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 G.o.d 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.
{42}
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 doc.u.ments 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 a.s.similated 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 a.s.serted that the very same peculiarities of style and language exist in the [------] pa.s.sages 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 partic.i.p.ation 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 a.s.sociated 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.
{43}
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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.s (xvi. 11,12; xx. 5, 6,13,15; xxi. 1-3, 7; xxvii. 2 ff.; xxviii. 11-15), and record the most trifling circ.u.mstances (xvi. 12; xx. 13; xxi. 2, 3, 15; xxviii. 2, 11). The distinguishing feature of these sections in fact is generally a.s.serted to be the stamp which they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal knowledge of the circ.u.mstances 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 ma.s.s 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 partic.i.p.ation in his work, begin and end with his actual
{44}
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
{45}
sudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth chapter? Certainly not. The [------] in these pa.s.sages 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 doc.u.ments is at once implied, which would rather justify the supposition that these pa.s.sages 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 a.s.sociated 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,
{46}
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 [------]
pa.s.sages;(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
{47}
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 doc.u.ment to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original doc.u.ment to remain, in order himself to a.s.sume 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
{48}
work. It is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite traces of many doc.u.ments, 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 sc.r.a.ps 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 a.s.similated, 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
{49}
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 doc.u.ment.(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 pa.s.sages, 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
{50}
strong grounds, some of which will be presently stated, a very large ma.s.s 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)
{51}
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 antic.i.p.ating, 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)
{52}
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 a.s.surance 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 G.o.d 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 t.i.tus,
{53}
"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 t.i.tus, though a Greek, to be circ.u.mcised, "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 G.o.d (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--G.o.d 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 circ.u.mcision 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
{54}
endeavour to compel him to have t.i.tus circ.u.mcised--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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mcises 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 uncirc.u.mcision 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 t.i.tle equally applied to Barnabas, whose claim to it is more than doubted. The
{55}
pa.s.sages 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 ill.u.s.tration 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
{56}
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 ill.u.s.tration 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 [------]