CHAPTER II. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP
If we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is from no doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we have now arrived, but from the belief that closer examination of the contents of the Acts may enable us to test this result, and more fully to understand the nature of the work and the character of its evidence. Not only will it be instructive to consider a little closely the contents of the Acts, and to endeavour from the details of the narrative itself to form a judgment regarding its historical value, but we have in addition external testimony of very material importance which we may bring to bear upon it. We happily possess some undoubted Epistles which afford us no little information concerning the history, character, and teaching of the Apostle Paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements in the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value. It is unnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the unknown author of the Acts are at variance with these Epistles, we must prefer the statements of the Apostle. The importance to our inquiry of such further examination as we now propose to undertake consists chiefly in the light which it may throw on the credibility of the work. If it be found that such
portions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy, it will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document for miracles, which are antecedently incredible, cannot even be entertained. It may be well also to discuss more fully the authorship of the Acts, and to this we shall first address ourselves.
It must, however, be borne in mind that it is quite foreign to our purpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary problem presented by the Acts of the Apostles. We shall confine ourselves to such points as seem sufficient or best fitted to test the character of the composition, and we shall not hesitate to pass without attention questions of mere literary interest, and strictly limit our examination to such prominent features as present themselves for our purpose.
It is generally admitted, although not altogether without exception,(1) that the author of our third synoptic Gospel likewise composed the Acts of the Apostles. The linguistic and other peculiarities which distinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in the Acts. This fact, whilst apparently offering greatly increased facilities for identifying the author, and actually affording valuable material for estimating his work, does not, as we have already remarked, really do much towards solving the problem of the authorship, inasmuch as the Gospel, like its continuation, is anonymous, and we possess no more precise or direct evidence in connection with the one than in the case of the other. We have already so fully examined the testimony for the third Gospel that it is unnecessary for us to recur to it. From about the end of the second century we find the Gospel and Acts of the
Apostles ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to Luke, the companion of the Apostle Paul. The fallibility of tradition, and the singular phase of literary morality exhibited during the early ages of Christianity, render such testimony of little or no value, and in the almost total absence of the critical faculty a rank crop of pseudonymic writings sprang up and flourished during that period.(1) Some of the earlier chapters of this work have given abundant illustrations of this fact. It is absolutely certain, with regard to the works we are considering, that Irenæus is the earliest writer known who ascribes them to Luke, and that even tradition, therefore, cannot be traced beyond the last quarter of the second century. The question is—does internal evidence confirm or contradict this tradition?
Luke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the Acts of the Apostles.(2) In the Epistle to Philemon his name occurs, with those of others, who send greeting, verse 23, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-labourers." In the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, mention is also made of him:—"Luke, the beloved physician,(3) salutes you, and Demas." And again, in the 2 Epistle to Timothy, iv. 10:—"For
Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into Thessalouica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia: 11. Only Luke is with me."
He is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament;(1) and his name is not again met with till Irenæus ascribes to him the authorship of the Gospel and Acts. There is nothing in these Pauline Epistles confirming the statement of the Fathers, but it is highly probable that these references to him largely contributed to suggest his name as the author of the Acts, the very omission of his name from the work itself protecting him from objections connected with the passages in the first person to which other followers of Paul were exposed, upon the traditional view of the composition. Irenæus evidently knew nothing about him, except what he learnt from these Epistles, and derives from his theory that Luke wrote the Acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the passages where the first person is used. From these he argues that Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in the Gospel, and he refers, in proof of this, to Acts xvi. 8 ff.,(2) 13 ff., xx. 5 ff., and the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes Luke to have carefully written down. He then continues: "But that he was not only a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the Apostles, but particularly of Paul, Paul himself has also clearly shown in the Epistles, saying:..." and he quotes 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11, ending: "Only Luke is with me," and then adds, "whence he shows that he was
always with him and inseparable from him, &c, Ac."(1) The reasoning of the zealous Father deduces a great deal from very little, it will be observed, and in this elastic way tradition "enlarged its borders" and assumed unsubstantial dimensions. Later writers have no more intimate knowledge of Luke, although Eusebius states that he was born at Antioch,(2) a tradition likewise reproduced by Jerome.(3) Jerome further identifies Luke with "the brother, whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches" mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as accompanying Titus to Corinth.(4) At a later period, when the Church required an early artist for its service, Luke the physician was honoured with the additional title of painter.(5) Epiphanius,(6) followed later by some other
writers, represented him to have been one of the seventy-two disciples, whose mission he alone of all New Testament writers mentions. The view of the Fathers, arising out of the application of their tradition to the features presented by the Gospel and Acts, was that Luke composed his Gospel, of the events of which he was not an eye-witness, from information derived from others, and his Acts of the Apostles from what he himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed, had witnessed.1 It is generally supposed that Luke was not born a Jew, but was a Gentile Christian.
