The State of the Text.— The Acts is found in two MSS. generally assigned to the 4th century, the Codex Sinai-ticus, in St Petersburg, and the Codex Vaticanus, in Rome; in one MS. assigned to the 5th century, the Codex Alexandrinus, in the British Museum; in two MSS. belonging to the 6th century, the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge, and the Codex Laudianus, in Oxford; and in one of the 9th century, the Codex Palimpsestus Porfirianus, in St Petersburg, with the exception of chapter first and eight verses of chapter second. Large fragments are contained in a MS. of the 5th century, the Codex Ephroemi, in Paris. Fragments are contained in five other MSS., none of which is later than the 9th century. These are all the uncial MSS. containing the Acts or portions of it....
The MSS. in Oxford and Cambridge differ widely from the others. This is especially the case with the Cambridge MS., the Codex Bezae, which is said to contain no less than six hundred interpolations. Scrivener, who has edited this MS. with great care, says, “While the general course of the history and the spirit of the work remain the same as in our commonly received text, we perpetually encounter long passages in Codex Bezae which resemble that text only as a loose and explanatory paraphrase recalls the original form from which it sprung; save that there is no difference in the language in this instance, it is hardly an exaggeration of the facts to assert that Codex D [i.e., Codex Bezae] reproduces the textus receptus of the Acts much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament, so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations.” Scrivener here assumes that the additions of the Codex Bezae are interpolations, and this is the opinion of nearly all critics. There is one, however, Bornemann, who thinks that the Codex Bezae contains the original text, and that the others are mutilated. But even supposing that we were quite sure that the additions were interpolations, the Codex Bezae makes it more difficult to determine what the real text was. Scrivener, with good reason, supposes that the Codex Bezae is derived from an original which would most likely belong to the third century at the latest.
Authorship of the Work.— In treating this subject we begin with the external evidence.
The first mention of the authorship of the Acts in a well-authenticated book occurs in the treatise of Irenaeus against heresies, written between the years 182 and 188 a.d. Irenaeus names St Luke as the author, as if the fact were well known and undoubted. He attributes the third Gospel to him, and calls him “a follower and disciple of apostles ” (H. iii. 10, 1). He states that “he was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in the gospel” (H. iii. 14, 1 ). The next mention occurs in the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus, written about 195 a.d., where part of St Paul's speech to the Athenians is quoted with the words, “Even as Luke also, in the Acts of the Apostles, records Paul as saying” (Strom. v. xii. 82, p. 696, Pott). The Acts of the Apostles is quoted by Tertullian as Scripture, and assigned to St Luke (Adv. Mar. v. 2 and 3). Origen speaks of “Luke who wrote the Gospel and the Acts" Eus. H. E. vi. 25); and Eusebius includes the Acts of the Apostles in his summary of the books of the New Testament (Hist. Eccl. iii. 25). The Muratorian canon, generally assigned to the end of the second or beginning of the third century, includes the Acts of the Apostles, assigns it to St Luke, and says that he was an eye-witness of the facts recorded. There is thus unanimous testimony up to the time of Eusebius that St Luke was the author of the Acts. This unanimity is not disturbed by the circumstance that some heretics rejected the work, for they did not deny the authorship of the book, but refused to acknowledge it as a source of dogmatic truth.
After the time of Eusebius we find statements to the effect that the Acts was little known. “The existence of this book,” Chrysostom says, “is not known to many, nor the person who wrote and composed it.” And Photius, in the ninth century, says, “Some maintain that it was Clement of Rome that was the writer of the Acts, others that it was Barnabas, and others that it was Luke the Evangelist.”
Irenaeus makes such copious quotations from the Acts that we can feel sure that he had before him substantially our Acts. We cannot go further back than Irenaeus with certainty. If, as we shall see, the writer of the Acts was also the writer of the third Gospel, we have Justin Martyr’s testimony (about 150 a.d.) for the existence of the third Gospel in his day, and therefore a likelihood that the Acts existed also. But we have no satisfactory evidence that Justin used the Acts, and there is nothing in the Apostolic Fathers, nor in any work anterior to the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, written probably soon after 177 a.d., to prove the existence of the Acts.
The weight of external evidence therefore goes entirely for St Luke as the author of the Acts. But it has to be noticed, that the earliest testimony is more than a hundred years later than the events described in the Acts. We have also to take into account that Irenaeus was not critical. We find him calling the Pastor of Hermas Scripture; Clemens Alexandrinus also calls the Pastor inspired; and Origen not merely attributes inspiration to the work, but makes the author of it the Hernias mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans. All scholars reject the testimony of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen in this matter. The question arises, How far are we to trust them in others of a similar nature?
