Acts, written long after Gal, brushes to one side the account of the Jerusalem conference given by Paul. It is held that Paul is correct in his personal record, and that Acts is therefore unhistorical Others save the credit of Acts by arguing that Paul is referring to an earlier private conference some years before the public discussion recorded in Acts 15. This is, of course, possible in itself, but it is by no means required by the variations between the two reports. The contention of Lightfoot has never been really overturned, that in Gal_2:1-10 Paul gives the personal side of the conference, not a full report of the general meeting. What Paul is doing is to show the Galatians how he is on a par with the Jerusalem apostles, and how his authority and independence were acknowledged by them. This aspect of the matter came out in the private conference. Paul is not in Gal_2:1-10 setting forth his victory over the Judaizers in behalf of Gentile freedom. But in Acts 15 it is precisely this struggle for Gentile freedom that is under discussion. Paul's relations with the Jerusalem apostles is not the point at all, though it in plain in Acts that they agree. In Galatians also Paul's victory for Gentile freedom comes out. Indeed, in Acts 15 it is twice mentioned that the apostles and elders were gathered together (Act_15:4, Act_15:6), and twice we are told that Paul and Barnabas addressed them (Act_15:4, Act_15:12). It is therefore natural to suppose that this private conference narrated by Paul in Galatians came in between Gal_2:5 and Gal_2:6. Luke may not, indeed, have seen the Epistle to the Galatians, and may not have heard from Paul the story of the private conference, though he knew of the two public meetings. If he did know of the private meeting, he thought it not pertinent to his narration. There is, of course, no contradiction between Paul's going up by revelation and by the appointment of the church in Antioch. In Gal_2:1 we have the second (Gal_1:18) visit to Jerusalem after his conversion mentioned by Paul, while that in Acts 15 is the third in Acts (Act_9:28; Act_11:29; Act_15:2). But there was no particular reason for Paul to mention the visit in Act_11:30, which did not concern his relation to the apostles in Jerusalem. Indeed, only the ?elders? are mentioned on this occasion. The same independence between Acts and Gal occurs in Gal_1:17-24, and Act_9:26-30. In Acts there is no allusion to the visit to Arabia, just as there is no mention of the private conference in Acts 15. So also in Act_15:35-39 there is no mention of the sharp disagreement between Paul and Peter at Antioch recorded in Gal_2:11. Paul mentions it merely to prove his own authority and independence as an apostle. Luke had no occasion to record the incident, if he was acquainted with the matter. These instances illustrate well how, when the Acts and the epistles vary, they really supplement each other.
X. Chronology of Acts
Here we confront one of the most perplexing questions in New Testament criticism. In general, ancient writers were not so careful as modern writers are to give precise dates for historical events. Indeed, it was not easy to do so in view of the absence of a uniform method of reckoning times. Luke does, however, relate his narrative to outward events at various points. In his Gospel he had linked the birth of Jesus with the names of Augustus as emperor and of Quirinius as governor of Syria (Luk_2:1), and the entrance of John the Baptist upon his ministry with the names of the chief Roman and Jewish rulers of the time (Luk_3:1) So also in the Acts he does not leave us without various notes of times. He does not, indeed, give the date of the Ascension or of the Crucifixion, though he places the Ascension forty days after the Resurrection (Act_1:3), and the great Day of Pentecost would then come ten days later, ?not many days hence? (Act_1:5) But the other events in the opening chapters of Acts have no clear chronological arrangement. The career of Stephen is merely located ?in these days? (Act_6:1). The beginning of the general persecution under Saul is located on the very day of Stephen's death (Act_8:1), but the year is not even hinted at. The conversion of Saul comes probably in its chronological order in Acts 9, but the year again is not given. We have no hint as to the age of Saul at his conversion. So again the relation of Peter's work in Caesarea (10) to the preaching to the Greeks in Antioch (11) is not made clear, though probably in this order. It is only when we come to Acts 12 that we reach an event whose date is reasonably certain. This is the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 ad. But even so, Luke does not correlate the life of Paul with that incident. Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 49) places the persecution and death of James in 44, and the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem in 46. About 44, then, we may consider that Saul came to Antioch from Tarsus. The ?fourteen years? in Gal_2:1 as already shown probably point to the visit in Acts 15 some years later. But Saul had been in Tarsus some years and had spent some three years in Arabia and Damascus after his conversion (Gal_1:18). Beyond this it is not possible to go. We do not know the age of Saul in 44 ad or the year of his conversion. He was probably born not far from 1 ad. But if we locate Paul at Antioch with Barnabas in 44 ad, we can make some headway. Here Paul spent a year (Act_11:26). The visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11, the first missionary tour in 13 and 14, the conference at Jerusalem in 15, the second missionary tour in 16 through 18, the third missionary tour and return to Jerusalem in 18 through 21, the arrest in Jerusalem and two years in Caesarea in 21 through 26, all come between 44 ad and the recall of Felix and the coming of Festus. It used to be taken for granted that Festus came in 60 ad. Wieseler figured it out so from Josephus and was followed by Lightfoot. But Eusebius, in his ?Chronicle,? placed that event in the second year of Nero. That would be 56, unless Eusebius has a special way of counting those years Mr. C. H Turner (art. ?Chronology? in HDB) finds that Eusebius counts an emperor's regnal year from the September following. If so, the date could be moved forward to 57 (compare Rackham on Acts, lxvi). But Ramsay (chapter xiv, ?Pauline Chronology,? in Pauline and Other Studies) cuts the Gordian knot by showing an error in Eusebius due to his disregarding an interregnum with the reign of Mugs Ramsay here follows Erbes (Todestage Pauli und Petri in this discovery and is able to fix upon 59 as the date of the coming of Festus. Probably 59 will have to answer as a compromise date. Between 44 ad and 59 ad, therefore, we place the bulk of Paul's active missionary work. Luke has divided this period into minor divisions with relative dates. Thus a year and six months are mentioned at Corinth (Act_18:11), besides ?yet many days? (Act_18:18). In Ephesus we find mention of ?Three months? (Act_19:8) and ?two years? (Act_19:10), the whole story summed up as ?Three years? (Act_20:31) Then we have the ?two years? of delay in Caesarea (Act_24:27). We thus have about seven of these fifteen years itemized. Much of the remaining eight was spent in the journeys described by Luke. We are told also the times of year when the voyage to Rome was under way (Act_27:9), the length of the voyage (Act_27:27), the duration of the stay in Melita (Act_28:11), and the times spent in Rome at the close of the book, ?two whole years? (Act_28:30). Thus it is possible to fix upon a relative schedule of dates, though not an absolute one. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, chapter i, ?Chronological Data?) has worked out a very careful scheme for the whole of Acts. Knowling has a good critical resume of the present state of our knowledge of the chronology of Acts in his Commentary, 38ff, compare also Clemen, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe (1893). It is clear, then, that a rational scheme for events of Paul's career so far as recorded in the Acts can be found. If 57 ad, for instance, should be taken as the year of Festus coming rather than 59 or 60 ad, the other dates back to 44 ad would, of course, be affected on a sliding scale. Back of 44 ad the dates are largely conjectural.
