PA 891 A2 W56 1909 MAIN UC-NRLF B M D2fl in Xlbe TDlniversttp of Cbtcago FOUNDED BV JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER FHE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS A DISSERTATION UBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of biblical greek) BY CHARLES BRAY WILLIAMS I CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1909 i* » l\ >»:..,f, * S I :'S 'A / .f • ' r* J. f - .: V *. /4 ■■■■ ;'" ■>■:•. ,' - ■'■', ?-:■ -• :'' S, . .> •' ' .-. .■ :■ i *■..*;> '.':.■ ■ .:■. .'. .--,>,»*.;* p '■■ >■ '• t j >'.* i • ". . . ■. ■ *. ■; - > .? ,. * <; ■ \ :i .t i ? ;• • v ; * .'- ■?• I * $ . ■?. 3 '• > ^ .; > " - ,* ■;■ -: : - i .; / - •<> ■. .? .' < V Z w - r < :- .< i * ■ ' ■. \j ■ , ? . v > 1 >>■ 'AMJ -., '■' ,. a ■; * ; ;i '4 • ^ * - » ..» J -r s » '; „■ ,} ■ - Zbc VlntvevBity of Cbicago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of biblical greek) BY CHARLES BRAY WILLIAMS CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1909 Copyright 1909 By The University of Chicago Published March 1909 Composed and Printed By The University of Chicago Press Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. Acknowledgment is clue to Professors Ernest D. Burton, Clyde W. Votaw, and Edgar J. Goodspeed for their valuable suggestions and criti- CONTENTS PAGE Introduction vii Part I Facts Concerning the Participle in the Book of Acts Chapter I. The Categories of the Participle i Chapter II. A Comparative Study of Greek Participles ... 7 Chapter III. Enumeration of the Participles in the Book of Acts . 13 Chapter IV. A Comparison of Participles in Other New Testament Books 21 Chapter V. Particles with Participles in the Book of Acts . . 25 Chapter VI. The Periphrastic Participle in the Book of Acts . . 28 Chapter VII. The Genitive Absolute in the Book of Acts ... 31 Chapter VIII. The Function of the Tense in the Participle in the Book of Acts 34 Chapter IX. A Complete Classification of the Participles in the Book of Acts 36 Part II Inferences from the Above Facts Concerning the Participle hi the Book of Acts Chapter X. The Nature of the Greek in the Book of Acts ... 45 Chapter XL The Unity of the Book of Acts Seen in the Light of the Participle 49 Chapter XII. The Sources of the Book of Acts Seen in the Light of Participial Usage 57 Chapter XIII. The Authorship of the Book of Acts in the Light of Participial Usage 68 Chapter XIV. The Composition of the Addresses in the Book of Acts in the Light of Participial Usage 73 Bibliography 77 INTRODUCTION A casual reading impresses the Greek student with the great number and striking variety of participles in the Book of Acts. A critical reading reveals many facts of importance to the New Testament grammarian and theologian. To ascertain these facts and to determine their bearing on the main problems connected with the Book of Acts is the purpose of this treatise. The WH text is the basis of our investigations. Where this text is in doubt about the reading we shall indicate it, if it bears on the use of the participle. If weighty MSS favor another reading than WH we shall mention it. vii PART I FACTS CONCERNING THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS CHAPTER I THE CATEGORIES OF THE PARTICIPLE Before we can deal intelligently with the participles in Acts we must decide on some principles of classification and adopt a definite classifi- cation and terminology for our use in this treatise. The categories of some leading Greek grammarians will first be examined. Sec. i. Kuehner's Classification I. Complementary participles used with verbs of perceiving, showing, expressing the emotions, of enduring, beginning, continuing, ceasing, €^w, Tvy^avo), XavOdva), etc. II. Attributive, expressing an attributive qualification of substantives requiring (in English) a participle after the substantive, or equivalent to a relative clause. III. Participles used to express adverbial qualification of the principal action. Sec. 2. Goodwin's Classification I. Attributive. Here he distinguishes the use of the participle as attrib- utive adjective, as substantive (usually with the article), and as predicate adjective. II. Circumstantial, expressing time, means, manner, cause, condition, concession, etc. III. Supplementary — not in indirect discourse and also in indirect discourse. Sec. 3. Burton's Classification I. The adjective participle — attributive and predicative. II. The adverbial, equivalent to clauses of time, cause, condition, concession, etc. III. The substantive, used as part of subject, object, or limiting genitive. This class corresponds to Goodwin's supplementary class. 2 the participle in the book of acts Sec. 4. Jannaris' Classification He says there are two general uses and so two general classes: I. The adjectival participle, divided into the attributive which is often equivalent to a relative clause, and the predicative participle which like a predicate "supplements the notion of certain incomplete or auxiliary verbs." The latter is the supplementary class of Kuehner and Goodwin, the substantive class of Burton. II. The adverbial participle, expressing time, cause, condition, con- cession, etc. Sec. 5. Winer's Classification He did not give any definite classification, but speaks of: I. Participles expressing a complement to a principal sentence and illustrates this class with a-rrrjXdev Xv-rrov/Aevos, which is almost surely an adverbial participle of manner. II. Participles expressing subordinate sentences, illustrating this class with irav KXrjfxa /xr] cjtepov and pevov o-ol 1/i.evev, one of which examples is attributive and the other adverbial (according to the terminology of Kueh- ner, Goodwin, and Burton). III. Participles used as a complement, or predicatively, illustrating this class with €7re/x.eve Kpowv, etc. His first two classes are not exclusive and hence his classification is not logical. Sec. 6. Blass's Classification He makes only two classes: I. Participles as attributive. But he makes this class include the attributive and supplementary of Goodwin. II. Participles expressing an additional clause, corresponding to the adverbial or circumstantial class of Goodwin or Burton. Sec. 7. Hadley and Allen's Classification I. Attributive, the participle often being substantive as well as adjec- tival. II. Predicate-participles divided into the subclasses: 1. Circumstantial, expressing time, means, manner, cause, etc. 2. Supplementary. Babbitt, who had begun his Greek grammar in partnership with Allen before the latter's death, follows, not Hadley and Allen's, but Goodwin's, classification. CATEGORIES OF THE PARTICIPLE 3 Sec. 8. Delbruck-Brugmann's Classification They discuss, but not with unreserved approval, Classen's classifica- tion: I. The participle of external relation. II. The adverbial participle. III. The objective participle. They make the "time-character" of the participle the basis of division, but surely the time element in the participle does not furnish the best basis of classification. Sec. 9. Viteau's Classification Viteau does not show the relation of the great classes of the participle, but merely discusses twelve subclasses: The participle of distinctive complement (used with the article to characterize a person or thing); the participle of attributive complement (used without the article to denote the quality or manner of being or transient action) ; the explicative participle (equivalent to a relative proposition); the final participle (purpose and consequence); the causal; the conditional and concessive; the temporal; the attributive with particles; the periphrastic; the attributive connected with the subject (with ™yxava>, iruvo/uat, etc.) ; attributive connected with the object (with verbs of seeing, knowing, etc.); the independent participle (genitive, accusative, and nominative absolute). Sec. 10. Some General Criticisms on These Categories We must not stop to go too far into details, and yet we must make some criticism on these classifications. First, there seems to be naturally a threefold classification of Greek participles, as is recognized by Kuehner, Goodwin, Burton, Babbitt, Classen, etc. It scarcely seems logical to throw together the first and third classes, as did Blass and Jannaris, nor is it any more natural to combine the second and third classes, as did Hadley and Allen. The participle illus- trated by 71-oAis oUov/jLevr) is different in nature from that in i\6wv ciSov, and it seems equally as different in function from that in the sentence bpaw avTov €p\o^vov. In the first example the function of the participle is to ascribe a state, and so a characteristic, to ttoAis, just as koXt) would do in 7roAis KaXrj, In the second example l\6v elSov it evidently takes the place of a dependent clause — when I came, because I came, etc. Because such clauses modify like an adverb the principal verb eTSov, this participle is called by Burton, Jannaris, etc., the adverbial participle. But it is objectionable to call participles by the names of parts of speech. Yet, on the whole, it is better to call this class adverbial than circumstantial, since all. participles express a circumstance in one sense or another. Nor is it fitting to denominate this class predicative, as do Hadley and Allen, because this term does not distinguish it from the third class, nor from part of the first class. As to the function of the third participle ipxop-evov, in bpdw airov epxo- /aevov, it is clear that airov ipxop.evov together constitutes the direct object of bpd, just as dvdpwrrov is the direct object of 6pda> dvOpw-n-ov. But this is not all the participle does in this sentence. It helps to express an action which is closely connected with airov. Hence, it is not true to all the facts to CATEGORIES OF THE PARTICIPLE 5 call it a substantive participle, as does Burton, because it helps complete an action in addition to its forming part of the direct object of the verb. Take two other examples of this third class which are apparently some- what different as to the function of the participle: iiravaaro Xeymv, he ceased speaking. Does the participle express a complement to an object, as in the former example ? Before answering this question let us look at a sentence with the active of this verb: lirava-tv avrbv Xiyovra, he stopped him (from) speaking. Here the participle evidently is a part of the object. Then does the participle change its function, because the principal verb has changed its voice ? It is not probable that such is the case, for iiravaaro \eywv really means, he stopped himself (from) speaking. Hence, the function of the participle is the same as that in the former example, that is, a part of the object but expressing an additional action. In the sentence, ot8e Sikcuos w, he knows that he is right, does the participle constitute a part of the object as in the other examples ? Surely it does, for it means, he knows the (fact of) his being right. Then it seems more fitting to call the third class complementary rather than substantive. It is also better to use the term complementary than the term supplementary, because the latter term expresses an addition that may not be so vitally connected with what goes before, while the term com- plementary means that which helps to complete what goes before and so is vitally connected with it. This is precisely what the participle in the third class does. Sec. 11. Terminology Adopted for This Treatise 1. The ascriptive participle, divided further into: t. The attributive, e.g., 6 rpiyuv aydpuiros, the running man, or the man who runs. 2. The predicative, e.g., 6 SiSao-KttAos ea-ri SiSao-Kwv, the teacher is teaching. 3. The substantive, where the substantive is implied and the participle has a substantive meaning, e.g., rj oiKovixevr), the (inhabited) world; 6 ino-Tevwv, the believer. II. The adverbial participle, which is usually equivalent to a subordi- nate clause, but sometimes equivalent to a phrase of manner or means. Often the adverbial participial clause is only general in its nature and does not make prominent the relation of the subordinate clause to the principal sentence. Again the adverbial participle, by the aid of the context, par- ticularizes the relation of the subordinate clause to the principal sentence and then we have adverbial participles of time, cause, condition, concession, 6 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS etc. Hence, we designate the subclasses of adverbials as general, temporal, causal, those of manner or means, concession, condition, and purpose. III. The complementary participle, which is used with verbs of per- ceiving, emotion, beginning, continuing, ceasing, etc. There are two subclasses : i. The objective complementary participle in which the participle belongs to an object other than the subject of the clause: e. g., r/Kovcra avrov XuXovvtos, I heard him speaking; rjKOvaa to 0-Tpa.Tev/j.a ipxop-evov, I heard that the army was coming. 2. The subjective complementary participle in which the action belongs to an object unexpressed because identical with the subject of the clause: e. g., i-nravaaTo Ae'yw, he ceased speaking; oTSe 6Ykcuos w, he knows that he is right. It is to be observed that in John 4:39 the complementary participle is used as a limiting genitive. The same construction is found in Heb. 8:9, but is rare in general Greek literature and does not occur in the Book of Acts. The above subclasses may be divided further into complementary participles not in indirect discourse and those in indirect discourse. CHAPTER II A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GREEK PARTICIPLES Sec. 12 The student of New Testament participles naturally asks, What is the use of the participle in other Greek literature ? Is there an evolution of participial usage ? Three divisions of Greek literature outside the New Testament, cover- ing the period from Homer to Plutarch, are studied: the Early Greek literature from Homer to Plato, the Late, or kolvtj, Greek literature from Polybius to Plutarch, and the documentary papyri. A thousand lines in each author have been examined, since we deem this a sufficient amount to let any author exhibit his participial usage. In the papyri we take documentary fragments amounting in all to one thousand lines. We have adopted as our standard page in this treatise the page of thirty lines, since this is about the average page in WH edition of the New Testament. Sec. 13. The Use of the Participle in Homer (ca. 950-850 b. c.) (Iliad, Book I, ed. Seymour, 1903) In a thousand lines of Homer's Iliad occur only 272 participles, an average of 8£ per page. Thirty-nine of these (14^ per cent.) are ascriptive; 214 (78$ per cent.) adverbial; 10 (ca. 7 per cent.) complementary. Sec. 14. The Use of the Participle in Sophocles (d. ca. 433 b. c.) (Antigone, ed. D'Ooge, 1890; Oed. Tyr., ed. Earle, 1901) One thousand lines from Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus together contain 301 participles, an average of a little over 9 per page. Seventy- eight of these (25! per cent.) are ascriptive; 175 (58^ per cent.) adverbial; 48 (about 16 per cent.) complementary. There are fewer participles in Oedipus Tyrannus than in Antigone in the ratio of 145 to 156. There are also fewer complementary participles in Oedipus Tyrannus than in Antigone in the ratio of 22 to 26. Sec. 15. The Use of the Participle in Herodotus (d. ca. 425 b. c.) (Book I, ed. Sayce, 1883) One thousand lines contain 585 participles, an average of 17^ per page. One hundred forty-one of these (24 ^ per cent.) are ascriptive; 414 (70! per cent.) adverbial; 30 (5^ per cent.) complementary. 7 8 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 16. The Use of the Participle in Thucydides (d. ca. 400 b. c.) (From Sicilian Expedition, ed. Frost, 1896) In one thousand lines occur 432 participles, an average of nearly 13 per page. Ninety-six of these (22! per cent.) are ascriptive; 313 (72$ per cent.) adverbial; 23 (5^ per cent.) complementary. Sec. 17. The Use of the Participle in Xenophon (d. after 355 b. c.) (Anab., Book I, ed. Kelsey and Zenos after text of Cobet) One thousand lines contain 413 participles, an average of 12^ per page. One hundred seventeen of these (ca. 28 J per cent.) are ascriptive; 272 (ca. 65^ per cent.) adverbial; 24 (nearly 6 per cent.) complementary. Sec. 18. The Use of the Participle in Plato (d. 347 b. c.) (Gorgias, ed. Lodge, 1896; Republic, ed. Hermann-Teubner, 1896; Laws, ed. Hermann-Teubner, 1899) One thousand lines (one-third from each of the above works) contain 339 participles, an average of 10J per page. One hundred fifty-two of these (45 J per cent.) are ascriptive; 183 (50! per cent.) adverbial; 17 (4f per cent.) complementary. Sec. 19. The Use of the Participle in Demosthenes (d. 322 b. c.) (Olynthiacs A and B, ed. Sandys, 1898) In one thousand lines occur 358 participles, an average of 10J per page. One hundred forty of these (37^ per cent.) are ascriptive; 185 (nearly 5i§ per cent.) adverbial; 33 (ca. nj per cent.) complementary. Sec. 20. The Use of the Participle in the Septuagint (ca. 280 f . ?) In one thousand lines from Exod., chaps. 1-7, Deut., chaps. 28-31 (discourse, to even up the narrative, since we find both discourse and narra- tive in the Book of Acts), and from Judg., chaps. 1-5, we find only 205 participles, an average of ca. 6£ per page. Most of them, that is, 160 (78 per cent.), are ascriptive. Only 41 (20 per cent.) are adverbial, while only about 2 per cent, are complementary. Of course, this is simply translation Greek and the style is largely influenced by the Hebrew. A little less than one-half of the participles in the Septuagint translate participles in the Hebrew, that is, over half of the participles in the Septuagint translate something else (infinitive abso- lute, infinitive construct, or a finite verb). Yet, a little over one-half of the participles in the Hebrew are not translated by participles in the Septua- gint, some being translated by substantives and some by finite verbs. It is especially to be observed that eighteen of the adverbials in the Septuagint COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GREEK PARTICIPLES 9 translate the Hebrew infinitive construct "ibtfb . Yet, many times in the Septuagint Xe'ywv, or Ae'yovTes, occurs where the infinitive construct of the verb of saying is not found in the Hebrew. All the participles in Hebrew are ascriptive or used for the finite verb to express continuous action (so Harper). The Hebrews knew not the adverbial use of the participle until they learned it from Greek-speaking peoples. The forty-one cases of the adverbial, and the four cases of the complementary, participles in the Septuagint show how the translators were influenced by Hellenism (as to grammatical constructions at least). Sec. 21. The Use of the Participle in Polybius (d. ca. 125 b. c.) (Hist., ed. Buttner-Wobst after L. Dindorfio) One thousand lines contain 593 participles, an average of 17^ per page. One hundred sixty -four of these (27! per cent.) are ascriptive; 414 (6of per cent.) adverbial; 15 (ca. 2\ per cent.) complementary. Sec. 22. The Use of the Participle in II Maccabees (date bet. Polybius and Strabo; ed. Swete, O. T. in Greek) One thousand lines contain 781 participles, an average of nearly 23^ per page. Two hundred seventy-four of these (a little over 35 per cent.) are ascriptive; 487 (a little over 62 1 per cent.) adverbial; 20 (a little less than 2% per cent.) complementary. Sec. 23. The Use of the Participle in Strabo (d. ca. 24 a. d.) (Geog., Books Vff. ; Description of Italy, etc.; ed. Meineke, 1868) In one thousand lines we find 453 participles, an average of a little over 13 1 per page. Two hundred twelve of these (46^ per cent.) are ascriptive; 233 (nearly 51^ per cent.) adverbial; only 8 (i T \ per cent.) complementary. Sec. 24. The Use of the Participle in Josephus (d. ca. 100 a. d.) (Anliq., Books XII and XIII, ed. Niese, 1888-92) In one thousand lines occur 667 participles, an average of 20 per page. One hundred eleven of these (i6f per cent.) are ascriptive; 520 (nearly 78 per cent.) adverbial; 36 (5^ per cent.) complementary. Sec. 25. The Use of the Participle in Plutarch (d. ca. 125 a. d.) (The Life of Pericles, ed. Holden, 1894) One thousand lines contain 466 participles, an average of nearly 14 per page. One hundred thirty-five of these (nearly 29 per cent.) are ascriptive; 304 (nearly 65^ per cent.) adverbial; 27 (ca. $\ per cent.) complementary. THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 26. The Use of the Participle in the Documentary Papyri (From Catalog of Greek Papyri, Vol. II, Rom. Period, ist cent. a. d., and part from Oxyrhyncus Papyri, Grenfell and Hunt, ist cent. a. d.) In one thousand lines of these fragments occur only 228 participles, an average of only 6 T 8 ,j%. One hundred ninety-two of these (84* per cent.) are ascriptive; 32 (ca. 14 per cent.) adverbial; 4 (ca. 2f per cent.) comple- mentary. On the next page is given a table recapitulating the facts concerning the participle in all the authors examined in this chapter. Then some observations and comparisons based on these figures will be made, thus paving the way for still further facts and consequent comparisons. Sec. 27. General Recapitulative Table of Greek Participles Author Date Lines Total Participles Average per Page of 30 lines Ascriptive Per cent. Ad- verbial Percent. Comple- mentary Percent. Homer Herodotus . . . Sophocles. . . . Thucydides. . Xenophon . . Plato Demosthenes. Septuagint . . . (Ex., Dt., Jg.) Polybius II Maccabees. Strabo Josephus Plutarch Papyri c. 950-850 B. C. d. 425 B. C. d. 433 B. c. d. 400 B. C. d. ca. 355 B. c. d. 347 B. c. d. 322 B. c. 280 f. B. C. d. 125 B. c. 150-IOO B. C. d. ca. 24 A. D. d. ca. 100 A. D. d. ca. 125 A. D. ist cent. A. D. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 272 535 301 43 2 413 339 358 205 593 781 453 667 466 228 si 9 + 13 I2| ioJ I of 17! 23 1 135 20 14 6* + 14* 24i\f 25! 22| 28J 45? 37i 78" 27§ 35 46*. i6§ 29 8 4 i •78§ 7°l 58 1 72^ 65f 5<4 519 20 69*. 62^ 5iJ 78 65* 14 7 5, l o 16 51 6- 4t c. ni 2 1 - 25 5 I 5f 2f Sec. 28. Some Observations on the Above Table 1. From this table we observe that the adverbial participle was well developed in Homer, over three-fourths of his participles being adverbial. The complementary participle is also fairly well developed in Homer. Since the Hebrews did not use either the adverbial or complementary par- ticiple, these facts show the Greek language in Homer's day to be in an advanced stage in the evolution of its participle, while the Hebrews were in a very low state of participial usage. This conclusion is based on the premise that the ascriptive use of the participle is its original use, which is doubtless true. 2. In Sophocles the tragic poet the average is very small — a little over 9 per page. But he has the largest proportion of complementary parti- COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GREEK PARTICIPLES II ciples found in any author examined, from Homer to Plutarch. The participle in this author shows a high degree of development both as to its adverbial and its complementary participle. The small average is partially due to the lack of narrative. 3. In the historians, we notice a much larger average in Herodotus — 17^ — but not so large an average in Thucydides and Xenophon.. Hence the nature of the literary form does not entirely account for the difference in average, which is partially due to the individual characteristic of the author. Herodotus uses more ascriptives than Homer, but the adverbial participle is well illustrated in Herodotus and the complementary is fairly common. In Thucydides we find a very large proportion of adverbials — the third largest from Homer to Plutarch (Homer and Josephus excelling him), while the complementary is fairly common. Xenophon is close to Thucydides in his proportion of the three classes, using just a few more ascriptives and just a few less adverbials. 4. Plato goes still farther in using ascriptives. His small number of adverbials is partially due to the non-narrative form of his writings. Demosthenes has a large number of complementary participles — the second largest from Homer to Plutarch ; he has also the second largest proportion of ascriptives in any classical author. The adverbial participle is fairly well represented in Plato and Demosthenes, and doubtless its comparatively small number is partially accounted for by the absence of pure narrative in long passages. 5. In Polybius two things are noticeable, his large average and his very small number of complementary participles. II Maccabees is remark- able for its very large average — the largest in any author from Homer to Plutarch — and its very small number of complementaries. Strabo uses nearly as many ascriptives as adverbials, but scarcely any comple- mentaries. Josephus shows two remarkable characteristics, a copious use of the participle and an apparently special effort to use adverbials in imi- tation of classical and kolvtj writers. He surpasses, in number of adver- bials, Thucydides and Polybius, and equals Homer, while he uses a fair proportion of complementary participles. Plutarch has about an average kolvt] usage, except his average per page is nearer to that of the classical writers. 6. Comparing the participial usage of the classical period with that of the KOLvij writers, we notice a much more copious use of the participle in the literary Koivrj. The five kolvy} writers examined average 18 per page, the six authors of the classical period, only ca. 12 per page. Each group averages ca. 30 per cent, ascriptive, while the former group averages only 12 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 61 per cent, adverbial, the latter, 65 per cent.; the former, 9 per cent, com- plementary, the latter, 5 per cent. 7. In the papyri, the language of the masses in everyday life, we find a minimum use of the participle, especially of adverbial and complementary participles which belong to the embellishments of literary style. The Septuagint has the smallest average of any Greek tested. This is due to the influence of the Hebrew and the vernacular proclivities of the translators. For other observations on the Septuagint see Sec. 20. CHAPTER III ENUMERATION OF THE PARTICIPLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 29. In Chapters 1-12 The frequency of the participle in Acts is striking even to the super- ficial reader. To the careful student there is much significance in the use of the participle in Acts. Let us gather the facts. In the first twelve chapters occur 477 participles to 959 lines (WH), an average of 15^ per page. 1 One hundred sixty-five of these (34^ per cent.) are ascriptive; 275 (57$ per cent.) adverbial; 37 (ca. 7! per cent.) com- plementary. This enumeration follows closely the reading of WH, except we count avaoras in 9: n with good MS evidence, though WH place it in the margin with avda-ra in the text. The complementary participles in chaps. 1-12 are construed with the following verbs: olkovu), j3\eir 55* 500 194 «i 3** 60$ 500 209 12* 43 h 5i| t;oo 174 I0 5 7 if 20 260 82 9* 68 A ^oi SOO I?2 8 73* 25l 500 155 9i 3 o 78f 205 660 3°7 14 57 4i 214 71 10 — 69 31 220 115 r 5§ 55 45 239 52 6^ 94i 500 16? 0* 81 9! 2,231 1,283 I7l 28} 68 Sec. 49. Some Observations on This Table Excepting the Lukan writings, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and First Peter, the average is small throughout the New Testament. The Book of Acts has the highest average, Luke comes next (only two-thirds of 1 per cent, less), then comes First Peter (only 1 per cent, less than Luke). Paul's average is small, ranging from 8 to 9^ in different letters. The Johannine writings (gospel and epistle) have a still lower average, while the Apocalypse has a greater average than the Pauline writings. Matthew comes fourth in average, then comes Mark. The New Testament average is not very much lower than that of the classical writers, but is very far below the aver- age of Koivri writers. As to the nature of the participle, the Book of Acts has the largest per- centage of adverbial participles. Mark comes next, then Luke, Matthew, I Pet., Hebrews, then follow in descending grade James, Paul's letters, the Gospel of John, till the Apocalypse has only 9! per cent, and First John 1 This count for the complementary include reading (WH). i\r)\vd6Ta, 4:2, which is a doubtful 24 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS none at all. There is a remarkable difference between the Gospel and Epistle of John, the gospel having 20 per cent, adverbial, the epistle none at all. The presence of so much narrative in the gospel and its utter absence in the epistle largely explain this difference. It is to be noticed that the great majority of New Testament participles are ascriptive (especially if we except the Lukan writings, Mark, and Matthew). The koivj writings, as a whole, show a much larger percentage of adverbials than of ascriptives. The classical literature exhibits the same fondness for the adverbial participle. But the Septuagint and the papyri exhibit a still greater fondness for the ascriptive participle, both using a very small percentage ofttdverbials. CHAPTER V PARTICLES WITH PARTICIPLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 50. Preliminary Statement There are not many particles used with the participles of the Book of Acts. Although the author uses the participle copiously, he uses the particles with participles sparingly. *Av with a participle to represent the indicative or optative with av in conditional sentences, a fairly common construction in classical Greek, does not occur at all in the Book of Acts. The following particles used with the participle in classical Greek are not so used in the Book of Acts: are, 8lo. tovto, eiTa, IvravOa, i$atvri<;, eirecm, tv9v<;, /j.€ra$v, olov, ota, o/xv on x°Vl xaTa So^o-crai, etc., hoping also that money should be given. The participial clause expresses an additional motive for the extension of Paul's imprisonment, and so the participle is causal. Hence, the particle afxa, temporal in its nature, does not necessarily make the participle temporal. Perhaps we can, in this instance, see its temporal force in its connection with e,a<£o/3os yevo/xevos, that is, along with his fear Felix was also hoping to receive money. In 27:40 the author is telling how the crew cast off the anchors and left them in the sea, ajua (WvTe? r. t,i.vKT-qp!.a<; r. 7r^8aAtwv, at the same time having loosed the bands of the rudders. Here the particle is evidently temporal and strengthens the participle which is also temporal. Sec. 52. *HS»7 with the Participle in the Book of Acts This particle occurs only once with the participle, 27:9, 6vto) than with the participle (dyadovpywv) . Sec. 54. Ovtws with the Participle in the Book of Acts There are only two passages that can possibly be considered as bearing on the participle, 20:11; 20:35. I n the former, o/AiA^o-as a\pi avyrj% ovtws i£r)\0ev, having talked with them till dawn thus he went forth, the particle is in apposition with the idea expressed in the participle, but really modifies the action of the principal verb. That is, the ovtws points back to the participle, gathers up its force, and brings it forward to describe the circumstances under which Paul went forth from Troas. In 20:35, on ovtws K07ruovTas Set, etc., that so laboring ye should help the weak, the particle directly modifies the participle, and both together modify the principal verb. Sec. 55. Totc with the Participle in the Book of Acts This particle occurs eleven times with the participle in the Book of Acts. 1 But the particle is much more closely connected with the finite verb than with the participle. This seems to be true in every instance. Sec. 56. 'Os with the Participle in the Book of Acts This particle is not used in the Book of Acts with the future participle to express purpose, as in classical and kolvtj Greek (and in Heb. 13:17). The future participle without ws is used three times (8:27; 24:11, 17) to express purpose. In 1 : 10, ws is to be construed with the finite verb, not with the participle. In 3:12, &s ... . TTfLiroaqKoaiv, the particle is construed with the parti- ciple and expresses the supposed ground of the wonder. That is, the people were wondering on the supposed ground that Peter and John with their own power had healed the lame beggar. In 19:34 the WH text puts wo-ei in single half-brackets, though many editors prefer ws. But if ws be the correct reading, the construction is an anacoluthon, and the ws does not seem to go with the participle Kpat,6vTu>v (or /c/Da£ovT£s in Tisch.) but with the phrase «rt woas Suo, for about two hours. M:8; 5:26; 7:4; 13:3,12; 21:26,33; 25:12; 26:1; 27:21; 28:1. PARTICLES WITH PARTICIPLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 27 In 23:15, s /LicAAovTas SiayuwKciv, Buttmann makes the limitation that of comparison. But it seems to me that the particle here has a meaning closely akin to its usual significance, namely, supposed, or pretended, ground of action. That is, the conspiring band of Jews say to the council, "Have Paul brought on the apparent ground that you are going to investi- gate his case more thoroughly, but we will slay him while he is being brought." This is evidently the thought. In 23:20 and 27:30, ws is used to express a supposed basis of action. In 28:19, °"X <5>s • • • • «X wv j not because I had, etc., the particle o>s seems to strengthen the causal participle Ix^v. Yet more likely the meaning is, not, as it appears to others, because I have anything to bring against my nation, etc. SEC. 57. "Qairtp WITH THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS This particle is used only three times in the book and is apparently not construed with either a finite verb or a participle. In 2:2 the particle is more closely connected with ttvotjs than with the participle ^epofxiv^ which simply modifies ttvo^s as an adjective. In 3:17 and 11:15, <^°' 7r£ p introduces a clause without any form of the verb expressed. Sec. 58. M^ and Oi with the Participle in the Book of Acts The usual negative with participles in the Book of Acts is /at), there being thirteen instances with this particle and only one clear case of oi. The usage of the negative with the participle in the Book of Acts, though not in accord with the classical usage, is the regular kolvtq usage. But Gildersleeve has shown that even in earlier Greek p.rj sometimes encroached on oi. So he calls the larger use of p.rj in late Greek (second century B.C. on) "an extension and not an innovation." But this is scarcely true of /A.77 with the participle in the Book of Acts. Here the usage, if not an actual "innovation," is closely bordering on an "innovation," as compared with the classical usage, since p.rj is used thirteen times and oi but once (7:5, with a concessive participle). It is true, we find oi in a participial clause in 17:27, but it is evident that the negative modifies the adverb p.a.Kp6v and not the participle vitapxovTa. It is noticeable, however, that the participial clause in 17:27 is concessive, just as it is in 7 : 5. In 27 : 20, ovk goes with oAiyov, not with the participle. In 28: 2, oi modifies the participle which is purely an adjective. In 28: 19, oi% modifies the whole clause introduced by o>s, and not the participle CHAPTER VI THE PERIPHRASTIC PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 59. Preliminary Statement The periphrastic construction is often found in the Book of Acts, and is fairly common also in the Third Gospel. Plummer, in his commentary on Luke, p. li, asserts that this construction is a Hebraism. Yet, he admits that "many (cases) would be admissible in classical Greek." It is quite evident from the following facts that the periphrastic construction is no Hebraism. Even as far back as Homer we find this construction, though its occurrences there are rare — only 4 to 1,000 lines. But in Demos- thenes we find 14 cases to 1,000 lines, in Polybius, 8 to 1,000 lines, and in Strabo, 15. Perhaps we are safe in inferring from these facts that the periphrastic construction became more common in kolvtj writers than in the earlier authors. If so, this would help to account for the excessive use of the periphrastic participle in the Lukan writings. Yet, the fact that Josephus and Plutarch scarcely ever used a periphrastic participle is diffi- cult to explain, unless we regard their Greek abnormal, as it seems to be (especially that of Josephus who uses fewer periphrastic and more adverbial participles than any other Koivrj writer). Sec. 60. Various Forms of the Periphrastic Participle in the Book of Acts There are seven different uses — that of the present participle with the present tense of ctvai (5 occurrences in the book); that of the present participle with the imperfect of eTvat (33 cases) ; that of the perfect parti- ciple with the present of dvai (5 cases) ; that of the perfect participle with the imperfect of etvai (16 cases); that of the present participle with virdpx^ (2 cases) ; that of the perfect participle with vndpx^ (2 cases) ; that of the present participle with the future of the verb to be, ea-rj (one case). Thus we see that there are in all 64 instances of the periphrastic participle in the Book of Acts, an average of a little over 29 to the 1,000 lines. That is, the author of the Book of Acts uses about twice as many periphrastic participles as Demosthenes or Strabo, in whose writings the construction occurs most frequently outside the Book of Acts. Sec. 61. The Distribution of Periphrastic Participles in the Book of Acts Of the 64 occurrences in the book 34 are found in chaps. 1-12 and 30 in chaps. 13-28. That is, though there is about one-third more material 28 PERIPHRASTIC PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 29 in chaps. 13-28, yet there are over 20 per cent, more periphrastic participles in chaps. 1-12. That is, in chaps. 1-12 there is one periphrastic participle to every 26$ lines, while in chaps. 13-28 there is one to every 43! lines — about one-third greater average in chaps. 1-12. Perhaps facts like these are the basis of statements like that of Plummer quoted above. But we are not driven to conclude that, because there are so many periphrastic participles to the page in the Aramaic portion of a book (whether Luke or Acts), therefore the periphrastic construction is a Hebraism. The very fact that it does occur in Homer, Demosthenes, Polybius, and Strabo proves it to be a regular Greek construction and not a Hebraism. On the other hand, the fact that the periphrastic construc- tion is more frequently used in the Aramaic portion of the Book of Acts does lead us to conclude that the periphrastic participle is more common in writings influenced by Aramaic sources than in writings purely Greek in their origin. Sec. 62. The Facts as to the Location and Use op Periphrastic Participles in Acts, Chaps. 