Some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that the Gospel and Acts were written by Luke "the beloved physician," by the supposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms,(2) but very little weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is repudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us.
As there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of the author's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of the ascription of
these writings to "Luke"? To this question Ewald shall reply: "In fact," he says, "we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully sufficient. It lies in the designation of the third Gospel as that 'according to Luke' which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels. For the quotations of this particular Gospel under the distinct name of Luke, in the extant writings of the Fathers, begin so late that they cannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those known to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription. We thus depend almost alone on this superscription."(1) Ewald generally does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully sufficient," but it is doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence will agree with him. He himself goes on to admit, with all other critics, that the superscriptions to our Gospels do not proceed from the authors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or by later readers to distinguish them.(2) There was no author's name attached to Marcion's Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian.(3) Chrysostom
very distinctly asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their names at the head of their works,(4) and he recognizes that, but for the authority of the primitive Church which added those names, the superscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He conjectures that the sole superscription which may
have been placed by the author of the first Synoptic was simply [———].(1) It might be argued, and indeed has been, that the inscription [———], "according to Luke," instead of [———] "Gospel of Luke," does not actually indicate that "Luke" wrote the work any more than the superscription to the Gospels "according to the Hebrews" [———] "according to the Egyptians" [———] has reference to authorship. The Epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected with their writers, in the genitive, [———], and so on. This point, however, we merely mention en passant. By his own admission, therefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form, but instead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the most ancient extant MSS., as for instance the Sinaitic and Vatican Codices of the Gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of their age, date earlier than the fourth century.(2) As for the Acts of the Apostles, the book is not ascribed to Luke in a single uncial MS., and it only begins to appear in various forms in later codices. The variation in the titles of the Gospels and Acts in different MSS. alone shows the uncertainty of the superscription. It is clear that the "one ground," upon which Ewald admits that the evidence for Luke's authorship is based, is nothing but sand, and cannot support his tower. He is on the slightest consideration thrown back upon the quotations of the Fathers, which begin too late for the
purpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the third Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late and unsupported tradition.
Let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages in the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the designation "the beloved physician" in the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, does not distinguish a different Luke from the person of that name in the Epistles to Philemon and Timothy. If this were the case, our information would be further reduced; but supposing that the same Luke is referred to, what does our information amount to? Absolutely nothing but the fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer of these letters,(1) whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome, and that he was known to the church of Colossæ. There is no evidence whatever that this Luke had been a travelling companion of Paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a Gospel. He is not mentioned in Epistles written during this journey and, indeed, the rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much rather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the proclamation of the Gospel. If Luke be [———] and be numbered amongst the Apostle's [———], Tychicus is equally "the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord."(2) Onesimus the "faithful and beloved brother,"(3)
1 We cannot discuss the authenticity of these Epistles in
this place, nor is it very important that we should do so.
Nor can we pause to consider whether they were written in
Rome, as a majority of critics think, or elsewhere.
and Aristarchus, Mark the cousin of Barnabas, Justus and others are likewise his [———].(1) There is no evidence, in fact, that Paul was acquainted with Luke earlier than during his imprisonment in Rome, and he seems markedly excluded from the Apostle's work and company by such passages as 2 Cor. i. 19.(2) The simple theory that Luke wrote the Acts supplies all the rest of the tradition of the Fathers, as we have seen in the case of Irenæus, and to this mere tradition we are confined in the total absence of more ancient testimony.
The traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed, and has been widely held up to our own day,(3) represents Luke as the author of the Acts, and, in
the passages where the first person is employed, considers that he indicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. These passages, where [———] is introduced, present a curious problem which has largely occupied the attention of critics, and it has been the point most firmly disputed in the long controversy regarding, the authorship of the Acts. Into this literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a very short way; for, however interesting the question may be in itself, we are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible which can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to it sufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the authorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references for those who care more minutely to pursue the subject.
After the narrative of the Acts has, through fifteen chapters, proceeded uninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change to the first person plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter.(1) Paul, and at least Timothy, are represented as going through Phrygia and Galatia, and at length "they came down to Troas," where a vision appears to Paul beseeching him to come over into Macedonia. Then, xvi. 10, proceeds: "And after he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured [———] to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us [———] to preach the Gospel unto them." After verse 17, the direct form of narrative is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not reappear until xx. 5, when, without explanation, it is resumed and continued for ten verses. It is then again abandoned, and recommenced in xxi. 1-18, and xxvii. 1, xxviii. 16.
1 It is unnecessary to discuss whether xiv. 22 belongs to
the [———] sections or not.
It is argued by those who adopt the traditional view,(1) that it would be an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a writer as the author of the third Synoptic and Acts, to have composed these sections from documents lying before him, written by others, leaving them in the form of a narrative in the first person, whilst the rest of his work was written in the third, and that, without doubt, he would have assimilated such portions to the form of the rest. On the other hand, that he himself makes distinct use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1, and consequently prepares the reader to expect that, where it is desirable, he will resume the direct mode of communication; and in support of this supposition, it is asserted that the very same peculiarities of style and language exist in the [———] passages as in the rest of the work. The adoption of the direct form of narrative in short merely indicates that the author himself was present and an eye-witness of what he relates,(3) and that writing as he did for the information of Theophilus, who was well aware of his personal participation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for him to give any explanation of his occasional use of the first person.
Is the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in these particular sections of his work, without a word of explanation, more intelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory of their being by the author himself as an eye-witness? On the contrary, it is maintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes much more
2 Some writers also consider as one of the reasons why
Luke, the supposed author, uses the first person, that where
he begins to do so he himself becomes associated with Paul
in his work, and first begins to preach the Gospel.
Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 137; Baumgarfen, Die
Apostelgeschichte, i. p. 496.
inexplicable. On examining the [———] sections it will be observed that they consist almost entirely of an itinerary of journeys, and that while the chronology of the rest of the Acts is notably uncertain and indefinite, these passages enter into the minutest details of daily movements (xvi. 11, 12; xx. 6, 7,11,15; xxi. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,18; xxvii. 2; xxviii. 7, 12, 14); of the route pursued, and places through which often they merely pass (xvi. 11,12; xx. 5, 6,13,15; xxi. 1-3, 7; xxvii. 2 ff.; xxviii. 11-15), and record the most trifling circumstances (xvi. 12; xx. 13; xxi. 2, 3, 15; xxviii. 2, 11). The distinguishing feature of these sections in fact is generally asserted to be the stamp which they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal knowledge of the circumstances related.
Is it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of the Acts should intrude his own personality merely to record these minute details of voyages and journeys? That his appearance as an eye-witness should be almost wholly limited to the itinerary of Paul's journeys and to portions of his history which are of very subordinate interest? The voyage and shipwreck are thus narrated with singular minuteness of detail, but if any one who reads it only consider the matter for a moment, it will become apparent that this elaboration of the narrative is altogether disproportionate to the importance of the voyage in the history of the early Church. The traditional view indeed is fatal to the claims of the Acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it contains, for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively unimportant and commonplace. The writer's intimate acquaintance with the history of Paul, and his claim to participation in his work, begin and end with his actual
journeys. With very few exceptions, as soon as the Apostle stops anywhere, he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and relapses into vagueness and the third person. At the very time when minuteness of detail would have been most interesting, he ceases to be minute. A very long and important period of Paul's life is covered by the narrative between xvi. 10, where the[———] sections begin, and xxviii. 16, where they end; but, although the author goes with such extraordinary detail into the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and unsatisfactory is the account of the rest of Paul's career during that time!(l) How eventful that career must have been we learn from 2 Cor. xi. 23-26. In any case, the author who could be so minute in his record of an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be minute in his account of more important matters in his history. In the few verses, ix. 1-30, chiefly occupied by an account of Paul's conversion, is comprised all that the author has to tell of three years of the Apostle's life, and into xi. 19—xiv. are compressed the events of fourteen years of his history (cf. Gal. ii. l).(2) If the author of those portions be the same writer who is so minute in his daily itinerary in the [———] sections, his sins of omission and commission are of a very startling character. To say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an elaborate trifler.
