{27}
the unknown writer beyond that of merely testifying to the currency of such a tradition, and even the few words quoted show how uncritical he was. Nothing could be less appropriate to the work before us than the a.s.sertion that it contains the Acts of _all_ the Apostles, for it must be apparent to all, and we shall hereafter have to refer to the point, that it very singularly omits all record of the acts of most of the apostles, occupies itself chiefly with those of Peter and Paul, and devotes considerable attention to Stephen and to others who were not apostles at all. We shall further have occasion to show that the writer does anything but confine himself to the events of which he was an eye-witness, and we may merely remark, in pa.s.sing, as a matter. which scarcely concerns us here, that the instances given by the unknown writer of the fragment to support his a.s.sertion are not only irrelevant, but singularly devoid themselves of historical attestation.
Irenaeus(1) a.s.signs the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, as do Clement of Alexandria,(2) Tertullian,(3) and Origen,(4) although without any statements giving special weight to their mention of him as the author in any way counterbalancing the late date of their testimony. Beyond showing that tradition, at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, a.s.sociated the name of Luke with this writing and the third Gospel, the evidence of these Fathers is of no value to us. We have already incidentally mentioned that some heretics either ignored or rejected the book, and to the Marcionites and Severians
{28}
we may now add the Ebionites(1) and Manichaeans.(2) Chrysostom complains that in his day the Acts of the Apostles were so neglected that many were ignorant of the existence of the book and of its authors.(3) Doubts as to its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for Photius states that some ascribed the work to Clement of Rome, others to Barnabas, and others to Luke the evangelist.(4)
If we turn to the doc.u.ment itself, we find that it professes to be the second portion of a work written for the information of an unknown person named Theophilus, the first part being the Gospel, which, in our canonical New Testament, bears the name of "Gospel according to Luke."
The narrative is a continuation of the third Synoptic, but the actual t.i.tle of "Acts of the Apostles," or "Acts of Apostles" [------],(5) attached to this [------] is a later addition, and formed no part of the original doc.u.ment. The author"s name is not given in any of the earlier MSS., and the work is entirely anonymous. That in the prologue to the Acts the writer clearly a.s.sumes to be the author of the Gospel does not in any way identify him, inasmuch as the third Synoptic itself is equally anonymous. The tradition a.s.signing both works to Luke the follower of Paul, as we have seen, is first met with
{29}
towards the end of the second century, and very little weight can be attached to it. There are too many instances of early writings, several of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to which distinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. Such tradition is notoriously liable to error.
We shall presently return to the question of the authorship of the third Synoptic and Acts of the Apostles, but at present we may so far antic.i.p.ate as to say that there are good reasons for affirming that they could not have been written by Luke.(1)
Confining ourselves here to the actual evidence before us, we arrive at a clear and unavoidable conclusion regarding the Acts of the Apostles.
After examining all the early Christian literature, and taking every pa.s.sage which is referred to as indicating the use of the book, we see that there is no certain trace even of its existence till towards the end of the second century; and, whilst the writing itself is anonymous, we find no authority but late tradition a.s.signing it to Luke or to any other author. We are absolutely without evidence of any value as to its accuracy or trustworthiness, and, as we shall presently see, the epistles of Paul, so far from accrediting it, tend to cast the most serious doubt upon its whole character. This evidence we have yet to examine, when considering the contents of the Acts, and we base our present remarks solely on the external testimony for the date and authorship of the book. The position, therefore, is simply this: We are asked to believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and supernatural
1 The reader is referred to an article by the author in the Fortnightly Rev., 1877, p. 496 ff., in which some indications of date, and particularly those connected with the use of writings of Josephus, are discussed.
{30}
occurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible, upon the a.s.surance of an anonymous work of whose existence there is no distinct evidence till more than a century after the events narrated, and to which an author"s name--against which there are strong objections--is first ascribed by tradition towards the end of the second century. Of the writer to whom the work is thus attributed we know nothing beyond the casual mention of his name in some Pauline Epistles. If it were admitted that this Luke did actually write the book, we should not be justified in believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his bare statement As the case stands, however, even taking it in its most favourable aspect, the question scarcely demands serious attention, and our discussion might at once be ended by the unhesitating rejection of the Acts of the Apostles as sufficient, or even plausible, evidence for the miracles which it narrates.
CHAPTER II. EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP
If we proceed further to discuss the doc.u.ment 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
{32}
portions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy, it will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a doc.u.ment 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 pa.s.s 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
{33}
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 ill.u.s.trations of this fact. It is absolutely certain, with regard to the works we are considering, that Irenaeus 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
{34}
Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into Thessalouica, Crescens to Galatia, t.i.tus 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 Irenaeus 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 pa.s.sages in the first person to which other followers of Paul were exposed, upon the traditional view of the composition. Irenaeus 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 pa.s.sages 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
{35}
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 a.s.sumed 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 t.i.tus 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 t.i.tle of painter.(5) Epiphanius,(6) followed later by some other
{36}
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 ident.i.ty proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of the ascription of
{37}
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 a.s.serts 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
{38}
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 pa.s.sant_. 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 t.i.tles 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
{39}
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 pa.s.sages 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 Colossae. 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.
{40}
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 pa.s.sages 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 Irenaeus, 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
{41}
the pa.s.sages where the first person is employed, considers that he indicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. These pa.s.sages, 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 ill.u.s.trate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the authorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references for those who care more minutely to pursue the subject.