XI. Historical Worth of Acts
It was once fashionable to discredit Acts as a book of no real value as history. The T?bingen school regarded Acts as ?a late controversial romance, the only historical value of which was to throw light on the thought of the period which produced it? (Chase, The Credibility of Acts, 9). There are not wanting a few writers who still regard Acts as a late eirēnicon between the Peter and Paul parties, or as a party pamphlet in the interest of Paul. Somewhat fanciful parallels are found between Luke's treatment of both Peter and Paul ?According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument for the critical position is the correspondence between the acts of Peter and the other apostles on the one rode and those of Paul on the other? (Headlam in HDB). But this matter seems rather far fetched. Peter is the leading figure in the early chapters, as Paul is in the latter half of the book, but the correspondences are not remarkably striking. There exists in some minds a prejudice against the book on the ground of the miracles recorded as genuine events by Luke. But Paul himself claimed to have wrought miracles (2Co_12:12). It is not scientific to rule a book out beforehand because it narrates miracles (Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 8). Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveler, 8) tells his experience in regard to the trustworthiness of Acts: ?I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the T?bingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.? It was by actual verification of Acts in points where it could be tested by inscriptions, Paul's epistles, or current non-Christian writers, that ?it was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.? He concludes by ?placing this great writer on the high pedestal that belongs to him? (10). McGiffert (The Apostolic Age) had been compelled by the geographical and historical evidence to abandon in part the older criticism. He also admitted that the Acts ?is more trustworthy than previous critics allowed? (Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 5). Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica) still argues that the writer of Acts is inaccurate because he was not in possession of full information. But on the whole Acts has had a triumphant vindication in modern criticism. J?licher (Einl, 355) admits ?a genuine core overgrown with legendary accretions? (Chase, Credibility, 9). The moral honesty of Luke, his fidelity to truth (Rackham on Acts, 46), is clearly shown in both his Gospel and the Acts. This, after all, is the chief trait in the true historian (Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler, 4). Luke writes as a man of serious purpose and is the one New Testament writer who mentions his careful use of his materials (Luk_1:1-4). His attitude and spent are those of the historian. He reveals artistic skill, it is true, but not to the discredit of his record. He does not give a bare chronicle, but he writes a real history, an interpretation of the events recorded. He had adequate resources in the way of materials and endowment and has made conscientious and skillful use of his opportunity. It is not necessary here to give in detail all the points in which Luke has been vindicated (see Knowling on Acts, Ramsay's books and Harnack's Luke and Acts). The most obvious are the following: The use of ?proconsul? instead of ?propraetor? in Act_13:7 is a striking instance. Curiously enough Cyprus was not a senatorial province very long. An inscription has been found in Cyprus ?in the proconsulship of Paulus.? The 'first men' of Antioch in Pisidia is like the (Act_13:50) ?First Ten,? a title which ?was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East? (MacLean in one-vol HDB). The ?priest of Jupiter? at Lystra (Act_14:13) is in accord with the known facts of the worship there. So we have Perga in Pamphylia (Act_13:13), Antioch in Pisidia Act_13:14), Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (Act_14:6), but not Iconium (Act_14:1). In Philippi Luke notes that the magistrates are called strategoı́ or praetors (Act_16:20), and are accompanied by lictors or rhabdoú̄choi (Act_16:35). In Thessalonica the rulers are ?politarchs? (Act_17:6), a title found nowhere else, but now discovered on an inscription of Thessalonica. He rightly speaks of the Court of the Areopagus at Athens (Act_17:19) and the proconsul in Achaia (Act_18:12). Though Athens was a free city, the Court of the Areopagus at the times were the real rulers. Achaia was sometimes associated with Macedonia, though at this time it was a separate senatorial province. In Ephesus Luke knows of the ?Asiarchs? (Act_19:31), ?the presidents of the 'Common Council' of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor? (Maclean). Note also the fact that Ephesus is ?temple-keeper of the great Diana? (Act_19:35). Then observe the town clerk (Act_19:35), and the assembly (Act_19:39). Note also the title of Felix, ?governor? or procurator (Act_24:1), Agrippa the king (Act_25:13), Julius the centurion and the Augustan band (Act_27:1). Acts 27 is a marvel of interest and accuracy for all who wish to know details of ancient seafaring. The matter has been worked over in a masterful way by James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of Paul. The title ?First Man of the Island? (Act_28:7) is now found on a coin of Melita. These are by no means all the matters of interest, but they will suffice. In most of the items given above Luke's veracity was once challenged, but now he has been triumphantly vindicated. The force of this vindication is best appreciated when one recalls the incidental nature of the items mentioned. They come from widely scattered districts and are just the points where in strange regions it is so easy to make slips. If space allowed, the matter could be set forth in more detail and with more justice to Luke's worth as a historian. It is true that in the earlier portions of the Acts we are not able to find so many geographical and historical corroborations. But the nature of the material did not call for the mention of so many places and persons. In the latter part Luke does not hesitate to record miraculous events also. His character as a historian is firmly established by the passages where outside contact has been found. We cannot refuse him a good name in the rest of the book, though the value of the sources used certainly cuts a figure. It has been urged that Luke breaks down as a historian in the double mention of Quirinius in Luk_2:2 and Act_5:37. But Ramsay (Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?) has shown how the new knowledge of the census system of Augustus derived from the Egypt papyri is about to clear up this difficulty. Luke's general accuracy at least calls for suspense of judgment, and in the matter of Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5) Luke as compared with Josephus outclasses his rival. Harnack (The Acts of the Apostles, 203-29) gives in his usual painstaking way a number of examples of ?inaccuracy and discrepancy? But the great bulk of them are merely examples of independence in narration (compare Acts 9 with 22 and 26, where we have three reports of Paul's conversion). Harnack did not, indeed, once place as high a value on Luke as a historian as he now does. It is all the more significant, therefore, to read the following in Harnack's The Acts of the Apostles (298 f): ?The book has now been restored to the position of credit which is its rightful due. It is not only, taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the majority of its details it is trustworthy.... Judged from almost every possible standpoint of historical criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects an extraordinary work.? That is, in my opinion, an understatement of the facts (see Ramsay), but it is a remarkable conclusion concerning the trustworthiness of Luke when one considers the distance that Harnack has come. At any rate the prejudice against Luke is rapidly disappearing. The judgment of the future is forecast by Ramsay, who ranks Luke as a historian of the first order.