Does the use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1 in any way justify or prepare(3) the way for the
sudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth chapter? Certainly not. The [———] in these passages is used solely in the personal address to Theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation contained in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at once dropped when the history begins. If the prologue of the Gospel be applied to the Acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is at once implied, which would rather justify the supposition that these passages are part of some diary, from which the general editor made extracts.(1) Besides, there is no explanation in the Acts which in the slightest degree connects the [———] with the [———].(2) To argue that explanation was unnecessary, as Theophilus and early readers were well acquainted with the fact that the author was a fellow-traveller with the Apostle, and therefore at once understood the meaning of "We,"(3) would destroy the utility of the direct form of communication altogether; for if Theophilus knew this, there was obviously no need to introduce the first person at all, in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to chronicle minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little interest. Moreover, writing for Theophilus, we might reasonably expect that he should have stated where and when he became associated with Paul, and explained the reasons why he again left and rejoined him.(4) Ewald suggests that possibly the author intended to have indicated his name more distinctly at the end of his work;(5) but this merely shows that, argue as he will,
he feels the necessity for such an explanation. The conjecture is negatived, however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. As in the case of the fourth Gospel, of course the "incomparable modesty" theory is suggested as the reason why the author does not mention his own name, and explain the adoption of the first person in the [———] passages;(1) but to base theories such as this upon the modesty or elevated views of a perfectly unknown writer is obviously too arbitrary a proceeding to be permissible.(2) There is, besides, exceedingly little modesty in a writer forcing himself so unnecessarily into notice, for he does not represent himself as taking any active part in the events narrated; and, as the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving, he might well have remained impersonal to the end.
On the other hand, supposing the general editor of the Acts to have made use of written sources of information, and amongst others of the diary of a companion of the Apostle Paul, it is not so strange that, for one reason or another, he should have allowed the original direct form of communication to stand whilst incorporating parts of it with his work. Instances have been pointed out in which a similar retention of the first or third person, in a narrative generally written otherwise, is accepted as the indication of a different written source, as for instance in Ezra vii. 27—ix; Nehemiah viii.—x.; in the Book of Tobit i. 1-3, iii. 7 ff., and other places;s and Schwanbeck has
pointed out many instances of a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of the middle ages.(1) There are various ways in which the retention of the first person in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from some other written source, might be explained. The simple supposition that the author, either through carelessness or oversight, allowed the [———] to stand(2) is not excluded, and indeed some critics, although we think without reason, maintain both the third Gospel and the Acts to be composed of materials derived from various sources and put together with little care or adjustment.(3) The author might also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to assume the character of eyewitness, and of companion of the Apostle.(4) As we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to discredit such an explanation.
We shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from which critics maintain that the author compiled his
work. It is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite traces of many documents, few if any writers deny that the writer made more or less use of earlier materials. It is quite true that the characteristics of the general author's style are found throughout the whole work.1 The Acts are no mere aggregate of scraps collected and rudely joined together, but the work of one author in the sense that whatever materials he may have used for its composition were carefully assimilated, and subjected to thorough and systematic revision to adapt them to his purpose.(2) But however completely this process was carried out, and his materials interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style and language, he did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of independent written sources. Some writers maintain that there is a very apparent difference between the first twelve
chapters and the remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much more Hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion,(1) although this is not received without demur.(2) As regards the [———] sections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have in any case been much manipulated by the general editor, and largely contain his general characteristics of language, it is at the same time affirmed that they present distinct foreign peculiarities, which betray a borrowed document.(3) Even critics who maintain the [———] sections to be by the same writer who composed the rest of the book point out the peculiarly natural character and minute knowledge displayed in these passages, as distinguishing them from the rest of the Acts.(4) This of course they attribute to the fact that the author there relates his personal experiences; but even with this explanation it is apparent that all who maintain the traditional view do recognize peculiarities in these sections, by which they justify the ascription of them to an eye-witness. For the reasons which have been very briefly indicated, therefore, and upon other
strong grounds, some of which will be presently stated, a very large mass of the ablest critics have concluded that the [———] sections were not composed by the author of the rest of the Acts, but that they are part of the diary of some companion of the Apostle Paul, of which the Author of Acts made use for his work,(1) and that the general writer of the work, and consequently of the third Synoptic, was not Luke at all.(2)
A careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, we think, leave any doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or intimate friend of the Apostle Paul.(1) In here briefly indicating some of the reasons for this statement, we shall be under the necessity of anticipating, without much explanation or argument, points which will be more fully discussed farther on, and which now, stated without preparation, may not be sufficiently clear to some readers. They may hereafter seem more conclusive. It is unreasonable to suppose that a friend or companion could have written so unhistorical and defective a history of the Apostle's life and teaching. The Pauline Epistles are nowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative and representations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle, they are strikingly contradictory.(2)
His teaching in the one scarcely presents a trace of the strong and clearly defined doctrines of the other, and the character and conduct of the Paul of Acts are altogether different from those of Paul of the Epistles. According to Paul himself (Gal. i. 16—18), after his conversion, he communicated not with flesh and blood, neither went up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but immediately went away into Arabia, and returned to Damascus, and only after three years he went up to Jerusalem to visit Kephas, and abode with him fifteen days, during which visit none other of the Apostles did he see "save James, the brother of the Lord." If assurance of the correctness of these details were required, Paul gives it by adding (v. 20): "Now the things which I am writing to you, behold before God I lie not." According to Acts (ix. 19—30), however, the facts are quite different. Paul immediately begins to preach in Damascus, does not visit Arabia at all, but, on the contrary, goes to Jerusalem, where, under the protection of Barnabas (v. 26, 27), he is introduced to the Apostles, and "was with them going in and out." According to Paul (Gal. i. 22), his face was after that unknown unto the churches of Judaea, whereas, according to Acts, not only was he "going in and out" at Jerusalem with the Apostles, but (ix. 29) preached boldly in the name of the Lord, and (Acts xxvi. 20) "in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judaea," he urged to repentance. According to Paul (Gal. ii. 1 ff.), after fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus,
"according to a revelation," and "privately" communicated his Gospel "to those who seemed to be something," as, with some irony, he calls the Apostles. In words still breathing irritation and determined independence, Paul relates to the Galatians the particulars of that visit—how great pressure had been exerted to compel Titus, though a Greek, to be circumcised, "that they might bring us into bondage," to whom, "not even for an hour did we yield the required subjection." He protests, with proud independence, that the Gospel which he preaches was not received from man (Gal. i. 11, 12), but revealed to him by God (verses 15, 16); and during this visit (ii. 6, 7) "from those seeming to be something [———], whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me—God accepteth not man's person—for to me those who seemed [———] communicated nothing additional." According to Acts, after his conversion, Paul is taught by a man named Ananias what he must do (ix. 6, xxii. 10); he makes visits to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25, &c), which are excluded by Paul's own explicit statements; and a widely different report is given (xv. 1 ff.) of the second visit. Paul does not go, "according to a revelation," but is deputed by the Church of Antioch, with Barnabas, in consequence of disputes regarding the circumcision of Gentiles, to lay the case before the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. It is almost impossible in the account here given of proceedings characterised throughout by perfect harmony, forbearance, and unanimity of views, to recognize the visit described by Paul. Instead of being private, the scene is a general council of the Church. The fiery independence of Paul is transformed into meekness and submission. There is not a word of the