We turn to the internal evidence. And in the very commencement we find the author giving himself out as the person who wrote the third Gospel. This claim has been almost universally acknowledged. There is a remarkable similarity of style in both. The same peculiar modes of expression continually occur in both; and throughout both there exist continual references backward and forward, which imply the same authorship. There are some difficulties in the way of this conclusion. Two of these deserve special notice. If we turn to the last chapter of the Gospel, we find it stated there (ver. 13) that two disciples met Jesus on the day of the resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus. Towards nightfall (ver. 29) he entered the village with them; and as he reclined with them, he became known to them, and disappeared. Whereupon “at that very hour” (ver. 33) they rose up and returned to Jerusalem. They found the eleven assembled, and told them what had happened to them. “While they were saying these things, he himself stood in the midst cf them” (ver. 36). The apostles gave him a piece of fish, and he ate it. “But he said to them” (ver. 44), so the narrative goes on, and it then relates his speech; and at ver. 50 it says, “He led them out to Bethany,” and then disappeared from them. This disappearance was final; and if the words used in the Gospel make us hesitate in determining it to be his ascension, such hesitation is removed by the opening words of the Acts. According to the Gospel, therefore, all the events now related took place, or seem to have taken place, on the day of the resurrection, or they may possibly have extended into the next morning, but certainly not later. The Acts, on the contrary, states that Jesus was seen by the disciples for forty days, and makes him deliver the speech addressed to his disciples and ascend into heaven forty days after the resurrection. The other instance is perhaps still more singular. In the Acts we have three accounts of the conversion of St Paul—the first by the writer himself, the other two by St Paul in his speeches. The writer states that (ix. 4, 7) when the light shone round Paul, he fell to the ground, “but the men who were journeying with him stood dumb/’’ St Paul himself says (xxvi. 14) that they all fell to the ground. The writer says (ix. 7) that St Paul’s companions heard the voice, but saw no one. St Paul himself says (xxii. 9) that his companions saw the light, but did not hear the voice of him who spake to him. And finally, all these accounts differ in their report of what was said on the occasion. Notwithstanding these differences, even these very accounts contain evidence in them that they were written by the same writer, and they do not destroy the force of the rest of the evidence. The case would be quite different if Baur, Schwegler, and Wittichen were right in supposing that the Gospel of Luke contained documents of opposite tendencies. It would then be necessary to assume different authors for the different parts of the Gospel, and still another for the Acts. But this theory falls to the ground if the Tübingen theory of tendencies is rejected.
The Acts itself claims to be written by a companion of St Paul. In chap. xvi. 10, the writer, without any previous warning, passes from the third person to the first. St Paul had reached the Troad. There he saw a vision inviting him to go to Macedonia. “But when he saw the vision, straightway we sought to go out into Macedonia.” The use of the “we” continues until Paul leaves Philippi. In chap. XX. Paul returns to Philippi, and the “we” is resumed, and is kept up till the end of the work. Irenaeus (H. iii. 14, 1) quotes these passages as proof that Luke, the author, was a companion of the apostle. The minute character of the narrative, the accurate description of the various journeyings, the unimportance of some of the details, and the impossibility of contriving all the incidents of the shipwreck without experiencing them, are strong reasons for believing that we have the narrative of an eye-witness. And if we allow this much, we can scarcely help coming to the conclusion that this eye-witness was the author of the work; for the style of this eye-witness is exactly the style of the writer who composed the previous portions. Some have supposed that we have here the personal narrative of Timothy or of Silas; but this supposition would compel us to believe that the writer of the Acts was so careless as to tack documents together without remembering to alter their form. Such a procedure on the part of the skilful writer of the Acts is unlikely in the highest degree. The “we” is introduced intentionally, and can be accounted for only in two ways: either by supposing that the writer was an eye-witness, or that he wished to be thought an eye-witness, and borrowed the narrative of an eye-witness to facilitate the deception. Zeller has adopted this latter alternative; and this latter alternative is the only possible one for those who assign a very late date to the Acts.
We may test the writer’s claim to be regarded as a companion of St Paul by comparing his statements with those of the other books of the New Testament. As might be expected, the great facts recorded in the Gospels are reproduced accurately in the Acts. There is only one marked difference. St Matthew says (xxvii. 5, 7) that Judas cast the traitor’s money into the temple, and the priests bought with it a field for the burial of strangers. St Peter in Acts (i. 18) says, that Judas himself purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity. St Matthew says that he went and hanged himself, St Peter that he fell headlong and burst in the middle. St Matthew says, or rather seems to say, that the field was called the field of blood, because it was purchased with blood-money; St Peter seems to attribute the name to the circumstance that Judas died in it.
The Acts is divided into two distinct parts. The first deals with the church in Jerusalem, and especially narrates the actions of St Peter. We have no external means of testing this portion of the narrative. The Acts is the only work from which information is got in regard to these events. The second part pursues the history of the apostle Paul; and here we can compare the statements made in the Acts with those made in the Epistles. Now here again we have a general harmony. St Paul travels in the regions where his Epistles show that he founded churches. The friends of St Paul mentioned in the Acts are also the friends acknowledged in the Epistles. And there are many minute coincidences. At the same time, we learn from this comparison that St Luke is not anxious to give minute details. Timothy probably visited Athens while St Paul was there. This we learn from 1 Thess. iii. 1, but no mention is made of' this visit in the Acts. Again, we gather from the Epistles to the Corinthians that St Paul paid a visit to Corinth, which is not recorded in the Acts. Moreover, no mention is made of Titus in the Acts. These, however, are slight matters; and it must be allowed that there is a general agreement. But attention has been drawn to two remarkable exceptions. These are the account given by St Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in the Epistle to the Galatians and that given by St Luke; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and as they appear in the Acts.
