Acts of the Apostles.
The Acts of the Apostles is one of many books bearing this name which appeared during the early centuries of the church. Concerning the origin of our canonical Acts, Dr. Hitchcock says: “It was written by Luke, in considerable part from his own observations of the facts narrated, and about A.D. 63, and at Rome, during Paul’s stay there.”
The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus; the book of Acts is addressed to the same person, and as the author states that he has addressed a former work to him, it is inferred that both works were written by the same person. It has been shown that Theophilus lived in the latter part of the second century, and that the Gospel of Luke was written at this time. If Luke and Acts, then, were written by the same person, and Acts was written after Luke, it also must have been written late in the second century, and consequently could not have been written by Luke, the companion of Paul.
It is asserted that Luke was the associate of Paul, and that he was in Rome with Paul when his book was written. This implies Paul’s sanction of the book. But if the Epistles of Paul are genuine, and it is generally agreed that those bearing upon this question are, this can not be true; for the Paul of these epistles and the Paul of Acts are two entirely different characters.
The book is entitled the Acts of the Apostles; and yet the acts of Peter and Paul are almost the only apostolic acts recorded. Besides the narrative of the author, the book consists largely of discourses attributed to Peter and Paul. But the style of the “unlearned and ignorant” (iv, 13) Peter is so similar to that of Paul with his “much learning” (xxvi, 24), and both so closely resemble the style of the author, that one not strongly imbued with faith must conclude that the whole is the product of one mind.
The author cites a speech made by Gamaliel before the Jewish council, in which he uses the following language: “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, almost four hundred, joined themselves, who were slain,” etc. (v, 36).
Josephus, who gives an account of this event (Antiq. Bk. xx, ch. v, sec. 1), says that it happened “while Fadus was Procurator of Judea.” This was 45 or 46 A.D. Gamaliel’s speech was delivered, according to the accepted chronology, 29 A.D. Thus the author of Acts makes Gamaliel refer to an event as long past which in reality did not happen until sixteen years after that time.
Continuing his speech, Gamaliel refers to another event, as follows: “After this man [Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished” (37).
Here the author makes Gamaliel state that the sedition of Judas of Galilee occurred after that of Theudas, when in fact it occurred in 6 A.D.—forty years before. Such grave discrepancies could have been made only by one writing long after the date claimed.
Holtzmann, a German critic, has shown that the author of Acts borrowed from the Antiquities of Josephus. The Antiquities appeared 93 A.D.—just thirty years after the date assigned to Acts.
This book will not be given up by orthodox Christians without a struggle. The authenticity of primitive Christianity depends largely upon the authenticity of this book. Renan who was a Rationalist, and, at the same time something of an apologist for Christianity, affirms that the last pages of Acts, which are devoted almost entirely to Paul’s missionary labors constitute the only historical record of the early church. At the same time, he admits that it is the most faulty book in the New Testament. The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas concedes the same. He says:
“Of the earliest fortunes of the community of Jesus, the primitive history of the Christian church and the whole of the apostolic age, we should know as good as nothing if we had not the book of Acts. If only we could trust the writer fully! But we soon see that the utmost caution is necessary. For we have another account of some of the things about which this writer tells us—an account written by the very man to whom they refer, the best possible authority, therefore, as to what really took place. This man is Paul himself. In the first two chapters of the epistle to the Galatians he gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design, an attempt—conceived no doubt with the best intentions—to hide in some degree the actual course of events” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 25).
The dissensions which arose in the first century between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians had only increased with time, and these were among the chief obstacles in the way of uniting Christians and establishing the Catholic church. The composition of Acts was one of the many attempts made toward the close of the second century to heal these dissensions. The author was a man who cared little for either Petrine or Pauline Christianity—little for the so-called truths of Christianity in any form—but a man who cared much for church unity and church power.
The book of Acts was little known at first. St. Chrysostom, writing in the fifth century, says: “This book is not so much as known to many. They know neither the book nor by whom it was written.”