endeavour to compel him to have Titus circumcised—all is peace and undisturbed good-will. Peter pleads the cause of Paul, and is more Pauline in his sentiments than Paul himself, and, in the very presence of Paul, claims to have been selected by God to be Apostle of the Gentiles (xv. 7—11). Not a syllable is said of the scene at Antioch shortly after (Gal. ii. 11 ff.), so singularly at variance with the proceedings of the council, when Paul withstood Cephas to the face. Then, who would recognize the Paul of the Epistles in the Paul of Acts, who makes such repeated journeys to Jerusalem to attend Jewish feasts (xviii. 21,1 xix. 21, xx. 16, xxiv. 11, 17, 18); who, in his journeys, halts on the days when a Jew may not travel (xx. 5, 6); who shaves his head at Cenchrea because of a vow (xviii. 18); who, at the recommendation of the Apostles, performs that astonishing act of Nazariteship in the Temple (xxi. 23), and afterwards follows it up by a defence of such "excellent dissembling" [———]; who circumcises Timothy, the son of a Greek and of a Jewess, with his own hands (xvi. 1—3, cf. Gal. v. 2); and who is so little the apostle of the uncircumcision that he only tardily goes to the Gentiles when rejected by the Jews (cf. xviii. (J). Paul is not only robbed of the honour of being the first Apostle of the Gentiles, which is conferred upon Peter, but the writer seems to avoid even calling him an apostle at all,(2) the only occasions upon which he does so being indirect (xiv. 4, 14); and the title equally applied to Barnabas, whose claim to it is more than doubted. The
passages in which this occurs, moreover, are not above suspicion, "the Apostles" being omitted in Cod. D. (Bezae) from xiv. 14. The former verse in that codex has important variations from other MSS.
If we cannot believe that the representation actually given of Paul in the Acts could proceed from a friend or companion of the Apostle, it is equally impossible that such a person could have written his history with so many extraordinary imperfections and omissions. We have already pointed out that between chs. ix.—xiv. are compressed the events of seventeen of the most active years of the Apostle's life, and also that a long period is comprised within the [———] sections, during which such minute details of the daily itinerary are given. The incidents reported, however, are quite disproportionate to those which are omitted. We have no record, for instance, of his visit to Arabia at so interesting a portion of his career (Gal. i. 17), although the particulars of his conversion are repeated with singular variations no less than three times (ix. xxii. xxvi.); nor of his preaching in Illyria (Rom. xv. 19); nor of the incident referred to in Rom. xvi. 3, 4. The momentous adventures in the cause of the Gospel spoken of in 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. receive scarcely any illustration in Acts, nor is any notice taken of his fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (1 Cor. xv. 32), which would have formed an episode full of serious interest. What, again, was "the affliction which happened in Asia," which so overburdened even so energetic a nature as that of the Apostle that "he despaired even of life?" (2 Cor. ii. 8 f.) Some light upon these points might reasonably have been expected from a companion of Paul. Then, xvii. 14—16, xviii. 5 contradict 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, in a way scarcely possible in such a
companion, present with the Apostle at Athens; and in like manner the representation in xxviii. 17-22 is inconsistent with such a person, ignoring as it does the fact that there already was a Christian Church in Rome (Ep. to Romans). We do not refer to the miraculous elements so thickly spread over the narrative of the Acts, and especially in the episode xvi. 25 ff., which is inserted in the first [———] section, as irreconcilable with the character of an eye-witness, because it is precisely the miraculous portion of the book which is on its trial; but we may ask whether it would have been possible for such a friend, acquainted with the Apostle's representations in 1 Cor. xiv. 2 ff., cf. xii.—xiv., and the phenomena there described, to speak of the gift of "tongues" at Pentecost as the power of speaking different languages (ii. 4—11, cf. x. 46, xix. 6)
It will readily be understood that we have here merely rapidly and by way of illustration referred to a few of the points which seem to preclude the admission that the general author of the Acts could be an eyewitness,(1) or companion of the Apostle Paul, and this will become more apparent as we proceed, and more closely examine the contents of the book. Who that author was, there are now no means of ascertaining. The majority of critics who have most profoundly examined the problem presented by the Acts, however, and who do not admit Luke to be the general author, are agreed that the author compiled the [———] sections from a diary kept by some companion of the Apostle Paul during the journeys and voyages to which they relate, but opinion is very divided as to the person
to whom that diary must be ascribed. It is of course recognized that the various theories regarding his identity are merely based upon conjecture, but they have long severely exercised critical ingenuity. A considerable party adopt the conclusion that the diary was probably written by Luke.(1) This theory has certainly the advantage of whatever support may be derived from tradition; and it has been conjectured, not without probability, that this diary, being either written by, or originally attributed to, Luke, may possibly have been the source from which, in course of time, the whole of the Acts, and consequently the Gospel, came to be ascribed to Luke.(2) The selection of a comparatively less known name than that of Timothy, Titus or Silas,(3) for instance, may thus be explained; but, besides, it has the great advantage that, the name of Luke never being mentioned in the Acts, he is not exposed to criticism, which has found serious objections to the claims of other better known followers of Paul.