1-12 If there is only one participle in a verse, it is designated by chapter and verse; if there are more than one in a verse, they are designated by the letters a, 6, c, d, e, affixed to the verse number, a standing for the first participle in the verse, 6, for the second, etc. The instances of the present participle with the present of €i)u.i are: 1:126; 4:366; 5:25c; 10: 196. ' The instances of the present participle with the imperfect of €t/At are: 1:10a, 13, 14; 2:3a, 5, 42; 8:1, 136, 28a, 286; 9:9, 28a, 286; 10:24a, 30; 11:5a; 12:5, 6a, 12J, 20a. Perfect participle with the present of etfu: 2:136; 5:256. Perfect participle with imperfect of et/u: 1:17; 4:316; 8:16a, 9:336; 12:12c. Present participle with virdpx^: 8:9a, 96. Perfect participle with virapx<»: 8:166. Sec. 63. The Facts as to the Location and Use of Periphrastic Participles in Acts, Chaps. 13-28 Present participle with the present of eT/u: 19:366. Present participle with the imperfect of eljiu: 14:7; 16:96, gc, 12; 18:7c; 19:14; 2o:gb; 1 21:3c, 9; 22:19a, 196, 206, 20c. Perfect participle with the present of et/Ai: 21:336; 25:146; 26:266. Perfect participle with the imperfect of ci/xi: 13:486; 14:26; 16:9a; 18:25a; 19:32; 20:8, 13c; 21:29; 22:20a, 29c; 25:10. Perfect participle with inrdpx<» (infinitive): 19:36c. Present participle with the future of e?/u.i: 13:11a. 1 Copula omitted. 30 the participle in the book of acts Sec. 64. Some Observations on These Facts It is to be observed that nine of the perfect participles with the verb to be arc the pluperfect passive. Three of the perfect participles with the present of the verb to be are used as perfect passive. Two of the perfects with the present of the verb to be are active and are used to increase the vividness of the action. The most common form of the periphrastic participle in the Book of Acts is thai of the present parti< [pie with the imperfect of the verb to be — a little over half of all the cases are in this form. This form is used in narrative to describe vividly a progressive action in the past. The present participle with the present of the verb to be (five cases in the book) de- scribes vividly a progressive action in the present. The one case of the present participle with the future of the verb to be seems to express vividly a progressive action in the future. It is to be noticed that not only etrai, but also vTrdpxtt-v, and Trpovn-dp- \uv take the periphrastic construction in the Book of Acts. In 28:8 occurs awexofxtvov with KaraKdaOai (was lying sick) almost in a periphras- tic sense. But it is not counted, because this verb does not regularly take a periphrastic construction. CHAPTER VII THE GENITIVE ABSOLUTE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 65. Introductory Statement The genitive absolute seems to have had its origin on Greek soil (so Spieker and Brugmann, American Journal of Philology, VI, 310 ff.). It probably arose with the present participle of time, since most of the cases in Homer are such, with only a few aorist absolute genitives. Only a few absolute genitives occur in Homer, a few more in Hesiod, but there is a gradual increase in the use of this construction until it reached its climax in the Attic orators (so Spieker). Sec. 66. The Facts as to the Location and Function of the Genitive Absolute in Acts, Chaps. 1-12 For the method of locating the participles see first paragraph, Sec. 62. The following cases of the genitive absolute belong to the general adverbial: i:gb; 3:11a; 5:2a; 10:10; total, 4. Cases implying time: 1:10b; 6:1; 7:30,316; 10:9a, 96, iga, 44a; 12:13,18; total, 10. Cases implying cause: 1:8; 2:6a; 4:1,31a; 9:38a; total, 5. Cases implying concession: 3:13; 4:37a; 7:5, 21; 9:8a; total, 5. One case implying condition: 5:15. Sec. 67. The Facts as to the Location and Function of the Genitive Absolute in Acts, Chaps. 13-28 Cases of the general adverbial : 13:42,43a; 14:20a; 19:6,33a; 20:7a; 21:56,40a; 25:70V 26:14a; 27:2c; 28:9a; total, 12. Cases implying time: 13:2a, 26, 24; 16:16a, 35a; 17:16a; 18:12, 14, 27a; 20:9c; 21:10, 17, 31, 40c; 22:176; 23:12a, 30a; 24:2, 10a, 20, 27a; 25:7a, 13a, 15a, 17a, 23a, 236, 26; 26:106, 24; 27:9a, 21a, 27; 28:3a, 36, 6a, 66, 136, 176, 256; total, 40. Cases implying cause: 15:2,7a; 17:166; 18:6a, 66; 19:360,400; 20: 36; 21:140,34; 22:230,236,23c; 23:7,10a; 24:20", 1 ia, 25a; 25:21,23c, 25; 27:7c, 96, 12a, 13a, 15a, 156, 18, 20a, 206, 30a, 306, 30c; 28:190; total, 34. Cases implying concession: 18:20; 19:30. One case implying con- dition: 18:21c. Sec. 68. Some Observations on These Facts As to the distribution of the cases of the genitive absolute in the Book of Acts, we notice that only 25 cases occur in chaps. 1-12, while 89 cases 31 32 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS occur in chaps. 13-28. It is to be observed that 22 cases in chaps. 13-28 are found in the last "We" passage, 27:1 — 28:16. The larger element of narrative and the greater percentage of adverbial participles in chaps. 13-28 help to explain the large number of absolute genitives. The num- ber in the book is 114, or nearly one-eleventh of all the participles in the book. As to the tenses in the genitive absolute, there are 63 cases of the present, 15 in chaps. 1-12, 48 in chaps. 13-28; 48 cases of the aorist, 8 in chaps. 1-12, 40 in chaps. 13-28, while only 3 cases of the perfect occur in the book, 2 in the first portion, one in the second. As to the relative frequency in the two portions of the book, we observe that there occurs one participle to ca. 38^ lines in the first portion, while in the second portion there occurs one to every 14^ lines. That is, there are about two and three-fourths times as many absolute genitives to the page in the second portion as there are in the first portion. As to the significance of these absolute genitives in the Book of Acts, most of them (50) imply time. Then comes the causal relation with 39 cases; general, 16; the concessive, 7; condition, 2. In chaps. 1-12 are found 10 temporal absolute genitives, 5 each, causal and concessive, conditional, one. The implied relations of time and cause are much more prominent in chaps. 13-28 than in chaps. 1-12 (there being 40 cases of time and 34 cases of cause). Sec. 69. Some Irregularities in the Genitive Absolute in the Book of Acts There are only a few loose constructions of the genitive absolute in the Books of Acts. In 7:21 occurs the genitive absolute where the accusative would have been the regular participial construction: "The daughter of Pharaoh took him up after he had been cast out." But the genitive abso- lute, bringing in at the head of the sentence the casting-out of the little child, makes more emphatic than the accusative could do the divine provi- dence over the child in its concealment. In 21:17 we have the genitive absolute where the accusative would be regular, but the genitive absolute introducing the sentence and followed by the accusative makes prominent the reception given to Paul and his party when they arrived in Jerusalem. In 21:10, linixevovTwv has no substantive. In 21:34 we find a genitive absolute which refers to the chiliarch of vs. 33 who is the subject of the principal verb in vs. 34. Perhaps, this loose genitive absolute adds a touch of vividness to the "inability" (jvq GENITIVE ABSOLUTE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 33 Svvafxevov avrov) of the chiliarch to find out the exact condition of affairs concerning Paul. In 22: 17 we find the genitive absolute, dative, and accusative referring to the same person. But there are three things to be made emphatic, Paul's return to Jerusalem, his praying, and his coming into an ecstasy, and no device of the author could have made more prominent each one of these things than the use of different cases. Perhaps, the necessity to change the tense of the participle (from aorist to present) made easier the change of cases (from dative to genitive absolute). In 25:21 we have a genitive absolute and an accusative referring to the same person. There are a few other loose constructions of the genitive absolute in the book. But these few exceptions only emphasize the fact that the author of this book closely followed the rule to make the genitive absolute refer to a substantive not connected with the rest of the sentence. CHAPTER VIII THE FUNCTION OF THE TENSE IN THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 70. General Statement Of the 1,283 participles in the Book of Acts 594 are in the present (231 in chaps. 1-12, 363 in chaps. 13-28); 588 are in the aorist (208 in chaps. 1-12, 380 in chaps. 13-28); 5 are in the future (one in chaps. 1-12, 4 in chaps. 13-28) ; 96 are in the perfect (38 in chaps. 1-12, 58 in chaps. 13-28). x Tense in the indicative expresses the state and time of the action. In the subjunctive, optative, and infinitive, tense seems to refer almost exclu- sively to the state of the action, the time-relation being indicated only by the context or otherwise. Is the participle to be classed with the indicative, or with the subjunctive, optative, and infinitive, with respect to the time- function of its tenses ? The facts of participial usage in the Book of Acts show that the chief function of tense in the participle is to denote the state of the action and that time is only implied from the context or some par- ticle. Sec. 71. Facts in the Book of Acts Bearing on the Problem of Tense-Function in the Participle the present participle The present participle generally refers to action simultaneous to that of the principal verb. Of the 594 cases in the Book of Acts 518 are used with reference to simultaneous action. All present participles not men- tioned in the five subclasses below refer to simultaneous action. Twenty-four present participles are used with reference to identical action, namely: 1:6; 3:25; 4:16a; 5:23, 27; 8:26a; 11:4; 14:11; 15:13; 16:28; 19:13c; 20:23; 21:21, 40; 22:26; 23:9, 12; 24:2, 9; 25:14; 26:31; 27:10,33a; 28:26. Thirty-nine present participles are used to express a general action (not limited as to time), namely: 1:12a, 20, 23; 3:20, 116; 6:9a; 7:58; 8:106,32; 9:11; 10:1,2,2,2,186,22,22,35,35; 11:13; 12:10,126,25; 13:16,16,26,436; 15:18,37; 16:14a; 17:24,25,25; 18:76; 19:24,26c; 27:86, 14, 16. Three present participles are used for a progressive action in the past, namely: 4:34a, 346; 10:7a. 1 The above figures count Keipovros (present) not Keipavros (aorist) in 8:32; and in 23:7, XaXovvros (present) not elirbvTos (aorist). 34 FUNCTION OF TENSE IN PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 35 Six present participles refer to future action, namely: 3:26 (purpose); 5:15 (equivalent to a more vivid future condition) ; 15:27 (purpose) ; 15 : 29 (more vivid future condition); r 18:21 (more vivid future condition); 19:46; 21:3. Four present participles refer to past action still in progress in the present, namely: 3:2a; 9:33; 24:10; 26:5. THE AORIST PARTICIPLE The aorist participle usually refers to action antecedent to that of the principal verb. Of the 588 cases in the Book of Acts 540 refer to ante- cedent action. All the aorist participles not mentioned in the two sub- classes below refer to antecedent action. 2 Twenty-five aorist participles refer to identical action. Ei7rujv refers to identical action in 7:26, 27, 35, 40; 10:3; 11:13; 19:21; 21:14; 22:24; 24:22. The remaining eight cases of elirwv refer to antecedent action. 2 'ATTOKpt^et? refers to identical action in 4:19; 5:29; 8:24, 34, 37; 19:15; 25:9. The following cases of aorist participles from other verbs refer to identical action: 1:24; 5:30; 8:24; 9:256; 10:33, 39! 13:226; 21:16. Twenty-three aorist participles are doubtful as to their time-relation: 7 :i 9, 26,33; 9-i2a, 12b; 10:30,36; 11:12,13,13,30; 12:46; 15:9,23; 16:6, 236; 22:166, 22:24; 23:24, 25, 35; 24:23; 26:13.3 ln 25:13 the aorist participle seems to express purpose, i. e., to refer to the future. But the text is probably corrupt as held by Hort in WH II, App., p. 100. The participle is very likely future. THE FUTURE PARTICIPLE All five of the cases of the future participle refer to a future action, four adverbials denoting purpose and one ascriptive describing what is to occur in the future. THE PERFECT PARTICIPLE The perfect participle usually refers to a past action and its resulting state. In the Book of Acts the perfect participle of four verbs is used as a present participle, namely, of oTBa, crwolBa, larrjfxi, Trapio-TrjfjLi, there being 3 cases of the first, 2 of the second, 9 of the third, and 2 of the fourth — 16 in all. In the other 80 cases the perfect participle refers to a past action and its resulting state. Except in 2:13, "filled with new wine," the per- fect seems to refer almost exclusively to the resulting state. 1 17: 13a, 13& may be purpose and so future. 2 arevicras refers apparently to simultaneous action in 3:4; 6:15; 7:55; 10:4; 11:6; 13:9; 14:9; 23:1. 3 Several aorist participles refer to action begun in the past and continued into the present, e. g., 14:2, lib, 20a, etc. CHAPTER IX A COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTICIPLES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 72. Preliminary Statement In this chapter we purpose to give a detailed classification of all the participles in the Book of Acts. Heretofore we have discussed merely the general classification — the three main classes, ascriptive, adverbial, and com- plementary. Here the subclasses of the three main divisions are given, so that the student interested may see at a glance where each participle belongs. For details of the category adopted see Sec. n. For the method of locating the participles see first paragraph, Sec. 62. Sec. 73. The Ascriptive Participles in Acts, Chaps. 1-12 restrictive attributive 1:12a, 23; 2:2, 36, 10, 22; 3:2a, 26, 11b, 20; 4:12, 36a; 5:176, 22a 1 ; 6:9a; 7:26a, 58ft; 8:10b, 26b; 9:7a, 11b, 22a, 326; 10:2a, 7a, 17a, 186; n: 1, 11, 13c, 196, 22, 29; 12:106, 12b, 25c; total, 36. DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTIVE 1:116, 16a, 21; 2:23a; 4:11a, 116, 14c; 5:7a; 6:3, 11a, 13a; 7:356, 37» 386, 38c; 8:12; 9:26, 176, 216?, ^a, 41c; 10:26, 2c, 2d, 11c, 22a, 226; 10:370,41; 11:36, 5c, 21; 12:66; total, 33. PREDICATIVE ASCRIPTIVE 1:10a, 126, 13, 14, 17; 2:3a, 5, 136, 29, 42; 4-3 lb , 3 6 ^* 5 :2 5^ 2 5 c > 8:1, 9a, 96, 136, 16a, 166, 28a, 286; 9:9, 28a, 286, 336; io:i96 2 , 24a, 30; 11:5a; 12:5, 6a, i2f, i2d, 20a; total, 35. SUBSTANTIVE ASCRIPTIVE The most of these participles are equivalent to relative propositions. 1 :T,a, 166, 19, 20; 2:76, 9, 146, 16 3 , 41, 44,47c; 3:2c, 10a 3 , 106; 4:4, 166, 21^,246, 25,32a, 326, 346; 5:5c, 76,9, 11, 14, 166, 32; 6:96% 156; 7:10, 24c, 27a, 38a 3 , 44, 52; 8:4a, 6, 7a, 7c, 32; 9:2a, 14, 21a, 216 3 , 21c, 35; 10:7c, 336, 35#, 356, 38c, 42a 3 , 426, 43, 446; 11:19a, 286 4 ; 12:96; total, 60. 1 May be adverbial. 2 Copula omitted. 3 Also predicative. 4 Participle in etymology used as pure substantive. 36 COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTICIPLES 37 Sec. 74. Ascriptive Participles in Acts, Chaps. 13-28 restrictive attributive 13:1a, 16, 44 1 ; 14:13a, 16; 15:226, 37; 16:36, 136; 17:19c, 18:2b; 19:17; 20:9a, 196; 21:26, 266, 38a, 386; 22:126, 25; 23:11a; 24:246, 256; 25:76, 24a; 27:86, 14, 166, 28:11; total, 29. DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTIVE i3 :2 7 c . 3 2 > 34, 43&> 5°5 l 4-2, 36, 156, 15c; 15:16a, 18, 22c, 26; 16:4, 166; 17:21, 266; 18: 76% 24; 19:11, 13a, 16c, 24; 20:12, 22a, 32a; 21 :8c, 23,25a; 22:3a, 36, y, 3d, $d, 12a; 23:3a, 256; 24:27c; 25:19; 26:4,6a, 22d 3 ; 27:26, 66, 12c, 39; 28:2a, 2c, 16; total, 49. PREDICATIVE ASCRIPTIVE 13:11a, 486; 14:7, 26; 16:9a, 96, 9C, 12; 18:7c, 25a; 19:14, 32, 366, 36c; 20:8, gb 4 , 13c; 21:3c, 95, 29, 336; 22:19a, 196, 20a, 206, 20c, 29c; 25:10, 146; 26:266; total, 30. SUBSTANTIVE ASCRIPTIVE 13:126, 16c, 26, 27a, 29a 6 , 31, 39, 40, 456; 14:12; 15:5a, 166, 19, 21a, 336, 38a, 386; 16:116, 14a, 146; 17:6c, 6d, 15a, 17a, 176, 20, 24a, 31a 7 ; 18:2yd; 19:46, 10, 12, 136, 18a, 19a, 226, 26c, 277, 37; 20:156, 15c, 20, 226, 306, 326, 34, 356; 21:18, 206, 286; 22:5c, 9a, 96, 116, 19c, 2od, 29a; 23:2, 36, y, 4, 13, 31a; 24:56, 5c, 14a 8 , 146, 15, 25J; 25:16; 26:66 s , 136, 18, 226 s , 29, 30; 27:11, 246, 4od, 436; 28:8a, 96, 17a, 24, 30; total, 85. Sec. 75. Adverbial Participles in Acts, Chaps. 1-12 For particulars concerning the subclasses of adverbial participles see Sec. n. THE GENERAL ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLE 1:3c, 4a, 6a, 96, 15; 2:14a, 46a, 466, 47a, 476; 3:4, 7, 8a, 11a, 26a; 4:7, 15, 18, 21a, 34a, 376; 5:2a, 26, 56, 6a, 66, 10a, 106, 17a, 19, 20, 226, 25a, 26, 27, 34, 40a, 406; 6:2a, 26, 6, 12; 7:4, 14, 19, 45, 57, 58a, 59a, 596, 60a; 8:5, 76, 15, 25a, 256, 27a, 30a, 31, 35a, 356, 40; 9:16, 4a, na», 17a, 1 Secondary reading, ixof^vtp (WH). 2 May be regarded as substantive in apposition with 'lovcrrov. 3 Loose construction and uncertain as to use. 4 Copula omitted. s May be attributive. 6 Reading somewhat doubtful (WH). 7 Participle in etymology used as pure substantive. 8 Possibly adverbial. 9 Secondary reading (WH), but well attested (Tisch.). 38 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 18a, 186, 25a, 260, 27, 32a, 37a, 376, 39a, 40a, 406, 40c, 41a, 416; 10:7ft, 10, 13, 176, 18a, 20a, 21, 23a, 236, 246, 25a, 256, 27a, 34; 11:4a, 6, 76, 200, 230, 28a, 30; 12:4a, 46, 7a, 9a, 10a, ioc, 12a, 146, 166, 17a, 176, 19c, igd, 21a, 216, 23, 25a, 256; total, 119. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF TIME i:2, 9a, 106, 22; 3:3a; 4:23; 5:4a 1 , 40, 210, 23a 1 ; 6:i; 7:2, I2a, 26b, 30,310,600; 8:130,14; 9:1a, 396, 39c, 400*; 10:8,90,96,190,376,440; 11: 26; 12:11, 13, 18; total, t,3- ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF CAUSE i:8 a , 18; 2:60, 30a, 306, 310, 330, 336, 37; 3:5, i20, 1263; 4:1, 8, 130, 136, 140, 216, 24a, 310; 5:5a, 21a, 33; 7:9, 240, 31a, 32, 54, 55a; 8:13c, 18; 9:76, 7c, 266, 30, 380, 386; 10:29; ii:i 7> l8a > 2 3&/ I2: 3> 4 C , 190, 196, 206; total, 46. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF MANNER OR MEANS i :3&, 66, 11a, 24; 2:7a, 12, 130, 236, 24, 40; 3:86, 8c, 8d, 25; 4:2, 16a, 19; 5:160, 230, 28, 29, 30, 36, 41; 6:15a; 7 :24a', 26c, 276, 34 4 , 35a, 36, 40, 556; 8:30, 36, 46, 100, 106, 19, 24, 26a, 34, 39; 9:86, 226, 256, 29, 310, 316, 36, 38c, 39c, 39J; 10:40, 46, 206, 26, 36 s , 38a, 386, 39; 11:30, 46, 12, 186, 19c, 206; 12:76; total, 68. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF CONCESSION 3 :i 3; 4 : 37 a >* 7 : 5> 2I 5 9:8a; 12:14a; total, 6. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLE OF CONDITION ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF PURPOSE 3:266; 8:276; total, 2. Sec. 76. Adverbial Participles in Acts, Chaps. 13-28 general adverbial participles 13:5, 6, 7, 96, Il6, 13a, 136, 140, 146, 160, 166, 19, 220, 296, 42 6 , 43O, 51; 14:96, 136, 19O, 196, 200, 206, 2IO, 2l6, 230, 236, 24, 25, 270, 276; 15:1, 30, 76, 22a, 23, 256, 30a, 306, 33a, 36, 39, 40a, 406; 16:30, 7, 8, gd, no, 130, 156, 170, 186, 196, 20a, 22, 23a, 236, 24, 25, 27^, 290, 30, 33, 340, 36, 37<*. 37 c , 39 a > 39°> 400; 17:1, 56, 5c, 50*, 8, 9, 10, 156, 19a, 22, 23a, 236, 1 May be condition (Winer). 2 Time also. 3 Supposed cause with us. 4 After the Septuagint which follows the Hebrew infinitive absolute. 5 Secondary reading (WH), but well attested (Tisch.). 