XII. Purpose of the Book
A great deal of discussion has been given to Luke's aim in the Acts. Baur's theory was that this book was written to give a conciliatory view of the conflict between Peter and Paul, and that a minute parallelism exists in the Acts between these two heroes. This tendency theory once held the critical field, but it does not take into view all the facts, and fails to explain the book as a whole. Peter and Paul are the heroes of the book as they undoubtedly were the two chief personalities in apostolic history (compare Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, 17). There is some parallelism between the careers of the two men (compare the worship offered Peter at Caesarea in Act_10:25, and that to Paul in Act_14:11; see also the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira and that of Elymas). But Knowling (Acts, 16) well replies that curiously no use is made of the death of both Peter and Paul in Rome, possibly at the same time. If the Acts was written late, this matter would be open to the knowledge of the writer. There is in truth no real effort on Luke's part to paint Paul like Peter or Peter like Paul. The few similarities in incident are merely natural historical parallels. Others have seen in the Acts a strong purpose to conciliate Gentile (pagan) opinion in the fact that the Roman governors and military officers are so uniformly presented as favorable to Paul, while the Jews are represented as the real aggressors against Christianity (compare Josephus' attitude toward Rome). Here again the fact is beyond dispute. But the other explanation is the more natural, namely, that Luke brings out this aspect of the matter because it was the truth. Compare B. Weiss, Einl, 569. Luke does have an eye on the world relations of Christianity and rightly reflects Paul's ambition to win the Roman Empire to Christ (see Rom 15), but that is not to say that he has given the book a political bias or colored it so as to deprive it of its historical worth. It is probably true (compare Knowling, Acts, 15; J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte) that Luke felt, as did Paul, that Judaism realized its world destiny in Christianity, that Christianity was the true Judaism, the spiritual and real Israel. If Luke wrote Acts in Rome, while Paul's case was still before Nero, it is easy to understand the somewhat long and minute account of the arrest and trials of Paul in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Rome. The point would be that the legal aspect of Christianity before Roman laws was involved. Hitherto Christianity had found shelter as a sect of Judaism, and so was passed by Gallio in Corinth as a religio licita. If Paul was condemned as a Christian, the whole aspect of the matter would be altered. Christianity would at once become religio illicita. The last word in the Acts comments on the fact that Paul, though still a prisoner, was permitted to preach unhindered. The importance of this point is clearly seen as one pushes on to the Neronian persecution in 64. After that date Christianity stood apart from Judaism in the eye of Rome. I have already stated my belief that Luke closed the Acts when he did and as he did because the events with Paul had only gone thus far. Numerous scholars hold that Luke had in mind a third book (Act_1:1), a possible though by no means necessary inference from ?first treatise.? It was a climax to carry the narrative on to Rome with Paul, but it is rather straining the point to find all this in Act_1:8. Rome was not ?the nethermost part of the earth,? Spain more nearly being that. Nor did Paul take the gospel to Rome. Besides, to make the arrival of Paul in Rome the goal in the mind of Christ is too narrowing a purpose. The purpose to go to Rome did dominate Paul's mind for several years (Act_19:21), but Paul cuts no figure in the early part of the book. And Paul wished to push on from Rome to Spain (Rom_15:24). It is probably true that Luke means to announce his purpose in Act_1:1-8. One needs to keep in mind also Luk_1:1-4. There are various ways of writing history. Luke chooses the biographical method in Acts. Thus he conceives that he can best set forth the tremendous task of interpreting the first thirty years of the apostolic history. It is around persons (compare Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, 117), two great figures (Peter and Paul), that the narrative is focused. Peter is most prominent in Acts 1 through 12, Paul in Act_13:1 through 28. Still Paul's conversion is told in Acts 9 and Peter reappears in Acts 15. But these great personages do not stand alone. John the Apostle is certainly with Peter in the opening chapters. The other apostles are mentioned also by name (Act_1:13) and a number of times in the first twelve chapters (and in Acts 15). But after Acts 15 they drop out of the narrative, for Luke follows the fortunes of Paul. The other chief secondary figures in Acts are Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, James, Apollos, all Hellenists save James (Harnack, 120). The minor characters are numerous (John, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla, Aristarchus, etc.). In most cases Luke gives a distinct picture of these incidental personages. In particular he brings out sharply such men as Gallio, Claudius, Lysias, Felix, Festus, Herod, Agrippa I and II, Julius. Luke's conception of the apostolic history is that it is the work of Jesus still carried on by the Holy Spirit (Act_1:1). Christ chose the apostles, commanded them to wait for power from on high, filled them with the Holy Spirit and then sent them on the mission of world conquest. In the Acts Luke records the waiting, the coming of the Holy Spirit, the planting of a powerful church in Jerusalem and the expansion of the gospel to Samaria and all over the Roman Empire. He addresses the book to Theophilus as his patron, a Gentile Christian plainly, as he had done with his gospel. The book is designed for the enlightenment of Christians generally concerning the historic origins of Christianity. It is in truth the first church history. It is in reality the Acts of the Holy Spirit as wrought through these men. It is an inspiring narration. Luke had no doubt whatever of the future of a gospel with such a history and with such heroes of faith as Peter and Paul.
XIII. Analysis
1. The Connection Between the Work of the Apostles and That of Jesus (Act_1:1-11)
2. The Equipment of the Early Disciples for Their Task (Acts 1:12 Through 2:47)
(a) The disciples obeying Christ's parting command (Act_1:12 -44)
(b) The place of Judas filled (Act_1:15-26)
(c) Miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Holy Spirit (Act_2:1-13)
(d) Peter's interpretation of the situation (Acts 2:14-36)
(e) The immediate effect of the sermon (Act_2:37-41)
(f) The new spirit in the Christian community (Act_2:42-47)
3. The Development of the Work in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1 Through 8:1a)
(a) An incident in the work of Peter and John with Peter's apologetic (Acts 3)
(b) Opposition of the Sadducees aroused by the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:1-31)
(c) An internal difficulty, the problem of poverty (Acts 4:32 through 5:11)
(d) Great progress of the cause in the city (Act_5:12-16)
(e) Renewed hostility of the Sadducees and Gamaliel's retort to the Pharisees (Acts 5:17-42)
(f) A crisis in church life and the choice of the seven Hellenists (Act_6:1-7)
(g) Stephen's spiritual interpretation of Christianity stirs the antagonism of the Pharisees and leads to his violent death (Acts 6:8 through 8:1a)
4. The Compulsory Extension of the Gospel to Judea, Samaria and the Neighboring Regions (Acts 8:1b-40)
(a) The great persecution, with Saul as leader (Act_8:1-4)
(b) Philip's work as a notable example of the work of the scattered disciples (Acts 8:5-40)
5. The Conversion of Saul Changes the Whole Situation for Christianity (Acts 9:1-31)
(a) Saul's mission to Damascus (Act_9:1-3)
(b) Saul stopped in his hostile course and turns Christian himself (Act_9:4-18)
(c) Saul becomes a powerful exponent of the gospel in Damascus and Jerusalem (Act_9:19-30)
(d) The church has peace (Act_9:31)
6. The Door Opened to the Gentiles, Both Roman and Greek (Acts 9:32 Through 11:30)
(a) Peter's activity in this time of peace (Act_9:32-43)
(b) The appeal from Cornelius in Caesarea and Peter's response (Acts 10)
(c) Peter's arraignment before the Pharisaic element in the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18)
(d) Greeks in Antioch are converted and Barnabas brings Saul to this work (Act_11:19-26)
(e) The Greek Christians send relief to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Act_11:27-30)
7. Persecution from the Civil Government (Acts 12)
(a) Herod Agrippa I kills James and imprisons Peter (Acts 12:1-19)
(b) Herod pays the penalty for his crimes (Act_12:20-23)
(c) Christianity prospers (Act_12:24)
8. The Gentile Propaganda from Antioch Under the Leadership of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13 Through 14)
(a) The specific call of the Holy Spirit to this work (Act_13:1-3)
(b) The province of Cyprus and the leadership of Paul (Act_13:4-12)
(c) The province of Pamphylia and the desertion of John Mark (Act_13:13)
(d) The province of Galatia (Pisidia and Lycaonia) and the stronghold of the gospel upon the native population (Acts 13:14 through 14:24)
(e) The return and report to Antioch (Act_14:25-28)
9. The Gentile Campaign Challenged by the Judaizers (Acts 15:1-35)
(a) They meet Paul and Barnabas at Antioch who decide to appeal to Jerusalem (Act_15:1-3)
(b) The first public meeting in Jerusalem (Act_15:4)
(c) The second and more extended discussion with the decision of the conference (Acts 15:6-29)
(d) The joyful reception (in Antioch) of the victory of Paul and Barnabas (Act_15:30-35)
10. The Second Great Campaign Extending to Europe (Acts 15:36 Through 18:22)
(a) The breach between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (Act_15:36-39)
(b) From Antioch to Troas with the Macedonian Cry (Acts 15:40 through 16:10)
(c) In Philippi in Macedonia the gospel gains a foothold in Europe, but meets opposition (Acts 16:11-40)
(d) Paul is driven also from Thessalonica and Berea (compare Philippi), cities of Macedonia also (Act_17:1-15)
(e) Paul's experience in Athens (Acts 17:16-34)
(f) In Corinth Paul spends nearly two years and the cause of Christ wins legal recognition from the Roman governor (Acts 18:1-17)
(g) The return to Antioch by way of Ephesus, Caesarea and probably Jerusalem (Act_18:18-22)
11. The Third Great Tour, with Ephesus as Headquarters (Acts 18:23 Through 20:3)
(a) Paul in Galatia and Phrygia again (Act_18:23)
(b) Apollos in Ephesus before Paul comes (Act_18:24-28)
(c) Paul's three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:1 through 20:1a)
(d) The brief visit to Corinth because of the troubles there (Act_20:1-3)
12. Paul Turns to Jerusalem Again with Plans for Rome (Acts 20:4 Through 21:16)
(a) His companions (Act_20:4)
(b) Rejoined by Luke at Philippi (Act_20:5)
(c) The story of Troas (Act_20:7-12)
(d) Coasting along Asia (Act_20:13-16)
(e) with the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20:17-38)
(f) From Miletus to Tyre (Act_21:1-6)
(g) From Tyre to Caesarea (Act_21:7-14)
(h) From Caesarea to Jerusalem (Act_21:15)
13. The Outcome in Jerusalem (Acts 21:15 Through 23:30)
(a) Paul's reception by the brethren (Act_21:15-17)
(b) Their proposal of a plan by Which Paul could undo the work of the Judaizers concerning him in Jerusalem (Act_21:18-26)
(c) The uproar in the temple courts raised by the Jews from Asia as Paul Was carrying out the plan to disarm the Judaizers (Act_21:27-30)
(d) Paul's rescue by the Roman captain and Paul's defense to the Jewish mob (Acts 21:31 through 22:23)
(e) Examination of the chief captain (Act_22:24-29)
(f) Brought before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:30 through 23:10)
(g) Cheered by the Lord Jesus (Act_23:11)
(h) Paul's escape from the plot of Jewish conspirators (Acts 23:12-30)
14. Paul A Prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 23:31-26:32)
(a) The flight to Caesarea and presentation to Felix (Act_23:31-35)
(b) Paul's appearance before Felix (Acts 24)
(c) Paul before Festus (Act_25:1-12)
(d) Paul, as a matter of curiosity and courtesy, brought before Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13 through 26:32)
15. Paul Going to Rome (Acts 27:1 Through 28:15)
(a) From Caesarea to Myra (Act_27:1-5)
(b) From Myra to Fair Havens (Act_27:6-8)
(c) From Fair Havens to Malta (Acts 27:9 through 28:10)
(d) From Malta to Rome (Act_28:11-15)
16. Paul in Rome At Last (Acts 28:16-31)
(a) His quarters (Act_28:16)
(b) His first interview with the Jews (Act_28:17-22)
(c) His second interview with the Jews (Act_28:23-28)
(d) Two years afterward still a prisoner, but with freedom to preach the gospel (Act_28:30)
Literature
Besides the works referred to above see Wendt's edition of Meyer's Kommentar (1899); Headlam in HDB; Knowling on Acts in Expositor's Greek Testament (1900); Knowling, Witness of the Epistles (1892), Testimony of Paul to Christ (1905); Moffatt, Historical New Testament (1901).
Here is a selected list of important works:
1. Introduction
Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament (1900); Bennett and Adeney, Biblical Introduction (1899); Bleek, Einleitung in das New Testament (4 Aufl, 1900); S. Davidson, (3rd edition, 1894); C. R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907), H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das New Testament (3 Aufl, 1892), Jacquies, Histoire des livres du New Testament (1905-8); J?licher, Introduction to the New Testament (translation, 1904); Peaks, Critical Introduction to the New Testament (1909); Reuss, Canon of the Holy Scriptures (translation, 1886); Salmon, Hist Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (7th edition, 1896), v
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

This is the title of one of the canonical books of the New Testament, the fifth in order in the common arrangement, and the last of those properly of an historical character. Commencing with a reference to an account given in a former work of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, its author proceeds to conduct us to an acquaintance with the circumstances attending that event, the conduct of the disciples on their return from witnessing it, the outpouring on them of the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise to them before his crucifixion, and the amazing success which, as a consequence of this, attended the first announcement by them of the doctrine concerning Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the World. After giving the history of the mother-church at Jerusalem up to the period when the violent persecution of its members by the rulers of the Jews had broken up their society and scattered them, with the exception of the apostles, throughout the whole of the surrounding region; and after introducing to the notice of the reader the case of a remarkable conversion of one of the most zealous persecutors of the church, who afterwards became one of its most devoted and successful advocates, the narrative takes a wider scope and opens to our view the gradual expansion of the church by the free admission within its pale of persons directly converted from heathenism and who had not passed through the preliminary stage of Judaism. The first step towards this more liberal and cosmopolitan order of things having been effected by Peter, to whom the honor of laying the foundation of the Christian church, both within and without the confines of Judaism, seems, in accordance with our Lord's declaration concerning him (Mat_16:18), to have been reserved, Paul, the recent convert and the destined apostle of the Gentiles, is brought forward as the main actor on the scene. On his course of missionary activity, his successes and his sufferings, the chief interest of the narrative is thenceforward concentrated, until, having followed him to Rome, whither he had been sent as a prisoner to abide his trial, on his own appeal, at the bar of the emperor himself, the book abruptly closes, leaving us to gather further information concerning him and the fortunes of the church from other sources.
Respecting the authorship of this book there can be no ground for doubt or hesitation. It is, unquestionably, the production of the same writer by whom the third of the four Gospels was composed, as is evident from the introductory sentences of both (comp. Luk_1:1-4, with Act_1:1). That this writer was Luke has not in either case been called in question, and is uniformly asserted by tradition. From the book itself, also, it appears that the author accompanied Paul to Rome when he went to that city as a prisoner (Acts 28). Now, we know from two epistles written by Paul at that time, that Luke was with him at Rome (Col_4:14; 2Ti_4:11), which favors the supposition that he was the writer of the narrative of the apostle's journey to that city. It was rejected by certain heretics in the primitive times, such as the Marcionites, the Severians, and the Manicheans, or we should rather say, it was cast aside by them because it did not favor their peculiar views. A complaint made by Chrysostom would lead us to infer that in his day, though received as genuine, the Acts was generally omitted from the number of books publicly read in the churches, and had consequently become little known among the people attending those churches.
Many critics are inclined to regard the Gospel by Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as having formed originally only one work, consisting of two parts. But this opinion is at variance with Luke's own description of the relation of these two writings to each other (being called by him, the one the former and the other the latter treatise); and also with the fact that the two works have invariably, and from the earliest times, appeared with distinct titles.
Of the greater part of the events recorded in the Acts the writer himself appears to have been witness. He is for the first time introduced into the narrative in Act_16:11, where he speaks of accompanying Paul to Philippi. He then disappears from the narrative until Paul's return to Philippi more than two years afterwards, when it is stated that they left that place in company (Act_20:6); from which it may be justly inferred that Luke spent the interval in that town. From this time to the close of the period embraced by his narrative he appears as the companion of the apostle. For the materials, therefore, of all he has recorded from Act_16:11, to Act_28:31, he may be regarded as having drawn upon his own recollection or on that of the apostle. To the latter source, also, may be confidently traced all he has recorded concerning the earlier events of the apostle's career; and as respects the circumstances recorded in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, and which relate chiefly to the church at Jerusalem and the labors of the apostle Peter, we may readily suppose that they were so much the matter of general notoriety among the Christians with whom Luke associated, that he needed no assistance from any other merely human source in recording them.
With regard to the design of the evangelist in writing this book, a prevalent popular opinion is, that Luke, having in his Gospel given a history of the life of Christ, intended to follow that up by giving in the Acts a narrative of the establishment and early progress of his religion in the world. That this, however, could not have been his design is obvious from the very partial and limited view which his narrative gives of the state of things in the church generally during the period through which it extends. As little can we regard this book as designed to record the official history of the apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars concerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2 Corinthians 11; Gal_1:17; Gal_2:11; 1Pe_5:13). Some are of opinion that no particular design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this book beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own notice; but such a view savors too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers, to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the church universal. Much more deserving of attention is the opinion that 'the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the dignity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion.' Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his Gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced 'to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem' (Luk_24:47).
Respecting the time when this book was composed it is impossible to speak with certainty. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 63; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the interval between the year 63 and the year 65 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it, but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared.
The style of Luke in the Acts is, like his style in his Gospel, much purer than that of most other books in the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, 'he has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators.'
While, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown, the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events. Our space will not permit us to enter at large into this point, we shall therefore content ourselves with merely presenting, in a tabular form, the dates affixed to the leading events by those writers whose authority is most deserving of consideration in such an inquiry.
 
Usher
Pearson
Michaelis
Hug
Haenlein
Greswell
Ager
The Ascension of Christ
33
33
33
31
33
30
31
Stoning of Stephen
34
34
?
?
36
37
37
Conversion of Paul
35
35
37?
35
36-38
37
38
Paul's first journey to Jerusalem (Act_9:26)
38
38
?
38
39
41
41
James's Martyrdom, etc.
44
44
44
44
44
43
43
Paul's second journey to Jerusalem (Act_11:30)
44
44
44
44
44
43
44
Paul's first missionary tour
45-46
44-47
?
44
?
44
44
Paul's third journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15)
53
49
?
52
49?
48
48
Paul arrives at Corinth
54
52
54?
53
54
50
52
Paul's fourth journey to Jerusalem
56
54
?
55
54
52
54
Paul's abode at Ephesus
56-59
54-57
?
56-58
?
53-55
55-59
Paul's fifth journey to Jerusalem (Act_21:17)
59
58
60
59
60
56
58
Paul arrives in Rome
63
61
63
62
63
59
61
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Acts of The Apostles
(Πράξεις τῶν Α᾿ποστόλων), the fifth book of the New Testament, and the last of those properly historical. It obtained this title at a very early period, though sometimes the epithet holy was prefixed to apostles, and sometimes also it was reckoned among the gospels, and called the Gospel of the Holy Ghost, or the Gospel of the Resurrection. (See; generally, Dr. Tregelles, in Horne's Introd. last ed. 4, 476 sq;)
I. Authorship. — The Acts were evidently written by the same author as the third Gospel (comp. Luk_1:1-4, with Act_1:1), and tradition is firm and constant in ascribing them to Luke (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. lib. 1, c. 31; 3, 14; Clemens Alexandr. Strom. 5, p. 588; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, 5, 2; De Jejun. c. 10; Origen, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 6, 23, etc. Eusebius himself ranks this book among the ὁμολογούμενα, H. E. 3, 25). The fact that Luke accompanied Paul to Rome (28), and was with him there (Col_4:14; Philippians 24), favors the supposition that he was the writer of the narrative of the apostle's journey to that city. See PAUL. The identity of the writer of both books is strongly shown by their great similarity in style and idiom, and the usage of particular words and compound forms. (See Tholuck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, 3; Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucance, Gott. 1866.) The only parties in primitive times by whom this book was rejected were certain heretics, such as the Marcionites, the Severians, and the Manichaeans, whose objections were entirely of a dogmatical, not of a historical nature (so those of Baur and his school). At the same time we find Chrysostom complaining that by many in his day it was not so much as known (Hom. 1, in Act. s. init.). Perhaps, however, there is some rhetorical exaggeration in this statement; or it may be, as Kuinol (Proleg. in Acta App. Comment. 4; 5) suggests, that Chrysostom's complaint refers rather to a prevalent omission of the Acts from the number of books publicly read in the churches (see Salmerson, De libri Actorum auctoritate, in his Opera, vol. 12).
II. Source of Materials. — The writer is for the first time introduced into the narrative in Act_16:11, where he speaks of accompanying Paul to Philippi. He then disappears from the narrative until Paul's return to Philippi, more than two years afterward, when it is stated that they left that place in company (Act_20:6), from which it may be justly inferred that Luke spent the interval in that town. From this time to the close of the period embraced by his narrative he appears as the companion of the apostle. For the materials, therefore, of all he has recorded from Act_16:11, to Act_28:31, he may be regarded as having drawn upon his own recollection or on that of the apostle. To the latter source also may be confidently traced all he has recorded concerning the earlier events of the apostle's career; and as respects the circumstances recorded in the first twelve chapters of the Acts, and which relate chiefly to the Church at Jerusalem and the labors of the apostle Peter, we may readily suppose that they were so much matter of general notoriety among the Christians with whom Luke associated, that he needed no assistance from any other merely human source in recording them. Some of the German critics (see Zeller, Die Apostelgesch. nach ihrem Inhalt u. Ursprung kritisch untersucht, Stuttg. 1854) have labored hard to show that he must have had recourse to written documents, in order to compose those parts of his history which record what did not pass under his own observation, and they have gone the length of supposing the existence of a work in the language of Palestine, under the title of “Acts of Cephas” or his “Preaching” ( מִעְבָּדֵי דְכֵיפָאor אִכְרִזְתָּא), of which the apocryphal book of the same title (Πράξεις Πέτρου or Κήρυγμα Πέτρου), mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 7, p. 736) and Origen (Comment. in Joh. p. 298), was an interpolated edition (Heinrichs, Proleg. in Acta App. p. 21; Kuinol, Proleg. p. 5). All this, however, is mere ungrounded supposition; and such Hebrew editions, if they at all existed, must have been versions from the Greek (Reland, Palest. p. 1038). SEE PETER.
III. Design. — A prevalent opinion is, that Luke, having in his Gospel given a history of the life of Christ, intended to follow that up by giving in the Acts a narrative of the establishment and early progress of his religion in the world. That this, however, could not have been his design, is obvious from the very partial and limited view which his narrative gives of the state of things in the Church generally during the period through which it extends. As little can we regard this book as designed to record the official history of the Apostles Peter and Paul, for we find many particulars concerning both these apostles mentioned incidentally elsewhere, of which Luke takes no notice (comp. 2Co_11:1-33; Gal_1:17; Gal_2:11; 1Pe_5:13. See also Michaelis, Introduction, 3, 328; Hanlein's Einletung, 3, 150). Heinrichs, Kuinol, and others are of opinion that no particular design should be ascribed to the evangelist in composing this book beyond that of furnishing his friend Theophilus with a pleasing and instructive narrative of such events as had come under his own personal notice, either immediately through the testimony of his senses or through the medium of the reports of others; but such a view savors too much of the lax opinions which these writers unhappily entertained regarding the sacred writers to be adopted by those who regard all the sacred books as designed for the permanent instruction and benefit of the Church universal. Much more deserving of notice is the opinion of Hanlein, with which that of Michaelis substantially accords, that “the general design of the author of this book was, by means of his narratives, to set forth the co-operation of God in the diffusion of Christianity, and along with that, to prove, by remarkable facts, the divinity of the apostles and the perfectly equal right of the Gentiles with the Jews to a participation in the blessings of that religion” (Einleitung, 3, 156. Comp. Michaelis, Introduction, 3, 380). Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke in writing the Acts was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish. In his Gospel he had presented to his readers an exhibition of Christianity as embodied in the person, character, and works of its great founder; and having followed him in his narration until he was taken up out of the sight of his disciples into heaven, this second work was written to show how his religion operated when committed to the hands of those by whom it was to be announced “to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luk_24:47). Hence, as justly stated by Baumgarten in his work on the Acts, Jesus, as the already exalted king of Zion, appears, on all suitable occasions, as the ruler and judge of supreme resort; the apostles are but his representatives and instruments of working. It is He who appoints the twelfth witness, that takes the place of the fallen apostle (Act_1:24); He who, having received the promise from the Father, sends down the Holy Spirit with power (Act_2:33); He who comes near to turn the people from their iniquities and add them to the membership of his Church (Act_2:47; Act_3:26); He who works miracles from time to time by the hand of the apostles; who sends Peter to open the door of faith to the Gentiles; who instructs Philip to go and meet the Ethiopian; who arrests Saul in his career of persecution, and makes him a chosen vessel to the Gentiles; in short, who continually appears, presiding over the affairs of his Church, directing his servants in their course, protecting them from the hands of their enemies, and in the midst of much that was adverse, still giving effect to their ministrations, and causing the truth of the gospel to grow and bear fruit. We have therefore in this book, not merely a narrative of facts which fell out at the beginning of the Christian Church, in connection more especially with the apostolic agency of Peter and Paul, but we have, first of all and in all, the ever-present, controlling, administrative agency of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, shedding forth the powers of his risen life, and giving shape and form to his spiritual and everlasting kingdom.
IV. Time and place of Writing. — These are still more uncertain. As the history is continued up to the close of the second year of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, it could not have been written before A.D. 56; it was probably, however, composed very soon after, so that we shall not err far if we assign the close of the year 58 as the period of its completion. Still greater uncertainty hangs over the place where Luke composed it; but as he accompanied Paul to Rome, perhaps it was at that city and under the auspices of the apostle that it was prepared. Had any considerable alteration in Paul's circumstances taken place before the publication, there can be no reason why it should not have been noticed. And on other accounts also this time was by far the most likely for the publication of the book. The arrival in Rome was an important period in the apostle's life; the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no immediate determination of his cause. SEE THEOPHILUS.
V. Style. — This, like that of Luke's Gospel, is much purer than that of most other books of the New Testament. The Hebraisms which occasionally occur are almost exclusively to be found in the speeches of others which he has reported. These speeches are indeed, for the most part, to be regarded rather as summaries than as full reports of what the speaker uttered; but as these summaries are given in the speaker's own words, the appearance of Hebraisms in them is as easily accounted for as if the addresses had been reported in full. His mode of narrating events is clear, dignified, and lively; and, as Michaelis observes, he “has well supported the character of each person whom he has introduced as delivering a public harangue, and has very faithfully and happily preserved the manner of speaking which was peculiar to each of his orators” (Introduction, 3, 332). SEE LUKE.
VI. Contents. — Commencing with a reference to an account given in a former work of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ before his ascension, its author proceeds to acquaint us succinctly with the circumstances attending that event, the conduct of the disciples on their return from witnessing it, the outpouring on them of the Holy Spirit according to Christ's promise to them before his crucifixion, and the amazing success which, as a consequence of this, attended the first announcement by them of the doctrine concerning Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the world. After following the fates of the mother church at Jerusalem up to the period when the violent persecution of its members by the rulers of the Jews had broken up their society and scattered them, with the exception of the apostles, throughout the whole of the surrounding region, and after introducing to the notice of the reader the case of a remarkable conversion of one of the most zealous persecutors of the Church, who afterward became one of its most devoted and successful advocates, the narrative takes a wider scope and opens to our view the gradual expansion of the Church by the free admission within its pale of persons directly converted from heathenism, and who had not passed through the preliminary stage of Judaism. The first step toward this more liberal and cosmopolitan order of things having been effected by Peter, to whom the honor of laying the foundation of the Christian Church, both within and without the confines of Judaism, seems, in accordance with our Lord's declaration concerning him (Mat_16:18), to have been reserved, Paul, the recent convert and the destined apostle of the Gentiles, is brought forward as the main actor on the scene. On his course of missionary activity, his successes and his sufferings, the chief interest of the narrative is thenceforward concentrated, until, having followed him to Rome, whither he had been sent as a prisoner to abide his trial, on his own appeal, at the bar of the emperor himself, the book abruptly closes, leaving us to gather further information concerning him and the fortunes of the Church from other sources. SEE PAUL.
VII. History. — While, as Lardner and others have very satisfactorily shown (Lardner's Credibility, Works, 1; Biscoe, On the Acts; Paley's Horae Paulinoe; Benson's History of the First Planting of Christianity, 2, etc.), the credibility of the events recorded by Luke is fully authenticated both by internal and external evidence, very great obscurity attaches to the chronology of these events (see Davidson's Introd. to the N.T., 2, 112 sq.; Alford's Greek Test., 2, Proleg. p. 23 sq.; Meyer, Commentar, 3d ed. pt. 3, s. fin.).
The following is probably the true order of events in the Acts (see Meth. Quar. Review, 1856, p. 499 sq.). For further discussion, see Burton, Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts (Lond. 1830); Anger, De temporum in Actis Apostolorum ratione (Lips. 1834); Greswell, Dissert. 2, 1, etc.; Wordsworth, Greek Test. pt. 2; Wieseler, Chron. d. ap. Zeit (Gott. 1848).
DATE. LEADING EVENTS. CHAPTER.
May, A.D. 29. Election of Matthias........ Act_1:15-26. May A.D. 29. Descent of the Holy Spirit. Act_2:1-41. June, A.D. 29. Cure of the cripple, etc .... Act_3:1-26; Act_4:1-37. July, A.D. 29. Judgment of Ananias and Sapphira .... Act_5:1-42. Sept., A.D. 29. Appointment of Deacons.... Act_6:1-15. Dec., A.D. 29. Martyrdom of Stephen...... Act_7:1-60. April, A.D. 30. Conversion of the Eunuch .. Act_8:1-40. May, A.D. 30. Conversion of Paul......... Act_9:1-21. A.D. 31. Prosperity of the Church.... Act_9:31. A.D. 31. [Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew.]
Summer, A.D. 32. Peter's preaching tour ...... Act_9:32-43. Sept., A.D. 32. Conversion of Cornelius..... Act_10:1-48; Act_11:1-18. Spring, A.D. 33. Paul's escape from Damascus to Jerusalem. Act_9:22-30. A.D. 34. Founding of the Church at Antioch........ Act_11:19-26. Spring, A.D. 44. Martyrdom of James and imprisonment of Peter. Act_7:1-60. A.D. 44. Paul's eleemosynary visit to Jerusalem ....... Act_11:21-30. A.D. 44, 45. Paul's first missionary tour . Act_8:1-40; Act_9:1-43. Spring, A.D. 47. Paul's “second” visit to Jerusalem . Act_15:1-35. A.D. 47. [Matthew's Gospel published in Greek ]
May, A.D. 29. Election of Matthias........ Act_1:15-26.
May A.D. 29. Descent of the Holy Spirit. Act_2:1-41.
June, A.D. 29. Cure of the cripple, etc .... Act_3:1-26; Act_4:1-37.
July, A.D. 29. Judgment of Ananias and Sapphira .... Act_5:1-42.
Sept., A.D. 29. Appointment of Deacons.... Act_6:1-15.
Dec., A.D. 29. Martyrdom of Stephen...... Act_7:1-60.
April, A.D. 30. Conversion of the Eunuch .. Act_8:1-40.
May, A.D. 30. Conversion of Paul......... Act_9:1-21.
A.D. 31. Prosperity of the Church.... Act_9:31.
A.D. 31. [Matthew's Gospel written in Hebrew.]
Summer, A.D. 32. Peter's preaching tour ...... Act_9:32-43.
Sept., A.D. 32. Conversion of Cornelius..... Act_10:1-48; Act_11:1-18.
Spring, A.D. 33. Paul's escape from Damascus to Jerusalem. Act_9:22-30.
A.D. 34. Founding of the Church at Antioch........ Act_11:19-26.
Spring, A.D. 44. Martyrdom of James and imprisonment of Peter. Act_7:1-60.
A.D. 44. Paul's eleemosynary visit to Jerusalem ....... Act_11:21-30.
A.D. 44, 45. Paul's first missionary tour . Act_8:1-40; Act_9:1-43.
Spring, A.D. 47. Paul's “second” visit to Jerusalem . Act_15:1-35.
A.D. 47. [Matthew's Gospel published in Greek ]
A.D. 47-51. Paul's second missionary tour Act_15:36 - Act_18:22.
A.D. 49. [1st Epistle to the Thessalonians.]
A.D. 50. [2d Epistle to the Thessalonians.]
A.D. 51-55. Paul's third missionary tour. Act_18:23 - Act_21:17.
A.D. 51. [Epistle to the Galatians.]
A.D. 54. [1st Epistle to the Corinthians.]
A.D. 54. [2d Epistle to the Corinthians.]
A.D. 55. [Epistle to the Romans.]
A.D. 56-58. Paul's first visit and imprisonment at Rome.... Act_21:18 to Act_28:31.
A.D. 56. [Luke's Gospel written.]
A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Ephesians.]
A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Colossians.]
A.D. 57. [Epistle to Philemon.]
A.D. 57. [Epistle to the Philippians.]
A.D. 58. [Epistle to the Hebrews.]
A.D. 58. [Acts of the Apostles written.]
A.D. 62. [Epistle of James.]
A.D. 62 [lst Epistle to Timothy.]
A.D. 63. [Epistle to Titus.]
A.D. 64. [Second imprisonment of Paul at Rome.]
A.D. 64. [2d Epistle to Timothy.]
A.D. 64. [lst Epistle of Peter.]
A.D. 65. [2d Epistle of Peter.]
A.D. 65. [Mark's Gospel written.]
A.D. 66. [Epistle of Jude.]
A.D. 90. [John's Gospel written.]
A.D. 92. [1st Epistle of John.]
A.D. 92. [2d Epistle of John.]
A.D. 92. [3d Epistle of John.]
A.D. 96. [John's Revelation written.]
VIII. Commentaries. — The following is a full list of separate exegetical and illustrative works on the entire Acts of the Apostles, the most important being indicated by an asterisk (*) prefixed: Origen, Opera, 4, 457 sq.; “Pampilus” (in Hippolyti Opera, 2, 205 sq. and in the Bibl. Patr. Gall. 4, 3 sq.); Chrysostom Opera, 9, 1 sq. (also in Engl. Homilies, Oxf. 1851, 2 vols. 8vo); Cassiodorus, Acta Ap. (in Complexiones); Euthalius, Editio (in Bibl. Patr. Gall.10, 199); Arator, Carmen (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 10, 125); Theophylact, Opera, 3, 1 sq.; OEcumenius, Enarratio (in Opera, 1); Bede, Works, p. 184 sq.; Fathers, in Cramer's Catena (Oxon. 1838, 8vo); Mene, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1524, 8vo); Bugenhagen, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1524, 1624, 8vo); Lambert, Commentarius (Arg. 1526; Francf. 1539, 4to); Card. Cajetan, Actus Apostolor. (Venice, 1530; Par. 1532, fol.; Par. 1540, 8vo); Gagnaeus, Scholia (Par. 1660, 8vo);
*Calvin, Commentaria, in his Opera (Gen. 1560, fol.; tr. into Eng., Lond. 1585, 4to; Edinb. 1844, 2 vols. 8vo); Bullinger, Commentaria (Tiguri. 1540, fol.); Jonas, Adnotationes (Norib. 1524; Basil. 1525, 1567, 8vo); Salmeron, Opera, p. 12 sq.; Brent, Predigten (Norimb. 1554, fol.); Camerarius, Notationes (Lips. 1556, 8vo); Capito, Explicatio (Venice, 1561, 8vo); *Gualtherus, Homilioe (Tiguri. 1557, 4to; in Engl., Lond. 1572); Losse, Adnotationes, (Francf. 1558, 2 vols. fol.); *Sarcer, Scholia (Basil. 1560, 8vo); Selnecker, Commentarius (Jen. 1567, 1586, 8vo); Junius, Tr. ex Arab. (L. B. 1578; Frcft. 1618, 8vo); Raude, Auslegung (Frcft. 1579, fol.); Aretius, Digestio (Lausan. 1579, Genev. 1583, Bern. 1607, fol.); Grynaeus, Commentarius (Basil. 1583, 4to); Crispold, Commentaria (Firm. 1590, 4to); Stapleton, Antidota (Antw. 1595-8, 3 vols. 8vo); Pelargus, Commentationes (Francf. 1599, 8vo); Arcularius, Commentarius (Franc. 1607, 8vo; Giess. 4to); Lorinus, Commentaria (Colossians Ag. 1609, fol.); Malcolm, Comnmentarius (Mediol. 1615, 4to); Sanctus, Commentarius (Lugd. 1616; Colossians 1617, 4to); *Petri, Commentarius (Duaci. 1622, 4to); Perezius, Commnentarius (Lugd. 1626, 4to); A Lapide, Acta Apostolor. (Antw. 1627, 4to); Menoch, Historia (Rome, 1634, 4to); De Dieu, Animadnersiones (L. B. 1634, 4to); Lenaeus, Commentarius (Holm. 1640, 4to); Novarinus, Actus Apostolor. (Lugd. 1645, fol.); Price, Acta Apostolor. (Par. 1647, 8vo; Lond. 1630, 4to); Major, Adnotata (Jen. 1647, 1655, 4to; 1668, 8vo); Amyrald, Paraphrase (Salmur, 1654, 8vo); Fromond, Actus Ap. (Lovan. 1654, 4to); Calixtus, Expositio (Brunsw. 1654, 4to); *Streso, Cornmentarius (Amst. 1658; Hafn. 1717, 4to); Faucheur, Sermons (Genev. 1664, 4 vols. 4to); Du Bois, Lectiones, pt. 1 (Louvain, 1666, 4to); Rothmaler, Predigten (Rudolst. 