There are, however, many critics who find difficulties in the way of accepting Luke as the author of the "we" sections, and who adopt the theory that they were pro-
probably composed by Timothy.(1) It is argued that, if Luke had been the writer of this diary, he must have been in very close relations to Paul, having been his companion during the Apostle's second mission journey, as well as during the later European journey, and finally during the eventful journey of Paul as a prisoner from Caesarea to Rome. Under these circumstances, it is natural to expect that Paul should mention him in his earlier epistles, written before the Roman imprisonment, but this he nowhere does. For instance, no mention whatever is made of Luke in either of the letters to the Corinthians nor in those to the Thessalonians; but on the other hand, Timothy's name, together with that of Silvanus (or Silas), is joined to Paul's in the two letters to the Thessalonians, besides being mentioned in the body of the first Epistle (iii. 2, 6); and he is repeatedly and affectionately spoken of in the earlier letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10), and his name is likewise combined with the Apostle's in the second Epistle (2 Cor. i. 1), as well as mentioned in the body of the letter, along with that of Silvanus, as a fellow-preacher with Paul. In the Epistle to the Philippians, later, the name of Luke does not appear, although, had he been the companion of the Apostle from Troas, he must have been known to the Philippians, but on the other hand, Timothy is again associated in the opening greeting of that Epistle. Timothy is known to have
been a fellow-worker with the Apostle, and to have accompanied him in his missionary journeys, and he is repeatedly mentioned in the Acts as the companion of Paul, and the first occasion is precisely where the [———] sections commence.(1) In connection with Acts xv. 40, xvi. 3,10, it is considered that Luke is quite excluded from the possibility of being the companion who wrote the diary we are discussing, by the Apostle's own words in 2 Cor. i. 19:(2) "For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy," &c, &c. The eye-witness who wrote the journal from which the [———] sections are taken must have been with the Apostle in Corinth, and, it is of course always asserted, must have been one of his [———], and preached the Gospel.(3) Is it possible, on the supposition that this fellow-labourer was Luke, that the Apostle could in so marked a manner have excluded his name by clearly defining that "us" only meant himself and Silvanus and Timothy? Mayerhoff(4) has gone even further than the critics we have referred to, and maintains Timothy to be the author of the third Synoptic and of Acts.
We may briefly add that some writers have conjectured Silas to be the author of the [———] sections,(5) and others
have referred them to Titus.(1) It is evident that whether the [———] sections be by the unknown author of the rest of the Acts, or be part of a diary by some unknown companion of Paul, introduced into the work by the general editor, they do not solve the problem as to the identity of the author, who remains absolutely unknown. We have said enough to enable the reader to understand the nature of the problem regarding the author of the third Synoptic and of the Acts of the Apostles, and whilst for our purpose much less would have sufficed, it is evident that the materials do not exist for identifying him. The stupendous miracles related in these two works, therefore, rest upon the evidence of an unknown writer, who from internal evidence must have composed them very long after the events recorded. Externally, there is no proof even of the existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second century, when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as to the name and identity of the supposed author, a theory which declares Luke not to have himself been an eye-witness of the occurrences related in the Gospel, and which reduces his participation even in the events narrated in the Acts to a very small and modest compass, leaving the great mass of the miracles described in the work without even his personal attestation. The theory, however, we have seen to be not only unsupported by evidence, but to be contradicted by many potent circumstances. We propose now, without exhaustively examining the contents of the Acts, which would itself require a separate treatise, at least to
consider some of its main points sufficiently to form a fair judgment of the historical value of the work, although the facts which we have already ascertained are clearly fatal to the document as adequate testimony for miracles, and the reality of Divine Revelation.