6 Has a well-attested secondary reading (WH). COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTICIPLES 39 26a, 34 1 ; 18:1, 6c, ya, 8, 17, 186, 18c 1 , 19, 21a, 216, 22a, 22b, 22c, 23a, 236, 276; 19:1, 5, 6, 8a, gb, 16a, igb, 21a, 21b, 22a, 25, 28a, 286, 29, 316, 33 a > 33b, 34b 2 , 35a; 20:1a, ib, ic, 2a, 2b, 5, ya, 10a, 106, 13a 3 , 14, 15a, 17, 3& b , 37; 21:2c, 36, 4, 50, 56, 5c, sd, 7b, 8a, 86, 11a, 11b, 11c, 14b, 15, 19, 24a, 256, 26a, 26a 1 , 30, 32a 3 , 33a, 40a, 40b; 22:10, 13a, 136, 160, 166, 24, 266, 27, 306; 23:1, ga, 10c, 11b, 12b, 14, 16b, 16c, 17, 18a, 18b, iga, igb, 22, 23, 25a, 27c, 30?), 316, 32, 33a, 33b, 34a, 346, 34c, 35; 24:23, 24a, 25c, 266; 25:1, 36, 5, 6b, 6c, yd, gc, 136 3 , 170, 17c; 26:2a, 10a, 14a, 17, 21, 31a; 27:2a, 2c, 3ft, 4, 5, 6a, 13c, 15c, 17a, 216, 21c, 28a, 28ft, 28c, 296, 35°> 35b, 35c, 36, 40a, 40c, 41a, 416; 28:26, 5, 6d, 7, 8b, 8c, 8d, ga, 12, 13a, 136, 14, 15c, 18, 21, 23a; total, 254. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF TIME 13:2a, 2b, $a, 36, 3c, 24, 36; 15:4,3!; 16:16a, 27a, 35a, 40b; 17:16a; 18:12, 14, 18a, 26, 27a, 27c; 19:2, 34a, 406; 20:3a, 3c, gc, 11a, 11b, 11c, nd, 36a; 21:1a, 2a, T,a, 7a, 10, 17, 26c, 31, 37, 40c; 22:5a, 6a, 6b, 17a, 17b, 26a; 23:74, 12a, 16a, 30a; 24:2a, 10a, 20, 21, 255, 27a; 25:6a, 7a, 12, 13a, 15a, 17a, 18, 23a, 236, 26, 27; 26:106, 12, 24; 27:9a, 126, 21a, 27, 38a, 406, 43c; 28:1, 3a, 36, 3c, 6a, 10, 176, 256; total, 86. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF CAUSE 13:4, 9a, 12a, 1 2c, 27b, 45a, 48a; 14:6, gc, 1 ia, 14a, 1 7a v 19c; 15:2, 7a, 95, 25a, 32 15 ; 16:6, 10, 18a, 19a, 20b 6 , 21 6 , 276, 27c, 296, 346, 38; 17:5a, 6a, 16b, 24b, 25a 7 , 256, 29, 316, 32; 18:2a, 6a, 66, 256; 19:31a, 36a, 40a 8 ; 20:36, 76, gd 8 , 136, 13d, 31a, 38; 21:14a, 20a, 27, 326, 34; 22:2, 23a, 236, 23c, 296, 30a; 23:6, 10a, 106, 15, 18c 6 , 20, 27a, 276, 27^, 28; 24:2c, 2d, 5a, ioc, 11a, 22a, 25a, 26a, 276; 25:3a, 9a, 20, 21, 23c, 25; 26:26, 3, 5, 116, 22a; 27:3a, 7a, 76, 7c, gb, 12a, 13a, 136, 15a, 156, 17c, 18, 20a, 206, 29a, 30a, 306, 30c 7 , 43a; 28:66, 15a, 156, 19a, 196 7 , 25a; total, 118. ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLES OF MANNER OR MEANS 13:8, 15, 226, 27^, 33, 43c, 45c, 46; 14:3a, 3c, 116, iic, 146, 14c, 15a, 176, 17c, 18, 22a, 226,- 15:36, 56, 8, 13, 216, 24, 35a, 356, 41; 16:15a, 16c, 176, 28, 356; 17:3a, 36, 66, 7, 11, 130^, 1369, 196, 23c, 31c; 18:5, 11, 13, 23c, 28; 19:4a, 86, 8c, 9a, 9c, 13c, 15, 166, 186, 18c, 26a, 266, 28c; 20:19a, 21, 23, 26, 29 6 , 30a 6 , 35a; 21:16, 13a, 136, 16, 21, 246, 28a, 36, 4od; 22:4a, 46, 1 Possibly cause. 6 Possibly ascriptive. 2 Loose construction. Some editors have xpafrvrti. i Supposed cause with in. 3 Doubtful reading (WII >. 8 Doubtful reading (WH). 4 (iirovTos in the margin (WH). 9 Probably purpose, too. s May be only general. 40 i "I. PARI i' ii'i.i. i,\ i in BOOK <>i A< 1 8 ii'/, -■.■, .-'-', .• ', ')!/, i .■< , .-I, ,'.(, .'i .'A, ', ';, ■ ■//, ■ , JCf obf :\", ij>, 246/ -■'• y, 1 '", »o, • ■< •'«/ ', ib, 17 8j to, E60, 1//', !•/'/, 34a, ', '//, ','/, \&b, ■ $, ■ |< , 260, »6&, ',!'/, ',1/'; total, 1 18 ADVERBIAL PARTK IPLI '■ "i I ONI 1 EO tj »8; 16 'j 1 ', 1/ 17, |o; i8 20, • / , 19 jo; 20 -•-■'," 28 \'>, 17c; total, to ADVERBIAL PARI [( EPL1 01 C0NDI1 IOM i , jq; [g ntf, total, 1 ADVERBIAL PAB1 [( [PL] ■ 01 PL 1 RP0S1 i , .■/ , 12 /<. 'i i i/», i j ; total, 4. ■,i. 77 'I'm. Complementary Participle! r. Acts, Ceapb. i \*' gUBJECTlVl COMPLEMENT Ml\ PARI U in i :, , -i -•(/, .| tb; <> i 'A i" ',',". i ■ i'"/, total, •,- OBJE( iivi C0MPLEM] II 1 8 '. PAB PICIPL1 i in, i './-, ii, ', 'J',')", ')!'. I i|'', , ••;'', 23c; 6 11/', 1 1, y 1//'', • \l>, ,y, -/> •!'', '•'", I3&; i'» ','', 'A '"', tl6, •///, |'../, I'.A, 1 1 ,A, ;-/, 1 ;, I.;, ■'. 1 ;.i, 1 |A, 18 ii> \r, 10a *p, > I'.. 1 ii>. ■ .1. 1. hi . .1 . 1.. Hi. hi.. 1.1 • . ol 1 1 mplementftrj partlclpli ice Set 1 1 • 1 1,,. . 1 dl • k -I whli h iii- pi .ii- 6 can 1 In the Bool ol \. 1 1 I 0MP1 in 'i \',Mi K ■ \ i [ON "i i in PARI kiii ES |i iof> |7, mi \m, nb *./, ii< |<\ i Id ' i '.'■ ''"' '''. in b :+ s, 1 y •/>, [8 \i , [9 I s, 10 *J, • i f )'!•, joa (*( . (oft i. . ;i i. . 1 ;./ |«. ,; |6 i< , \] \e, \o \m, m *s, 42 *p, \\ *s, 46a |.<:. 466 !<:• 1/" \g, \lb a, 16 : .>, k ; . ;a |/, \b |", 1 i.':, ; fc, . 86 fm, 8< |"w, , 1 !a ! ■ :'/''.. 1 1'' \i> , \a \g, 16 i*.\ |./ i/, |A i/, ;a \e, \b \g, ;< ; ■.. 6a I..-;. 66 I.-;. 7a »«/. 76 ' .. 9*s, k id j;;, to6 f£, m ; . u ! . * , i" 1 . [6a fm, [66 *s, tja*g, [76 *a, [Q , ;. ■ , ;, ■ K/ j< , ■ l/' j/, ■ \Q '•!, I I /' | g , I ; '■" Ni '• ' ' •■ 13 h ■ J 1 i\\ |6 !"», \oa \g, \ob i;;, m \m, 1 ta | ■, 1 \b \. k 1 i/, \a i:;, •/- i ;;, ; *a,6 \g,go *a,gb ' ., [ia ( ", 1 1/' |", 1 ■ i :;, 1 \a '», ; ;a I'm, ; ;6 ! .'. |6 fm, ;y "a I- i"/. 11 ; . 1 , i ■:. 5 ■ <•. ,1 I*. 5 ;a \c, , ;6 \m t 5 ;< I-. ;6a !<-, ;66 fa, 1 ia !■;, ; 9 6 i;:, 60a \g, 606 j/ K:i +/;, 3a \m, ■;/' |*m, |" ' ••, 46 |"W, 5 i ■;. 6 . ,•' 76 i ,\ ; - ' . 9a */'■ 96 *p, i'"/ i»/, [06 |»/, 1 i*a, 1 \a \i, 1 (6 '/'. 1 '.' i'. 1 '. (/ !"■ ' 1 \'- > i6a*p, i6b*p, iS\c, k; I in, ■ ;\<>, ■ 1 i in, ■ ," i •;, 156 fg, 16a I in, >,6b *a, •,■'!•: 176 I /'. ' ;; '' ; /'. ■ ;;/ ' : /'. [i ia i/;, jo6 !", p i ':. [2 *.y, ■, 1 i w, j ;6 \g, 19 I'm, 1 - 9 k; |/, [6 i ;;, 20 ' , ■'''■/ \Q ■ [, \b \o ,■' ' , b • ' '>< . 86 fm, 9 *p, iK/|;;, [i6*a, [2a|a, t2b%o, i i ' , i , •' i [76 a lid *5, ■:/'', IIC*5, ■ k/ '.;, I ■-; •■ • . I '/. i '/' '/'. '. I ! '. '/' i" ' I'". [96 |/, |9< l-w, ;w'/ \m, ;<><■ \i 1 / \i, \ia \g, [lb i ■;. m [o a, a d ' \a \<>, \b I". 4a i m, 46 i//>. 7a 'w. 76 i :. ' ■,./ (/. 96 i/, [O ! '. I K/ !", I [6 I". I K \l. I i I ,./ c8a I/;, [86 *a, [9a \t, igb +p f 20a \g, so6 ("w, 11 f^ 1 ''' ,; ' 42 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 23 6 t£> 2 4« *P, 24b t£> 25a fg, 256 fg, 26 t w > 27a t#> 2 7 & to, 29 fc, 30 */>, 33a Js, 336 *s, 34 t& 35 a % 35 b * s , 36 t«i 37« *«, 37 6 t'» 3 8 <* P n , 3 86 t», 38c *s, 39 f w, 41 *a, 42a *s, 426 *s, 43 *j, 44a p, 446 *s, 46a Jo, 46ft Jo. 1 1 : 1 *a, 3a f w, 36 *a, 4a f g, 4» t w > 5 a *A 5^ +°> 5 C * a > 6 fg, 7a Jo, 76 fg, 11 *a, 12 fw, 13a Jo, 130 Jo, 13c *a, 17 ft, 18a ft, 186 fm, 19a *$, 196 *a, 19c fw, 20a fg, 206 fw, 21 *a, 22 *a, 23a fg, 230 ft, 26 fJ, 28a fg, 280 *5, 29 *a, 30 fg. 12:3 ft, 4a fg, 4&fg, 4^ft, 5*A 6a *p, 66 *a, 7a fg, 7* t w > 9 a t& 96*5, 10a fg, iob*a, iot fg, 11 f/, 12a fg, 126*0, i2c*p, i2d*p, 13 f/, 14a fey, 146 fg, 1 6a J5, 166 fg, i7afg, 176 fg, 18 f/, 190 ft, 190 f c > I 9 c t^> 19^ fg, 20a *p, 206 -jr, 21a fg, 216 fg, 23 fg, 25a fg, 256 fg, 25c *a. 13: ia *a, 16 *a, 2a f/, 26 f/, 3a f/, 3^ "fa 3 C % 4 t c > 5 t£> 6 t£> 7 t#> 8 f w, 90 ft, 96 fg, 10 J5, na*p, 116 fg, 12a ft, 126*5, 12c fc, 13a fg, 136 fg, 14a fg, 146 fg, 15 fw, 16a fg, 166 fg, i6t *s, 19 fg, 22a fg, 226 fw, 24 f£, 26*5, 276 ft, 270? fw, 27c *a, 28 ft5, 290*5, 296 fg, 31*5, 32*0, 33 t w > 34 *a, 36 f> 39 % 4o *5, 42 fg, 43<* t£> 43& *% 43 c t w > 44 *<*, 45 fl t c > 456 *5, 45C fw, 46 fm, 48a ft, 486 *^>, 50 *0, 51 fg. 14:2 *a, 3a fw, 36 *o, 3c fw, 6 ft, 7 *p, ga Jo, 96 fg, 9c ft, 11a ft, 116 fw, ntfw, 12*5, 130*0, 136 fg, 14a ft, 146 fw, 14c fm, 15a fw, 156*0, 15c *a, 16*0, 170 ft, 176 fw, 17c fw, 18 fw, 19a fg, 196 fg, 19c fc, 200 fg, 206 fg, 210 fg, 216 fg, 220 fw, 226 fw, 230 fg, 236 fg, 24 fg, 25 fg, 26 *p, 270 fg, 276 fg. 15: 1 t& 2 ft, 30 fg, 36 fw, 4 f/, 50 *5, 56 fw, 70 ft, 76 fg, 8 fw, 9 ft, 12 Jo, 13 fm, 16a *a, 166*5, 18 *a, 19*5, 210*5, 216 fw, 220 fg, 226*0, 22t *o, 23 fg, 24 f w, 250 ft, 256 fg, 26 *o, 27 -fp, 29 fto, 300 fg, 306 fg, 3 1 t'i 32 % 330 fg, 336 *5, 350 fw, 356 fw, 36 fg, 37 *o, 380 *5, 386 *5, 39 tS, 4oo fg, 406 fg, 41 pn- !6:3 fl t£> 3 6 * fl . 4 *a, 6 ft, 7 fg, 8 fg, 90 *p, 96 */>, 9c */», 90! fg, 10 ft, nafg, 116*5, 12 *p, 130 fg, 136*0, 140*5, 146*5, 15a fm, 156 fg, 160 f/, 166*0, i6t f /«, 170 fg, 176 f?», 180 ft, 186 fg, 190 ft, 196 fg, 200 fg, 206 ft, 21 ft, 22 fg, 23a fg, 236 fg, 24 fg, 25 fg, 270 % 276 ft, 27c Jo, 27J fg, 2 7 t ft, 28 pn, 29a fg, 296 ft, 30 fg, 33 fg, 340 fg, 346 ft, 35a p, 35 b Ph 36 fg, 37a t?> 376 t«> 37^ t£> 3 8 P, 39 a t^» 39 & t^, 4oofg, 406 f/. x 7 :i t^ 3 a t w > 3 b P n > 5a P, 56 fg, 5tfg, sJfg, 60 ft, 66 fw, 6c *s, 6d*s, 7fw, 8fg, 9fg, 10 fg, 11 fw, 130 fw, 136 fw, 150*5, 156 fg, 160 f/, 166 ft, i6t Jo, 170*5, 176*5, 19a fg, 196 fm, i9t *o, 20*5, 21 *a, 22 fg, 23a fg, 236 fg, 230 fm, 240*5, 246 ft, 250 ft, 256 ft, 26a fg, 266*0, 27 t", 29 t c , 3° t«> 3 ia **, 3 l6 t c ? 3i c V n , 32 fc, 34 fg- 18: 1 fg, 2a ft, 26 *o, 5 fm, 6a ft, 66 ft, 6t fg, 7a fg, 76 *a, 7t *p, 8 fg, li fw., 12 f/, 13 fw, 14 f/, 17 fg, l80 f/, l86 fg, l8tfg, 19 fg, 20fC5, COMPLETE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTICIPLES 43 2iafg, 2l6 fg, 2icfc0, 22a fg, 22b fg, 22C fg, 23a fg, 236 fg, 23C fw, 24*0, 25a *p, 25b fc, 25c fcs, 26 f/, 27a f/, 276 fg, 27c f/, 2J(1*S, 28 fw. 19:1 fg, 2 f/, 4a fw, 46*5, 5 fg, 6 fg, 8a fg, 86 fw, 8c fw, 9a fw, 96 fg, 9c fw, 10%, ii*c, 1.2*5, 13a *a, 136*5, 13c fw, 14 *p, 15 fw, 16a fg, 166 fw, 16c *a, 17 *a, 18a *5, 186 fw, 18c fw, 19a *s, igb fg, 21a fg, 21b fg, 22a fg, 226 *s, 24 *a, 25 fg, 26a fw, 26ft fw, 26c *s, 27 *s, 28a fg, 286 fg, 28c fw, 29 fg, 30 fc5, 31a fc, 316 fg, 32 *p, 33a fg, 2,3b fg, 34a f/, 34& t£> 35 fl t#> 35 6 U, 36a fc, 366 */>, 36c *p, 37 *5, 400 fc, 40ft f /. 20: ia fg, 16 fg, ic fg, 2a fg, 2b fg, 3 a f/, 36 fc, 3c f/, 5 fg, 7a fg, 70 fc, 8 *p, ga *a, 96 *p, gc p, gd fc, 10a fg, 10b fg, 11a p, 116 f/, ncf/, na'ftf, i2*c, 13a fg, 136 fc, 13c *p, 13d p, 14 fg, 150 fg, 156*5, 15c *s, 17 fg, 19a fw, 196 *a, 20 *5, 21 fw, 22a *a, 226 *5, 22c ps, 23 fw, 26 fw, 29 fw, 30a fw, 306 *s, 31a p, 31b %s, 32a *a, 32b *s, 34 *s, 35a fw, 356 *5, 36a p., 366 fg, 37 ig, 38 fc 2i:iaf/, 16 fw, 2a p, 2b *a, 2c fg, 3a f/, 36 fg, 3c */>, 4 fg, 5a fg, 5&t£> 5^f£, 5^te 7«t<> 7&t£> 8a t£, 86 fg, 8c *a, 9 */>, 10 p, nafg, 116 fg, ncfg, 130 fw, 136 fw, 14a p, 146 fg, 15 fg, 16 fw, 17 f/, 18*5, 19 fg, 20a fc, 206 *s, 21 fw, 23 *a, 24a fg, 246 fw, 25a *a, 256 fg, 26a fg, 266 *a, 26c p, 26d fg, 27 fc, 28a fw, 286*5, 29 */», 30 fg, 31 p, 32a fg, 326 fc, 32c J5, 33a fg, 336 *p, 34 fc, 36 fw, 37 p, 38a *a, 386 *a, 40a fg, 406 fg, 40c p, 40 J fw. 22 : 2 fc, 3a *a, 36 *a, 3c *a, 3c? *a, 4a f w, 46 fw, 5a f/, 56 f/>, 5c *s, $d *a, 6a f/, 66 f/, 7 Jo, 9a *s, 96 *5, 10 fg, ua fw, 116 *5, 12a *a, 126 *a, 13a fg, 136 fg, 16a fg, 166 fg, 17a p, 176 f/, 18 Jo, iga *p, 196 *p, 19c *v, 2oa*p, 206 */>, 20c */>, 2od *5, 22 fw, 23a fc, 236 fc, 23c fc, 24 fg, 25 *a, 26a p, 266 fg, 26c fw, 27 fg, 29a *s, 296 fc, 29c *p, 30a fc, 306 fg. 23 : 1 fg, 2 *s, 3a *a, 36 *s, 3c *s, 4 *s, 6 fc, 7 f /, 9a fg, 96 fw, 10a fc, 106 fc, ioc fg, ua *a, 116 fg, 12a p, 126 fg, 12c fw, 13 *s, 14 fg, 15 fc, 1 6a f/, 166 fg, 1 6c fg, 17 fg, 1 8a fg, 186 fg, 18c fc, 19a fg, 196 fg, 20 fc, 21 fw, 22 fg, 23 fg, 24 fw, 25a fg, 256 *a, 27a fc, 276 fc, 27c fg, 27^ fc, 28 fc, 29a Jo, 296 Jo, 30a p, 306 fg, 31a *s, 31b fg, 32 fg, 33a fg, 336 fg, 34a fg, 346 fg, 34c fg, 35 fg. 24:2a p, 2b pn, 2Cp, 2dp, 5a fc, 56*5, 5c *s, 8 fw, 9 f w, 10a p, 106 Jo, ioc fc, nafc, 116 -fp, 12a Jo, 126 Jo, 14a *s, 146*5, 15*5, 17 ip, 18 Jo, 20 p, 21 p, 22a fc, 226 fw, 23 fg, 24a fg, 246 *a, 25a fc, 256*0, 25c fg, 25a* *s, 2$e p, 26a fc, 266 fg, 27a p, 276 fc, 27c *a. 25 : 1 fg, 3a p, 36 fg, 5 fg, 6a p, 66 fg, 6c fg, 7a f/, 76 *a, jc fw, 7a 1 fg, 9a fc, 96 fw, 9c fg, 10 *p, 12 f/, 13a f/, 136 fg, 14a fw, 146*/*, 15a p, 156 fw, 16 *5, 17a p, 176 fg, 17c fg, 18 p, 19 *a, 20 fc, 21 fc, 23a p, 236 p, 23c fc, 24a *a, 246 fw, 25 fc, 26 p, 27 p. 44 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 26 : 2a f g, 2b f c, 3 f c, 4 *a, 5 f c, 6a *a, 6& *s, 7 fm, 10a f g, 106 f /, 1 ia f w, ii&fc, I2 % I 3 a t°, 13* **, i4»t^> x 4& Jo, x 7 fg, 18*5, 20 f ;w, 21 fg, 22a fc, 226 *s, 22c \m, 22d *a, 24 p, 26a pn, 266 *^>, 29 *s, 30 *s, 31a fg, 31& fra. 27 : 2a fg, 2 * *<*, 2c fg, 3a fc, 3* t£> 4 fg, 5 t£, 6a tg, 6b *°, 7 a t r , 7* t c , 7c fc, 8a pn, Sb *a, 9a f/, 96 fc, 10 fw, 11*5, 12a fc, 12& f/, 12c *a, 13a fc, 136 t*j !3 C tg, 14 *«, i5 a t c , IS* t c , r 5c tg, l6a t w > l6 * * a , i7<* tg, I7& fw, 17C fc, 17a" |W, l8 ft, 20a fc, 20&fc, 2iaf/, 21&fg, 2icfg, 24a fw, 246 *s, 27 f/, 28a fg, 286 fg, 28c fg, 29a fc, 296 fg, 30a fc, 30& fc, 30c fc, 33a "K 33* fc> 33^ t>», 35« tg, 35* tg, 35^ tg, 36 fg, 38a ft 386 fw, 39 *a, 40a fg, 40& f/, 40c fg, 40^ **, 41a fg, 416 fg, 42 fw, 43a fc, 43& *s, 43c f*. 28 : 1 f t, 2a *a, 26 fg, 2c *a, 3a f /, 36 f /, 3c f /, 4a Jo, 4b ps, 5 fg, 6a f /, 6& fc, 6c Jo, 6d fg, 7 fg, 8a *s, 8b fg, 8c fg, U fg, 9 a fg, 9 & % 10 ft 11 *a, 12 fg, 13a fg, 136 fg, 14 fg, 15a fc, 15b fc, 15c fg, 16* a, 17a *s, 176 f J, 17c fcs, 18 fg, 19a fc, 196 fc, 21 fg, 23a fg, 23^ fm, 23c fw, 24 *s, 25a fc, 256 ft 26a pn, 26b pn, 30 *s, 31a pn, 31 b \m. PART II INFERENCES FROM THE FACTS CONCERNING THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS CHAPTER X THE NATURE OF THE GREEK IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 80. Preliminary Statement It now remains to synthesize the accumulated facts of Part I and see to what conclusions they naturally lead. There are five problems connected with the Book of Acts on which the participle throws more or less light — the nature of its Greek, its sources, its unity, its authorship, and the com- position of its addresses. What bearing, then, have the facts of Part I on the nature of the Greek in which the Book of Acts was wrtiten ? Sec. 8i. The Greek of the Book of Acts Compared with That of the Classical Period Take Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, and Demosthenes as representative authors of this period. We find (p. 10, Part I) that Thucy- dides averages 13 participles per page; 1 Herodotus, 17 J; Xenophon, i2§; Plato, io£; and Demosthenes, iof. The average ranges from io| to 17^, the general average for these classical authors being ca. i2f. The Book of Acts has an average of ca. 17^ per page. That is, ca. 40 per cent, more participles are found in the Book of Acts than occur in the great classi- cal authors. But it is to be observed, the preponderance of narrative in the Book of Acts helps to account for this higher average. If we compare the nature of the participles in the Book of Acts with that of the classical authors, we find that the ascriptive participle in classical Greek ranges from 22 1 per cent, (in Thucydides) to 454 (in Plato), giving an average of ca. 27^ per cent. The Book of Acts has 28! per cent, ascrip- tive — a little greater percentage than that of Thucydides or Herodotus, a little less than that of Plato or Demosthenes, but about the same as that of Xenophon. The adverbials in the classical authors range from 50 1 per cent. (Plato) to 72 \ (Thucydides), giving a general average of ca. 62 per cent. The Book of Acts has nearly 68 per cent, adverbials — a little more 1 Page means 30 lines throughout this treatise. 45 46 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS than Xenophon, a little less than Thucydides or Herodotus, but con- siderably more than Plato or Demosthenes (probably because Acts con- tains more narrative). The complementary participle in the classical authors ranges from 4J per cent. (Plato) to n\ per cent. (Demosthenes), averaging for classical Greek ca. 6f per cent. The Book of Acts has ca. 4 per cent, complementary. Thus we see the Book of Acts surpasses in frequency of participles the general average of the classical authors and is excelled by only one, Herodotus (only by a fraction of 1 per cent.). In its proportion of ascriptive, adverbial, and complementary participles the Book of Acts comes fairly near to the general average found in the classical authors, except that in its complementary participle it falls below the lowest average (that of Plato). Sec. 82. The Greek of the Book of Acts Compared with That of the Literary kolvyj Polybius averages 17I per page; Strabo, 13J; Plutarch, 14, while Josephus runs up to 20, giving an average for the literary kolvyj of nearly i6\ (Acts being 17^). Polybius has 27$ per cent, ascriptive; Strabo, 46! per cent.; Josephus, 16$ per cent.; Plutarch, 29 per cent., a general average of 30 per cent. (Acts having 28 \ per cent.). Polybius has 6of per cent, adverbial; Strabo, 51^; Plutarch, 65I, while Josephus reaches 78 per cent., a general average of nearly 66 (Acts having nearly 68 per cent.). The complementary par- ticiple is less frequent in the literary kolvtj than in classical Greek, ranging from i T 9 ff (Strabo) to 5! (Plutarch). Josephus has nearly as many as Plutarch, 5^ per cent., but Polybius has only 2\ per cent. The average for the literary noivrj is 3! per cent. (Acts less than 4 per cent.). Thus we see, the participles of the Book of Acts, as to frequency, show about the same Greek that we find in literary Koivr). At any rate, the Greek of the Book of Acts is more like that of the literary Kotvrj than that of the classical authors. As to the proportion of the three classes of participles, the Book of Acts has just a few less ascriptives and just a few more adverbials than the average in the literary Koivr/, the complementary participle being of about the same frequency in both. The Book of Acts is more like the literary koivtIj than classical Greek in the per- centage of its ascriptives (proportion, 28J in Acts; 27J in literary Koivrj; 33 in classical). In the percentage of its adverbials, likewise, the Book of Acts is closer to the literary Koivrj than to the classical Greek (proportion, Acts, 68; literary Koivrj, 66; classical, 62). There is a still greater difference in NATURE OF GREEK IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 47 complementary participles (Acts, 4 percent.; literary koivt;, 3^; classical, 6|) between the Book of Acts and classical Greek, on the one hand, and the Book of Acts and literary koivt;, on the other hand. Sec. 83. The Greek of the Book of Acts Compared with the Greek of the Papyri and the Septuagint From p. 10 we find that the participles in the Septuagint average only 6£ per page, in the papyri, a little over 6f y . The Septuagint has 79 per cent, ascriptive; 19^ per cent, adverbial; 1$ per cent, complementary. The papyri have 84^ per cent, ascriptive; 14 per cent, adverbial; 2 J per cent, complementary. The Book of Acts averages 17^, with 28 { per cent, ascriptive; nearly 68 per cent, adverbial; ca. 4 per cent, complemen- tary. Thus we see that the Greek of the Book of Acts differs much from the Greek of the Septuagint and the vernacular papyri. Indeed, the Greek of the Book of Acts is upon an average better than the common dialect Greek, which we find in the Septuagint and the papyri. Sec. 84. The Greek of the Book of Acts Compared with That of Other Books of the New Testament See p. 23 for the facts. As compared with the Greek of Paul in three of his great epistles (Galatians, I Corinthians, Romans), we notice that Paul averages ca. 9 participles per page, 73^ per cent, ascriptive; 25! per cent, adverbial; less than 1 per cent, complementary. Thus we see that Paul's Greek is much more like the vernacular koivt} of the Septuagint and the papyri than that of the Book of Acts or of the literary koivt;. But, observe, Paul's lack of narrative helps to account for this difference. The Epistle to the Hebrews averages 14 per page, 57 per cent, ascriptive; 41 per cent, adverbial; 2 per cent, complementary. In frequency of par- ticiples the Greek of Hebrews is nearer to the classical Greek than to the literary or vernacular koivt;; it is also nearer to the classical Greek than it is to that of the Book of Acts. When we consider the nature of the parti- ciple, we observe that the Epistle to the Hebrews contains a much smaller percentage of ascriptives and a much larger proportion of adverbials than the vernacular koivt;, and yet the percentage of ascriptives in Hebrews is much larger than in the Book of Acts, while that of the adverbials is much smaller (the proportion of ascriptives being 57 to 28^, nearly double; that of adverbials, 41 to 68, over a third less). Therefore, we conclude, there is a wide difference between the Greek of the Book of Acts and that of Hebrews, while there is not so great a difference between classical Greek and that of Hebrews. Likewise, the Greek of the Book of Acts is nearer 48 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS to that of the literary kolvtj than it is to the Greek of Hebrews (cf. figures on pp. 10 and 23). The Johannine writings show a Greek more in accord with that of the vernacular Koivrj than with that of the literary Kowrj (the First Epistle more so than the gospel, the epistle not containing a single adverbial participle but 94 1 per cent, ascriptive). As to Matthew and Mark, their frequency of participles is nearly the same as that of classical Greek, much less than that of the literary koivij, while much greater than that of the vernacular. Strange as it may seem, the Greek of Mark, as seen from its participial side, is nearer to that of the literary Koivrj than Matthew is. (But the dis- courses in Matthew help to account for this.) Stranger still, the Greek of Mark is more like that of the Book of Acts and the literary kolvtj than it is like the vernacular (see pp. 10 and 23). The Greek of First Peter is more akin to that of the vernacular than it is to the literary kolviq (except that the participle is much more frequent in First Peter than in the vernacular, but not so frequent as in the literary KOLVYj) . Sec. 85. General Conclusions First, the Greek of the Book of Acts is not so near to the classical usage as is the letter to the Hebrews, but it is more like that of the literary kolvtj than that of Hebrews is. Secondly, the Greek of the Book of Acts is less like that of the vernacu- lar KOivr) than that of Paul. Thirdly, the Greek of the Book of Acts is still more superior, from the literary point of view, to that of the Johannine writings, but not so much superior in literary merit to the Greek of Matthew and Mark (we compare the Greek of the Third Gospel in a subsequent chapter). Of course, all these conclusions as to the nature of the Greek of the Book of Acts as compared with that of other books of the New Testament, with that of the classical, literary, or vernacular koivi'], are based exclusively on the participial usage. Other features of style might modify these con- clusions. We shall see in the next chapters that the nature of the Greek in the Book of Acts varies in different portions of the book. CHAPTER XI THE UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICIPLE Sec. 86. Opening Statement The traditional school has ever contended for the unity of the book. Not even the Tubingen school gave any serious attention to the discussion of the unity of the Book of Acts. With them the Tendenz (tendency) was the main thing in the book. It was not till Spitta published in 1891 his Die A postelgeschichte, Hire Quellen, etc., on the sources of the Book of Acts that the question of unity was seriously discussed. Spitta claims that the book is the work of a redactor based on two parallel sources, A and B, each beginning with the ascension of Jesus and both continuing throughout the Book of Acts. J. Weiss, in the main, accepts Spitta's view as to the lack of unity in the book. Carl Clemen more recently has regarded the Book of Acts as the pro- duction of two redactors, Rj friendly, Ra hostile, to the Jews, the former using as a source HPe (History of Peter), the latter using as a source HPa (History of Paul). Julicher denies that there are three authors to the book, a Judaist, an Anti-Judaist, and a Neutral (as claimed by some). He thinks that the book comes from one pen (but not Luke's). Still more recently Harnack (Lukas der Arzt, etc., especially pp. 96-99, 122-37) argues, from lexical and stylistic facts, for the unity of the book, claiming that, not only chaps. 1-12 and 13-28 come from the same hand, but also that the author of the whole book is none other than the author of the "We" passages. What light does the participial usage in the Book of Acts throw on this question ? Sec. 87. The Participial Usage in the Two Main Portions The participles in Pe (chaps. 1-12) average 15^; in Pa (chaps. 13-28) they average 19. Pe has 34^ per cent, ascriptive, Pa has ca. 24 per cent, ascriptive. Pe has 57J per cent, adverbial, Pa has 73^ per cent, adverbial. Pe has 7! per cent, complementary, while Pa has only 2\ per cent, com- plementary. So we see that the author of Pe has nearly 25 per cent, higher average than Pa, and used nearly one-third more ascriptive parti- ciples than the author of Pa. Furthermore (pp. 28, 29) we saw that the author of Pe used a much larger percentage of periphrastic, or predicative, ascriptives than did the 49 50 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS author of Pa — there being one periphrastic participle to every 26§ lines in Pe, but only one to ca. 44 lines in Pa. What is the significance of these facts ? Do they mean that the same author could not have written the two portions, Pe and Pa, with so different usage in each as to ascriptive participles ? Before drawing any conclusion we must consider if it is not possible for the same writer in the same pro- duction to differ as much as this in his use of ascriptive participles. Take as an example Paul, in Rom., chaps. 9-1 1 and 12-14. I n the former sec- tion occur only 24 ascriptive participles to 168 lines, one to ca. 7 lines; in the latter section occur 52 to 141 lines, a little over one to 3 lines. That is, Paul uses over twice as many ascriptives in chaps. 12-14 as ne does in chaps. 9-1 1 — a much greater difference than we find in Pe and Pa. Why so great a difference in the percentage of ascriptives in Rom., chaps. 9-1 1 and 12-14 ? Is it not due primarily to the different nature of the two sections? Chaps. 9-1 1 give an argument closely thought out; chaps. 12-14, an exhortation which includes a great deal of descriptive matter (especially chap. 12 on the various classes). In argumentation an author naturally uses the finite verb with particles instead of participles, while in exhortation it is natural to use more ascriptives. Moreover, in chaps. 9-1 1 occurs much quoted matter in which are found very few participles. Does the different nature of Pe and Pa warrant the difference of 30 per cent, in the proportion of ascriptives in each? There is not much difference between the nature of Pe and Pa, except that Pe contains more speeches (some long) and less narrative, also breathes a more Hebraistic atmosphere, which facts, perhaps, help to explain the larger proportion of ascriptives. What can be said of the adverbials in Pe and Pa ? In Pa there are about 30 per cent, more adverbials than in Pe. The three reasons men- tioned above help to explain the increased percentage of adverbials in Pa. The purer the narrative and the less Hebraistic the writing (other things being equal) the more adverbials will be used. The use of the complementary participle is so different in Pe and Pa as to cast some doubt upon the unity of the book, there being about three times as many in Pe as in Pa. Nor can we claim that the Hebraistic tone of Pe helps to explain the difference, since the complementary participle is seldom used in the Septuagint of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Judges (if per cent.). Homer and the author of Pe use about the same percentage of complementary participles, while Polybius and the author of Pa use the same number. Upon the whole we may say, the participial usage is not UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPLE 5 1 strongly for the unity of the two main portions of the book, though the different tone and different nature of the two portions, not different author- ship, may explain the different participial usage. Sec. 88. The Participial Usage in the Subdivisions of Chaps. 1-12 These chapters easily fall into the following sections: 1 : 1-14; 1 : 15-26; chap. 2; chaps. 3-5; 6:1-7; 6:8—7:60; chap. 8; 9:1-31; 9:32 — 11:18; 11:19-26; 11:27 — 12:25. Let us bear in mind that the participles in Pe average 15&, 34^ per cent, ascriptive, 57$ per cent, adverbial, 7$ per cent, complementary. Now if one author composed the whole of Pe, we may expect the sections to agree fairly well, in participial usage, with one another and with the general average of Pe. They need not agree exactly, for different participial usage may be due to different sources, different tone and nature of the section, not to different authorship. 1 : 1-14 (ascension of Jesus and the stay of the disciples in the upper room) has 19 participles, an average of 13^ per page, ca. 36 per cent, ascrip- tive, ca. 58 per cent, adverbial, ca. 5 per cent, complementary. By com- parison we notice that the participial usage of this section closely resembles that of Pe as a whole. 1:15-26 (election of Matthias) contains 11 participles, an average of 12 + per page, over 63 per cent, ascriptive, 37 — per cent, adverbial. This participial usage is radically different from that of Pe, and would suggest a different hand, were it not that a large part of this section is an address. Hence, this section can furnish proof neither for nor against the unity of Pe. The author may be influenced by a Hebraistic source, since the ascriptive participle prevails in the section. Chap. 2 (Pentecost and its immediate results) has 37 participles, an average of 10J per page, the ascriptive and adverbial each 47 J per cent., ca. 5J per cent, complementary. Three things must be considered in estimating the participial usage of this section: its large amount of quoted matter, its general Hebraistic tone (dealing with intensely Jewish matters), and the fact that it is not all narrative. Hence, we find the ascriptive participles above the average for Pe, but the adverbial and complemen- tary participles below its average. This difference does not necessarily indicate a different author, since the nature of the section largely explains the participial usage on the basis of unity of authorship. Chaps. 3-5 (early history of the Jerusalem church) contain 112 parti- ciples, an average of ca. 14^, ca. 35 per cent, ascriptive, ca. 58 per cent. adverbial, ca. 7 per cent, complementary. These figures show a remark- ably similar style in this section to that of Pe. 52 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 6:1-7 (internal trouble leading to the election of the Seven) has only five participles, an average of less than 10 per page, 20 per cent, ascriptive and 80 per cent, adverbial. That is, this section has very little Hebraistic tone, but seems to be a free composition unhampered by the style of a written source. The writer of this section writes like a koivyj writer unfet- tered by Judaistic influences. Of course any writer might write this num- ber of lines without using a complementary participle. The participial usage of this section agrees more closely with that of Pa than that of Pe. 6 : 8 — 7 : 60 (the Stephen section) contains 56 participles, an average of ca. 10 per page, 34 per cent, ascriptive, ca. 52 J per cent, adverbial, ca. 13$ per cent, complementary, the number of ascriptives being about the same as that of Pe, the number of adverbials a little less, and the number of complementary participles being nearly double. The number of ad- verbials is, doubtless, cut down by the large percentage of quoted matter in Stephen's address. The large number of complementary participles is difficult to explain. If, in this section, the usage of its ascriptive and ad- verbial participles did not so closely harmonize with that of Pe, we might conclude that the excessive use of complementary participles sug- gested another hand. Chap. 8 (the Philip section) contains 45 participles, an average of 15^, 32^ per cent, ascriptive, ca. 63 per cent, adverbial, ca. 4 per cent, comple- mentary. These figures are fairly close to those of Pe, the difference being more adverbial and less complementary participles. This Philip section has only one quotation, and in its original portion fairly represents the author of Pe in his participial usage. 9:1-31 (Saul's conversion and early Christian activity) contains 37 participles (38 if dmo-ras in v. 11 be included), an average of ca. i6f, nearly 38 per cent, ascriptive, a little over 54 per cent, adverbial, ca. 8 per cent, complementary. This section has a participial usage similar to that of Pe, except the slightly increased average and a greater percentage of ascriptive and complementary participles. The increase of the latter is due to the vision described. 9:32 — 11:18 (Peter's missionary work) contains 103 participles, an average of 19J per page, 32^ per cent, ascriptive, 54^ per cent, adverbial, ca. \2\ per cent, complementary. Two things are remarkable in this section, the high average and the large number of complementary parti- ciples. The ascriptive and adverbial participles are just a little below the average for Pe. Is there any explanation (besides different authorship, or editorial work) for this excessive average — ca. 25 per cent, greater than that of Pe ? UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPLE 53 The preponderating narrative element helps to account for the large average; the visions of Peter and Cornelius (the former twice told) increase the number of complementary participles; also written sources might have led the same author to use more participles than was his usual habit. Yet, if there were sufficiently weighty arguments from other directions pointing to a different author for this section, the participial usage might lend its evidence for different authorship. 11:19-26 (the gospel reaches Antioch) has 10 participles, an average of i6§ per page, 40 per cent, ascriptive and 60 per cent, adverbial. The section is not radically different from Pe in participial usage, except it has no complementary participle. Yet, the section is too short for us to base conclusions on it for or against the unity of Pe. 11:27 — 12:2 5 (the Jerusalem church and Herod Agrippa I) contains 43 participles, an average of ic.£ per page, ca. 28 per cent, ascriptive, 69^ per cent, adverbial, less than 2\ per cent, complementary. These figures show three irregularities: excessive average, a small number of ascriptives with a large number of adverbials, and a very small number of comple- mentary participles. How explain this variant usage? Either by the preponderating narrative of the section and the source as containing a large number of participles, or by the hypothesis of a different author. Since the first condition is present and the second condition may be present, it is not necessary to suppose a different author to account for the variant usage of participles in this section. Sec. 89. Table Illustrating the Subsections of Pe Section i:i-I4 1:15-26 Chap. 2 Chaps. 3-5 6:i-7 6:8—7:60 Chap. 8 9:1-31 9:32—11:18 11:19-26 11: 27 — 12:25. . . Average per Page of 30 Lines Ascriptive Per cent. Adverbial Per cent. Complementary Per cent. I3J 12 + ioi I4§ 10 — 10 15* 16* 19* 16J 19J 36 63 47* 35 20 34 zA 38- 32§ 40 58 37 47* 58 80 52* 63 54 + 54£ 60 69i 5* 7 n\ 4 + 8 12* CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TABLE First, the general average varies ca. 100 per cent. — from less than 10 to 19^ per page. Secondly, the percentage of ascriptives varies over 100 per cent. — from 28 per cent, to 63. 54 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Thirdly, the percentage of adverbials varies less than ioo per cent. — from 37 to 6oi per cent. Fourthly, the percentage of complementary participles varies from zero to 1 3 \. Fifthly, chap. 8 seems to be a line of cleavage between the earlier and later parts of Pe. The average is much smaller prior to chap. 8 and much larger from chap. 8 on. The ascriptives are more numerous and the adverbials less numerous prior to chap. 8 (except in sees. 6 : 1-7 and 1 1 : 27 — 12:25). 6:1-7 has the smallest percentage of ascriptives and the largest proportion of adverbials, while 11:27 — 12:2 5 has the next smallest per- centage of ascriptives and the next largest proportion of adverbials. The early chapters contain rather more complementary participles, but chap. 8 following, fewer. Yet, there are two sections in chaps. 1-7 (both short) containing no complementary participles at all, while one very short section in chaps. 8-12 contains none. Sixthly, such variety of participial usage would suggest a plurality of authors for Pe, were it not probable that variety in the literary character of the different sections and variety of usage in the possible written sources (for portions, at least) largely account for the variant participial usage in the different sections. Sec. 90. The Participial Usage in the Subdivisions of Pa These chapters naturally fall into the following sections: chaps. 13 and 14; 15:1-35; 15:36 — 18:22; 18:23 — 19:20; 19:21 — 21:14; 21:15 — 24:27; chaps. 25 and 26; 27:1 — 28:16; 28:17-31. Chaps. 13 and 14 (Paul's first missionary journey) contain 105 parti- ciples, an average of 18^ per page, a little over 30 per cent, ascriptive, nearly 68 per cent, adverbial, not quite 2 per cent, complementary. These figures are near to those of Pa, 1 there being a few more ascriptives (prob- ably due to the address in chap. 13 which contains two or three quotations from the Septuagint and which is somewhat Hebraistic in tone) and a few less adverbials. 15:1-35 (the Jerusalem conference) contains 37 participles, an average of 14I per page, ca. 27 per cent, ascriptive, 70! per cent, adverbial, and ca. 2\ per cent, complementary. Two things are notable in these figures: an average lower than that of the preceding section and that of Pa, and the similarity of proportion between ascriptive, adverbial, and complementary participles as compared with the ratio of Pa. Hence, this section probably 1 Pa has an average of 19 per page, ca. 24 per cent, ascriptive, 73$ per cent, adverbial, 2$ per cent, complementary. UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPLE 55 comes from the same author, while his Jerusalem source may have helped to determine the lower average of this section. 15:36 — 18:22 (Paul's second missionary journey) has 144 participles, an average of i8f per page, 20^ per cent, ascriptive, 77 J per cent, adverbial, and 2 + per cent, complementary. That is, the ascriptive and comple- mentary participles are used less frequently, but adverbials more copiously, which is, doubtless, due to the exclusively narrative nature of this section and its vivid description. This section contains one of the "We" passages, 16:10-17, which averages 20 per page, 40 per cent, ascriptive, 60 per cent, adverbial. These figures might suggest that a different hand furnished the "We" passage, yet it is not impossible for the same hand to have varied, in participial usage, this much in so short a section (21 lines). 18:23 — 19:20 (early part of Paul's third missionary journey) has 40 participles, an average of 20^ per page, 35 per cent, ascriptive, 65 per cent, adverbial. This section is very similar to the first "We" passage. There is a different ratio of ascriptives and adverbials as compared with that of Pa, yet not a greater difference than we find in the work of the same author. 19:21 — 21:14 (later part of Paul's third missionary journey) has 113 participles, 25! per cent, ascriptive, 72^ per cent, adverbial, and if per cent, complementary. These figures are so near to those of Pa as to cast no doubt upon the unity of authorship. This section includes two "We" passages (lacking four verses of the second), but also two ad- dresses, that of the Ephesian town clerk and that of Paul to the Ephesian elders. The narrative of the "We" passages and the argumentation of the addresses counteract each other and so preserve the uniformity of the whole section. 21:15 — 24:27 (Paul's arrest in Jerusalem and first trial in Caesarea) has 180 participles, an average of 20J per page, 27J per cent, ascriptive, 67I per cent, adverbial, and 5 per cent, complementary. These figures are too near to those of Pa to suggest plurality of authors. Chaps. 25 and 26 (Paul's subsequent trials in Caesarea) contain 70 participles, an average of 15-jj- per page, ca. 23 per cent, ascriptive, 74 per cent, adverbial, and ca. 3 per cent, complementary. Excepting the much smaller average, which is, doubtless, due to the addresses, the participial usage of this section is strikingly similar to that of Pa. 27:1 — 28:16 (voyage to Rome, including the shipwreck) has 102 participles, an average of 24 T * - per page, i6f per cent, ascriptive, 8of per cent, adverbial, and 2 }| per cent, complementary. This, the longest "We " passage, is highly descriptive, being nearly all narrative; hence the small 56 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS number of ascriptives and the large number of adverbials. Bearing this in mind, it is not impossible that the same hand that wrote Pa also wrote this section. At any rate, there is not so great a difference in participial usage here as we found in different sections of Pe and in different portions of Romans. 28:17-31 (Paul in Rome) contains 18 participles, an average of 13^ per page, i6§ per cent, ascriptive and 83 J per cent, adverbial. The ratio between the ascriptive and the adverbial participles is almost the same as that in the last "We" passage. The low average for this section is due to the fact that 14 lines of it constitute an address and 10 lines of the address are quoted from the Septuagint. Yet, the large number of adverbials seems to indicate the free composition of the author. Sec. 91. Table Illustrating the Subdivisions of Pa Section Average per Page of 30 Lines Ascriptive Per cent . Adverbial Per cent. Complementary Per cent. Chaps. 13 and 14 I8J 14* i8f 20J 20 2o£ iSl 24A 13* 30 + 27 20J 25§ 27i 23 , i6§ i6| 68- 7oi 77i 65 72r 7 s 6 7 i 74 8o| 83* 2 — 2 f 18:23 — 19:20 5 ca. 3 ca. 3 27:1 — 28:16 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THESE FIGURES First, the average is fairly regular throughout Pa, except in section 15 : 1-35, where the average is small because of the addresses, the quotation and Septuagint tone, and in chaps. 25 and 26 in which occur Pauline addresses and a Septuagint tone, which facts help to explain an average below that of Pa. Secondly, the percentage of ascriptives varies over 100 per cent, in the different sections (as in Pe), from i6f to 35 per cent. Thirdly, the percentage of adverbials varies about 25 per cent., from 65 to 83^ per cent. Fourthly, the percentage of complementary participles varies from zero to 5 per cent. Fifthly, the variations in Pa are much less than in Pe, the percentage of variation being equal nowhere except in ascriptives. Sixthly, after taking account of the variations due to literary form and to the sources in different sections, we may say that there is a striking uniformity in participial usage throughout Pa. CHAPTER XII THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK OF ACTS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE Sec. 92. Introductory Statement If the unity of authorship is accepted, the extreme variations in parti- cipial usage (as in other phases of style) can be explained satisfactorily only on the hypothesis of written sources whose literary peculiarities influ- enced the author. We have established, beyond a reasonable doubt, in Part I (see various summary tables) that the participial usage of the Septuagint (which is to some extent Hebraistic) is quite different from the style of the classical or kolvtj Greek. There is so great a difference (especially in the number of participles and the ratio between ascriptives and adverbials) that one is fairly safe in concluding, from the participial usage, the Hellenic or Hebra- istic character of a certain piece of Greek. That is, if the number is very small and the ascriptives overwhelmingly predominate over the adverbials, it is probable that the piece of Greek is not pure literary Koivrj, but Hebra- istic or vernacular Greek (according to facts on p. 10). And although it is sometimes difficult to discriminate between the Hebraistic and vernacular Greek style, yet it is easy to discriminate between the style of the literary kolvt] and the Hebraistic Greek. As seen above the style of Pa is rather Hellenic, while that of Pe is more Hebraistic in tone. On the other hand, if we accept a plurality of authors (or editors, or redactors, who in any considerable degree "worked over" the material) it is difficult to conclude from variations in participial usage in different sections that different sources must lie at the basis of these different sections. The facts set forth in the last chapter seem to point to the unity of the book. Then let us examine the different portions on the assumption that the book is practically a literary unit, and see what light the participial usage throws on possible written sources. Sec. 93. Spitta's Hypothesis Tested by Participial Usage Spitta accepts (see p. 49 above) two sources running parallel from the beginning to the end of the book, that now a paragraph (or longer section, or even verse, or line) is taken from A (the work of Luke and constituting about two-thirds of the book) and now a paragraph (or longer or shorter section) is taken from B (a Jewish-Christian source). The redactor also adds a few lines occasionally. 57 58 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Let us examine some sections from 6 : i ff., and see if the participial usage justifies Spitta's hypothesis. 6: 1-6, 9-i2a he regards as from A; 6:7, 8, 12&-15 from B. 6:1-6 contains 5 participles, 20 per cent, ascriptive and 80 per cent, adverbial. 6:7, 8 has no participles at all. 6:9-120 contains 4 participles, 75 per cent, ascriptive and 25 per cent, complementary (though o-w^towvtcs might be considered adverbial instead of ascriptive). 6:12^-15 contains 6 participles, 33% per cent, each ascriptive, adverbial, and complementary. Now the first section, vss. 1-6, agrees in participial usage fairly well with the "We" source, as Spitta has supposed. It must be conceded that vss. 7 and 8, since they contain no participial clause but do contain koL . . . . tc, and 8e five times for uniting the clauses of these two verses, are Hebraistic in tone. But the objector might say, There is not a participle in vss. 4 and 5 in the supposed "We" section, vss. 1-6, and surely the participle might have been easily used at the beginning of vs. 5. So the participial usage of 6:1-6, 7, 8, while not condemning Spitta's hypothesis, does not neces- sarily confirm it. In 6:9-120 (A) the participial usage is decidedly against Spitta's hypothesis, even if aw^Tovvra be construed as adverbial (if it is regarded as ascriptive the style is overwhelmingly against his hypothesis). The participial usage of 6:12^-15 does not speak clearly for or against his hypothesis. 7:2-54, 57, 580 are from A, while 7:55, 56, 586, 59-61 are from B. In the A-section occur 38 participles, 31 per cent, ascriptive, ca. 64 per cent, adverbial, and ca. 5 per cent, complementary. In the B-section occur 10 participles, only 10 per cent, ascriptive, 60 per cent, adverbial and 30 per cent, complementary. According to Spitta this section is more Hebraistic than "Lukan," but the participial usage shows just the opposite. Hence the participial usage shows Spitta's division of the last verses of chap. 7 to be arbitrary. Spitta puts all of chap. 8 in B, except lb, and 2 (A), and vss. 4 and 400 which are by the redactor. In 16 and 2 there is not a participle. In ia, 3, 5-400 are found 42 participles, 38 per cent, ascriptive, 57 \ per cent, adverbial, and less than 5 per cent, complementary. This can scarcely be classed as Hebraistic, Moreover, in the section which Spitta regards as "Lukan" (A) there is not a single participle. This is strange. The facts of participial usage in chap. 8 are clearly against Spitta. Chap. 9 he regards as from B, except vss. 4 and 5, which are from the redactor. In the A-section occur 59 participles, $$% pCr cent, ascriptive, 62I per cent, adverbial, ca. 3$ per cent, complementary. This is surely SOURCES OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 59 more "Lukan" than Hebraistic in participial usage. Moreover, the average for this chapter (21 per page) is decidedly against its composition by a Jewish writer (unless the style of the source is completely ignored by the later hand). Chap. 10 he regards as from B, except vss. 36-43 by the redactor. The B-portion contains 50 participles, 36 per cent, ascriptive, 50 per cent, adverbial, and 14 per cent, complementary. In vss. 36-43 occur n par- ticiples, 54J per cent, ascriptive and 45^ per cent, adverbial. That is, the portion ascribed by Spitta to the redactor is more Hebraistic than the sec- tion which he says comes directly from the Jewish source. Chap. 11 is from B, except vss. 19-21 and 27-30 (from A) and 22, 246-26 (from the redactor). The B-portion contains 20 participles, 30 per cent, ascriptive, 50 per cent, adverbial, and 20 per cent, comple- mentary. The A-section contains 10 participles, 50 per cent, each ascrip- tive and adverbial. The figures for both sections are against Spitta's hypothesis, for the section which should be more Hebraistic is more "Lukan" and vice versa. Chap. 12 is from B, except vs. 25 (A). Vss. 1-24 contain 36 parti- ciples, 25 per cent, ascriptive, 72 per cent, adverbial, less than 3 per cent, complementary, while vs. 25 has three participles, 333 per cent, ascriptive, the rest adverbial. That is, the B-portion, according to Spitta, is more "Lukan" than the "Lukan" verse itself (25). According to Spitta, the most of chaps. 13-28 comes from A, but some short sections (very few longer ones) come from B. Let us examine the participial tone of these B-sections in chaps. 13-28. In chaps. 13 and 14 Spitta regards 13:6-12, 44-49,52; 14:3, 8-150, 18-20 as coming from B. This B-portion contains 40 participles, 25 per cent, ascriptive, 70 per cent, adverbial, and ca. 5 per cent, complementary. These are strange figures for a Jewish-written source (unless radically changed by a later hand). According to Sec. 90, chaps. 13 and 14 have 30 per cent, ascriptive, 68 per cent, adverbial, and ca. 2 per cent, comple- mentary. Hence, it appears that Spitta's Jewish source in these chapters is less Jewish and more Lukan than the chapters as a whole. Chap. 15 is divided into vss. 35-41 (from A) and vss. 1-4, 13-33 (from B), the rest from the redactor. The A-section has 9 participles, one-third ascriptive and two-thirds adverbial (with the possibility that one counted ascriptive may be adverbial). The B-section contains 28 participles, 32-$- per cent, ascriptive and 67$ adverbial. The participial usage is so similar in A and B as not to suggest a plurality of sources. In chap. 16 he regards vss. 22-34, 366 as from B, in which occur 18 60 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS participles (three-fourths of page), 88f per cent, adverbial and n-^ com- plementary with not one ascriptive. These figures, showing a piece of Greek so un-Hebraistic, are decidedly against Spitta. Only two other long sections in chaps. 13-28 are regarded by Spitta as from B, 19:106-20, 24-40, and 23:1-10. The former section contains 43 participles, 39! per cent, ascriptive, ca. 58 per cent, adverbial, and 2^ per cent, complementary. This section is a little more Hebraistic in parti- cipial usage than other sections ascribed by Spitta to B, but the Hebraistic tone is too slight to reflect a purely Jewish written source, since so large a percentage of adverbial participles is found in no Jewish writer of the New Testament, except Mark (whose participial usage is probably due to his intimate intercourse with non-Jewish people in his later life and to the marked narrative style of his gospel) . In 23:1-10 are found 14 participles, 42! per cent, ascriptive and 57^ per cent, adverbial, and hence the section does not strongly reflect a Jewish- written source. Upon the whole it may be said that the participial usage of chaps. 6-12 does not entirely condemn Spitta's hypothesis, nor does it confirm it. The same may be said of chaps. 13-28, though his hypothesis that the most of these chapters comes from the Lukan, or "We," source is strongly sub- stantiated by the participial usage. Since J. Weiss holds virtually the same hypothesis as Spitta (except he thinks that chaps. 1-5 come from one source and the address of Stephen is a unit); since also Jiingst (1895) simply modified Spitta's hypothesis (differing as to the extent of the sources and regarding source B as Ebio- nitic and identical to a source of the Third Gospel), we do not consider their hypotheses in detail. But the participial usage seems to suggest too much literary unity in Acts (which J. Weiss concedes) to admit of its being pieced together by a redactor from such dissimilar (and often meager) fragments. Sec. 94. Feine's Hypothesis in the Light of Participial Usage In 1 891, Feine put forth the hypothesis that most of 1 :i — 11 :24 comes from a pre-canonical document of the Third Gospel, parts of chaps. 7-9 and n coming from another source (the basis of chaps. 13-28). He regards as coming from this latter source 6:1-6, participles 20 per cent, ascriptive and 80 per cent, adverbial; 6:12-14, participles 25 per cent, each ascriptive and adverbial, 50 per cent, complementary; 7:2-21, participles 10 per cent, each ascriptive and complementary, 80 per cent, adverbial; 7:29-34, participles, all adverbial, but small average, n per SOURCES OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 6 1 page; 7:44-50, 50 per cent, each ascriptive and adverbial; 7:57, 58, one- third ascriptive, two-thirds adverbial; 8:25-40 (about which Feine hesitates), 23^ per cent, ascriptive, 70^ per cent, adverbial, 6 per cent, complementary; 9:1-30, nearly 39 per cent, ascriptive, 53! per cent, adverbial, ca. 8 per cent, complementary; 11 : 25-30, 40 per cent, ascrip- tive and 60 per cent, adverbial. These sections (except 9: 1-30) it must be conceded, according to parti- cipial usage, are more similar in style to chaps. 13-28 than to the most of chaps. 1-12, excepting the smaller average. Hence, while the parti- cipial usage in chaps. 1-12 is not directly against Feine's hypothesis, it is surely not strongly in favor of it. Sec. 95. Carl Clemen's Hypothesis in the Light of Participial Usage In 1893 (Die Chronologie), again in 1895 (SK), Carl Clemen published what is perhaps the most elaborate hypothesis as to the sources in the Book of Acts. He regards the Book of Acts as the literary product of two redactors, one friendly (Rj), the other hostile, to the Jewish-Christian point of view (Ra), based on two sources, HPe (History of Peter) and HPa (History of Paul). He regards the two sources as not simply chronicles in their respective spheres of early Christian activity, but as having passed through a literary history of their own before being used by the two redac- tors in producing the Book of Acts. Of course, he regards the most of chaps. 1 -1 2 as from HPe and the most of chaps. 13-28 as from HPa. But he supposes that one or the other of the redactors inserted many short or long passages in both parts of the book. We have seen above that the participial usage favors and even demands the general division of the book into two portions. But how does it bear on Clemen's hypothesis of a redaction of these by two hostile hands ? He regards as the work of Ra in chaps. 1-12, 4:36 — 5:11, participles, 37 per cent, ascriptive and 63 per cent, adverbial, average, 20; 8:14-25, average, 14, 20 per cent, ascriptive, 70 per cent, adverbial, 10 per cent. complementary; 9:1-31, average, i6|- (over 17 if dvacn-as, vs. n, be included), nearly 38 per cent, ascriptive, a little over 54 percent, adverbial, ca. 8 per cent, complementary; 11:27-30, average, 15, 50 per cent, each ascriptive and adverbial; 12:1-25, average, ca. 22, 28 per cent, ascriptive, 69$ per cent, adverbial, 2% per cent, complementary. These sections in chaps. 1-12 do have a much larger average than the rest of these chapters, which shows them to be at least un-Jewish in tone, if not anti-Jewish (as Clemen claims). The ratio between the ascriptive, 62 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS adverbial, and complementary participles indicates an un-Jewish source or composition, or both, for these sections. In chaps. 13-28 Clemen regards as the work of Ra, 13:44-50, average, 15, 50 percent, each ascriptive and adverbial; 15:5-12, 19, 23-33, average, 15I, 19 per cent, ascriptive, 76 per cent, adverbial, ca. 5 per cent, comple- mentary; 18:6, average, ca. 30, all adverbial; 20:25-35, 38a, average, 15, 41 § per cent, ascriptive, 50 per cent, adverbial, 83 per cent, complementary; 28:25-28, average, 8 (due probably to a long quotation with only one par- ticiple), all adverbial. These sections average only ca. 15 (except 18:6 which is too short to reckon on), which is about the average of the Jewish portion of the Book of Acts. Also the ratio between ascriptives and adverbials agrees more nearly with that of chaps. 1-12 than with that of chaps. 13-28. Therefore, the participial usage in these sections is against Clemen's hypothesis that an anti-Jewish redactor added them. Let us now look at some Rj sections (limiting ourselves to those in chaps. 13-28, since there are very few in chaps. 1-12). [5:1-4, participles all adverbial, average n£; 15:13-18, average, 10 (but most of this section is quoted), 75 per cent, ascriptive and 25 per cent, adverbial; 15:20-22, average, 17 J, 60 per cent, ascriptive and 40 per cent, adverbial; 16:1-3, average, 9, 50 per cent, each ascriptive and adverbial; 21 : 206-26, average, 18, 36 T 4 T per cent, ascriptive, 63^ adverbial; 22:1-16, 19-21, average, 22, 55 per cent, ascriptive, 41 f adverbial, and 3! com- plementary; 23:1-10, average, i6|, 39 per cent, ascriptive. 61 per cent, adverbial; 28:16-24, average, 15, 25 per cent, ascriptive, 75 per cent adverbial. Excepting 15:1-4 and 28:16-24, the participial usage in these sections as to the ratio between ascriptives and adverbials is like that of chaps. 1-12 rather than that of chaps. 13-28. The average varies, about half resembling that of the first portion, the other half, that of the second por- tion. These figures then only slightly confirm Clemen's hypothesis. To conclude as to Clemen's hypothesis, his general supposition of two basal histories (HPe and HPa) fairly harmonizes with the participial usage of the book, but his supposition of an anti-Jewish writer who works over many passages is contrary to the participial usage and his supposition of a Jewish hand in certain sections is only partially confirmed by the parti- cipial usage. Hence we ask, as to the last sections (Rj), since they are intensely Jewish and since they contain two of the Pauline addresses (which are Jewish in participial style), could not the Jewish tone in participial usage, as well as in other stylistic features too, be more naturally accounted SOURCES OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 63 for by supposing a Jewish-Christian source which influenced the style of the author ? Sec. 96. The Source Hypothesis in Harmony with the Participial Usage Wendt hesitates to state with precision the limits of the various sources in the Book of Acts. He thinks that the "We" source is the only distinctly written source, not only for chaps. 13-28 (most), but that it is the basis of many sections in chaps. 1 -12 (11:19 f.; 8:1,4; chaps. 6 and 7, and possi- bly some passages in chaps. 1-5, though he regards the most of chaps. 1-5 based on well-defined traditions). The participial usage does not confirm Wendt's hypothesis of no written sources except the "We" document. It is difficult to see how the style should be so different in the early chapters from that of the later portion of the book, if one writer, and that a non- Jewish writer (as Wendt holds), composed the whole book, unless he had before him Jewish-Christian written sources for these early chapters. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld holds to three written sources: A, the Acts of Peter, 1:15 — 5:42; 10:1 — 11:18; B, the Acts of the Seven, most of chaps. 6-8; C, the Acts of Paul, the most of chaps. 13-28 and small portions of chaps. 7, 8, 9, and 11. Let us look at the facts of the participial usage in detail in the various sections of the book. 1 :i-i4 (WH's first paragraph) averages i6£, with 36I per cent, ascrip- tive, 58 per cent, adverbial, and 5J per cent, complementary. This is a mixture of Jewish Greek (similar to that in Luke 1 :$ — 2:52) and literary kolvtj Greek (like that of the late chapters of Acts). But suppose we make the paragraph between vss. 11 and 12, we find that 1 :i-ii has an average of 18 per page, 20 per cent, ascriptive, 73^ per cent, adverbial, and 6§ per cent, complementary, a piece of Greek closely resembling the free com- position of the late chapters of the Book of Acts. This is the logical para- graph division, since vss. 1-11 describe Jesus' last interview with the disciples and his ascension, while vs. 1 2 begins a line of thought connected with the return to and stay in Jerusalem. 1:12 — 5:16 constitutes a section fairly uniform in participial usage, averaging 12^ per page, with 45 J per cent, ascriptive, 51 \ per cent, adver- bial, and 3^ per cent, complementary. These figures are very close to those of Mark's gospel (only Mark is a little less Jewish in participial usage). Hence, we must conclude that, if a non-Jewish writer composed this section (1:12 — 5:16) as it now stands, he had before him a Jewish-Christian document and followed it closely. 64 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 5 : 17—33 (story of Peter and John's miraculous deliverance) has an average of nearly 20 per page, 24 per cent, ascriptive, 66§ per cent, adverbial, and ca. o£ per cent, complementary, which figures betray the style of the non-Jewish kolvyj writer of the last chapters of the Book of Acts. This probably suggests that this story was not put in writing (being so remark- able it was easy to remember) and that the author freely composed this. 5:34-42 (most of it Gamaliel's address) betrays a Hebraistic style in its average of g\ participles per page, while the absence of ascriptives and 7if per cent, adverbials show the free composition of the non- Jewish writer. 10:1 — 11:18 (Cornelius episode, the next most Jewish piece of Greek in chaps. 1-12) averages 17^ with 37^ per cent, ascriptive, 48! per cent, adverbial, and 13! per cent, complementary. This section is much less Jewish, as is shown by the ratio between the ascriptives and adverbials, and by the large average. It is not improbable that the basis of this Cor- nelius section was a document written by Mark, the reputed interpreter of Peter, and that this source was freely worked over by the author of the book. Or, this section, judged from its participial usage, may not have a written source at all, but may have been freely composed by the author from a tradition (and if Luke be the author he may have heard Mark tell it in Rome, both being there with Paul, according to Col. 4: 10, 14). Chaps. 6-8 (Stephen and Philip sections) betray a uniformity of parti- cipial usage, averaging i2f per page with 35 per cent, ascriptive, ca. 56 per cent, adverbial, and 9 per cent, complementary. By comparison with 10:1 — 11 :i8, we see that these chapters are less Hebraistic when we con- sider the ratio of ascriptive, adverbial, and complementary participles, but are more Hebraistic when we consider the average. Yet, the average is doubtless diminished in these chapters by two causes, the presence of so much Septuagint matter and a long address in chap. 7. By comparison with 1:12 — 5:16, we see that chaps. 6-8 are less Hebraistic in participial usage. So this whole section seems to be less Jewish than the Jewish- Christian sections, 1:12 — 5:16, 34-42, and 10:1 — 11:18. Is the differ- ence in style great enough to suggest a different source, that is, a Hellen- istic-Christian source as distinguished from the Jewish-Christian source ? Or, is the difference in participial usage due to the working-over by the author and to the different literary point of view in the sections ? On the other hand, it must be observed that the style is so different in chaps. 6-8 from that of the late chapters of the book that it is scarcely conceivable that these chapters should have been composed without written sources as a basis. SOURCES OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 65 Chap. 12 averages over 22 per page with 28 per cent, ascriptive, 6g§ per cent, adverbial, and 2\ per cent, complementary. The source must be Jewish, since it deals with the Jerusalem church, but it could not well be a Jewish-Christian written source, judged from the participial usage, unless it be supposed that the author completely changed the participial usage of the source. It seems best to regard chap. 12 (like 5:17-33) as the free composition of the non-Jewish author, based on a Jewish-Christian tradition. 9:1-31 (conversion and early Christian activity of Saul) has an average of i6f , nearly 38 per cent, ascriptive, over 54 per cent, adverbial, and ca. 8 per cent, complementary. This section is not to be divided between vss. 19 and 20, since the participial usage is similar throughout the section (except all the complementary participles occur in vss. 1-19, but this is due to the vision described). This section is not so strongly Hellenic as the late chapters in the Book of Acts, nor is it Hebraistic. Did it come from a Jewish or a non-Jewish source ? It seems unlikely, judged from the participial usage, that this section comes from the " We" source, since the average and ratio between ascriptives and adverbials differ so much from those in the "We" source. The participial usage suggests a Jewish source which has been worked over by a non-Jewish writer, but it is not probable that the section comes from a Jewish-Christian written source. The most probable solution, suggested by the participial usage, is that this section is based on a well-defined tradition, first told by Paul himself (this helping to account for the Hebraistic tone in its participial usage), handed down by his friends in its Jewish dress, but worked over by the non-Jewish author who gives it its Hellenic tone. The fact that there are in this account of Saul's conversion details differing from those in the accounts in chaps. 22 and 26, and the lack of details in his early work in Damascus and Jerusalem (vss. 20-31 containing a bare outline) confirm the hypothesis of an un- written source for 9:1-31. 9:32-43 (a Petrine missionary tour) has an average of 25 per page, 22 per cent, ascriptive and 78 per cent, adverbial. These figures are strongly against a Jewish-Christian written source. It is likely from a Jewish- Christian tradition and freely composed by the non-Jewish author. 11:19-30 (the gospel in Antioch) averages ca. 16 participles per page with 42 -f- per cent, ascriptive and 57 i per cent, adverbial. This section did not then likely come from the "We" source. Its participial usage agrees more nearly with that of the Hellenistic-Christian source (chaps. 6-8), and vs. 19, which speaks of "those who were scattered by the tribulation that arose over Stephen," suggests a Hellenistic-Christian source. 66 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS In chaps. 13-28 the main source is doubtless the "We" document, since it is so vivid and vigorous in style. Nor is the "We" document to be limited to the four passages (16:1-10; 20:5-16; 21:1-18; 27:1 — 28:16) in which the pronoun "we" or "us" occurs, because the participial usage within and just without the "We" passages is remarkably similar (see pp. 17 and 18). Of course, where addresses occur in the context of the "We" passages their presence diminishes the average and the percentage of adverbials. The following sections in chaps. 13-28 are probably not from the "We" document: 15 : 1—35 (Jerusalem conference) has an average of 14 J, but the adverbial percentage of 70J shows that it was thoroughly worked over by the non- Jewish author. 16:1-5 (circumcision of Timothy and delivery of the decrees) averages only i\ per page with two-thirds ascriptive and one-third adverbial (no marks of the "We" document, but intensely Jewish). Possibly 19:1-20 (Pauline miracles in Ephesus) is not from the "We" document. It contains 60 per cent, ascriptive and 40 per cent, adverbial, with an average of i8| per page, which facts probably show that it is from a Hellenistic-Christian source but freely worked over by the author. 21 : 206-26 (Paul's vow at James's suggestion) has 40 per cent, ascrip- tive and 60 per cent, adverbial, with an average of 17 per page. Hence the section is probably from a Jewish-Christian source freely worked over. 22:1-21, with an average of 24-f-, but 50 per cent, ascriptive, and only 41 per cent, adverbial, is doubtful as to source. It may be a part of the "We" document, but the participial usage is against the supposition. It is more probable, according to participial usage, that it is from a tradition told first by Paul in Aramaic and then freely worked over by the author of the book. 23:1-10, with an average of ca. 18, but 42!? per cent, ascriptive, 574- per cent, adverbial, has a somewhat Hebraistic tone, but seems to be a free composition by a non-Jewish writer. Chaps. 25 and 26 (see p. 55) have a low average, 15^, but probably the presence of addresses and the absence of pure narrative throughout account for this. But the ratio between ascriptives and adverbials is similar to that of the "We" document from which they probably are taken. The account of Paul's conversion in 26:9-18, according to participial usage, seems to be nearer to the story as (probably) told by Paul than either 9:1-19 or 22:4-16, the average being only 14$. Yet, there is a SOURCES OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 67 great change in the account as worked over by the author, which is shown by the large percentage of adverbials (see p. 20 for facts). The parti- cipial usage does not at all make it clear that the accounts of Paul's con- version in chaps. 22 and 26 belong to the "We" document. It seems to suggest the Pauline manner of telling the story modified by the author. 28:17-31, though having a smaller average, which is largely due to the Septuagint quotation, is strikingly similar in participial usage to the "We" document. This section may be based on it, or on tradition. RECAPITULATION OF THE SOURCE HYPOTHESIS IN HARMONY WITH THE PARTICIPIAL USAGE First, the Jewish-Christian written source includes 1 :i2 — 5:18, 34-42; 10:1 — 11:18; 15:1-35; 16:1-5 (?)> 21:206-26. Secondly, the Hellenistic-Christian written source, chaps. 6-8; 11:19- 30 (?); 19:11-20 (?). Thirdly, the "We" document, chaps. 13 and 14; 15:36-41; 16:6 — 21:20a (perhaps, excepting 19:11-20); 21:27 — 26:32 (perhaps, excepting 22:1-21; 23:1-10 [?]; 26:9-18) and 27:1 — 28:16. Fourthly, unwritten source, Jewish-Christian tradition, 1 : 1-1 1 ; 5:17— 33> 9 : i~3i, 3 2 -43; 19:11-20 (?); 22:1-21; 26:9-18; 28:17-31 (possibly 23:1-10). CHAPTER XIII THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF ACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICIPIAL USAGE Sec. 97. Preliminary Statement The New Testament scholarship of the world has been for nearly half a century, and is now, divided on the Lukan authorship of the Book of Acts. For the Lukan authorship stand Credner, B. Weiss, Klostermann, Renan, Hobart, Ramsay, Hawkins (Sir John), Plummer, Vogel, Blass, Harnack, Zahn, Ropes, Burkitt (F. C), etc. On the other hand, against the Lukan authorship stand Konigsmann, De Wette, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann (H. J.), Overbeck, Haus- rath, Weizsacker, Wendt, Schiirer, Pfleiderer, von Soden, Spitta, Julicher, J. Weiss, Knopf, C. Clemen, McGiffert, etc. Sorof thinks Timothy is the author. Now let us see what light is thrown upon this problem by the parti- cipial usage. Sec. 98. Is the Author of the Third Gospel the Author of the Book of Acts ? From the facts stated on pp. 19, 20, and 23, we make the following observations: First, the average in the Third Gospel is nearer to that of the first por- tion of the Book of Acts than to that of the whole book. Secondly, the ratio between the three great classes of participles in the Third Gospel is much nearer to that of the first portion than to that of the whole book (however, the only very significant difference is the different percentage of adverbial and complementary participles). Thirdly, the average in the Third Gospel is much smaller than in the second portion of the Book of Acts. Fourthly, the ratio between ascriptive, adverbial, and complementary participles in the Third Gospel differs considerably from that in the second portion of the Book of Acts. Fifthly, the average and the ratio of ascriptives and adverbials in the Third Gospel differ slightly from the average and ratio of ascriptives and adverbials in the whole Book of Acts. From these observations we see how easily eminent scholars differ as to the style and authorship of the Book of Acts. It remains for us to weigh the probabilities growing out of the above differences and agreements. 68 AUTHORSHIP OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 69 Must the author of the Book of Acts and of the Third Gospel be the same writer, according to participial usage (the conclusion reached by Harnack on the basis of general style and diction) ? Or must we predicate different authors for the two books because of the different participial usage observed above ? There are three facts to be held in mind in answering these questions: First, the Third Gospel is more dependent on Jewish-Christian (doubt- less written) sources than is the Book of Acts. It is true that much of Acts, chaps. 1-12, seems to be based on Jewish-Christian sources and so is influ- enced by the Hebraistic style characteristic of such sources. But the proportion of material in the Book of Acts coming from Jewish-Christian written sources is much smaller than in the Third Gospel. Secondly, the Book of Acts is more strictly narrative than the Third Gospel, which fact naturally affects the style of the same author (tested by us in classical authors, as well as in Acts). Though there are many addresses reported in the Book of Acts, the most of them are short, and the great mass of the book is narrative of tours and movements of missionary work. Thirdly, the author in the Third Gospel seems to reproduce his sources more rigidly than the author in the Book of Acts. This is specially true in chaps. 1 and 2 (except preface), but even in the rest of the book the author is influenced (apparently) by the Hebraistic tone of his sources. The preface is good Greek. This proves that the author could, when untrammeled by his sources, write good Greek, and it also proves (probably) that in the rest of the book where the Greek is less pure the author is more or less influenced by the style of his sources. Then what bearing have these three propositions, combined with the above observations, on the authorship of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts? The more rigid adherence to Jewish-Christian sources in the Third Gospel and the presence of more narrative in the Book of Acts would help to explain the differences observed above. That is, the differ- ences of participial usage in the two books can easily be explained by the nature of the sources, the apparent method of the author in dealing with these sources in the two books, and by the literary character of the pro- ductions. Hence the differences of participial usage between the two books are not evidence against the unity of authorship for the two books. On the contrary, the similarity between the participial usage of the two books is so great, notwithstanding different kinds of sources in the two, as to point unmistakably to one author for the two books. 70 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Sec. 99. Is the Author of the "We" Passages the Author of the Book of Acts ? The scholars who deny the Lukan authorship (see Sec. 97), as a rule, answer in the negative. What light does the participial usage throw upon this question ? On the following page we submit a table giving the facts for the "We" passages and their immediate contexts, precedent and subsequent; also giving the facts for eleven sections in Luke, chaps. 10-19 (record of Perean ministry), of corresponding lengths and relations as to position. Sec. 100. Observations on Table on Page 71 First, there is a marked similarity in average between the "We" passages and their immediate contexts, precedent and subsequent (except the 27 lines following 20:16 which include the address of James and the elders in Jerusalem to Paul, which fact doubtless accounts for the small average). Of course, the average of the "We" passages (23) is somewhat greater than that of the contexts, but the fact that they are pure narrative may account for this. Secondly, the averages in the eleven sections of corresponding length in the Third Gospel show greater variations (from 7^ to i8f per page, though all concede these sections in the Perean ministry to be the compo- sition of one author based on one source [largely]) than do the "We" passages and their contexts (from n-£ to 25^). Thirdly, the percentage of ascriptives in the "We" passages and their contexts varies from 8 per cent, to 41 § (over 5 to 1), but the percentage of ascriptives in the corresponding sections of the Third Gospel varies from n^ to 7if (over 6 to 1). Fourthly, the percentage of adverbials in the "We" passages and their contexts varies from 54 T 6 r to 92 (ca. 70 per cent, of variation) while in the sections tested in Luke, chaps. 10-19, tne variation ranges from 41 to 88| per cent, (over 100 per cent.). Fifthly, the percentage of complementary participles in the "We" passages and their contexts varies from zero to 7!, while that in the sec- tions of the Third Gospel varies from zero to 14 f. Sixthly, hence there is greater similarity of participial usage between the "We" passages and their contexts than we find in sections of corresponding length in Luke, chaps. 10-19. Seventhly, if we consider the similarity between the average and ratio of ascriptives and adverbials in the "We" passages and their contexts as compared with those of the first portion, we notice that this similarity is AUTHORSHIP OF BOOK OF ACTS IN LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE 7 1 ^ ..*. "5.2 • • >* • 00 • • • • H < OCO m ^t ■* lo r^vO 10 u-jvO 10 X w > w W a •c M O M H O O O -+00 N ^*© O tJ-h t^i^iomN >* ro ro ■+• Q < § „ u W H rt HrJ *Hh <*#!*»-*< 1C|w> g=fci)^ ^0 h % 0,0 cj-t3"> ""0"> SJ*r"> c 0 00 NN to^O 13 PS ►J a; < U £ S u ■a two nlo Hn-HH»«*i 1-1 *%*-« OwoOOMOOO 0*0 ^t too H tf < Ch W Jo a O 00 Os lo O - rovo -O ^- u-> O- lt. !„ Ml-lf-lCJMt-lOJMl-ltSMMlHM 1 < e H < Pi H ifl U bC iJ 1 g>bb ^§= g^bb -5 e w pa < On "3 - 5 u O •0 O *£ 8.2 5 j j? r- .SJ a£oo,„a o.* 1 - H m .S .S 1U.S .S h .S .S i — — -c -^ < ) M M C n t^ 1- I- "*«(£ 3 s pLnPq 72 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS remarkable, except in the few sections influenced by the Jewish-Christian sources, or by the literary character of the section (that is, whether it is address, narrative, etc.). Eighthly, we observe furthermore that the dissimilarity between the "We" passages and their contexts as compared with the whole Book of Acts is not much greater than the dissimilarity between the eleven sections in the Third Gospel as compared with the whole Third Gospel. There is a somewhat greater difference in the ratio between ascriptives and adver- bials and in the average in the Book of Acts, but this is probably due to the Jewish- and Hellenistic-Christian written sources which play a conspic- uous part in chaps. 1-12. Ninthly, conclusion: From these facts it is not to be asserted dog- matically that the participial usage of the Book of Acts proves that the author of the "We" passages is also the author of the book, and yet the participial usage is not at all in favor of different authors for the book and the "We" sections. So the participial usage seems to substantiate, in a collateral way, the conclusion that the original author of the "We" sections is also the final author of the Book of Acts. Sec. 1 01. Is the Author of the Book of Acts the Companion of Paul Called Luke the Physician? On this question the participle has no direct answer. The theology of Paul may have influenced Luke's thinking and the matter of his books, but it is quite sure, from participial usage, that Paul's manner of writing did not impress itself on him. See on p. 23 how far different is the parti- cipial usage of Paul, of the Third Gospel, and of the Book of Acts. If Luke the physician and missionary companion of Paul be the author of the Third Gospel, then it is very likely, from the participial usage, that he is the author of the "We" sections and of the Book of Acts. CHAPTER XIV COMPOSITION OF THE ADDRESSES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS IN THE LIGHT OF PARTICIPIAL USAGE Sec. 102. Preliminary Statement There are many addresses in the Book of Acts presented (apparently) as if composed originally by Peter, Gamaliel, Stephen, James, Paul, Felix, Festus, etc. Is the participial usage of these addresses different from that of the rest of the book, or is there a striking similarity which suggests the free composition of these addresses by the author of the book? In the Pauline addresses does the style resemble the style of Paul's letters closely enough to lead us to conclude that Paul himself composed these addresses and the author of the Book of Acts simply reproduced them in his book, or is the style so similar to that of the rest of the book as to compel us to conclude that the author of the book freely composed the addresses (of course, using Pauline material as the basis) ? For the facts of participial usage in the addresses see pp. 19 and 20. Sec. 102. Composition of the Petrine Addresses From the facts on p. 19 we make the following observations: First, the average in them is 11 f -K Secondly, the lowest average, 6 (except that in the short address to Simon Magus which is too short to use in an argument), is in the address to the Jerusalem Conference, and the highest average is in the address to Cornelius' household (17^). Thirdly, the average of ascriptives in all his addresses is 48J per cent., the lowest being zero (address at the Jerusalem Conference) , the highest being 100 per cent, (address to Sanhedrin before his imprisonment). Leaving these extremes, the percentage of ascriptives ranges from 33$ to 75 per cent., and thus shows great variation. Fourthly, the average of adverbials in all his addresses is 41 §, the lowest being zero (to the Sanhedrin before imprisonment), the highest being 100 (at Jerusalem Conference), while the rest of the Petrine addresses range fairly well about the general average (4if). Still the variations here are great. Fifthly, in these addresses are no complementary participles, except in the short address to Simon Magus (only one participle, and that comple- mentary in indirect discourse), and in the address to the apostles and the Jerusalem church, chap. 11, in which 415 per cent, of the participles are 73 74 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS complementary, the large percentage being due largely to the telling of the visions. Can we from these facts arrive at any definite conclusion as to the com- position of the Petrine addresses ? Did the author of First Peter compose these addresses and the author of the Book of Acts reproduce them in his book ? First Peter has an average of 15! participles per page, 55 per cent, ascriptive and 45 per cent, adverbial. The ratio between the ascriptives and adverbials is about the same in the Petrine addresses and in First Peter (55 to 45 m First Peter, 48$ to 41 § in the Petrine addresses). Of course, the presence of so many complementary participles in the Petrine addresses is largely due to the visions described, as is shown by the absence of any complementary participles from the most of the Petrine addresses. The style agrees fairly well with that of First Peter in which is not found one complementary participle. But, since it is not certain according to many New Testament scholars that Peter the apostle wrote First Peter, this comparison of the participial usage of the Petrine addresses and First Peter cannot bring us to any definite conclusion. Again, let us compare the participial usage of the Petrine addresses with the first portion in which they are all (except one) imbedded. The average in chaps. 1-12 is 15^, with 34 ^ per cent, ascriptive, 57I per cent, adverbial, ca. 7! per cent, complementary. The average for the Petrine addresses is nf + , with 48^ per cent, ascriptive, 4i§ per cent, adverbial, 10 per cent, complementary. That is, the average in the addresses is over 3 per cent, lower than that in chaps. 1-12. This average is not necessarily against the free composition of the Petrine addresses by the author of the Book of Acts, because addresses usually have a lower average, even when writ- ten by the same author, than pure narrative. But the ratio between the ascriptives and adverbials suggests a different conclusion. In the Petrine addresses the ratio is 48 J to 41 §, while in the first portion it is 34-^ to 57I. That is, the author in the addresses shows a Jewish-Greek style (the majority of the participles being ascriptive) while the Petrine portion approaches more nearly to the participial usage of a classical or koivt/j writer. Yet, it is to be noted, from the table on p. 19, that the address from Solomon's Porch resembles more closely the later chapters, 13-28. Also the address to the apostles and Jerusalem church, chap. 11, has the participial tone of chaps. 13-28. Hence, we may con- clude: First, as to the number of participles, the composition of the Petrine addresses might be either that of the author of First Peter, or of the author of chaps. 1-12. COMPOSITION OF ADDRESSES IN THE BOOK OF ACTS 75 Secondly, as to the ratio between ascriptives and adverbials, the parti- cipial usage of the addresses is very different from that of chaps. 1-12, and so suggests that, if the author of the book did freely compose the Petrine addresses, he either assumed a Jewish-Greek style, or followed closely a Jewish-Christian source for the addresses. Sec. 104. Composition of the Addresses of Gamaliel and Stephen The former (p. 19) averages only 2\ participles per page, containing only one (adverbial) participle. This address seems to be a free composition of the author, yet the style is not strikingly that of the author, and surely the low average would suggest a Jewish composition (Gamaliel's). The address of Stephen has the Jewish tone as to average (1 1 j 1 ^) but the ratio of ascriptives and adverbials, 34^ to 59^, resembles closely the style of chaps. 1-12. It is probable from these figures that the author had a Hellenistic-Christian written source, but worked it over somewhat to suit the purpose of his book. Sec. 105. The Composition of the Pauline Addresses We make the following observations from facts on pp. 19 and 20: First, the average of all the Pauline addresses is ca. 17^, the lowest being 9 (address to the ship's crew in the storm) and the highest (address to the Lystrans) being 25^ per page. These are both short addresses. The longer addresses range fairly well about the general average. Secondly, the average for ascriptives in the Pauline addresses is 39^ per cent., the lowest being zero (address to Jews in Rome) and the highest 60 per cent, (address in Pisidian Antioch). The rest swing fairly well about the general average, except the address before Felix with 7-^ per cent, ascriptive and the address to the Athenians with 20 per cent, ascriptive. Thirdly, the average of adverbials in the Pauline addresses is 54^ per cent., the lowest being 40 per cent, (address in Pisidian Antioch) and the highest 100 per cent, (address to Jews in Rome). The percentage of the rest of the Pauline addresses swings in moderate proximity about their general average (except the address to the Athenians with its excessive 80 per cent, adverbials). Fourthly, only three out of the nine Pauline addresses contain com- plementary participles, the lowest being 54 per cent., the highest 30} -§, the other 30^ per cent. Fifthly, according to facts on p. 23, we observe that Paul's average in Galatians, I Corinthians, and Romans is ca. 9, with about three-fourths ascriptives, one-fourth adverbials, and scarcely any complementary parti- ciples. 76 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Hence we conclude from these facts and observations: First, the participial usage in the Pauline addresses is strongly non- Pauline — almost anti-Pauline. Secondly, it is likely that the author of the Book of Acts freely worked over the matter of the Pauline addresses and thus left on them the stamp of his own style rather than that of Paul. In a few of these addresses (especially in that in Pisidian Antioch, that to the Ephesian elders, that to the Jewish people in Aramaic, and that to the Lystrans) the style has some Pauline marks, yet the participial usage in these addresses resembles too closely that of the author to be regarded as the actual composition of Paul reproduced by the author. Sec. 106. The Composition of the Non-Christian Addresses These are by Demetrius to the workmen of Ephesus, by the town- clerk of Ephesus, by Tertullus against Paul, by Festus to Agrippa, and include also Lysias' letter to Felix. We have no other literary productions from these men with which to compare these addresses. See p. 20 for facts. We observe that the usage of the participle in these addresses is remarkably similar to that of chaps. 13-28, and this suggests their free composition by the author of the book. BIBLIOGRAPHY GREEK GRAMMARS Winer-Moulton, New Testament Grammar. 1882. Based on G. B. Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. 1822; 1855. Hadley and Allen, Greek Grammar. 1884; 1889. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, i860; 1890. Kuehner, Griechische Grammatik. 1890. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect. 1891. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 1893; fifth ed., 1903. Jannaris, Historical Greek Grammar. 1897. Babbitt, Greek Grammar. 1902. John Thompson, A Greek Grammar. 1902. Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. 1859. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 1896. Zweite Auflage, 1902. Brugmann-Delbriick, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Theil. Strassburg, 1897. Winer-Schmiedel, Winers Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. 8. Auflage. 1 894-. Viteau, Syntaxe des Propositions. 1893. Viteau, Etude sur le Grec du Nouveau Testament. 1896. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena. 1906. WORKS OF INTRODUCTION ON ACTS Bleek, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1862. 2. Aufl., 1870. 4. Aufl., 1886. Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1875. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1885. 3. Aufl., 1892. B. Weiss, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1889. Dritte Aufl., 1897. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1897. Zweite Aufl., 1900. Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament. 1882. Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testamenles. 1842. 6. Aufl., 1887. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament. 1892. 9th ed., 1899. Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament. 1900. Juelicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1894. 5. and 6. Aufl., 1906. COMMENTARIES AND HISTORIES OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE H. Holtzmann, Die A postol geschichte im Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testa- ment. 1889. Dritte Aufl., 1901. Rackham, Commentary on Acts. 1901. Wendt, Apostelgeschichte, Meyer Kommentar. 8. Aufl., 1899. 77 78 THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS Weizsacker, Das aposlolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche. 1886. 3. Aufl., 1902. McGiffert, A History of the Apostolic Age. 1897. Bartlet, The Apostolic Age. 1899. Ropes, The Apostolic Age. 1906. MISCELLANEOUS Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (Geschichte der altchrist. Lit., II, I). 1897. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt der Ver/asser des dritten Evangeliums und Apostelge- schichte. 1906. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichle. 1908. C. Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe. 1893. J. Weiss, Ueber die Absicht und der literarische Charakter der Apostelgeschichle. 1897. Spitta, Apostelgeschichle. 1891. Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden der Apostelgeschichle. 1887. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu. 1898. Lekebusch, Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichle. 1854. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 1895; Neue Bibelstudien, 1897. Deissmann, New Lights on Biblical Greek. 1908. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, chap. v. 1901. Kretschmer, Die Entstehung der Koine. 1900. Krenkel, Josephus und Lucas. 1894. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler. 1896. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire. 1894. Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies, etc. 1907. Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. 1902. Plummer, Commentary on Luke ("International Critical Commentary"). 1896. Introduction, §6. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, pp. 148-54. 1899. Burkitt, F. C, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, chap. iv. 1906. Simcox, Language of the New Testament, pp. 122-34. 1890. Hobart, Medical Language in St. Luke. 1882. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek. 1889. Kennedy, Sources of New Testament Greek. 1895. Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, art. "Acts" (Headlam); "Language of the New Testament" (Thayer). Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Acts" (Schmiedel). MAGAZINE ARTICLES Theologische Rundschau, 1897-98, pp. 371; 1900, pp. 50 f.; 1901, pp. 66 f.; 1903, pp. 79 f.; 1904, pp. 278 f. (C. Clemen reviews literature on Apostelge- BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 schichte); 1899, pp. 47 f., 83 f., 129 f. (H. Heitmiiller reviews literature on Die Qucllenfrage in der Apostelgeschichte); 1902, pp. 58 f. (Deissmann, Die Sprache der griechischen Bibel); April, 1907 (C. Clemen replies to Harnack on Lukas der Arzt). Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895, pp. 65 f., 186 f., 384 f., 481 f.; 1896, pp. 24 f., 177 f., 351 f., 517 f. (a series of eight articles by Hil- genfeld on Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quell en-Schrifte untersucht). Theologische Literaturzeilung, 1906, p. 466 (Harnack replies to Schiirer on "Lukas der Arzt"). Zeitschrift fiir protestantische Theologie, 1890 (Feine, "Die alte Quelle in der ersten Halfte der Apostelgeschichte"). Theologische Studien und Kriliken, 1873 (Kahler, "Die Reden des Petrus in der Apostelgeschichte " ) . Classical Review, XV, 31-38, 434-42; XVIII, 106-12, 151-55 (J. H. Moulton, "Grammatical Notes from the Papyri"). American Journal 0} Philology, I, 45 f. (Gildersleeve, Encroachments of a»5 on ov in Later Greek"); IV, 291 f. (W. J. Alexander, "Participial Periphrases in Attic Prose"); VI, 310 f. (Spieker, "Genitive Absolute in Attic Orators"); IX, 137 f. (Gildersleeve, "On the Stylistic Effect of the Greek Parti- ciple"). Transactions of the American Philological Association, IV, 45 f. (W. A. Stevens, "The Substantive Use of the Greek Participle"); XII, 88 f. (T. D. Seymour, "The Use of the Greek Aorist Participle"). American Journal of Theology, July, 1907 ("Bacon on Acts vs. Galatians"). Biblical World, I, pp. 163 f. (editorial on "N. T. Grammar"); VI, 39 f. (Burton on "The Book of Acts"); X, 350 f. (Mathews reviews McGiffert's Apostolic Age); XVII, 355 f. (Bumstead, "Acts: the Present State of Criticism"); XIX, 190 f. (J. H. Moulton, "New Lights on Biblical Greek"); XIX, 238 f. (Review of Warfield's Speeches in Acts in Bible Student, January, 1902); XIX, 268 f. (Bartlet, "The Character and Composition of Acts"); XIX, 414 f., 423 f. (Editorial, "Notes and Comments on Portions of Acts"); XX, 260 f., 370 f. (Knowling, "The Medical Language of St. Luke"); XXII, 3 f. (Editorial on "The Lucan Writings"). The Expositor, fifth series, Vol. I, 129 f., 212 f. (Ramsay reviews Blass on the two editions of Acts); Vol. VII, 1 f. (Ramsay on "The Authorship of Acts"); sixth series, Vol. Ill, 271 f., Vol. VII, 104 f., Vol. VIII, 423 f. (J. H. Moulton, "Notes from the Papyri"); seventh series, Vol. II, 481 f., Vol. Ill, 97 f. (Ramsay reviews Harnack's Luke the Physician, etc.); Vol. IV, 289 f. (Deissmann, "The Philology of the Greek Bible"). The Expository Times, Vol. VIII, 166 f. (Tasker reviews Zockler on "The Recent Criticism of Acts"); Vol. IX, 272 f. (Banks reviews Deissmann's Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien); XVII, 450 f. (Kennedy reviews Moulton's Prolegomena). 8o THE PARTICIPLE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS In addition to the above the following texts have been used: Wescott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, the texts and editions mentioned in the treatise for Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Plato, Polybius, Strabo, the Septuagint (including Second Maccabees), Josephus, Plutarch, and Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, Octava Editio. OF THE srf* H U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDDSM7blS7 RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO— » 202 M ain Library LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS Renewals and Recharges may be made 4 days prior to the due date. Books may be Renewed by calling 642-3405. DUE AS STAMPED BEL OW FORM NO. DD6, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY BERKELEY, CA 94720