In regard to the first point, St Paul himself says in the Epistle to the Galatians, that after his conversion straightway he held no counsel with flesh and blood, nor did he go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who were before him; but he went away to Arabia and returned to Damascus; that then after three years he went up to Jerusalem to seek for Cephas, and he remained with him fourteen days. He at that time saw only two apostles,—Peter, and James the brother of the Lord. He then went away to Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face to the churches of Judea. He says that fourteen years after this he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with him. On this occasion he went up by revelation. St Paul introduces these facts for a purpose, and this purpose is that he might prove his independence as an apostle. He had acted solely on the revelation given to himself. He had neither required nor obtained sanction from the other apostles. He was an apostle, not sent forth from men nor through men, but through Jesus and God. When we turn to the Acts, we find that no mention is made of the journey to Arabia. He stays some days at Damascus, and then begins to preach the gospel. He continues at this work a considerable time; and then, in consequence of the plots of the Jews, he secretly withdraws from Damascus and proceeds to Jerusalem. The brethren there are suspicious in regard to him, and their fears are not quieted until Barnabas takes him to the apostles; and after this introduction he goes in and out amongst them, and holds discussions with the Hellenists. Finally, when the Hellenists attempt to kill him, the brethren send him to Tarsus. In the Epistle to the Galatians St Paul does everything for himself, instigated by his inward feelings. In the Acts he is forced out of Antioch, and sent by the brethren to Tarsus. In the Galatians St Paul stays only a fortnight, and sees only St Peter and St James of the apostles, and was unknown by face to the churches of Judea. In the Acts Barnabas takes him to the apostles, and he continues evidently for a period much longer than a fortnight, going in and out amongst them. Then in chap. xi. 30, he goes up a second time to Jerusalem,—a visit which seems inconsistent with the narrative in the Epistle to the Galatians. And finally, when he goes up to Jerusalem, the Acts does not represent him going up by an independent revelation, but as being sent up; and it says nothing of his taking an independent part, but represents him as submitting to the apostles.
This, however, leads us to the treatment of the character of St Paul by the writer of the Acts. Some of the Tübingen critics assert that the writer shows ill-will to St Paul, but they are evidently wrong. On the contrary, the character of the apostle as given in the Acts is full of grand and noble traits. Yet still there are some singular phenomena in the Acts. St Paul claimed to be an apostle by the will of God. He had as good a right to be an apostle as St Peter or St James. Yet the writer of the Acts never calls him an apostle in the strict sense of the term. He is twice called an apostle, namely, in Acts xiv. 4 and 14. On both occasions his fellow-apostle is Barnabas; but Barnabas was not one of the twelve, and not an apostle in the strict sense of the term. And even in these verses the reading is doubtful· The Codex Bezae omits the word apostle in the 14th verse, and makes the 4th liable to suspicion by inserting an addition to it. St Luke also brings prominently forward as the proper mark of an apostle, that he should have companied with the Lord from his baptism to his ascension, and describes the filling up of the number of the twelve by the election of Matthias. And if St Luke’s narrative of St Paul’s conversion be minutely examined, it will be perceived that not only does he not mention that St Paul saw Jesus, but the circumstances as related scarcely permitted St Paul to see Jesus. He was at once dazzled by the light, and fell to the ground. In this prostrate condition, with his eyes shut, he heard the voice; but at first he did not know whose it was. And when he opened his eyes, he found that he was blind. The words of Ananias imply that St Paul really did see Jesus, but St Luke abstains from any such statement. And St Paul is not treated by the Jewish Christians in the Acts as an independent apostle. He is evidently under submission to the apostles at Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the point on which St Paul specially insists in the Epistle to the Galatians is, that he was appointed the apostle to the Gentiles as St Peter was to the circumcision, and that circumcision and the observance of the Jewish law were of no importance to the Christian. St Paul’s words on this point in all his letters are strong and decided. But in the Acts it is St Peter that opens up the way for the Gentiles. In St Peter’s mouth occurs the strongest language in regard to the intolerable nature of the law. Not a word is said cf the quarrel between St Peter and St Paul. The brethren in Antioch send St Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem to ask the opinion of the apostles and elders. St Paul awaits the decision of the apostles, and St Paul and Barnabas carry back the decision to Antioch. And throughout the whole of the Acts St Paul never stands forth as the champion of the Gentiles. He seems continually anxious to reconcile the Jewish Christians to himself, by observing the law of Moses. He circumcises Timothy, and he performs his vows in the temple. And he is particularly careful in his speeches to show how deep his respect for the law of Moses is. In this regard the letters of St Paul are very different from his speeches as given in the Acts. In the Epistle to the Galatians he claims perfect freedom for himself and the Gentiles from the observance of the law; and neither in it nor in the Epistle to the Corinthians does he take any notice of the decision to which the...