1671-2, 3 vols. 4to); Cradock, Apost. History (Lond. 1672, fol.); De Sylveira, Commentaria (Lugd. 1678, fol.); Lightfoot, Commentary (in Works, 8, 1 sq.; also Horoe Hebr., ed. Carpzov, Lips. 1679, 4to); Crell, Opera, 3, 123 sq.; Wolzogen, Opera, vol. 1; Cocceius, Opera, vol. 4; Micon, Apostolica Acta (Genev. 1681, fol.); Cappel, Hist. Apostolica (Salm. 1683, 4to); *De Veiel, Explicatio (Lond. 1684, 8vo; in Eng., Lond. 1685); Pearson, Works, 1, 317 sq.; Keuchen, Adtsotata (Amst. 1689, 1709, 4to); Valla and others, in the Critici Sacri, vol. 7; *Arnold and De Sacy, Note (Par., Lugd., Amst., Antw. 1700, 8vo; also in French often); *Van Leeuwen, Paraphrasis (Amst. 1704,1724, 8vo; also in Gorm., Brem. 1708, 4to); *Limborch, Conzmentarius (Roterd. 1711, fol.); Gerhard, Commentarius (Hamb. 1713, 4to); *Herberger, Stoppel-Postille (Lpz. 1715, fol.); Anon., Reflexions (Par. 1716, 12mo); Lang, Isagoge (Hal. 1718, 4to); Grammich, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1721, 4to); Petersen, Zusammenhang (Fr. ad M. 1722, 4to); Wolf, Anecdota, 3, 92 sq.; 9:1 sq.; Pyle, Paraphrase (Lond. 1725, 8vo); Plevier, Handelingen (Ultraj. 1725, 1734, 4to); *Lindhammer, Erldarung (Hal. 1725, 1734, fol.); Loseken, Erklarung (Hal. 1728, 4to); Negelin, Kern d. Apostelgesch. (Norimb. 1731, 4to); Anon., Paraphrase (Par. 1738, 12mo); *Biscoe, Hist. of the Acts, confirmed from other Sources, Authors, etc. (Lond. 1742, 2 vols. 8vo; Oxford, 1829, 1840, 1 vol. 8vo); Barrington, Works, vol. 1; Heylin, The 1. Lect. 2. 1 sq.; Rambach, Betrachtungen (F. ad M. 1748, 4to);
*Benson, Planting of the Chr. Rel. (2d ed. Lond. 1756, 3 vols. 4to);
*Walch, Dissertt. in Acta App. (Jen. 1756, 1761, 3 vols. 4to); Am-Ende, Carmen cum notis (Vitemb. 1759, 8vo); Semler, Illustratio (Hal. 1766, 4to); Coners, Auslegung (Brem. 1772, 8vo); Jacob, Uebersetz. (Hal. 1779, 8vo); Hess, Christenlehre (Winterth. 17819, 8vo, in parts); Paulus, De Consilio auctoris Act. (Jen. 1788, 4to); Willis, Actions of the Ap. (Lond. 1789, 8vo); Snell, Uebersetz. (Frkft. 1791, 8vo); Lobstein, Commentar, vol. 1 (Strasb. 1792, 4to); *Morus, Explicatio Act. App. (ed. Dindorf, Lips. 1794, 2 vols. 8vo); Clarisse, Gedenwaarigkeiten (Leyd. 1797, 4to);
*Thiers, Uebers. m. Anmerk. (Gera, 1800, 8vo); Stack, Lectures (London, 1805, 8vo); Venturini, Zusammenh. m. d. Weltgesch. in vol. 1 of his Urchristenth. (Copenh. 1807, 8vo); Brewster, Lectures (Lond. 1807, 2 vols. 8vo; 1830, 1 vol. 8vo); *Heinrich, Acta Apostol. perpet. Annott. illustrata (Gott. 1809, 2 vols. 8vo; also in the Nov. Test. Keppianum); Stabbock, Annotations, vol. 2: (Falm. 1809, 8vo); Elsley, Annotations, vol. 2; Valcknaer, Selecta (ed. Wessenberg, Amst. 1815, 8vo); *Kuinol, Comm. in Acta Apostol. (vol. 4 of his Comm. in Libros Hist. N.T., Lips. 1818, 8vo; vol. 3, Lond. 1835); Riehm, Defontibus Act. (Tr. ad Rh. 1821, 8vo); Thompson, Discourses (Lond. 1822, 8vo); Kistemaker, Gesch. d. Apos. tel (Miinst. 1822, 8vo); *Hildebrand, Gesch. d. ap. — exeg. Hermeneut. (Lpz. 1824, 8vo); Blomfield, Lectures (Lond. 825, 8vo); De Meyer, De Lucae (Tr. ad R. 1827, 4to); Menken, Blicke (Brem. 1828, 8vo); *Stier, Reden d. Apostel (Lpz. 1829, 2 vols. 8vo); Wilson, Questions (Camb. 1830, 12mo) Anon., Annotations (Camb. 1831, 12mo); Wirth, Apostelgesch. (Ulm, 1831, 8vo); *Neander, Planting of the Church [German, Berl. 1832, Hamb. 1847, 8vo] (Edinb. 1842, Lond. 1851,2 vols. 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N. Y. 1834, 12mo); Povach, Sermons (Lond. 1836, 8vo); Sumner, Exposition (Lond. 1838, 8vo); Robinson, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1839, 8vo); Schneckenberger, Zweck d. Apostelgesch. (Berne, 1841, 8vo); Jones, Lectures (Lond. 1842, 2 vols. 12mo); Cary, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1842, 18mo); Livermore, Acts of Ap. (Bost. 1844, 12mo); Hodgson, Lectures (Lond. 1845, 8vo); Morison, Commentary (Lond. 1845, 18mo); Bennett, Lectures (Lond. 1846, 8vo); Maskew, Annotations (Lond. 1847, 12mo); Trollope, Commentary (Camb. 1847, 12mo); *Humphrey, Commentary (Lond. 1847, 8vo); Dick, Lectures (Glasgow, 1848, 8vo); Pierce, Notes (N. Y. 1848, 12mo); *Bornemann, Acta Apostolorum (Grossenh. 1849, 8vo); Mrs. Henderson, Lessons (Lond. 1849, 8vo); Etheridge, Tr. from the Syr. (Lond. 1849, 8vo); Beelen, Commentarius (Lovan. 1850, 2 vols. 4to);
*Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul (Lond. 1850, 1856; N. Y. 1855, 2 vols. 8vo); Cook, Acts (Lond. 1850,12mo); *Hackett, Commentary (Boston, 1852, 1858, 8vo); *Baumgarten, Apostelgeschichte (Braunschw. 1852, 2 vols. 8vo; tr. in Clarke's Library, Edinb. 1854, 3 vols. 8vo); *Schaff, Gesch. d. Ap. Kirche (Lpz. 1854, 8vo; in English, Edinbl 1854, 2 vols. 8vo); *Zeller, Ursprung d. Apostelgesch. (Stuttg. 1854, 8vo); *Lekebusch, Entstehung d. Apostelgesch. (Gotha, 1854, 8vo); Ford, Acts of Ap. (Lond. 1856, 8vo); Cumming, Readings (Lond. 1856, 12mo); *Alexander, Acts explained (N. Y. 1857, 2 vols. 8vo); Bouchier, Exposition (Lond. 1858, 12mo); Macbride, Lectures (Lond. 1858, 8vo); McGarvey, Commentary (Cincin. 1864, 12mo); Gloag, Commentary (Edinb. 1810, 2 vols. 8vo). SEE NEW TESTAMENT.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores