Division IS Ves al ee ae Section | OAT G 6 Vie | Veg PY l il eh pry ey ate T. and T. Clark's Publications. LANGE’S COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, IN IMPERIAL 8VO. Messrs. CLARK have now pleasure in intimating their arrangements, in conjunction with the well-known firm of SCRIBNER AND Co., of New York, and under the Editorship of Dr. Puitrp Scuarr, for the Publica- tion of Translations of the Commentaries of Dr. LANGE and his Co//a- borateurs, on the Old and New Testaments. Of the O_p TEsTaMENT they have published the Commentary on THE Book or GENEsIS, One Volume ; to which is prefixed a Theological and Homiletical Introduction to the Old Testament, and a Special Introduction to Genesis, etc. ; and | PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, and SonG or SOLOMON, in One Volume. They have already published in the Foreign Theological Library the Commentaries on St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. They propose to issue in the same form the Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, which will not, however, be ready for some time. There are now ready, of the New TESTAMENT— ROMANS. One Volume. Ist and 2d CORINTHIANS. One Volume. THESSALONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS. One Volume. PETER, JOHN, JAMES, and JUDE. One Volume. And they hope to publish in 1870— GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS. One Volume. REVELATION. One Volume. Messrs. CLARK will, as early as possible, announce further arrange- | ᾿ ments for the translation of the Commentaries on the Old Testament | Books. The Commentaries on Matthew, in one volume ; Mark and Luke, in _ | one volume ; and on: Acts, in one volume, may be had uniform with | the above if desired. | Each of the above volumes will be supplied to Subscribers to the | FoREIGN THEOLOGICAL Lisrary and ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY at I5s. The price to others will be 21s. Che Corks of St. Angustine. τ ἡ. MESSRS. CLARK beg to announce that they have in prepara- tion Translations of a Selection from the Writincs of St. AUGUSTINE, on the plan of their ANTE-NICENE LiprarRy, and under the editorship of the Rev. Marcus Dops, A.M. They append a list of the works which they intend to include in the Series, each work being given entire, unless otherwise specified. All the TREATISES in the PELaGIaN, and the four leading TREATISES in the DONATIST CONTROVERSY. The TREATISES against Faustus the Manichzan ; on CHRIS- TIAN DocrrRiNnE ; the TRINITY ; the HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS ; the SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Also the LecrurEs on the GosPEeL or 51. JoHN, the CONFEs- SIONS, the City oF Gop, and a SELEcTION from the LETTERS. All these works are of first-rate importance, and only a small proportion of them have yet appeared in an English dress. The SERMONS and the COMMENTARIES ON THE Psatms having been already given by the Oxford Translators, it is not intended, at least in the first instance, to publish them. The Series will include a Lire or 51. AuGusTINE, by ROBERT Rainy, D.D., Professor of Church History, New College, Edin- burgh. The Series will probably extend to Twelve or Fourteen Volumes. It will not be commenced for some time, so as to allow the ANTE-NICENE SERIES to approach nearer to completion ; but the Publishers will be glad to receive the Vames of Subscribers. The form and mode of printing have not yet Deen finally settled ; but in any case the quantity of matter wil! be equal to the sub- scription of Four Volumes for a Guinea, as in the case of the _ ANTE-NICENE SERIES. A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. i } Ἦ YONDON, . . . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. — DUBLIN, . . . . . . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. — NEW YORK, . ... . . SCRIBNER AND CO. ¥ i A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE AOTS OF THE APOSTLES. BY/ τς PATON FE GCHOALE. D:D. tk Late DA ESE. EDINBURGH: T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXX. μι hed Tea ae a 1) - κΊ Δ EAN ΟΡΝΑ PO ὙΠ IAT) 9 : > ( ΠΥ 10 9 ie " ᾿ Ἢ" ‘ Ν' ᾿ ν ᾿ Π ‘ ‘# Π Ls ἢ TO GOTTHARD VICTOR LECHLER, DD, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND SUPERINTENDENT IN LEIPSIC, THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, IN TESTIMONY OF THE A υ THOR’S APPRECIATION OF HIS PROFOUND SCHOLARSHIP, CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, AND VALUED FRIENDSHIP. Actas Rare, ΕΝ 207 ‘ ube Ay 1) a ar Ue \, 4 ee aes 7}: ye Ἶ ΝΣ 1 ae ἀν ΠῚ ΠΝ Ag Ter hy oh ΠΝ ἡ , ihe! mh a i roa nny Ἔ yi ἣν Ἢ ᾿ Ἂν ‘Sig PREFACE. —>——_. ale HIS exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the FA P24) Apostles has occupied the attention of the writer for several years. Being engaged in the pastoral oversight of a tolerably populous parish, he has of course been able to devote to it only a limited portion of time; but he has not ventured on its publication without a careful consultation of all the authorities, both English and German, within his reach, The Acts of the Apostles is distinguished from the other books of the New Testament by this important peculiarity, that it comes much in contact with many well-known facts of the ancient world, and thus admits of many illustra- tions from external sources of information. The Epistles treat chiefly of Christian doctrine and practice, and for the most part can only ke explained and illustrated by internal criticism and mutual comparison. The scene of the Gospel narratives, on the other hand, is almost wholly confined to the narrow limits of Palestine, and profane history can there- fore afford very little assistance in their study. But the Acts of the Apostles touches at every point on the history of the world. Countries and cities renowned in ancient times were visited by Paul and his companions; and persons who played an important part in the history of the world have also their places in the history of the church. St. Chrysostom complains that in his days the Acts of the Apostles was comparatively neglected; and the same com- x PREFACE. plaint would not be unwarrantable in the present day, when many are disposed to regard the Acts as of secondary import- ance compared with the Gospels and the Epistles. There appears to be no sufficient ground for such an opinion. The Acts of the Apostles may serve a different purpose from that of the rest of the New Testament, but is not on that account of inferior importance. It constitutes the continuation of the Gospels, and the necessary introduction to the Epistles. It contains the history of the development of the church-—of the growth of those principles which Jesus Christ brought down from heaven and planted in the heart of humanity. It is the model of church history, and the compendium of the principles of church government. It contains notices of the lives of the holy apostles, and first martyrs and con- fessors ; and without it we would be almost wholly ignorant of the history of Paul, the greatest of them all, the noblest and most influential of the children of men. There are few works in our country which profess to be criticisms on the Acts of the Apostles. Alford and Words- worth both treat of it in their Greek Testaments: the notes of the former are valuable for their conciseness and critical sagacity; whilst those of the latter are distinguished for their scholarship and patristic learning. The only purely critical work in this country, of which the author is aware, which treats separately of the Acts, is the Commentary by the Rev. William Humphry of Trinity College, Cambridge ; a work certainly of great value in a philological point of view, but professedly of an elementary or introductory cha- racter, and without any minute treatment of the various and important discussions to which the Acts of the Apostles has given rise. In America there is the admirable Commentary of Dr. Hackett, decidedly the best work on the subject in the English language. The edition of it in this country, published by the Bunyan Society, is defective, and is rendered PREFACE. xi in a great degree worthless by the omission of many of Dr. Hackett’s most valuable critical observations. The transla- tion of the text annexed to that edition is, however, of con- siderable value. The second part of the Acts, which recounts the missionary labours of Paul, has recently been fully dis- cussed, and much learning and research have been brought to bear upon it. Two works are especially instructive, and deserve careful perusal—The Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Lewin, and the classical work on the same subject by Conybeare and Howson: in the former the historical connections of the Acts are chiefly stated, and in the latter its geographical relations. Neither of those works, however, professes to be a critical examination of the book itself, In Germany, critical works on the Acts, or on detached portions of it, are very numerous. The works of Baur, espe- cially his Apostel Paulus, the Commentary of Zeller, and other writings of the Tiibingen school, are distinguished for their ability, and have called forth a multitude of learned treatises on the Acts. De Wette’s Commentary is most valuable for its critical notes, its grammatical details, and its exegesis. The works of Lange, Lekebusch, Oertel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, are highly to be commended, as exhibiting much of that profound scholarship which is the peculiar characteristic of German theologians. The Commentary of Lechler in Lange’s Bibelwerk is one of great excellence, exhibiting at once the erudition of an accomplished scholar and the piety of a Christian. The third edition, recently published, is enriched with an enlarged introduction and many important additional remarks. But by far the most valuable work on the Acts, and that from which the author has derived greater assistance than from all other works put together, is Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte. This work cannot be too highly praised : it is the perfection of a Com- xil PREFACE, mentary, at once full and concise, though unhappily some- what tainted with rationalistic opinions. It is a matter of surprise that the Commentaries of this great man, perhaps the most eminent of living biblical critics, have never been translated into English. It would be a great boon to English theological students, who are unacquainted with German, if the enterprising publishers of the “ Foreign Theological Library ” would make them a part of their series. Two noted books dealing with this subject have been published since this Commentary was written—-Dr. David- son’s Introduction to the New Testament, and Renan’s Saint Paul. The author has given these works his careful consideration, and has embraced in the body of the Com- mentary, or in notes, such references to them as appeared to him to be requisite. But he found that, with all their undoubted ability, they added but little to the elaborate criticisms of the German theologians. Dr. Davidson’s book belongs to the Tiibingen school, and the opinions adopted are similar to those of Baur and Zeller. It appears to the author that neither Renan’s Saint Paul, nor his previous work, Les Apétres, which deals in his wonderfully arbitrary manner with the earlier portion of the Acts, can be regarded as an important contribution to the literature of the subject, or is likely to take much hold on the English mind. Despite the remarkable charm of ‘his style, and his unquestionable scholarship, he wants the critical acumen of Baur. His arbitrary conjectures, the unwarrantable theories which he builds on the slightest foundations, appear to the author to deprive his work of much substantial value, and give it the tone of a romance rather than a history. Plausible though he be, Renan is far from being a formidable antagonist of sound theology. These works proceed, however, from wholly different fundamental opinions from those which the author entertains, and on which he has based his Commentary. PREFACE, xili A few words are necessary, in explanation of the method adopted in the composition of the present Commentary. The translation is not from the teatus receptus, but from the last (the seventh) edition of Tischendorf’s Novum Testa- mentum Greece, now generally accepted as the best critical edition of the text. The Critical Notes contain the authority for the readings of Tischendorf, when they differ materially from the readings of the textus receptus. When the author has differed from Tischendorf with regard to the correct reading of any passage, he has stated his reasons for it in the Exegetical Remarks. The quotations in Greek in the Exegetical Remarks are from the text of Tischendorf, and not from the textus receptus. The principal part of the Commentary consists of the Exegetical Remarks. The meaning of the text has been carefully examined; and all information which the author could gather from external sources has been brought to bear upon its elucidation. The apparent discrepancies between the Acts and other authorities—and, in short, all those diffi- culties which are started by Baur and De Wette—have been met, and never in a single instance wilfully omitted. The work, however, it is to be recollected, professes to be purely exegetical: the dogmatical aspects of the Acts have not been considered at all, nor has any attempt been made to draw practical inferences. The Commentary does not profess to be a contribution to dogmatic theology or practical religion. Several discussions on various questions of more than usual importance or difficulty are treated of separately. These are generally inserted as appendices or notes to the sections in which the points discussed are specially adverted to. Various geographical notices in regard to the places mentioned in the Acts have not been thought wholly inappropriate to the present work, and it is to be hoped may be found to be of interest. xiv PREFACE. In conclusion, the author is anxious to say that it has been his special endeavour to avoid all theological intolerance, and to discuss the opinions of those from whom he differs most with candour and deference, not only from a sincere respect for the distinguished abilities and learning of the greater number of the authors whose opinions he has had occasion to consider, but especially because he believes himself to have been actuated solely by the desire to discover and express the truth, and to defend it by reason and not by passion; and he has attempted to form his judgment anew on all the points discussed with as little bias as possible from preconceived opinions. It is right, however, to say that his firm belief in the reality of miracles, and in the resurrection of Christ, renders his principles of interpretation diametri- cally opposed both to the Rationalism of Kuincel, and to the mythical explanation of the Tiibingen school. BLANTYRE MAnsg, 1870. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION, ΞΈΟΤΙΟΝ 1. 2: 3. 1. aN DD ὧι αὶ ὦ LO The Authorship of the Acts, . The Sources of Luke’s Information, . The Readers for whom the History was suid . The Design of the Acts, Σ : . Time and Place of the Composition of the Acts, . . The Language and Text of the Acts, . Arrangement of the Acts, . Chronology of the Acts, Pee Ben? δὶ PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY IN JUDEA, AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE GENTILES. The Ascension—Ch. i. 1-12, The Election of Matthias—Ch. i. 13-26, The Miracle of Pentecost—Ch. ii. 1-13, On the Gift of Tongues, . . The Discourse of Peter at Pentecost—Ch. ii. 14-36, On the Nature of Hades, . . Effects of Peter’s Discourse—Ch. ii. 37-47, . The First Miracle—Ch. iii. 1-26, 5 7. Peter and John before the Sanhedrim—Ch. iv. 1-22, On the Sanhedrim, . Prayer of the Church, and Communit of Gute Ch. iv. 23-37, 33 99 δ4 68 80 91 105 108 120 138 152 155 xvi CONTENTS. PAGE: Section 9. Internal Danger and External aia of the Church —Ch. v.1-16, . Ἶ + ae » 10. Second Arrest of the Apostles—Ch. v. 17-42, - | a », 11. The Election of the Seven—Ch. vi.1-7, Ὶ . 208 css: bes Stephen before the Sanhedrim—Ch. vi. 8-15, . ae On the Synagogues, : 3 . 224 », 13. The Defence of Stephen—Ch. vii. 1-53, . . ae General Remarks on Stephen’s Speech, . . τοῦ » 14, Martyrdom of Stephen—Ch. vii. δ4-00,. . 2089 », 15. Planting of the Church in Samaria—Ch. viii. 1-13, 270 On Samaria, : F : , . 29] ,, 16. Mission of Peter and John to Samaria—Ch. viii. 1 Ξ «See », 17. Conversion of the Ethiopian Βαπαοῖι. ΟΝ. vill. 26-40, 298 ,, 18. Conversion of Paul—Ch. ix. 1-19, . : .. ee » 19. Paul’s Ministry at Damascus—Ch. ix. 19-30, «ἢ ool 5, 20. The Miracles of Peter—Ch. ix. 31-43, : Bey testi », 21. Visions of Cornelius and Peter—Ch. x. 1-23, sig OO 5, 22, Conversion of Cornelius—Ch. x. 23-48, ; : ἘΝ ae 5, 29. Peter’s Apology—Ch. xi. 1-18, : : . 386 ,, 24. The First Gentile Church—Ch. xi. 19-30, . . 894 ,, 20. Persecution by Herod—Ch. xii. 1-19, ; . 410 On James the Lord’s Brother, . : ΥΩ 26. Death of Herod—Ch. xii. 19-9ὅ,. ε . 4380 INTRODUCTION. 74 Fat LE title, “The Acts of the Apostles” (πράξεις τῶν ΘῈ ἀποστόλων), would be readily suggested by the contents of the work. Πράξεις is the Greek term commonly employed for res geste : thus, πράξεις Κύρου, “ the actions of Cyrus” (Xen. Cyr. i. 2,16). Whether this title proceeded from the author himself is doubtful; but it is certainly very ancient, and occurs in the earliest notices of this book. The work is so called in the Muratorian Canon, and by Clemens Alexandrinus and Tertullian. There is some variation in the readings of the title in the different manuscripts. Four uncial manuscripts (A, E, G, and H) have πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων, the reading adopted by the teatus receptus. The Codex Bez (D) has πρᾶξις ἀποσ- τόλων. The Vatican ms. (B) has πράξεις ἀποστόλων, the reading adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Bornemann, Meyer, Wordsworth, and Alford, as being the most simple, and probably the most ancient. Several critics (De Wette, Ebrard) have challenged the appropriateness of this title as an indication of the contents and design of the work. It has been asserted that it is at once too narrow and too comprehensive: too narrow, as the work contains the actions of teachers who were not apostles, as the proto-martyr Stephen, and Philip the evangelist; and too comprehensive, as of the apostles only Peter and Paul are prominently brought forward; and John, James his brother, and James the son of Alpheus (if indeed James, the Lord’s brother, is to be regarded as the apostle of that name), are only incidentally mentioned. And yet it would VOL. I. A 2 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. be difficult to invent a more appropriate title. Kuinel supposes that ἀπόστολοι is employed in a wide sense, to de- note the teachers of the Christian religion generally, even although they were not apostles strictly so called. But such a latitude of meaning is unnecessary ; for, as Meyer observes, the title sufficiently indicates the nature of the work, in- asmuch as the development and diffusion of the Christian church — the general contents of the book — were effected chiefly by the apostles, particularly by Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, and by Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE ACTS. The author is not named, but it is the almost universal opinion that this was Luke, the author of the third Gospel. The proofs of this are very strong, amounting almost to a demonstration. They may be arranged under two distinct heads: the testimony of the Christian Fathers, and the re- lation of the Acts to the third Gospel. We have the explicit testimony of the Christian Fathers. The allusions to the Acts by the apostolic Fathers are not numerous, and are somewhat vague. Their extant writings are few, and they seldom refer directly to the books of Scripture. The most definite allusion is in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (A.D. 108), where we find the words, “ Whom God hath raised, having loosed the pains of death” (ὅν ἔγειρεν ὁ Θεὸς λύσας τὰς ὠδινᾶς τοῦ ἅδου), a highly probable allusion to Acts ii. 24, The Acts was known to the author of the Clementine Recognitions (A.D. 175), as is evident from the nature of the references in that work to Simon Magus and Gamaliel.| The first direct quotation occurs in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (A.D. 177), where we have these words: “They prayed for those who were so bitter in their hostility, like Stephen, that perfect martyr, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge’” (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ν. 2). The first Father, so far as is known, who mentions Luke as the author of the Acts, is Ireneus 1 See Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 60-62. INTRODUCTION. 3 (A.D. 178). “That Luke,” he observes, “ was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-worker in the gospel, he himself shows; not indeed boasting of it, but impelled by truth itself. ‘For, he says, ‘when Barnabas and John, who is surnamed Mark, separated from Paul, and had sailed to Cyprus, we came to Troas; and when Paul had seen in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, Come over to Macedonia, and help us, immediately,’ says he, ‘ we endeavoured to go into Mace- donia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them’” (adv. Her. ili. 14, 1). The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 1170 1) also ascribes the Acts to Luke: “The acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke relates the events of which he was an eye-witness to Theophilus.” Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190) makes the same statement: “As Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, records Paul to have said, ‘Ye men of Athens, I perceive that ye are in all things too superstitious’” (Stromata y.). Tertullian (A.D. 200) frequently quotes the Acts, and once expressly ascribes its authorship to Luke (de Jejuniis, ch. x.). Origen (A.D. 230), commenting on the Epistle to the Hebrews, says: “ Some suppose that it was written by Cle- ment, who was Bishop of Rome, and others by Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts” (Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 26). And Eusebius (A.D. 325) places the Acts among those books which were universally acknowledged; and as to its author- ship he observes: ‘ Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us two inspired books, the institutes of that spiritual healing which he obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to him; whom also, he says, he has in all things followed. The other is his Acts of the Apostles, which he composed not from what he had heard 1 According to Tischendorf, the Muratorian Canon was written a little after the age of Pius 1. (A.D. 142-157), about a.p. 170. See Westcott on the Canon, p. 186. 4 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. from others, but from what he had seen himself” (Hist. Eeel. iii. 4). This general testimony of the Christian Fathers was called in question by the early heretics, and that not on historical grounds, but from purely dogmatical reasons, because the contents of the Acts did not agree with their opinions. Thus the Ebionites rejected it, because it taught the recep- tion of the Gentiles without circumcision into the Christian church ; the Marcionites, for an opposite reason, because they could not endure its doctrine concerning the connection . of Judaism and Christianity ; the Severians, because their ascetic principles were incompatible with the teaching of Paul recorded in the Acts; and the Manichzans, on account of the history of the descent of the Holy Ghost.? Not until the time of Photius, in the ninth century, was any mention made of another author: “Some,” he says, “ believed the writer to be Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others Luke the evangelist,” an assertion unsupported by the Christian Fathers, and which seems merely to be the arbi- trary opinion of individuals. Photius himself concurred in the general opinion of the church as to the authorship of Luke. Chrysostom, in his homilies on the Acts, makes the strange statement, that ‘“‘ many Christians were unacquainted with the existence of the book, and with the name of the author” (Hom. i.),—a statement which is evidently a rhetorical ex- aggeration, because in his time this book was regularly read in the Greek Church between Easter and Whitsuntide. There might, however, have been circumstances which then led to the comparative neglect of the Acts, and to a pre- ference being given to the Gospels and the Epistles. Another and distinct line of argument is derived from the relation of the Acts to the third Gospel. The Acts professes 1 See, for other testimonies from the Fathers, Lardner’s Works; David- son’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 1-3 ; Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, and similar works. To the above testi- monies have also to be added the Syriac and Latin versions, which our best critics agree were made about the middle of the second century. 2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 3. INTRODUCTION. 5 to be written by the same author: it alludes to the Gospel as “ the former treatise,” and is addressed to Theophilus, the same person for whose special use the Gospel was written. This identity of authorship was never called in question by the early church ; and in modern times biblical critics have shown that there is such an identity of diction and style as proves that both works must have proceeded from the same person. Dr. Davidson, in his Introduction to the New Testament, mentions no less than forty-seven terms which are peculiar to the writer, and which oceur in both works, but nowhere else in the New Testament.’ Indeed, the state- ment that the Acts and the third Gospel are the composition of one author, has seldom, if ever, been called in question. Even De Wette observes: “It is certain that the writer is the author of the third Gospel, and his peculiarity of style remains the same in both works, and in the Acts of the Apostles from the beginning to the end.”* And so also Zeller remarks: “If we combine all these arguments, re- ferring to the language and construction of both writings, to their contents, their design, and their composition, we have every reason to credit the assertion of the Acts, and the universal testimony of tradition concerning the identity of the author with the writer of the Gospel.”* Admitting this sameness of authorship, it follows that the whole series of testimonies which assert that the third Gospel was written by Luke, are also proofs that the Acts was written by the same person. Now the testimonies asserting that Luke is the author of the Gospel which bears his name are strong and numerous. We have an apparent allusion to this Gospel in the First Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians (A.D. 96) ;* 1 Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 8. See also Davidson’s New Introduction, vol. ii. p. 268, and Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 414-425. 2 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10. 8 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 442. 4 οἰ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus: for He said, Woe to that man (by whom offences come)! It were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect. It 6 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, and it is universally admitted that it was known to Marcion and Justin Martyr (a.p. 140). Luke is directly .asserted to be the author of the third Gospel by Irenzus, Tertul- lian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius; indeed, Olshausen has good grounds for the assertion which he makes: “ In the primitive church there was no opposition either to Luke’s Gospel or to the Acts of the Apostles.” * In modern times, objections have been raised, not so much to Luke’s being the author of the Acts, as to his being the companion of Paul and the eye-witness of those facts which he relates; and accordingly, those portions of the Acts which profess to be the testimony of an eye-witness, have been ascribed to others. The objections, however, are by no means formidable. It has, for example, been objected that Luke is not men- tioned in any of the epistles of Paul written during his missionary journeys. This indeed at first sight seems strange, but when carefully examined is easily accounted for. It does not appear that Luke (if the author of those portions of the Acts where the first person is used) was with Paul when he wrote these epistles. He was with Paul at Philippi (Acts xvi. 17), but he seems to have remained behind, because the personal and direct style of narrative is immediately dropped after Paul had left that city; and he appears not to have rejoined the apostle until seven years after, when the direct style is resumed on Paul’s return to Macedonia (Acts xx. 5, 6). Now it was during these seven years that all these epistles, except the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, were written. Luke was not with Paul at Corinth (Acts xviii. 1), where the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written ; nor at Ephesus (Acts xix.), where the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and perhaps the Epistle to the Galatians, were written ; nor, again, when Paul wintered at Corinth (Acts were better for him that a mill-stone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones” (1 Clem. xlvi.). Compare with this, Luke xvii. 2. , 1 Olshausen on the Gospel and Acts, vol. i. p. xli. INTRODUCTION. 7 xx. 3), where the Epistle to the Romans was written.’ There is, indeed, some probability that Luke was with Paul when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written from some place in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13); and there is also a pro- bability, as Neander after Jerome and Chrysostom supposes, that he is alluded to in that epistle as “the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” (2 Cor. viii. 18) ;° but be this as it may, the very indefiniteness of the above expression proves that distinguished fellow-labourers might be with Paul, and yet not be named by him in his epistles. It was by no means his practice to specify all those who were with him; and in two of his epistles, in that to the Galatians and in that to the Ephesians, no names are given. Another objection is, that there is no mention of Luke in the Epistle to the Philippians. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the writer of the narrative, where the direct style is employed, was with Paul when he first preached the gospel in Philippi (Acts xvi. 16); and, as stated above, it would seem that he remained there for several years. It is also certain that the Epistle to the Philippians was written from Rome during Paul’s imprisonment ‘there (Phil. iv. 22); and we learn, both from the Acts and from other epistles of Paul, that Luke was with him in that city. Now, this being the case, if Luke were the writer of those portions of the Acts in which the pronoun “we” occurs, he stood in a peculiar relation to the church of Philippi, and therefore the omission of his name in an epistle to that church is considered as in- explicable. But in the Epistle to the Philippians there are no salutations sent: there is merely the general declaration, “The brethren which are with me salute you” (Phil. iv. 21); and the names of these brethren would be communicated to the Philippians by Epaphroditus, the bearer of the epistle. 1 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 2; Birk’s Horx Apostolice, p. 351. 2 The subscription to this epistle declares that it was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas. This proves that it was an ancient tradition that Luke was the companion of Titus on his mission to Corinth, although not mentioned in the body of the epistle. 8 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Besides, although Luke was with Paul at Rome, yet it does not follow that he was always with him; and therefore it is not to be taken for granted that he was in his company when the Epistle to the Philippians was written. And that this omission of Luke is nothing the least strange, is evident from a similar instance in the case of Timothy. Timothy was the companion of Paul when he preached the gospel in Galatia, and planted the churches in that country (Acts xvi. 1-6) ; and yet in the Epistle to the Galatians there is no special mention of him: if with Paul when that epistle was written, he is merely included in the general phrase, “ All the brethren which are with me” (Gal. i. 2)." A third objection is, that the inferior position which Luke occupies in the epistles of Paul, is unfavourable to the sup- position that he was for some time the companion of that apostle in his missionary journeys, and the narrator in the first person. “In the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon,” observes Mayerhoff, “ which were written at an early period of Paul’s imprisonment, Luke is mentioned in such a manner that we must conclude that he only then became acquainted with Paul. In the Epistle to Philemon he occupies the last place among Paul’s fellow-labourers— first Hpaphras, then Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, and last of all Lucas; and in the Epistle to the Colossians, the place before the last, for here Demas is put after him, who at all events only then became acquainted with Paul. Now, if Luke had actually been the companion of the apostle in his earlier journeys, his position not only after Timothy, who is honourably associated with Paul in the salutations at the commencement of both epistles, but after Tychicus, Onesimus, Marcus, Jesus surnamed Justus, and Epaphras, is unsuitable and surprising; whereas if Luke only became acquainted with the apostle at Rome, it is entirely natural, and he shares a similar position with Demas, with whom he appears to stand in the same relation to the apostle.”” But such reason- ing is singularly weak. There is no proof that Paul in his 1 See Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 11, 12. 2 Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, pp. 11, 12. INTRODUCTION. 9 epistles arranged his fellow-workers in accordance with the length of his acquaintance with them. The manner in which Luke is alluded to in the Epistle to the Colossians, as “‘ Luke the beloved physician,’ renders it probable that Paul had experienced his worth after a friendship of some standing. And the mention of persons in the epistles is a presumption that they were not altogether unknown to the churches to whom the epistles were written, and that consequently they were most probably Paul’s fellow-travellers in his missionary journeys when he visited these churches. Chiefly for these reasons, the Acts of the Apostles, or at least those portions of it which profess to come from an eye- witness, have been assigned by modern critics to other persons besides Luke. The person who is most frequently brought forward as the writer of at least a considerable portion of the Acts is Timothy. It has been supposed that all those parts where the author speaks of himself as present were written by Timothy. This was the opinion advanced by Schleier- macher, Ulrich, and Bleek. It is also supported by so dis- tinguished a critic as De Wette. According to him, the author of the Acts, from ch. xvi. 10 and onwards, used a journal written by Timothy, and allowed the first personal pronoun to remain.’ The chief reason for this supposition is, that everywhere when Timothy is present the narrative - is distinguished by a copiousness of detail, but that this ceases when Timothy is absent. This, however, is erroneous : Timothy was with Paul when he planted the gospel in Galatia, and yet the account of this is omitted in the narrative (Acts xvi. 6); and he was absent when Paul was at Athens (Acts xvii. 15, 16), and at Ephesus when the tumult occasioned by Demetrius and the craftsmen occurred (Acts xix. 22), and yet in both instances the narrative is minute. This hypothesis of the authorship of Timothy is at variance with the acknowledged accuracy of style of the writer of the Acts ; that in one part of a document, supposed to be written by Timothy, he should leave the first personal pronoun “we” unaltered (Acts xvi. 16, xx. 5), and in another part of the 1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10, 10 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. same document should alter it into the third pronoun “ they,” or insert the name Timothy (Acts xvii. 14, xviil. 5, xix. 22). The only answer that has been given to this objection is, that the writer or compiler of the Acts, through carelessness, sometimes left the “we” of the original document unchanged, —a carelessness which, as Meyer observes, is something un- paralleled, and even monstrous.’ Besides, the authorship of Timothy is inconsistent with the book itself. In Acts xx. 4, 5 we read, “And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Se- cundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. These, going before, tarried for us at Troas;” where it is evident that the persons named, among whom was Timothy, who went before, are different from the narrator, who remained behind with the apostle. To remove this objection, Ulrich proposes to read the passage thus: ‘There accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea ; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus” (where, in the original document, ἐγώ stood). Here a full stop is supposed, and then follows: “But the Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus, these (namely, the Asiatics) going before, tarried for us at Troas.” The catalogue of Paul’s companions is thus divided into two parts—those who accompanied him, and those who went before; and by this method Timothy is included among the “we” party who accompanied Paul. But such a con- struction is unnatural, if not inadmissible, and is, as Schwan- beck observes, an evident makeshift, to avoid a difficulty arising from the plain sense of the passage.” Mayerhoff goes further, and supposes that the whole of the Acts as well as the third Gospel was written by Timothy, and that Luke acted only in the capacity of a transcriber. “ The part of Luke,” he observes, “ both in the Gospel and 1 So also Renan observes: ‘‘ Such an error might only exist in a most careless compilation; but the third Gospel and the Acts form a work very well prepared, composed with reflection, and even with art ; written by the same hand, and on a connected plan.” 2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 161, 162. INTRODUCTION. ll in the Acts of the Apostles, is entirely subordinate—that of a transcriber of the works composed by Timothy; and it is only a later tradition which made Luke what he never was in reality,—an attendant on Paul in his journeys, and the author of the Acts as well as of the Gospel.”* This opinion accounts for the similarity of style pervading these two books, and which forms a difficulty in the way of the other hypo- thesis. But it is exposed to all the objections already brought forward to the partial authorship of Timothy ; and, besides, is encumbered with its own peculiar difficulties. No reason can be assigned, if Timothy were the author of the Acts and the third Gospel, why these works have been ascribed to the unknown Luke in preference to one so well known as Timothy. Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which Timothy is for the first time mentioned as “ one who was well reported of by the brethren” (Acts xvi. 2): the author would hardly have thus written of himself to Theophilus. Another person supposed to be the author of a consider- able portion of the Acts is Silas. This opinion has been adopted and defended by Schwanbeck. He supposes that from ch. xv. 13 and onwards was written by Silas; and that this document was inserted by Luke, as the general editor, in his work, with a few trifling alterations.” The chief reason assigned for this is the minuteness with which the transactions at the Council of Jerusalem are recorded, as if the account was the report of an eye-witness. This hypothesis is wholly unsupported by external testimony, and is entirely founded on arbitrary assumption. The same ob- jection, arising from the arbitrary change from the first to the third personal pronoun, which was brought against the authorship of Timothy, applies here with equal force. Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which Silas is introduced to the readers of the book along with Judas Barsabas, as “ chief men among the brethren” (Acts xv. 22). The only answer that Schwanbeck gives to this objection is, that this notice was either an insertion by the 1 Mayerhoff’s Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, p. 21. ᾿ς 2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 168-186. 12 COMMENTARY.ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. editor, or, what is more probable, that it referred only to Judas, but was extended by the editor to Silas. Such arbitrary conjectures cannot possibly be encountered by argument. A fourth hypothesis, advanced by Hennel, is that Luke and Silas are the same person. “ There is reason,” he observes, “ to conjecture that Luke and Silas are one person. The pronoun ‘ we’ occurs in the narrative for the first time in ch. xvi. 10, ‘We endeavoured to go into Macedonia.’ The only companions of Paul at that time were Silas and Timothy (ch. xv. 40, xvi. 3, 4, 6). Accordingly, one of these three wrote the Acts of the Apostles. But it is evident from ch. xx. 4, 13, that neither Paul nor Timothy wrote it. Silas therefore was the author. Wherever the pronoun ‘we’ occurs, there is no reason against the opinion that Silas was of the company. The name Silas or Silvanus has nearly the same import as Lucas or Lucanus,—the one being " derived from silva, a wood, and the other from /ucus, a grove ; both being only Latinized forms from the original Greek or Hebrew name of the author.”” Hence it is inferred that Luke, to whom the early Fathers assigned the authorship of Acts, is the same as Silas, who from internal evidence appears to have been its author. These arguments, how- ever, have little force. The hypothesis is exposed to all the arguments already adduced against the partial authorship of Silas. In the epistles of Paul, Silas and Luke are both mentioned as if they were different persons,—there being - not the slightest intimation given us of their identity. No argument can be based on the supposed similarity of names. The identity of Cephas and Peter, both signifying a rock, is not parallel, as these names do not signify similar things, but precisely the same thing; and besides, they are from different languages, the one being Hebrew and the other Greek—not like ducus and silva, words of the same language. A man may translate his name from one language to another, as was done by the French refugees after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who, when they came to England, 1 Schwanbeck’s Quellen, pp. 173, 174. 2 Ibid. p. 170. INTRODUCTION. 13 translated their names into English; but it is very far- fetched to argue that cognate names in the same language, as “Grove” and “ Wood,” probably belong to the same person. We do not at present enter upon a consideration of the credibility of the Acts as an authentic history, because the examination of particular points will naturally occur in the course of our exposition. We would only observe that there are two distinct lines of argument which demonstrate the trustworthiness of the book. First, the agreement which exists between the Acts and the epistles of Paul is of such a nature as to prove them to have been independently written; and thus they mutually corroborate each other. This line of argument has been carried out by Paley in his masterly work the Hore Pauline. Examples of such unde- signed coincidences will be given in their proper place. A second proof of the credibility of the history is the agreement of the narrative of the Acts with information derived from other sources. This agreement embraces many particulars. The historical transactions recorded in the Acts are in accordance with the information given us by such independent writers as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. The statements with regard to the governors of particular countries, and the political condition of particular cities, are corroborated by coins which have come down to us.’ And the topography of the places mentioned in the account of the missionary journeys of Paul corresponds both with ancient geography as given by Strabo, and with the investigations of modern travellers. Frequently this agreement extends to minute particulars, and is of a complicated nature, such as could not possibly have occurred in the work of a forger. We shall have frequent occasion to notice instances of such agreement in the course of our exposition. According to the views of De Wette, the second part of the Acts, where the author depended on his own observation and on his intercourse with Paul, is much more credible 1 The reader is here specially referred to ἐπ ch Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament. 14 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. than the first part, which is drawn chiefly from traditionary accounts. In the first part, he observes, there are “ inexpli- cable difficulties, exaggerations, incorrect statements, doubt- ful facts, unsatisfactory information, and traces of ignorance with Jewish history and customs.” But when he adduces proofs of such an assertion, they are found to be for the most part irrelevant, or difficulties which, when carefully examined, admit of explanation. The instances brought for- ward of apparent contradictions and misstatements will all be examined in their proper place. Baur, Zeller, Késtlin, Hilgenfeld, Schrader, and other writers of the Tiibingen school, go much further. They have attempted to transfer to the Acts the mythical character which Strauss has assigned to the Gospels. Baur supposes that it was written toward the middle of the second century, and that it is not a purely historical work, but a conciliatory treatise by a disciple of Paul, with a view to reconcile the opinions of that apostle with those of Peter and the other original apostles. So also Zeller observes: “The Acts is the work of a Pauline of the Romish church: the time of its composition may most probably be fixed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130, after Christ.”? Hence the his- torical truth in it is but stalls and the miracles recorded are to be accounted for not from natural causes, but either as the inventions of the writer or as mythical tales. Such an attempt of extreme criticism never received much support in Germany; and in all probability it would have been for- gotten, had it not been for the distinguished ability and learning of its two great promoters and defenders, Baur and Zeller. It seems to have arisen entirely from the views of the school regarding the impossibility of miracles; and as the natural solution of miracles had failed, they endeavoured to substitute their mythical hypothesis. We shall revert to this subject when we consider “ the design of the Acts.” We have little information concerning Luke himself, the author of the Acts. His name Lucas is a contraction for 1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, Ὁ. 12. 2 Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 488. INTRODUCTION. 1. Lucanus, but is not to be confounded with Lucius (Acts ΧΙ, 1; Rom. xvi. 21). He is thrice mentioned by Paul in his epistles. In the Epistle to the Colossians he is described as Luke “the beloved physician” (Col. iv. 14); in the Epistle to Philemon he sends his salutations with others of Paul’s fellow-labourers (ver. 24); and in the Second Epistle to Timothy he is mentioned as being with the apostle when he stood before Ceesar (2 Tim. iv. 11). Nothing is known of his native place. Eusebius informs us that he was a native of Antioch (Hist. Eccl. iii. 6), but this may arise from con- founding him with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1); others fix on Troas as his native city, where he first joined the apostle ; and others on Philippi, where he seems to have resided for several years. We learn from Col. iv. 14 that he was a physician; and Michaelis and others affirm that there are evidences of this in his writings, from the precise and exact manner in which he alludes to diseases." Grotius sup- poses that he was originally a slave, because among the Romans physicians were frequently slaves; but there is no ground for this opinion, as physicians were not necessarily slaves, and as, on the contrary, among the Greeks the pro- fession was highly esteemed, and practised by men of liberal education. The tradition that he was a painter rests on the authority of Nicephorus of the fourteenth century, and is entitled to no credit (Hist. Eccl. ii. 43). From a statement made by Paul (compare Col. iv. 11 with ver. 14), it is with considerable probability inferred that he was a Gentile by birth. The purity of his Greek, and the comparative absence of Hebraisms, are in favour of his Gentile origin; though this may also be accounted for on the supposition of his being a Hellenistic Jew. Indeed, his acquaintance with the Septuagint, his familiarity with Jewish customs, and the occasional Hebraisms which occur in his writings, render the statement of Jerome somewhat probable, that he was a pro- selyte to Judaism before his conversion to Christianity. The statement of Epiphanius, that he was one of the seventy disciples, is refuted by the testimony of Luke himself in the 1 Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iv. pp. 229, 230. 16 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Gospel, where by implication he says that he was not an eye- witness and minister of the word (Luke i. 1, 2). We know nothing of the personal history of Luke beyond what is told us in the Acts. He was already a Christian when he joined Paul at Troas, but by whom converted is unknown. He accompanied Paul to Philippi, where he remained some years. Afterwards he rejoined the apostle on his return to Macedonia, and accompanied him, probably as one of the messengers of the churches, on his last journey to Jerusalem. He sailed with him from Cesarea to Rome, and was in his company when he wrote certain of his epistles from that city. The subsequent history of Luke is involved in obscurity. According to Epiphanius, he preached the Gospel in Gallia, Italy, Dalmatia, and Macedonia; Gregory Nazianzen reckons him among the martyrs; and according to Nicephorus, he returned to Greece, where he suffered martyrdom. . 1. THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S INFORMATION. The Acts of the Arpostles bears evidence of being the composition of one person. The peculiar diction and simi- larity of style which pervade it throughout are considered by the most distinguished biblical scholars to be sufficient proofs of this. Dr. Davidson enumerates forty terms and expressions peculiar to the writer, which are not confined to one part of the book, but pervade it throughout, besides numerous favourite phrases occurring in all parts of the work.' This similarity is of such a nature as to prove that, if the author employed written documents, he did not incor- porate them mechanically into his book unchanged, or with only slight alterations ; but he so altered them as to impress upon them the peculiarities of his own style, and to pervade them with his own spirit. And yet, on the other hand, this similarity does not exclude a certain deviation of style per- 1 Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 4-6; Davidson’s New Introduc- tion, vol. ii. pp. 261-265 ; Zeller’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 388 ; Lekebusch’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 87-79. INTRODUCTION. 17 ceptible in different portions of the book, as will be after- wards observed; a deviation, however, not at variance with the fact that there was only one author. In short, the Acts is not the work of a mere annalist or compiler, but of a highly characteristic historian, one whose style is as marked and peculiar as the style of any of the other writers of the New Testament. Moreover, in the book itself there are numerous references to what has been already said, and which go to prove the unity of the work. The following is a list of them as given by De Wette: xi. 16, compare i. 5; xi. 19, compare vill. 1; xii. 25, compare xi. 30; xv. 8, compare xi. 47; xv. 58, compare xiii. 13; xvi. 4, compare xv. 23; xviii. 5, com- pare xvil. 15 ; xix. 1, compare xvili. 23; xxi. 8, compare vi. 5; xxi. 29, compare xx. 4; xxii. 20, compare vii. 58." It is an interesting matter of inquiry, What were the sources of Luke’s information? Whence did he obtain the materials out of which he formed his history? It is evident from the work itself that he was only an eye-witness of a small portion of the transactions which he relates. He joined the apostle on his second missionary journey, and then appears to have been separated from him for several years, and afterwards accompanied him on his third mis- sionary journey to Jerusalem; consequently he must have received at second hand the whole of the first portion of the Acts, and much of the second. In what manner, then, from whose testimony, or from what documents, was his history composed ? The sources of Luke’s information may be considered as threefold : personal observation, oral testimony, and perhaps written documents. The first and most direct source of information was per- sonal observation. Luke was the companion of Paul during a part of his travels, and was an eye-witness of several of the transactions which he relates. He was with Paul during his first visit to Philippi, he accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem, and sailed with him to Rome. In all proba- 1 De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 10. See also Davidson’s New Intro- duction, vol. ii. pp. 265-267 ; Zeller’s Apostelyeschichte, p. 403. VOL. I. ee 18 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. bility he was present at Jerusalem when the apostle was arrested ; and it is also likely that he was at Ceesarea during a portion of the two years of the apostle’s imprisonment in that city, for it was from Cesarea that he embarked with him to Rome. The account of the voyage to Rome bears indubitable marks of being written by one who was present.’ Thus, then, the information contained in ch. xvi. 8-40, xx., Xxi., xxvii., and xxviii., and perhaps also in ch. xxii.—xxvi., was derived from direct observation. The second source of information is that derived from the testimony of others. Now here Luke would be chiefly in- debted to Paul himself. From his own mouth he would learn the account of that apostle’s conversion and missionary journeys, so that the information contained in the whole of the second part of the Acts (ch. xili—xxvili.) may be accounted for without having recourse to the supposition of written sources. When in Judea, where he probably resided during the two years of Paul’s imprisonment at Czesarea, he would procure information from James and the church of Jeru- salem: from them he might derive his accounts of the ascension, the miracle of Pentecost, the acts of Peter, the dispute between the Hellenists and the Hebrews, the martyr- dom of Stephen and of the Apostle James. And there is also the information which he would obtain from the church of Cesarea: in that city he met with Philip the evangelist (Acts xxi. 8), and perhaps also with Cornelius the devout centurion. From this source he would derive his informa- tion concerning the evangelistic labours in Samaria, the con- version of the Ethiopian eunuch, the visions made to Peter and Cornelius, and the particulars connected with the death of Herod Agrippa 1. Schneckenburger lays great stress on Luke’s acquaintance with Philip at Caesarea; and, indeed, it is highly probable that much of his information was derived from him. Thus, then, by far the greater portion, if not the whole of the first part of the Acts, would be obtained from those who were directly connected with the transactions 1 The reader is here referred to the interesting work of the late James Smith, Esq. of Jordanhill, On the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. INTRODUCTION. 19 recorded, “who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.” The third source of information mentioned is written documents. It is indeed questioned whether there were any such used by Luke in his composition of the Acts. So far as we can see, the accounts containéd in it might be obtained from the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses themselves ; and if so, it is more probable that Luke would derive his information from this quarter than from any written sources. On the other hand, most biblical critics interpret the intro- duction to Luke’s Gospel as a declaration on the part of the author that he availed himself of written documents in preparing that work: καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ am ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. If, then, it is argued he employed written documents in the composition of his Gospel, the probability is that he also employed them in the composition of his history of the apostles. Besides, it is a remarkable fact, that although the style of the Acts is substantially the same throughout, yet there is a greater number of Hebraisms in the first part, where he depended on information at second hand, than in the second part, where he was indebted to his own observation. | Some critics go the length of asserting that the whole of the Acts is a mere mechanical compilation. Thus Schwan- beck affirms that the Acts is composed of the four following documents: first, a biography of Peter; secondly, a rhetori- eal account of the death of Stephen ; thirdly, a biography of Barnabas ; and fourthly, the memoirs of Silas. He further affirms that Luke was a mere compiler, and did not repro- duce the contents of these sources in a free manner, and incorporate them in a whole, but only attached single por- tions of the different writings to each other, and that for the most part unchanged.” The similarity of style throughout confutes such a supposition. If written documents were 1 These words, however, do not necessarily affirm that Luke employed written documents, but may merely mean that he received his informa- tion from those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. 2 Schwanbeck’s Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 253. ἡ 20 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. employed, which is in itself doubtful, they are so freely inserted and used, that all attempts to distinguish the separate writings are unavailing. The letter of the Council of Jeru- salem, being an official document, is perhaps inserted verbatim (Acts xv. 23-29). Probably the same was also the case with the official communication of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Acts xxiii. 26-30). Both these short documents have internal marks of originality. Some also suppose that the early church possessed a written account of the speech of Stephen, their first martyr, which Luke freely used and _ inserted in his narrative. Others (Bleek, Meyer, Olshausen) think that the narrative of Paul’s first missionary journey, in company with Barnabas (ch. xiii. xiv.), may have been a report drawn up by the missionaries themselves. But this is improbable, as ch. xiii. 1 is connected with ch. xii. 25 and ἡ xi. 19-21; and ch. xiii. 13 is connected with ch. xv. 37, 38. Besides, Luke might easily have derived his information from the personal communications of Paul, so that he was under no necessity to have recourse to a written source. The remarks made regarding the sources of Luke’s in- formation, apply of course to the discourses which he has inserted in his history: these were either heard by himself, told by ear-witnesses, or were perhaps derived from written documents. It is not, however, to be supposed that all the discourses are given in the precise words in which they were delivered. With some of them this was impossible, because they were spoken in the Aramaic language, as Paul’s defence before the Jews (Acts xxii. 2), and probably also Peter’s discourse on the day of Pentecost, and Stephen’s apology before the Sanhedrim. In the case of others, Luke has impressed on them his own style and diction. Still, however, it must not be supposed that they were composed by Luke: they bear internal marks of being the discourses of those to whom they are ascribed. Learned critics have shown that, in the discourses of Peter and Paul in particular, there are not only the sentiments peculiar to these apostles, but often their favourite phraseology. Thus, as Alford remarks, in the discourse to the Ephesian elders, there is a INTRODUCTION. 21 rich storehouse of phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul.' Instances of such internal marks of genuineness in the dis- courses will occur in the course of the exposition. It is also a matter of dispute whether the discourses are given in their fulness, or whether we have in general mere abbreviations containing their substance and spirit. Certainly the speech of Tertullus, and the answer of Paul in the trial of the apostlé before Felix, look like abbreviations. But, on the other hand, some of Paul’s discourses, as his address to the Athenians, and his defence before Agrippa, are so full and graphic, that it is probable they are given us entire. The Acts of the Apostles appears to have been begun in the form of a diary kept by the author. The journey of Paul from Macedonia, to his arrival in Jerusalem, is given with great minuteness: the references to time are definite, and almost every day is marked by the events which hap- pened on it; so that it would seem as if a regular diary were kept. And the same remark is true with regard to the voyage from Ceesarea to Rome: there is in the narrative the same preciseness with regard to time, and the same minuteness of detail. Afterwards this journal would be increased by Luke’s own personal knowledge of what formerly happened when he first joined the apostle at Troas, and by information received at second hand. This may account for the peculiar character of the work, giving first the general annals of the church, and then dwelling almost exclusively on the personal labours of the Apostle Paul.’ Ill. THE READERS FOR WHOM THE HISTORY WAS INTENDED. The Acts of the Apostles, as well as the third Gospel, was addressed to Theophilus, who, from the epithet κράτιστε, most noble, being applied to him, was probably a Greek Christian of rank.’ Kuincel, Heinrichs, and others, suppose 1 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol, ii. pp. 138-15. 2 See this opinion stated and illustrated by Alford in his Greek Testa- ment, vol. ii. pp. 8-15. 3 See note to Acts i. 1. 22 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. that it was written for the use of this individual, and that the sole design of the author was to impart to him informa- tion concerning the diffusion of the gospel. So also Meyer remarks that the work was primarily a private composition written for Theophilus, and that its design was similar to that of the Gospel—namely, to impart to him accurate infor- mation concerning Christianity, in order to confirm him in the faith; and that it was partly the wants of Theophilus, and partly Luke’s sources of information, that guided the author in the choice of materials for his history." But this is a partial and meagre view of the subject. Luke, in in- scribing his work to Theophilus, probably merely followed the practice of dedicating his book to some person of rank and influence. We are led to believe that Luke wrote his history for the instruction of Christians in general: his object was to pre- serve the memorials of the apostles for the good of the church. It may be the case that it was designed primarily for the use of the Gentile Christians, of which class Theo- philus may be considered as the representative; but not to the exclusion of the Jewish Christians. Its being written in Greek, and not in Hebrew, is no reason for supposing that it was not intended for the use of the Jewish Christians, because the Jews had adopted the language of the countries where they resided; and even in Palestine, it would seem that Greek was then generally understood. The Epistle to the Hebrews, addressed primarily to the Jewish Christians, and in all likelihood to those resident in Judea, was written in Greek, and indeed there is no record of its ever being translated into Hebrew. It may be asked, In what sense is it affirmed that the Acts, being addressed to no particular church, but to an individual, was intended for the Christian church at large? One understands for what publicity the epistles of Paul were intended, being addressed to Christian communities; but how was it meant that the Gospels and the Acts should be published? But we think that the fact that these works 1 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 8. INTRODUCTION. 23 were disseminated, is in itself a proof that their publication was the intention of their authors: for, on the supposition of their being mere private writings, their after diffusion is un- accountable, or at least would be extremely unlikely. As to the mode of publication in the absence of printing, we are comparatively ignorant; but the same ignorance applies to all the works of the ancients. In all probability, copies of these works were made by zealous Christians, and distributed among the different churches, and would be gradually mul- tiplied. IV. THE DESIGN OF THE ACTS. In considering the design of the Acts, we must attend to the statements of the author himself in the preface to his Gospel; because the design of the Acts must be similar to that of the Gospel, inasmuch as the author represents it as the second part (δεύτερος λόγος) of his former work. Now, in the Gospel, Luke affirms that his design in writing was “to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among Christians, in order that they might know the certainty of those things wherein they had been instructed” (Luke i. 1, 4): in other words, to give an account of the life of Jesus for the information and use of Christians. And in conformity with this, in his preface to the Acts, he describes his former treatise, or the Gospel, as an account “of all that Jesus began both to.do and to teach” (Acts i. 1). Hence, then, it would seem that the Acts was designed to be a continuation of the same work which Jesus began, carried on by His apostles—a record of the teaching and actions of the apostles; so that its title, “The Acts of the Apostles,” is by no means inappropriate. The Acts, then, is a history of the progress of the religion of Christ for the instruction of Christians; or, as it is otherwise described, “a history of the progress of the Christian church from Jerusalem to Rome:” so approximately Lardner, Mayerhoff, Lekebusch, Ewald, Hackett, Alford. There is no part of the book where any such design is formally stated, unless it is to be found in that statement of our Lord to His disciples : 24 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. “Ye shall be witnesses to me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts i. 8). To this view of the subject, it is objected that this is to confound the contents of the book with the design which the author had in writing it. But in historical works, the contents are often the design: the simple record of events may be what Luke intended; or if a subjective motive be required, the instruction of Christians is sufficient. Again, it is objected that this does not account for the omissions in the book. Nothing is related of the acts of most of the apostles, the narrative concerning Peter breaks off abruptly, and even the history of Paul is defective: we are not in- formed of his three years’ residence in Arabia, of his dispute with Peter at Antioch, of his preaching the gospel in Galatia, and of the result of his Roman imprisonment; and from 2 Cor. xi. 24, 25, it would appear that only a few of his. trials and sufferings are described.’ But it is evident that Luke could not write everything that occurred, otherwise his work would exceed all bounds. We may not indeed be able to affirm in all cases on what principle he made his selection; but we may trace an order in his narrative— a record of the gradual development of Christianity. At first, the church is almost entirely confined to Jerusalem and its neighbourhood; then, after the dispersion, by reason of the persecution which followed the death of Stephen, it extends to Samaria and the adjoining provinces; then Cornelius is converted, and the Gentiles are received into the Christian church ; then missionary efforts commence at Antioch ; then Paul and his companions propagate the gospel in Asia, and carry it over to Europe, until at length it is established in Rome, the capital of the civilised world. Various other designs have been attributed to Luke. We have already alluded to the meagre view of Kuincel, that the Acts was written simply to afford information to Theo- philus. Grotius supposes that the Acts is a biography of Peter and Paul. And certainly it is so far true that these 1 Kuincel’s Novi Testamenti Libri Historici, vol. iii. p. 6. INTRODUCTION. 25 two apostles occupy a prominent place in the history: Peter is the leading person in the first part, and Paul in the second part of the Acts; but this was the case because it was chiefly through their instrumentality that Christianity was propa- gated. The design of the work is much wider than to give a mere biography of individuals: it relates their actions only when these have reference to the general history of the church, but it omits those private incidents which were not followed by any public consequences. By considering the Acts as a history, and not a biography, we may account for many omissions in the life of Paul. Thus, for example, his three years’ residence in Arabia is passed over, because it formed no part of his missionary labours. Others more in accordance with their preconceived opinions, or with the opinions peculiar to later times, than with any- thing found in the work itself, have ascribed apologetic or conciliatory designs to Luke. Michaelis supposes that Luke had a twofold object in the composition of his work : first, to relate in what manner the gifts of the Holy Spirit were communicated on the day of Pentecost, and the subsequent miracles performed by the apostles, by which the truth of Christianity was confirmed; secondly, to deliver such accounts as proved the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the church of Christ,—a claim disputed by the Jews, especially at the time when Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles." So also Griesbach thinks that the Acts is a justification of Paul con- cerning the reception of the Gentiles into the church. Similar is the view taken by Paulus: he supposes the Acts to be the justification of the Pauline doctrine of the universality of Christianity.” But such opinions convert an inference deducible from the work into the design. No doubt the Acts teaches the reception of the Gentiles into the Christian church, and their equality with the Jews ; but that this was not the sole design of the work, is evident from its contents. Schneckenburger proceeds further: he carries out the idea 1 Michaelis’ Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh, vol. iv. p. 330. 2 See Lekebusch’s Apostelgeschichte, pp. 235, 236. 26 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, suggested by Griesbach, and assigns to the Acts a purely apologetic desion. He supposes it to be a defence of Paul against the attacks of Judaizing Christians. With this object in view, the author attempts to prove the perfect similarity between Peter and Paul, by making Peter act as Paul would do, as when he preached the gospel to Cornelius; and by making Paul act as Peter would do, as when he took on himself the vow of the Nazarites. So also the two parts into which the Acts are divided are made to correspond: in the first part the actions of Peter are given, and in the second part the actions of Paul; and between the actions of these two apostles there is a striking coincidence. In short, the parallelism between Peter and Paul pervades the whole book, the discourses as well as the narratives, and accounts both for the reception and the omission of incidents. ‘Thus, for example, the dispute between Peter and Paul at Antioch, and the refusal of Paul to circumcise Titus, are omitted, as these incidents are opposed to the design of the author.’ It is, however, to be observed that Schneckenburger does not call in question the historical credibility of the Acts; on the contrary, he repeatedly maintains it against its opponents. But what he asserts is, that the justification of Paul was the principle which guided Luke in his selection of the mass of materials before him; so that the Acts is not so much a history as an apology. Baur, to whose opinion we have already alluded, carries out the theory of Schneckenburger to what we must say appears. to be its legitimate consequences. According to the view of Schneckenburger, a one-sided representation is given of Paul: important facts are omitted or unhistorically stated, and the speeches inserted do not agree with the peculiar doctrine of Paul; and thus historical truth is sacri- ficed. Paul is converted into a Petrine Christian, and Peter into a Pauline believer. The true Paul and Peter are not described. ‘The Paul of the Acts,” observes Baur, “is different from the Paul of the epistles.” Accordingly, 1 Schneckenburger, Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte. 2 See Baur’s Apostel Paulus, vol. i. 8-13. INTRODUCTION, 27 Baur defends the apologetic design which Schneckenburger supposes to be contained in the Acts, and employs it as an argument against its authenticity. He supposes that the Acts was the composition of a Pauline Christian in the second century, with a view to reconcile Pauline and Petrine Chris- tianity : he maintains a conciliatory rather than an apologetic design. The hypothesis of Baur is merely the creation of an in- genious mind, supported by the learning of the accomplished scholar. The general reader must certainly fail to see any such trace of a conciliatory design as Baur supposes contained in the Acts. The opposition between the views of Paul and Peter is entirely fanciful; and the resemblance between the actions of these two apostles is certainly, to say the least, far- fetched. Nor is there the slightest trace of the use of Paul’s epistles in the book; whereas if the Acts were of so late a date as Baur supposes, the author would have employed them, especially as they would have furnished him with material in support of his conciliatory hypothesis, and in favour of Judaism, as when Paul enumerates the privileges of the Jewish nation, and expresses his ardent attachment for his countrymen (Rom. ix. 1-5)."| And the supposition that the Acts is a fictitious work of the second century (110-130) is irreconcilable with the direct testimony of Irenzeus, who lived in that century, to the authorship of Luke, with the undesigned coincidences between the Acts and the Pauline epistles, and with the general agreement between it and Jewish and Roman histories. In short, this hypothesis of Baur is unsupported by the book itself, and at variance with the general testimony of antiquity ; and, as Meyer observes, all those reasons which Baur and his followers bring forward do not prove what they are designed to prove, and are not able to overthrow the recognition of the ancient church.” The opinion advanced by Baumgarten after Olshausen, and adopted by Lechler, Burton in his Bampton Lectures, 1 The agreement also between the Acts and the Pauline epistles would have been more artificial. 2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 6. 28 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Wordsworth, and others, is entitled to more consideration. Baumgarten supposes that the Acts of the Apostles is a con- tinuation of the life of Christ. He grounds this view on the words with which Luke describes his former treatise, as being an account “of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach” (ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν). According to him, the word ἤρξατο is not ἃ pleonasm, but full of meaning: the gospel is the beginning of the doing and teaching of Jesus, and the Acts is the continuation. The same work which Jesus began on earth, He continues in heaven. He Himself is the agent, the apostles are the mere instruments whom Heemploys. Not Paul, nor Peter, but Christ Himself, is the centre character of the Acts. In the words of Lechler : “This book professes to be the second part of the Gospel of Luke, so that the transactions of the apostles are simply the continuation of the life of our Lord. This connection is extremely important and instructive: for it teaches us that the earthly life of Jesus concluded with the ascension, has its fruit and continued efficacy ; and His heavenly life com- mencing with the ascension, has its manifestation and proof in the acts and experiences of the apostles and first churches.” ἢ Now, no doubt the view here expressed of the actions of the apostles is important and suggestive. The history of the church was under the immediate control of the exalted Redeemer, and may justly be considered as the continuation in heaven of the work which He had begun on earth. But perhaps it is pressing the idea too far to affirm, that to show this was the special design of Luke in writing the Acts: it confounds an inference which may be drawn from the work, or a use which may be made of it, with the design. If this were the intention of Luke, it would have been more clearly intimated and more prominently brought forward, and we would not have been left to infer it from a single phrase of doubtful interpretation. Still it asserts a great truth—the life of Christ in His church. As Chrysostom expresses it: “The 1 Baumgarten’s Apostolic History, vol. i. pp. 6, 7. 2 Lange’s Bibelwerk; Apostelgeschichte von Lechler, p. 1. See also Wordsworth on the Acts, pp. 2-5. INTRODUCTION. 29 Gospels are the history of what Jesus did and taught; the Acts is the history of what the other Comforter did and taught.””* Vv. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE ACTS. Nothing can with certainty be affirmed with regard to the time when the Acts was written: there is nothing in the book itself which would lead to a determination on this oint. German critics in general suppose that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the view advyo- eated by De Wette, Ewald, and Meyer. Meyer fixes the date of its composition about the year 80, being, as he observes, nearly contemporary with the Gospel of John and the History of Josephus.” The reason, however, which these biblical critics assign for thus dating the Acts after the de- struction of Jerusalem, is because, according to their rational- istic views of prophecy, the Gospel of Luke, “the former treatise,” was written after that event. Lechler, who is far removed from such rationalistic views, fixes upon the same date, following the tradition of Irenzeus, who relates that Luke wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul. Schneckenburger thinks that he has found an indication of time in ch. viii. 26, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, “ which is desert,” and which he applies to the destruction of Gaza during the continuance of the Jewish war; and that the absence of all allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem proves that that event had not taken place. He therefore fixes the time of writing after the death of Paul and during the Jewish war. For the same reason, Lekebusch fixes the date of composition about the year 70; because, he observes, the notice concern- ing Gaza proves that its fate was in the fresh recollection of the writer as a fact which had shortly before occurred.’ But 1 So also Bengel observes: non tam apostolorum, quam Spiritus sancti Acta describens, sicut prior liber Acta Jesu Christi habet. 2 Meyer’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 17. The same date is fixed on by Renan. 3 Lekebusch, Apostelgeschichte, pp. 420=422. 30 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. the pronoun αὕτη is indefinite: it may as well apply to the road to Gaza as to the city. The probability is, that both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts were written before the destruction of Jerusalem,— perhaps the former at Czesarea during Paul’s imprisonment there, and the latter at Rome. If the destruction of Jeru- salem had already taken place, we should have expected some allusion to it in the work. There is no reason why the book may not have been written at the very period when the history ends; that is to say, about the year 63, or in the second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome. This is in itself the most probable opinion, and there are no presump- tions against it. Why the book ends apparently so abruptly with the statement that Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, will be afterwards considered. If the above opinion as regards the time is correct, then the place of composition would be Rome. Other places have been mentioned, as Alexandria (Mill), Antioch (Hilgenfeld), proconsular Asia (Kostlin), but without any presumptions in their favour. VI. THE LANGUAGE AND TEXT OF THE ACTS. That the Acts of the Apostles was originally written in Greek, is a statement which admits of no dispute, and is now universally accepted. The opinion of Harduin, that it is a translation from the Latin, is wholly unfounded. The Greek is purer than in most of the other writings of the New Testament. As already observed, a similarity of style pervades the whole book from beginning to end; yet the similarity is not exact, for the first part perceptibly differs from the second part by a more copious use of Hebraisms.* The first part exactly resembles in style the third Gospel, whereas the Greek in the second part is purer. The probable reason of this difference is, that in the first part of the Acts and in the Gospel Luke was dependent upon foreign sources ; 1 For a list of these Hebraisms, see De Wette’s Apostelgeschichte, p. 12; Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 28 ; Schwanbeck’s Quellen, p. 36, etc. INTRODUCTION. 31 whereas the second part of the Acts being for the most part the testimony of an eye-witness, he was more unfettered in the use of his peculiar style. The text of the Acts, as it has come down to us, has a greater variety of readings than any other book of the New Testament, except the Apocalypse. It is not easy to assign a reason for this. The Acts seems to have been less read than the Gospels and Epistles, and this comparative neglect may have occasioned less anxiety to preserve its purity. Various attempts were also made to amend the text, and supposed omissions were supplied ; as, for example, the three accounts of the conversion of Paul have been made to cor- respond even in verbal expressions. In consequence of this disturbed state of the text, great difficulty has been experi- enced in arriving at the correct reading. Hic liber, observes Mattheei, in re critica est difficillimus et tmpeditissimus, quod multa in eo turbata sunt. The most numerous variations are found in the Codex Bezz. Bornemann has adopted this codex as containing the true readings. “The Codex Beze,” he observes, “ excels all other manuscripts in internal good- ness to an extent that is incredible, and a better text is con- tained in no other parchment which has come down to our time; so that the work may be said to have issued from the most complete and ancient fountain of all.” Such an opinion is unfavourably regarded by critics of the highest eminence, though many of the readings found in that manuscript are of great value and interest. By the labours of Tischendorf, Lachmann, and De Wette, the original text may now be considered, to all intents and purposes, restored. The following is a list of the uncial mss. which are pre- served of the Acts of the Apostles, with the marks by which they are known among biblical critics :— x. The Codex Sinaiticus.—This celebrated Ms., which it is proposed to designate by the Hebrew letter x, was found by Tischendorf in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai in 1859. According to him, it belongs to the fourth century, and is probably the oldest ms. of the New Testa- ment. It contains the Acts entire. 32 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. A. The Codex Alexandrinus.—This Ms. was presented by Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles 1. It is preserved in the British Museum. Tischendorf supposes that it was written about the middle of the fifth century. It contains the Acts entire. B. The Codex Vaticanus.—This is one of the oldest and most valuable mss. which we have. It is preserved in the Vatican Library. Tischendorf assigns it to the fourth cen-. tury. It has been collated by Bartolocci, Bentley, and Birch. The edition of it published by Cardinal Mai has been unfa- vourably judged by biblical critics. It contains the Acts entire. C. The Codex Ephremi.—This ms. is preserved in the Royal Library of Paris. It is so called because the works of Ephrem the Syrian were written over a part of it. Tischen- dorf thinks that it belongs to the fifth century. It contains the following fragments :—From ch. i. 2 to iv. 3; from ch. v. 35 to x. 42; from ch. xiii. 1 to xvi. 36; from ch. xx. 10 to xxi. 30; from ch. xxii. 21 to xxiii. 18; from ch. xxiv. 15 to xxvi. 19; from ch. xxvii. 16 to xxviii. 4. D. The Codex Beze or Cantabrigiensis.—This Ms. is so called because it was presented by Beza to the University of Cambridge in 1581. Tischendorf supposes that it belongs to the sixth century. It is defective as follows:—From ch. viii. 29 to x. 14; from ch. xxi. 2 to xxi. 10; from ch. xxi. 17 to xxi. 18; from ch. xxii. 10 to xxii. 20; from ch. xxii. 29 to the end of the book. E. The Codex Laudianus.—This Ms. is so called because it was presented by Archbishop Laud to the University of Oxford. It is supposed to have been written toward the close of the sixth century. It is highly praised both by Michaelis and Tischendorf. There is a defect from Ὃ δὲ Παῦλος, ch. xxvi. 29, to πορεύθητι, ch. xxviii. 26. G. The Codex Bibliothece Anglice.—This Ms. receives its name because it is preserved in the Anglican Library of the Augustinian monks at Rome. ‘Tischendorf observes that it could not have been written before the middle of the ninth century. It commences at ch. viii. 10, and is complete to the end. INTRODUCTION. 33 H. The Codex Mutinensis.—This ms. is deposited in the Library of Modena. According to Tischendorf, it was written in the ninth century. It begins with ch. v. 28, and is defective in the following places:—From ch. ix. 39 to x. 19; from ch. xiii. 36 to xiv. 3; the portion from ch. xxvii. 4 to the end has been supplied in uncial letters by a later hand, about the eleventh century.' VII. ARRANGEMENT OF THE ACTS. The work is divided into two distinct parts: the first part, embracing the first twelve chapters, contains an account of the progress of Christianity among the Jews, and of its extension to the Gentiles; and the second part, embracing the remaining sixteen chapters, contains an account of the missionary journeys of Paul. These two parts, again, admit of various subdivisions. Thus the first part may be divided into four subdivisions—the history of the church before Pentecost, the progress of the church in Jerusalem, its pro- gress in Judea and Samaria, and its extension to the Gentiles. The second part also admits of a fourfold subdivision,x— namely, the three missionary journeys of Paul, each of them beginning at Antioch and terminating at Jerusalem; and the account of his imprisonment. According to this plan, the Acts of the Apostles admits of the following arrangement :— Part I. PRoGRESS OF THE GOSPEL IN JUDEA, AND ITS EXTENSION TO THE GENTILES. Sec. 1. History of the Church before Pentecost, Acts i. Sec. 2. Progress of the Gospel in Jerusalem, Acts ii.—vil. Sec. 3. Progress of the Gospel in Judea and Samaria, Acts viii. ix. Sec. 4. Extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles, Acts x.—xii. Part II. Tue Missionary Lasours OF THE APOSTLE PAUL. Sec. 1. Paul’s first missionary journey, Acts xiii—xv. 35. Sec. 2. Paul’s second missionary journey, Acts xv. 36—xviii. 22. Sec. 3. Paul’s third missionary journey, Acts xviii. 23—xxi. 16. Sec. 4. Paul’s imprisonment, Acts xxi. 17—xxviil. 1 The authority for the above information is Tischendorf. See his Prolégomena. . VOL. I. σ 34 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. VIII. CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTS. The Acts of the Apostles evidently proceeds in a chrono- logical order; but it is extremely difficult to fix the precise dates of the different events recorded. Even the years of the birth and death of our Lord are matters of uncertainty. There are few notices of time given us in the earlier portion of the Acts, and those given are for the most part indefinite ; but toward the close of the second portion, when Luke him- self was with the apostle, the statements as regards time are definite. In the Epistle to the Galatians, also, exact dates are given. Paul there mentions two visits which he paid to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18, ii. 1): the first corresponding with the visit mentioned in Acts ix. 26, three years after his conver- sion; and the second corresponding with the visit mentioned in Acts xv., fourteen years after his conversion.’ The date of Paul’s conversion, however, is a matter of extreme uncer- tainty. There are also several historical facts alluded to in the Acts, and which are mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians. The chief among these are the death of Herod Agrippa 1., the famine in the time of Claudius, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, and the procuratorships of Felix and Festus. There is only one date which can be determined with certainty, and that is the period of the death of Herod Agrippa 1. Josephus tells us that he reigned three years under Claudius, after he had received from him the whole of the dominions of his grandfather Herod the Great. Now Claudius, immediately on his accession to the imperial throne in the beginning of the year 41, made Herod Agrippa king of Judea and Samaria; consequently the death of that king is to be fixed in the year 44. 1 The second of these visits of Paul to Jerusalem is, however, a sub- ject of much dispute ; and it is also disputed whether the fourteen years are to be calculated from the conversion of the apostle, or from his first visit to Jerusalem. These controverted points will be afterwards discussed. INTRODUCTION. 35 Another date which is nearly certain, or at least may be determined within a year, is the removal of Felix from the procuratorship of Judea, and the entrance of Festus upon that office. On the departure of Felix, the Jewish inhabit- ants of Czesarea sent a deputation to Rome to accuse him to the emperor; but Josephus informs us that he was screened by the court influence of his brother Pallas (Ant. xx. 8. 9). The deputation, then, must have arrived at Rome before the year 62; for in that year, according to Tacitus, Pallas was put to death by Nero (Ann. xiv. 65). According to Josephus, Burrus was also alive when the accusers of Felix were at Rome; but he died in March 62. Hence the recall of Felix must Have occurred before A.D. 62. Again, Josephus states that, shortly after the entrance of Festus upon office, the Jews sent a deputation to Rome about a matter of dis- pute between them and that governor; and that the decision was given in their favour in order to gratify Poppza, the wife of Nero (Ant. xx. 8.11). Now this could not have happened earlier than the year 62, for according to Tacitus it was not until that year that Poppza became Nero’s wife (Ann. xiv. 60); and allowing some time for the dispute to arise, and the deputation to be sent, Festus could hardly have been earlier in office than the year 60. From these data it has been inferred by the ablest chronologists, that Felix was removed from office and Festus succeeded in A.D. 60. A multitude of attempts have been made to give an exact chronology of the Acts. The ablest work on this subject is Wieseler’s Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters. Lists have been given by Meyer, Wieseler, Olshausen, and David- son, of upwards of thirty chronological tables, not one of which agrees with another. We give, for the sake of reference, a table containing a list of the Roman emperors and of the governors of Judea, along with the chief events mentioned in the Acts, chronicled under the years in which these events most probably occurred, similar to the tables given by Alford, Wordsworth, and Conybeare and Howson. 36 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. EMPERORS. 33. Tiberius. . Caligula. . Nero. 58. . Claudius. | Herod Agrippa 1. JEWISH GOVERNORS. Pontius Pilate. Marullus. i Cuspius Fadus. Tiberius Alexander. OO pe Na α “ς Ventidius Cummanus. + Felix. came ne ae ae PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE ACTs. The ascension? miracle of Pen- tecost—Acts i. ii. During these years, the events recorded in Acts iii.—vi. 7 probably occurred. Martyrdom of Stephen ; evan- gelistic labours in Samaria— Acts vi. 8-viii. Conversion of Paul ?—Acts ix. 1-19. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem ; he retires to Tarsus—Acts ix. 23-31. The missionary labours of Peter; conversion of Cornelius; the church at Antioch; Paul at Antioch—Acts ix. 32—xi. Death of Herod; Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem—