Dictionary of th( Apostolic Church / ^' Dictionary of the Apostolic Church EDITED BY JAMES HASTINGS, D.D. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF JOHN A. SELBIE, D.D. AND JOHN C. LAMBERT, D.D. VOLUME I AARON-LYSTRA New York: CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK 1916 Copyright, 191G, by CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS The above copyright notice is for the protection of articles copyrighted in the United States. Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, have the sole right of publication of this Dictionary of the Apostolic Church in the United States and Canada. ci c o PREFACE It has often been said that the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels is of more practical value than a Dictionary of the Bible. From all parts of the world has come the request that what that Dictionary has done for the Gospels another should do for the rest of the Xew Testament. The Dictionary of the Apostolic Church is the answer. It carries the history of the Church as far as the end of the j&rst century. Together with the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, it forms a complete and independent Dictionary of the New Testament. The Editor desires to take the opportunity of thanking the distinguished New OD Testament scholars who have co-operated with him in this important work. 30S202 AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME Allen (Willoughby Charles), M.A. Archdeacon of Manchester ; Principal of Egerton Hall, Manchester ; author of ' The Gospel according to St. Matthew' in The International Critical Commentary. Anointing, Children of God, Gospels, Kingdom of God. Allworthy (Thomas Bateson), M.A. (Camb.), B.D. (Dublin). Perpetual Curate of Martin-by-Timberland, Lincoln ; Founder and First Warden of S. Anselm's Hostel, Manchester. Ampliatus, Andronicus, Apelles, Aristo- bulus, Asyncritus, Epaenetus, and other proper names. Banks (John S.), D.D. Emeritus Professor of Theology in the Wesleyan Methodist College, Headingley, Leeds ; author of A Manual of Christian Doctrine. Christian, Contentment. Batiffol (Pierre), Litt.D. Pretre catholique et prelat de la Maison du Pape, Paris ; auteur de Tractatus Origenis de libris scripturarum (1900), Les Odes de Salomon [\^\\), La Paix constantinienne et le Catholicisme (1914). Ignatius. Beckwith (Clarence Augustine), A.B., A.M., S.T.D. Professor of Systematic Theology in Chicago Theological Seminary ; author of Realities of Christian Theology ; departmental editor of the Neio Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Beast, Blindness, Blood, Dysentery, Fever, Gangrene, Lamb, Lion. Bernard (John Henry), D.D. (Dublin), Hon. D.D. (Aberd.), Hon. D.C.L. (Durham). Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin ; some- time Archbishop King's Professor of Divinity, Dublin, and Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral. Descent into Hades. Boyd (William Falconer), M.A., B.D. (Aberd.), D.Phil. (Tiibingen). Minister of the United Free Church of Scot- land at Methlick. Alexander, Crown, Desert, Gog and Magog, Israel, Jew, Jewess, and other articles. Brooke (Alan England), D.D. Fellow, Dean, and Lecturer in Divinity at King's College, Cambridge ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of S. Alban's ; author of A Critical and Exegetical Com- mentary on the Johannine Epistles. James and John, the Sons of Zebedee, John (Epistles of). BuLCOCK (Harry), B.A., B.D. Minister of the Congregational Church at Droylsden, Manchester. Anger, Care, Cheerfulness, Comfort, Commendation, Fool, Grief, and other articles. BuRKiTT (Francis Crawford), M.A., F.B.A., Hon. D.D. (Edin., Dublin, St. And.), D. Theol. h.c. (Breslau). Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the Univer- sity of Cambridge ; author of The Gospel History and its Transmission. Baruch (Apocalypse of). Burn (Andrew E.), D.D. Vicar of Halifax and Prebendary of Lichfield ; author of The Apostles' Creed (1906), The Nicene Creed (1909), The Athanasian Creed (1912). Confession, Hallelujah, Hymns, Inter- cession. Carlyle (Alexander James), M.A., D.Litt., F.R. Hist. Soc. Lecturer in Economics and Politics at Univer- sity College, Oxford. Alms, Community of Goods. Case (Shirley Jackson), M.A., B.D., Ph.D. Professor of New Testament Interpretation in the University of Chicago ; author of The Historicity of Jesus, The Evolution of Early Christianity ; managing editor of The American Journal of Theology. Allegory, Interpretation. Clark (P. A. Gordon). Minister of the United Free Church at Perth. Divination, Exorcism, Lots. Clayton (Geoffrey Hare), M.A. Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge. Corinthians (Epistles to the), Eucharist, Love-Feast. VUl AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME Clemens (John Samuel), B.A., Hon. D.D. (St. And.). Governor of the United Methodist College at Ranmoor, Sheffield. Bondage, Constraint, Liberty, Lord's Day. Cobb (William Frederick), D.D. Rector of the Church of St. Ethelburga the Virgin, London ; author of Origines Judaicm, The Book of Psalms, Mysticism and the Creed. Antipas, Balaam, Euphrates, Hymenaeus, Jannes and Jambres, Jezebel, and other articles. Cooke (Arthur William), M.A. Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Wallasey, Cheshire ; author of Palestine in Geograjjfiy and in History. Elamites, Galilee. Cowan (Henry), M.A. (Edin.), D.D. (Aberd.), D.Th. (Gen.), D.C.L. (Dunelm). Professor of Church History in the University of Aberdeen ; Senior Preacher of the Uni- versity Chapel ; author of The Influence of the Scottish Church in Christendom, John Knox, Landmarks of Church History. Apphia, Archippus, Epaphras, Epaphro- ditus. Cruickshank (William), M.A., B.D. Minister of the Church of Scotland at Kinneff, Bervie ; author of The Bible in the Light of Antiquity. Arts, Clothes, Games, Jerusalem, Key, Lamp, and other articles. Davies (Arthur Llywelyn), M.A. Simcox Research Student, Queen's College. Oxford. Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, Enoch (Book of). Dewick (Edward Chisholm), M.A. (Camb.). Tutor and Dean of St. Aidan's College, Birkenhead ; Teacher of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Liverpool ; author of Primitive Christian Eschatology. Eschatology. DiMONT (Charles Tunnacliff), B.D. (Oxon.). Principal of Salisbury Theological College; Prebendary of Salisbury; Chaplain to the Bishop of Salisbury. Business, Labour. VON DoBSCHUTZ (Ernst), D.Theol. Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Breslau. Communion, Fellowship, Hellenism, Josephus, Donald (James), M.A., D.D. (Aberd.). Minister of the Church of Scotland at Keith- hall and Kinkell, Aberdeenshire. Dispersion, Gentiles, Heathen, Libertines. Duncan (James AValker), M.A. Minister of tiie United Free Church at Lass- odie, Dumfriesshire. Canaan, Haran. DuNDAS (William Harloe), B.D. Rector of Magheragall, near Lisbum. Authority, Dominion. Faulkner (John Alfred), B.A., B.D., M.A.. D.D. Professor of Historical Theology in Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N.J. Benediction, Doxology. Feltoe (Charles Lett), D.D. Rector of Ripple, near Dover ; sometime Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge ; author of Sacramentarium Leonianuin, The Letters and other Remains of Dionysixis of Alex- andria. Akeldama, Candace, Chamberlain, Ethiopians, Ethiopian Eunuch, Judas Iscariot. Fletcher (M. Scott), M.A., B.D., B.Litt. Master of King's College, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ; author of The Psychology of the Aew Testament. Edification, Enlightenment, Exhortation. Frew (David), D.D. Minister of the Church of Scotland at Urr. Barnabas, Esdras (The Second Book of), Herod. Garvie (Alfred Ernest), M.A. (Oxford), D.D. (Glas.). Principal of New College, London ; author of The Ritschlian Theology, Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus, Studies of Paul and his Gospel. Evil, Fall, Good. Gordon (Alexander Reid), D.Litt., D.D. Professor of Hebrew in 31'Gill University, and of Old Testament Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian College, Montreal ; author of The Poets of the Old Tcs-tainent. Judgment-Hall, Judgment-Seat, Justice, Lawyer, Gould (George Pearce), M.A., D.D. Principal of Regent's Park College, London ; Ex-President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Berenice, Drusilla, Felix, Festus, Lysias. Grant (William Milne), M.A. Minister of the United Free Church at Drumoak, Aberdeenshire ; author of The Religion and Life of the Patriarchal Age, The Founders of Israel. Assembly, Building, Day-Star, Founda- tion, Genealogies, Gospel, and other articles. Grensted (Laurence William), M.A., B.D. Vice-Principal of Egerton Hall, Manchester ; joint-author of Introduction to the Books of the Neio Testament. Colossians (Epistle to the), Ephesians (Epistle to the). Grieve (Alexander James), M.A., D.D. Professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Sociology in tiie Yorkshire United Independent College, Bradford. Form, Friendship, Fruit, Image. Griffith-Jones (Ebenezer), B.A. (Lond.), D.D. (Edin.). Principal, and Professor of Dogmatics, Homi- letics, and Practical Theology, Yorkshire United Independent College, Bradford ; autiior of The Ascent through Christ, Types of Christian Life, The Economics of Jesus, The Master and His Method, Faith and Verif cation. Abiding, Abounding, Acceptance, Access, Account, Ansvyer. AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME Hamilton (Harold Francis), M.A., D.D. Ottawa, Canada ; formerly Professor in the University of Bishoj)'s College, Lennox ville, Quebec. Barnabas (Epistle of). Handcock (P.S.P.), M.A. Member of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at- Law ; Lecturer of the Palestine Exiiloration Fund ; formerly of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum ; author of Mesopotamian Archceology, Latest Light on Bible Lands. Dog, Eagle, Goat, Hospitality, Locust, and otiier articles. HooKE (Samuel Henry), M.A. (Oxon.), B.D. (Lond.). Professor of Oriental Languages and Litera- ture in Victoria College, Toronto. Heaven, Immortality, Lake of Fire. James (John George), M.A., D.Lit. Author of Problems of Personaliti/, Problems of Prayer, The Coming Age nf Faith, The Prayer- Life. Cross, Crucifixion, Custom, Dream. Jordan (Hermann), Ph.D. Professor of Church History and Patristics in the University of Erlangen. Catholic Epistles, Epistle, Letter. Lake (Kirsopp), M.A. (Oxford), D.D. (St. And.). Professor of Early Christian Literature in Harvard University ; author of The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. Acts of the Apostles, Acts of the Apostles (Apocryphal), Luke. Lambert (John C), M.A., D.D. Fenwick, Kilmarnock ; author of The Sacra- meiits in the New Testament. Antichrist, Body, Conscience, Flesh, Life and Death, Light and Darkness, and other articles. Law (Robert), D.D. (Edin.). Professor of New Testament Literature in Knox College, Toronto ; author of The Tests of Life : A Study of the First Epistle of St. John. Covetousness, Formalism, Fulness, Generation, Glory, Hour. LiGHTLEY (John William), M.A., B.D. Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature and Philosophy in the Wesleyan College, Headingley, Leeds. Epicureans. Lofthouse (William F.), M.A. Professor of Philosophy and Old Testament Language and Literature in the Wesleyan College, Handsworth, Birmingham ; author of Ethics and Atonement, Ethics and the Family. Conversion, Creation, Forgiveness, Free- dom of the Will. Mackenzie (Donald), M.A. Minister of the United Free Church at Oban ; Assistant Professor of Logic and Meta- physics in the University of Aberdeen, 1906-1909. Abstinence, Feasting, Fornication, Harlot, Lust, and other articles. Maclean (Arthur John), D.D. (Camb.), Hon. D.D. (Glas.). Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Caithness ; author of Dictionary of Vernacular Syriac ; editor of East Syrian Liturgies. Adoption, Angels, Ascension, Baptism, Demon, Family, and other articles. Main (Archibald), M.A. (Glas.), B.A. (Oxon.), D.Litt. (Glas.). Minister of the Church of Scotland at Old Kilpatrick ; examiner in Modern and Ecclesi- astical History and in Political Economy in St. Andrews University; meuiber of the Examining Board of the Church of Scot- land. Cymbal, First-Fruit, Harp. Marsh (Fred. Shipley), M.A. Sub-Warden of King's College Theological Hostel and Lecturer in Theology, King's College, London ; formerly Tyrwhitt and Crosse Scholar in the University of Cam- bridge. Clement of Rome (Epistle of), Galatians (Epistle to the), Hebrews (Epistle to the). Martin (A. Stuart), M.A., B.D. Formerly Pitt Scholar and Examiner in Divinity in Edinburgh University and Minister of the Churcli of Scotland at Aberdeen ; author of The Books of the Neio Testament. Grace, Justification. Martin (G. Currie), M.A., B.D. Lecturer in connexion with the National Council of Adult School Unions ; formerly Professor of New Testament at the York- shire United College and Lancashire College. Hell. Mathews (Shailer), A.M., D.D. (Colby, Oberlin, Brown). Dean of the Divinity School, and Professor of Historical Theology, in the University of Chicago ; President of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America; author of The Messianic Hope in the Neio Testament. Assassins, Judas the Galilaean. Maude (Joseph Hooper), M.A. Rector of Hilgay, Downham Market ; formerly Fellow and Dean of Hertford College, Oxford ; author of The History of the Book of Common Prayer. Ethics. Mitchell (Anthony), D.D. Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney ; formerly Principal and Pantonian Professor of Theology in the Theological College of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Hermas (Shepherd of). MoE (Olaf Edvard), Dr. Theol. Professor of Theology in the University of Christiania. Commandment, Law. Moffatt (James), D.Litt., Hon. D.D. (St. And.), Hon. M.A. (Oxford). Professor of Church History in the United Free Church, Glasgow ; author of The Historical New Testament, The New Testa^ inent : A Neio Translation. Gospels (Uncanonical). AUTHORS OF ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME Montgomery (William), M.A. (Cantab.), B.D. (London). Lecturer in Divinity in the University of Cambridge ; author of St. Augustine. Book of Life, Book with the Seven Seals, James the Lord's Brother, James (Epistle of). Montgomery (W. S.), B.D. INIinister of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland at BallacoUa, Queen's County. Beating, Buffet, Chain, Fire, Jailor. Morgan (William), M.A., D.D. (Aberd.). Professor of Systematic Theology and Apolo- getics in Queen's Theological College, King- ston, Ontario ; Kerr Lecturer for 1914. Judgment. Moss (Richard Waddy), D.D. Principal, and Tutor in Systematic Theology, Didsbury College, Manchester ; author of The Range of Christian Exjwrience. Aaron, Aaron's Rod, Anathema, Condem- nation, Curse, Levite. MouLTON (Wilfrid J.), M.A. (Cantab.). Professor of Systematic Theology in the Wesleyan College, Headingley, Leeds; author of The Witness of Israel. Covenant. MuiRHEAD (Lewis A.), D.D. Minister of the United Free Church at Broughty - Ferry ; author of The Terms Life and Death in the Old and New Testa- ments, The Eschatology of Jesus. Apocalypse. NicoL (Thomas), D.D. Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Univer- sity of Aberdeen ; Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1914. Assurance, Education, Election, Fore- knowledge, and other articles. NiVEN (William Dickie), M.A. Minister of the United Free Church at Blair- gowrie ; co-examiner in Mental Philosophy in the University of Aberdeen. Cerinthus, Doctor, Ebionism, Emperor- Worship, Essenes, Gnosticism. Peake (Arthur Samuel), M.A., D.D. Rylands Professor of Biblical Exegesis in the University of Manchester and Tutor in the Hartley Primitive Methodist College ; some- time Fellow of Merton College and Lecturer in Mansfield College, Oxford ; author of The Problem of Suffering in the Old Testa- ment, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, Christianity : its Nature and its Truth. Cainites, Jude the Lord's Brother, Jude (Epistle of). Platt (Frederic), M.A., B.D. Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology in the Wesleyan College, Handsworth, Bir- mingham ; author of Miracles: An Outline of the Christian View. Atonement. Plummer (Alfred), M.A., D.D, Late Master of University College, Durham ; formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford ; author of ' The Gospel according to S. Luke ' in The International Critical Commentary, and otiier works. Apostle, Bishop, Church, Deacon, Evan- gelist, and other articles. Pope (R. Martin), M.A. (Cantab, and Man- chester). Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Keswick ; autlior of Expository Notes on St. Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and other works. Abba, Christian Life, Conversation, Gifts, Judging. Reid (John), M.A. Minister of the United Free Church at Inver- ness ; autlior of Jesus and Nicodemus, The First Things of Jesus, The Uplifting of Life ; editor of Effectual Words. .zEon, Age, Aged, Honour. Roberts (John Edward), M.A. (London), B.D. (St. Andrews). Minister of the Baptist Church at Manchester; author of Christian Baptism, Private Prayers ccnd Devotions. Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla, Bar-Jesus, Gallio, and other articles. Roberts (Robert), B.A. (Wales), Ph.D. (Leipzig). Rhuallt, St. Asaph. Expediency. Robertson (Archibald Thomas), M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor of Interpretation of the New Testa- ment in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky. ; author of A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, and other works. Bond, Debt, Deliverer, Destruction. Robinson (George L.), Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. Professor of Biblical Literature and English Bible in M'Cormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. Csesarea. Robinson (Henry Wheeler), M.A. (Oxon. and Edin. ). Professor of Church History and of the Philosophy of Religion in the Baptist College, Rawdon ; sometime Senior Kenni- cott Sciiolar in the University of Oxford ; author of 'Helu-ew Psychology in Relation to Pauline Anthropology' in Mansfield College Essays, The Christian Doctriyie of Man, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testa- ment. Adorning, Ear, Eye, Feet, Hair, Hand, Head. Sanday (William), D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., F.B.A. Ladj'' Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain in Ordinary to H.M. the King. Inspiration and Revelation. VON Schlatter (Adolf). Professor of New Testament Introduction and Exegesis in the University of Tubingen. Holy Spirit. Scott (Charles Anderson), M.A., D.D. Professor of the Language, Literature, and Theology of the New Testament in West- minster College, Cambridge; author of The Making of a Christian, and other works. Christ, Christology. SiDNELL (Henry Cariss Jones), B.A., B.D. (London). Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Ilkley. Admonition, Chastisement, Discipline, Excommunication. AUTHOES OF ARTICLES 11^ THIS VOLUME Smith (Sherwin), M.A., B.D. Minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Burnley. Abomination, Clean and Unclean. SOUTER (Alexander), M.A., D.Litt. Regius Professor of Humanity and Lecturer in Mediaeval Palaeography in the University of Aberdeen ; formerly Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis in Mansfield College, Oxford ; author of A Study of Ambrosiaster, The Text and Canon of the New Testament. Augustus, Caesar, Caligula, Citizenship, Diana, Domitian, and other articles. Spooner (William Archibald), D.D. Warden of New College, Oxford ; Hon. Canon of Ciirist Church, Oxford ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Peterborough. Lucius. Stevenson (Morley), M.A. Principal of Warrington Training College ; Hon. Canon of Liverpool ; author of Hand- book to the Gospel according to St. Luke, and other works. Author and Finisher, Circumcision, Divisions, Foreruimer, Heresy, Judaiz- ing. Stewart (George Wauchope), M.A., B.D. Minister of the Church of Scotland at Hadding- ton (First Charge) ; author of Music in the Church. King, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Lord. Stewart (Robert William), M.A,, B.Sc, B.D. Minister of the United Free Church at Duthil (Carr Bridge). Apostolic Constitutions. Strachan (Robert Harvey), M.A. (Aberd.), B.A. (Cantab.). Minister of the Presbyterian Church of England at Cambridge. Consecration, Fast (The), Holiness, Holy Day. Strahan (James), M.A., D.D. Professor of Hebrew and Biblical Criticism in the M'Crea Magee Presbyterian College, Londonderry ; Cunningham Lecturer ; author of Hebrew Ideals, The Book of Job, The Captivity and Pastoral Epistles. Abraham, Colours, Elements, Galatia, Hypocrisy, and other articles. Thumb (Albert). Professor of Comparative Philology in the University of IStrassburg ; author of Hand- book of tlte Modern Greek Vernacular. Hellenistic and Biblical Greek. Tod (David Macrae), M.A., B.D. (Edin.). Minister of the Presbyterian Church of England at Hudderstield ; formerly Hebrew Tutor and Cunningham Fellow, New College, Edinburgh. Faith, Faithfulness, Ignorance, Know- ledge. Vos (Geerhardus), Ph.D., D.D. Charles Haley Professor of Biblical Theology in the Theological Seminary of the Presby- terian Church at Princeton, N.J. Brotherly Love, Goodness, Joy, Kind- ness, Longsuffering, Love. Watkins (Charles H.), D.Th. Minister of the Baptist Church at Liverpool ; Lecturer in the Midland Baptist College and University College, Nottingham ; author of St. Paul's Fight for Galatia. Ambassador, Blessedness, Brethren, Conspiracy. Watt (Hugh), B.D. Minister of the United Free Church of Scotland at Bearsden ; Examiner for the Church History Scholarships of the United Free Church of Scotland. Didache. Wells (Leonard St. Alban), M.A. (Oxon.). Vicar of St. Aidan's, South Shields ; sub- editor of the Oxford Apocrypha and Pseud- epigrapha. Alpha and Omega, Amen. Willis (John Roth well), B.D. Canon of St. Aidans, Ferns, and Rector of Preban and Moyne. Angels of the Seven Churches, Collec- tion, Contribution. WoRSLEY (Frederick William), M.A., B.D. Subwarden of St. Michael's College, LlandafF; author of The Apocalypse of Jesus. Areopagite, Baal, Babbler, Calf, Damaris, Dioscuri, Idolatry, Jupiter. Zenos (Andrew C), D.D., LL.D. Professor of Historical Theology in the M'Cormick Theological Seminary, Chicago. Dates. ZWAAN (J. DE), D.D. (Leiden). Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of Groningen. ' Acts of Thomas ' in Acts of the Apostles (Apocryphal), LIST OF ABBEEVIATIONS I. General /Vpp. = Appendix. Arab. = Arabic. art., artt. = article, articles. A.S. = Anglo-Saxon. Assyr. = Assyrian. AT = Altes Testament. AV = Authorized Version. AVm = Authorized Version margin. Bab. = Babylonian. c. —circa, about. of. = compare. ct.= contrast. ed. = edited, edition. Eng. = English. Eth. = Ethiopic. EV, EVV = English Version, Versions. f. =and following verse or page. ff. = and following verses or pages. fol. = folio. fr. = fragment, from. Fr. = French. Germ. = German. Gr. = Greek. Heb. = Hebrew. Lat. = Latin. lit. = literalljs literature. LXX = Septuagint. m., niarg. = margin. MS, MSS = manuscript, manuscripts. n. =note. NT = New Testament, Neues Testament. N.S. =new series. OT = OId Testament. pi. = plural. q.v., qq.v. = quod vide, qiice vide, which see. Rliem. = Rhemish New Testament. rt. = root. RV = Revised Version. RVm = Revised Version margin. Sem. = Semitic. sing. = singular. Skr. = Sanskrit. Syr. = Syriac. Targ. = Targum. tr. = translated, translation. TR = Textus Receptus, Received Text. V. = verse. v.l. =varia lectio, variant reading. VS, VSS = Version, Versions. Vulg. , Vg.= Vulgate. II. Books of the Bible Old Testament. Gn = Genesis. Ex = Exodus. Lv = Leviticus. Nu = Numbers. Dt = Deuteronomy. Jos = Joshua. Jg = Judges. Ru = Ruth. 1 S, 2S = 1 and 2 Samuel. 1 K, 2 K = l and2King.s. 1 Ch, 2 Ch = l and 2 Chronicles. Ezr = Ezra. Neh = Nehemiah. Est = Esther. Job. Ps = Psalms. Pr = Proverbs. Ec = Ecclesiastes. Ca = Canticles. Is — Isaiah. Jer = Jeremiah. La = Lamentations. Ezk = Ezekiel. Dn = Daniel. Hos = Hosea. Jl = Joel. Am = Amos. Ob = Obadiah. Jon = Jonah. Mic = Micah. Nah = Nahum. IIab = Habakkuk. Zeph = Zephaniah. Hag = Haggai. Zec = Zechariah. Mal = Malachi. Apocrypha. 1 Es, 2Es=l and 2 Esdras. To = To bit. Jth = Judith. Ad. Est = Additions to Sus = Susanna. Esther. Wis = Wisdom. Sir = Sirach or Ecclesi- asticus. Bar = Baruch. Three = Song of the Three Children. Bel = Bel and the Dragon. Pr. iSIan = Prayer of Manasses. 1 Mac, 2 Mac = l and 2 Maccabees. Mt = :Matthew. Mk = Mark. Lk = Luke. Jn = John. Ac = Acts. Ro = Romans. 1 Co, 2 Co = 1 Corinthians. Gal = Galatians. Eph = Ephesians. Ph — Philippians. Col = Colossians. New Testament. 1 Th, 2 Th = l and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Ti, 2 Ti = l and 2 Timothy. Tit = Titus. Pliilem = Philemon, and 2 He = Hebrews. Ja= James. 1 P, 2P=1 and 2 Peter. 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn = l, 2, and 3 John. Jude. Rev — Revelation. LIST OF ABBKEVIATIONS III. Bibliography ^GG=Abhandlungen der Gottinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. ^JPA = American Journal of Philology. ^J"rA = American Journal of Theology. ^jBIF=Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft. ^5= Acta Sanctorum (BoUandus). JBJ"=Bellum Judaicum (Josephus). 5i = Banipton Lecture. 5 j;r= Biblical World. CjE = Catholic Encyclopedia. CIA = Corpus Inscrip. Atticanim. C/G = Corpus Inscrip. Grsecaruin. C/i = Corpus Inscrip. Latinarum. (775= Corpus Inscrip. Semiticarum. C^i2= Church Quarterly Review. C^= Contemporary Review. C5 = Dict. of the Bible. DCA = T>ic\,. of Christian Antiquities. Z)C£ = Diet, of Christian Biography. Z)C(? = Diet, of Christ and the Gospels. DGRA = I>'ict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities. DGBB — 'Diet, of Greek and Roman Biography. DGEG=:T)ict. of Greek and Roman Geography. ^i?i = Encyclopaedia Biblica. EBr = Encyclopajdia Britannica. £Gr= Expositor's Greek Testament. ^i2£' = Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Sxp = Expositor. ExpT= Expository Times. (?^P=Geographie des alten Palastina (Buhl). G5= Golden Bough (J. G. Frazer). GGA =:Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. (r(?iV=: Nachrichten der konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. GJ'F'=Geschichte des jlidischen Volkes (Schiirer). Grimm-Thayer = Grimm's Gr.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT, tr. Thayer. ^Z>5 = Hastings' Diet, of the Bible (5 vols.). ff£'=Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.). 5^G^Z = Historical Geography of the Holy Land (G. A. Smith). 5"/= History of Israel (Ewald). 5/=Hibbert Journal. ^JP= History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV). HL = Hibbert Lecture. ^iV"= Historia Naturalis (Pliny). /CC= International Critical Commentary. //S'5= International Science Series. J A = Journal Asiatique. J"i?Z, = Journal of Biblical Literature. JE = Jewish. Encj'clopedia. J"^.S'= Journal of Hellenic Studies. J'P/i = Journal of Philology. J'PrA = Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. J' capable of sympathy both by nature and from experience (4^'') ; yet His priesthood is distinctly of a higher and eternal order (5*), limited neither to an earthly sanctuary (9^), nor to the necessity of repeating the one great sacrifice (9^*), nor in efiiciency to the treatment of offences that were chiefly ceremonial or ritual (9^* "). 2. In the consecration of the high priest the supreme act was anointing with oil (Lv 8^^), from which, indeed, the designation Messiah ('anointed one') arose. Yet such was the lofty position of Jesus, and such was His consciousness, that He could say, ' I consecrate myself ' ( Jn 17^^), on the very eve of His priestly sacrifice. 3. In function Aaron stood between God and the congregation, representing each to the other. On the one hand, not only were the priests gathered together into an embodied unity in him, but in his annual approach to God he brought a sacrifice even for the 'ignorances' of the people VOL. I. — I (He 9'), and purified the sanctuary itself from any possible defilements contracted through the sina of its frequenters (9^^*^- ; cf. Lv 16^^). As the repre- sentative of God, he wore the sacred Urim and Thummim in the pouch of judgment upon his heart (Ex 28^**), indicating his qualification to com- municate God's decision on matters that tran- scended human wit ; and through him and his order the blessing of God was invoked. In the Chris- tian thought of the apostolic age all these functions pass over to Jesus Christ, with modifications em- phasizing their ethical efiect and the intrinsically spiritual benefit that follows. One of the most general statements is He 2", wliere the phrase ' things pertaining to God ' covers both sides of the relations between God and man, though promin- ence is given, as in the passages that speak of Christ as our Advocate with God, to the work done by Him as representing men. Much the same is the case with the great passage on medi- atorship (1 Ti 2^). As He is the Saviour, so He is the High Priest, of all men, ' specially of them that believe' (1 Ti 4'"). In virtue of His imma- nence as God, as well as of His priestly rank and sympathy. He fitly represents all men before God, while for those who have put themselves into a right attitude towards Him He acts as Paraciete (1 Jn 2^), promoting their interests and completing their deliverance from sin. On the other hand, as representative of God, He bestows gifts upon men (Eph 4^), communicating to them the will of God and enriching them with every spiritual bless- ing. He is not only the Eevealer of the Father ; but, just as He offers His sacrifice to God in the stead of man, so He represents to man what God is in relation to human sin, and what God has devised and does with a view to human redemption. Between God and man He stands continuously, the medium of access on either side, the channel of Divine grace and of human prayer and praise. See, further, art. Melchizedek. Literature. — See art. ' Aaron ' in EDB, DCG and JE, and Comm. on Hebrews, esp. those of A. B. Davidson and B. F. Westcott, A. S. Peake {Century Bible), E. C. Wickham (Westminster Com.) ; also Phillips Brooks, Sermons in English Churches, 1883, p. 43 ; J. Wesley, Works, vii. [London, 1872] 273. R. W. Moss. AARON'S ROD. — Aaron's rod is mentioned only in He 9*, which locates the rod in the ark. An earlier tradition (Nu 17^** ; cf. 1 K 8^) preserves it ABADDON AEBA ' before ' the ark, on the spot on which it had budded (see HDB i. S*"). In either case the object ■was to secure a standing witness to the validity of the claims of the Aaronic priesthood (so Clement, 1 Cor. § 43). The rod has sometimes been identi- fied as a branch of the almond tree ; and both Jewish and Christian fancy has been busy with it. For early legends associating it symbolically with the cross, or literally with the transverse beam of the cross, see W. W. Seymour, The Cross in Tradi- tion, History, Art, 1898, p. 83. R. W, Moss. ABADDON.— The word is found in the NT only in Rev 9^^. In the OT text 'dbhaddun occurs six times (onlj' in the Wisdom literature), AV in each case rendering 'destruction,' while RV gives ' De- struction' in Job 28" 3V-, Ps 8S'i, but 'Abaddon' in Job 26®, Pr 15^^ 27-", on the ground, as stated by the Revisers in their Preface, that ' a proper name appears to be required for giving vividness and point.' Etymologically the word is an abstract term meaning ' destruction,' and it is employed in this sense in Job 31'-. Its use, however, in paral- lelism with Sheol in Job 26", Pr 15" 27-» and with ' the grave ' in Ps 88" shows that even in the OT it had passed beyond this general meaning and had become a specialized term for the abode of the dead. In Job 28--, again, it is' personified side by side with Death, just as Hades is personified in Rev 6^. So far as the OT is concerned, and not- withstanding the evident suggestions of its deriva- tion (from Heb. 'dbhadh, 'to perish'), the connota-_ tion of the word does not appear to advance be- yond that of the parallel word Sheol in its older meaning of the general dwelling-place of all the dead. In later Heb. literature, however, when Sheol had come to be recognized as a sphere of moral distinctions and consequent retribution, Abaddon is represented as one of the lower divi- sions of Sheol and as being the abode of the wicked and a place of punishment. At first it was distin- guished from Gehenna, as a place of loss and de- privation rather than of the positive suffering assigned to the latter. But in the Rabbinic teach- ing of a later time it becomes the very house of perdition (Targ. on Job 26''), the lowest part of Gehenna, the deepest deep of hell (Emek Ham- melcch, 15.3). In Rev 9" Abaddon is not merely personified in the free jjoetic manner of Job 28--, but is used as the personal designation in Hebrew of a fallen angel described as the king of the locusts and ' the angel of the abyss,' whose name in the Greek tongue is said to be Apollyon. In the LXX 'cibhaddon is regularly rendered by dirdbXeia ; and the personification of the Heb. word by the writer of Rev. apparently led him to form from the corresponding Gr. verb (dvoWvw, later form of d7r6XXi//aO a Gr. name with the personal ending uv. Outside of the Apocalj-pse the name Abaddon has hardlj^ any place in English literature, while Apollyon, on the contrary, has become familiar through the use made of it in the Pilrjrini's Pro- gress by Bunyan, whose conception of Apollyon, however, is entirely Iiis own. Abaddon or Apoll- yon was often identified with Asmoditjus, ' the evil spirit ' of To 3® ; but this identification is now known to be a mistake. LiTERATiRE.— Theartt. s.vv. in HDB andEBi; art. 'Abyss' in EUE ; ExpT xx. [1908-09] 234 f. J. C. LAMBERT. ABBA. — Abba is the emphatic form of the Aram, word for 'father' (see Dalman, Aram. Gram. p. 98, for ax and its various forms ; also Maclean, in DCG, S.V.). It is found only in three passages in the NT, viz. Mk U^\ Ro 8'S Gal 4« ; in each case 6 irar-qp is subjoined to 'A/3^a, the whole expres- sion being a title of address. [The use of 6 naTr^p, nominative with the article, as a vocative, is not a Hebraism, as Lightfoot thought, but an emphatic vocative not unknown to classical Greek and com- mon in the NT : ' nearly sixty examples of it are found in NT ' ; see Moulton, Gram, of NT Greek, Edinburgh, 1906, p. 70.] Lightfoot on Gal 4'' argues that the bilingual expression is a liturgical formula originating with Hellenistic Jews, who, while clinging to the original word which was consecrated by long usage, added to it the Greek equivalent ; but he supports an alternative theorj- that it took its rise among Jews of Palestine after they had become acquainted with the Greek language, and is simply an expression of importunate entreaty, and an examjile of that verbal usage whereby the same idea is conveyed in ditierent forms for the sake of emphasis. As illustrations of this repetition, he quotes Rev 9'^ ('AttoXXi/wj', 'A/3a55a)j') 12''^ 20^ CZaravas, AtdjSoXos). Thayer, in HDB [s.v.], points out that, though de- votional intensit.y belongs to repetition of the same term {e.g. Kvpie, Kvpie), it is also expressed by such phrases as I'at dpi-qv, ' Hallelujah, Praise the Lord,' where the terms are ditt'erent. The context of each passage where 'Abba, Father' is found appears to prove that the Greek addition is not merely the explanation of the Aramaic word, such as, e.g., St. Peter might have added in his preaching — a custom to be perpetuated bj^ the Evangelists, as suggested by the passage in Mk. ; but is rather an original formula, the genesis of which is to be souglit further back, perhaps in the actual words used by our Lord Himself. Thus Sanday-Headlam on Ro 815 (/(7(7^ 19Q2) remark : ' It seems better to suppose that our Lord Himself, using- familiarly both lan^ua^es, and concentrating into this word of all vvords such a depth of meaning, found Himself impelled spontaneously to repeat the word, and that some among His disciples caught and transmitted the same habit. It is signifi- cant however of the limited extent of strictly Jewish Christi- anity that we find no other original examples of the use than these three.' Thus, the double form is due to the fact that the early Christians were a bilingual people ; and the duplication, while conveying intensity to the ex- pression, ' would only be natural where the speaker was using in botli cases his familiar tongue.' F. H. Chase (TS I. iii. 23) suggests that the phrase is due to the shorter or Lucan form of the Lord's Prayer, and that the early Christians repeated the first word in the intensity of their devotion, coupling a Hellenistic rendering with the Aramaic Abba. He argues that the absence of such a phrase as 6 icrnv, or eoTt fj.edeppL-rivevonei'ov, in Mk 14^^ is due to the familiarity of the formula ; and that, while the Pauline passages do not recall Gethsemane, they suggest the Lord's Prayer as current in the shorter form. Moulton (op. cit. p. 10), combating Zahn's theory that Aramaic was the language of St. Paul's prayers — a theory based on the Apostle's 'Abba, Father ' — remarks that ' the peculiar sacredness of association belonging to the first word of the Lord's Prayer in its original tongue supplies a far more probable account of its liturgical use among Gen- tile Christians.' He mentions the analogy (see footnote, loc. cit.) of the Roman Catholic 'saying Paternoster,' but adds that ' Paul will not allow even one word of prayer in a foreign tongue with- out adding an instant translation ' ; and further refers to the Welsh use of Pader as a name for the Lord's Prayer. It seems probable (1) that the phrase, 'Abba, Father,' is a liturgical formula ; (2) that the duality of tlie form is not due to a Hebraistic repetition for the sake of emphasis, but to the fact that the early Christians, even of non- Jewish descent, were familiar with both Aramaic and Greek ; (3) that Abba, being the first word of the Lord's Prayer, was held in special veneration, and was quoted ABEL ABOMIXATION ^vith the Greek equivalent attached to it, as a familiar devotional phrase (like Maran atha [1 Co 16'-^], -which would be quite intelligible to Chris- tians of Gentile origin, though its Greek transla- tion, 6 Ki'ptos iyyds [Ph 4'], was also used ; of. Did. 10^, where ' Maran atha' and ' Amen ' close a public prayer) ; and (4) that our Lord Himself, though this cannot be said to be established beyond doubt, used the double form in pronouncing the sacred Name, which was invoked in His prayer. In conclusion, it should be noted that, while the phrase is associated with the specially solemn occa- sion of the Gethseinane agony, where our Lord is reported by St. Mark to have used it, both ex- amples of its use in the Pauline writings convey a similar impression of solemnity as connected with the Christian believer's assurance of sonship — and sonship (let it be noted) not in the general sense in which all humanity may be described as children of God, but in the intimate and spiritual connota- tion belonging to vloOecrLa, or ' adoption,' into the family of God. Literature. — See art. ' Abba ' in HDB, DCG, and JE, an art. in ExpTxx. [1909] 356, and the authorities cited above. R. Martin Pope. ABELc — Abel ('A|8eX) has the first place in the roll of ' the elders ' (ol irpea^&repoi, He 11-), or men of past generations, who by their faith pleased God and had witness borne to them. It is recorded of him that he offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice (irXelova dvo-iav) than his elder brother (He 11^). In the original story (Gn 4^"'') his offer- ing was probably regarded as more pleasing on account of the material of his sacrifice. It was in accordance with primitive Semitic ideas that the occupation of a keeper of sheep was more pleasing to God than that of a tiller of the ground, and accordingly that a firstling of the flock was a more acceptable offering than the fruit of the ground. The ancient writer of the story (J) evidently wished to teach that animal sacrifice alone was pleasing to God (Gunkel, Genesis, 38 ; Skinner, 105). The author of Hebrews gives the story a different turn. The greater excellence of Abel's sacrifice consisted in the disposition with which it was offered. The spirit of the worshipper rather than the substance of the offering is now considered the essential element. Abel's sacrifice was the offering of a man whose heart was right. Through his faith he won God's approval of his gifts, and through his faith his blood continued to speak for him after his death. In a later passage of Heb. (122'*) that blood is contrasted -with 'the blood of sprinkling,' by which the new covenant is confinned. The blood of Abel cried out from the ground for vengeance (cf. Job 16^*, Is 26^', 2 K 9^ ; also Rev 6''* '") ; it was such a cry as is sounded in Milton's sonnet, ' Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints ' ; but the blood of the eternal covenant intercedes for mercy. St. John (1 Jn 3'^) uses the murder of Abel by his brother to illustrate the absence of that spirit of love which is the essence of goodness. The writer indicates that the new commandment, or message (d77eX^a), which has been heard from the beginning of the Christian era, was also the funda- mental laAV of the moral life from the beginning of human history. Cain was of the evil one (iK toO TTovrjpod), and slaughtered {^acpa^ev) his brother. LiTERATTjRE. — Besides the artt. in the Bible Dictionaries, see W. G. Elmslle, Expository Lectures and Sermons, lb92, p. 164 ; J. Hastings, Greater Men and Women of the Bible, vol. i. [1913] p. 53 ; G. Matheson, The Representative Men of the Bible, i. [1902] 45 ; A. P. Peabody, King's Chapel Sermons, 1891, p. 817 ; A. Whyte, Bible Characters, i. [1896] 44. James Strahan. ABIDING. — As in the Gospels, so in Acts and Ephesians we find both the local and the ethical connotations of this word, which in almost every case is used to render /xivu or one of its numerous compounds (eiri-, Kara-, irapa-, irpos-, inro-). With the purely local usages we have here no concern ; but there is a small class of transitional meanings which lead the way to those ethical connotations which are the distinctive property of the word. Among these may be mentioned the several places in 1 Co 7, where St. Paul, dealing with marriage and allied questions (? in view of the Parousia), speaks of abiding in this state or calling. In the same Epistle note also S'^* 'If any man's yvork abide,' and 13'^ ' And now abide faith, hope, love.' * Simi- larly we are told of the persistence (a) of Mel- chizedek's priesthood (He 7^), (b) of the Divine fidelity' even in face of human faithlessness (2 Ti 213), and (c) of the word of God (1 P l^^). It is, however, in the 1st Ep. of John, as in the Fourth Gospel, that we get the ethical use of abiding most fully developed and most amply pre- sented. But, while in the Gospel the emphasis is laid on the Son's abiding in the Father and Christ's abiding in the Church, in 1 Jn 2-''- -' the stress is rather on the mutual abiding of the believer and God (Father and Son). Note the following ex- perimental aspects of the relation in question. 1. The belieYer as the place of the abiding. — A somewhat peculiar expression is found in 1 Jn 2^, where we read : ' The anointing . . . abideth in you.' By xpto-/ia is meant the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Co l^^), whose presence in the heart gives the believer an independent power of testing whatever teaching he receives (cf. ' He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you,' Jn 16'°).t In 1 Jn 2^* it is said that the word of God abideth in 'young men'; but it is also the meaning in v.^; while in S-'* Christ is mentioned as abiding in them ' by the Spirit.' In each passage we have a subtle instance of the perfectly natural way in which the operation of the risen Christ on the heart is identi- fied with that of the Spirit. The believer's soul is thus mystically thought of as the matrix in which the Divine energy of salvation, conceived of in its various aspects, is operative as a cleansing, saving, and conserving power, safeguarding it from error, sin, and unfaithfulness. 2. The abiding place of the believer. — In 1 Jn 2^ we have the promise that ' if the [word] heard from the beginning' remains in the believer's heart, he shall ' continue in the Son ' and in the Father (cf. 3^). This reciprocal relation between the implanted word and the human environment in which it energizes is peculiarly Johannine. Secondary forms of the same idea are found in 2^^ ('he that loveth his brother abideth in the light'), and in 3^^ ( ' he that hateth his brother abideth in death'). In 2^ we have the fact that the believer abides in Christ made the ground for a practical appeal for consistency of life, and in v.^ the reward of such living is that the believer * abideth for ever,' i.e. has eternal life. As a general principle, in the use of this word we find a striking union of the mys- tical and the ethical aspects of the Christian faith. Literature.— G. G. Findlay, The Things Above, 1901, p. 237 ; G. H. Knight, Divine Upliftings, 1906, p. 85 ; F. von Hiigel, Eternal Life, 1912, p. 365 f.; and also the art. 'Abiding' in DCG, and the literature there cited. E. Gbiffith-Jones. ABOMINATION (/SSAiO'/ia). — Like the word ' taste ' — originally a physical, then a mental term, — ' abomination ' denotes that for which God and His people have a violent distaste. It refers in the OT to the feeling of repulsion against pro- hibited foods (Lv 11^°, Dt 14^), then to everything * Popular opinion, based on a well-known hjTnn (Par. 49i3f), very erroneously makes faith and hope pass away, only love abiding-. t As indicated in HDB i. 101b, the words of 1 Jn227 gave rise to the practice of anointing with oil at baptism. ABOUNDIN-G ABKAHAM connected with idolatry (Dt 7-^ Ko 2-- [Gr.]).* Thence it acquires a moral meaning, and together with fornication stigmatizes all the immoralities of heathendom (Rev IT'^ ^). Its intensest use is reserved for hypocrisy, the last otience against religion (Lk 16'*, Tit l'«. Rev 21-'^). Sherwix Smith. ABOUNDING.— The English word 'abound' in the Epistles of the NT is the translation of the Gr. words irXeovdi'u} and wepLa-crevu}. There is nothing of special interest in these terms ; perhaps the former has the less lofty sense, its primary connotation being that of superfluity. As used by St. Paul, however, there seems little to choose between them, although it is worth noting that, where he speaks (Ro 5-") of the 'otience' and 'sin' abounding, he uses TrXeovdi'eiv. Yet he employs the same term in Ro 6' of the ' abounding of grace,' and in Ph 4^^ of the fruit of Christian giving. His favourite term, however, is Trepiaaevu} (in one case virepTrepiffffevw, 'overflow,' Ro 5^), whether he is speaking of the grace of God (Ro 5"), the sufferings of Christ (2 Co 1'), or the Christian spirit that finds expression in liberality (2 Co 8^ 9«), contentment (Ph 4^-- 1«), hope (Roo'*), service (1 Co 15^). This list of references is not exhaustive, but it is representative. These words and the way in which they are used give us a suggestive glimpse into — 1. The religious temperament of the Apostle. — His was a rich and overflowing nature, close-packed with vivid, ever-active qualities of mind and heart. His conception of the gospel would be naturally in accordance with the wealth of his psychic and moral nature ; he would inevitably fasten on such aspects of it as most thoroughly satisfied his own soul ; and he would put its resources to the full test of his spiritual needs and capacities. It is fortunate that Christianity found at its inception such a man ready to hand as its chief exponent to the primitive churches, and that his letters remain as a record of the marvellous way in which he opened his heart to its appeal, and of the manifold response he was able to make to that appeal. In all ages our faith has been conditioned by the human medium in which it has had to work. The ages of barrenness in Christian experience have been those Mhich have lacked richly-endowed per- sonalities for its embodiment and exposition ; and vice versa, when such personalities have arisen and have given themselves wholeheartedly to the Divine Spirit, there has been a ^^dde-spread efflor- escence of religious experience in the Church at large. Ordinary men and women are pensioners religiouslj', to a peculiar degree, of the great souls in the community. St. Paul, Origen, Augustine, Bernard, Luther, Wesley, etc., have been the focal points tlirough which the forces of the gospel have radiated into the world at large, and lifted its life to higher levels. 2. The superabundant wealth of the gospel as a medium of the Divine energies of redemption. — The Christian faith is full of spiritual resources on which the soul may draw to the utmost of its needs. In the teaching of our Lord, the prodigality of His illustrations, their varied character, and the frequency with which He likens the Kingdom to a ' feast,' with all its suggestions of a large welcome and an overflowing abundance of good things, are very characteristic of His own attitude towards the gospel He preached ; and St. Paul is pre- eminent among NT writers for the way in which he has grasped the same idea, and caught the spirit of the Master in his exposition of spiritual realities. (Cf. ' How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare ' [Lk 15'^] • Cf. the well-known expression, 'abomination of desolation,' applied to a heathen altar (Dn 12ii ; cf. 1 Mac I-m, Mt 24i6, Mk ISi'*). See art. ' Abomination of Desolation ' in IIDB. with ' the grace of God, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, liatli abounded unto many' [Ro 5'*; also 17. 19. -'0. :;i -"•-'], and many other passages.) 3. The call for an adequate response on the part of believers to the varied and abundant resources of the gospel. — Here, again, St. Paul exhausts the power of language in urging his con- verts to allow the Divine energies of salvation to have their way with them. The normal type of Christian is not reached till his nature is flooded with the grace of God, and he in turn is lifted into a condition which is characterized by an abounding increase of hope, grace, love, good works, and fruit- fulness of character. ' Therefore, as ye abound in (everything), see that ye abound in this grace also ' (2 Co 8'') expresses one of his favourite forms of appeal. He was not satistied to see men raised to a slightly higher plane by their faith in Christ ; they were to be ' transformed in the spirit of their minds' (Ro 12-) ; they were always to 'abound in the work of the Lord ' (1 Co IS^s ; cf. 2 Co 9^) ; and, as ' they had received ' of him how thej^ might walk and ' to please God,' they were exhorted to ' abound more and more' (1 Th 4^), and that especially because they knew what commandments ' had been given them by the Lord Jesus ' ( 1 Th 4^). It was a subject for joyfulness to him when he found his converts thus responding to the poAver of God (see 2 Co 8"-)- As regards his realization of this Divine abundance in his own experience, we find him breaking out into an ecstasy of thanksgiving at the thought of what God has done for him, and of the sense of inward spiritual abundance which he consequently enjoys, so that he feels quite in- dependent of all outMard conditions, however hard they may be (cf. Ph 4""'^). This is the language of a man who enjoys all the resources of the God- head in his inner life, and who can, therefore, be careless of poverty, misfortune, sickness, and even the prospect of an untimely end. Literature. — See Sanday-Headlam, and Lightfoot (especi- ally Notes on Ejiistlen of St. Paul), on the passaj^es referred to, also Phillips Brooks, The Light of t fie World, 1S91, p. HO, and ExpT viii. [1897] 514a. E. GrIFFITH-JoXES. ABRAHAM ('A^paA/x). — Addressing a Jewish crowd in the precincts of the Temple, St. Peter emphasizes the connexion between the Hebrew and the Christian religion by proclaiming that ' the God of Abraham . . . hath glorified his servant (iralda ; cf. RVm) Jesus ' (Ac S'^). This Divine title, which is similarly used in St. Stephen's speech (7^^), was full of significance. All through the OT and the NT the foundation of the true religion is ascribed neither to the Prophets nor to Moses, but to Abraham. Isaac (Gn 26^^) and Jacob (SH-) wor- shipped the God of Abraham, but Abraham did not worship the Elohim whom his fathers served beyond the River (Jos 24^ ^^ "). He was the head of the great family that accepted Jahweh as their God. Jews, Muslims, and Christians are all in some sense his seed, as having either his blood in their veins or his faith in their souls. To the Jews he is ' our father Abraham ' (Ac 7*, Ro 4^^, Ja 2-'), 'our forefather {rbv tr poirdropa) according to th6 flesh' (Ro 4^). To the Muhammadans he is the 'model of religion' {imam, or priest) and the first person 'resigned {mitslim) unto God' (Qur'an, ii. 115, 125). To the Christians he is 'the father of all them that believe' (Ro 4^'), 'the fatlier of us air (4'^). Taking the word Abraham to mean (according to tlie popular word-play, Ro4" || Gn 17*) ' a fatlier of many nations,' St. Paul regards it as indicating that Abraham is the spiritual ancestor of the whole Christian Church. 1. In the Epistles of St. Paul. — As Abraham was the renowned founder of the Jewish nation and faith, it was crucially important to decide ABRAHAM ABEAHA^I whether the Jews or the Christians could claim his support in their great controversy on justifica- tion. The ordinary Jews regarded Abraham as a model legalist, whose faith in God (Gn 15^*-) con- sisted in the fultiliiient of the Law, which he knew by a kind of intuition. According to the Jewish tradition [Berenhith Rahh. 44, Wiinsche), Abraham saw the whole history of his descendants in the mysterious vision recorded in Gn IS^"^-. Thus he is said to have 'rejoiced with the joy of the Law ' (Westcott, M. John [in Speaker's Com.], 140). In the philosophical school of Alexandria there was a much higlier conception of faith, which was re- garded as ' the most perfect of virtues,' ' the queen of virtues,' 'the only sure and infallible good, the solace of life, the fulfilment of worthy hopes, . . . the inheritance of hai)piness, the entire ameliora- tion of the soul, which leans for support on Him who is the cause of all things, who is able to do all things, and willeth to do those which are most excellent' (Philo, Quis rer. div. her. i. 485, de Abr. ii. 39). In these passages faith, in so far as it expresses a spiritual attitude towards God, does not ditier much from Christian faith. Nor could anything be finer than the Rabbinic Mechilta on Ex 14^^ : ' Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. ... In like manner thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith whereby he believed in the Lord ; for it is said, and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness' (Light- foot, Galatians, 162). But the ordinarj^ tendency of Judaism was to give Abraham's life a pre- dominantly legal colour, as in 1 Mac 2^" ' \Yas not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it w-as reckoned unto him for righteousness ?' To St. Paul faith is the motive power of the whole life, and in two expositions of his doctrine — Ro 4, Gal 3 — he affirms the essential identity of Abraham's faith with that of every Christian. He does not, indeed, think (like Jesus Himself in Jn 8^) of Abraham as directly foreseeing the day of Christ, but he maintains that Abraham's faith in God as then partially revealed was essentially the same as the Christian's faith in God as now fully made known in Christ. Abraham had faith when he was still in uncircumcision (Ro 4"), faith in God's power to do things apparently impossible (417-19)^ faith by which he both strengthened his own manhood and gave glory to God (4^). Abraham believed ' the gospel ' which was preached to him beforehand, the gospel which designated him as the medium of blessing to all the nations (Gal 3^). And as his faith, apart from his works, was counted to him for righteousness, he became the representative believer, in whom all other believers, without distinction, may recognize their spiritual father. It is not Abraham's blood but his spirit that is to be coveted (3-) ; those who are of faith [ol iK irlaTews) are ' sons of Abraham,' are 'blessed with the faithful Abraham' (3^-"); upon the Gentiles has come ' the blessing of Abraham ' {2,^*) ; all who are Christ's, without any kind of distinction, are 'Abraham's sons,' fulfilling, like him, the conditions of Divine acceptance, and in- heriting with him the Divine promises. St. Paul uses the narratives of Genesis as he finds them. Before the dawn of criticism the theologian did not raise the question whether the patriarchal portraits were real or ideal. To St. Paul Abraham is a historical person who lived 430 years before Moses (Gal 3i'0, and who was not inferior to the great prophets of Israel in purity of religious insight and strength of inward piety. It is now almost universally believed that the faith ascribed to the patriarchs was itself the result of a long historical evolution. But, while the maturer conceptions of a later age are carried back to Abraham, the patriarch is not dis- solved into a creation of the religious fancy. ' The ethical and spiritual idea of God which is at the foundation of the reUgion of Israel could only enter the world through a personal organ of divine revelation ; and nothing forbids us to see in Abraham the first of that long series of prophets through whom God has communicated to mankind a saving knowledge of Himself (Skinner, Genesis [ICC, 1910], p. xxvii). 2. In the Epistle of St. James.— St. James (2*1-23) uses the example of Abraham to establish the thesis, not that ' a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law ' (Ro 3^), but that ' by works a man is justified, and not only bj- faith' ( Ja 2^^). While the two apostles agree that Christianity is infinitely more than a creed, being nothing if not a life, they difier in their conception of faith. The meaning which St. James attaches to the word is indicated by his suggestion of believing demons and dead faith (2^^- ^o). St. Paul would have regarded both of these phrases as con- tradictions in terms, since all believers are con- verted and all faith is living. Asked if faith must not prove or justify itself by works, he would have regarded the question as superfluous, for a faith that means self-abandonment in passionate adoring love to the risen Christ inevitablj- makes the believer Christlike. St. James says in efi'ect : ' Abraham believed God, proving his faith by works, and it was counted to him for righteous- ness.' With St. Paul righteousness comes between faith and works ; with St. James works come between faith and righteousness. Had St. James been attacking either Galatians or Romans, and in particular correcting St. Paul's misuse of the example of Abraham, his polemic would have been singularly lame. Such a theory does injustice to his intelligence. But, if he was sounding a note of warning against popular perversions of evangeli- cal doctrine, St. Paul, who was often 'slanderously reported ' (Ro3^), must have been profoundly grate- ful to him. See, further, art. James, Epistle of. It is interesting to note that Clement of Rome co-ordinates the doctrines of the two apostles. Taking the tj-pical example of Abraham, he asks, ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed ? ' and answers, ' Was it not because he wrought right- eousness and truth through faith ? ' (Sp. ad Cor. | 31). If the two types of doctrine could be regarded as complementary sets of truths, justice was done to both apostles. But the difference assumed a dangerous form in the hard dogmatic distinction of the Schoolmen between fides infonnis and fi.d€s fonnata crim caritate, the latter of which (along with the ' epistle of straw ' on which it seemed to be based) Luther so vehemently re- pudiated. 3. In the Epistle to the Hebrews. — The writer of Hebrews bases on the incident of Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek (He 7; cf. Gn 14) an argument for a priesthood higher than the Aaronic order (v."ff-). To the king -priest of Salem Abraham gave tithes, and from him received a blessing, thereby owning his inferiority to that majestic figure. As Abraham was the ancestor of the tribe of Levi, the Aaronic priesthood itself may be said to have been overshadowed in that hour and ever afterwards by the mysterious order of Melchizedek. This is the conception of the writer of Ps 110, who identifies God's vicegerent, seated on the throne of Zion, not with the Aaronic order, but with the roj-al priesthood of Melchizedek. When the Maccabees displaced the house of Aaron, and concentrated in their own persons the kingly and priestly functions, they found their justifica- tion in the priestly dignity of Melchizedek, and called themselves, in his style, ' priests of the Most High ' (Charles, Book of Jubilees, 1902, pp. lix and 191). Finally, when Christ had given a Messianic interpretation of Ps 110, it was natural that tlie writer of Hebrews should see the Aaronic priesthood superseded by an eternal King-Priest after the ancient consecrated order of Melchizedek. For divergent critical views of the Abraham-Melchizedek pericope of Gn 14 see Wellhausen, Comp.'^, 1SS9, p. 211 f. ; Gunkel, Genesis, 253; Skinner, Genesis, 269 f. Against Wellhausen's theory that the story is a post-exilic attempt to glorify the priesthood in Jerusalem, Gunkel and Skinner argu< for an antique traditional basis. ABSTIN"ENCE ABSTINENCE The writer of Hebrews illustrates his definition of faith (11') by three events in the life of Abraham. — (1) The patriarch left his home and kindred, and ' went out not knowing whither he went ' (He IP). His faith was a sense of the unseen and remote, as akin to the spiritual and eternal. In obedience to a Divine impulse he ventured forth on the unknown, confident that his speculative peradventure would be changed into a realized ideal. The doubting heart says, ' Forward, though I cannot see, I guess and fear ' ; the believing spirit, ' Look up, trust, be not afraid.' — (2) Abraham remained all his life a sojourner (irdpoLKos Kal TrapeirlSr]fjLos=2t'm nj, Gn 23'') in the Land of Promise (He 11^). He left his home in Chaldsea, and never found another. Wherever he went he built an altar to God, but never a home for himself. He was encamped in many places, but naturalized in none. His pilgrim spirit is related to his hope of an eternal city — a beautiful conception transferred to Genesis from the literature of the Maccabtean period (En. 9028-29, Apoc. Bar. 323-4 etc.).— (3) gy faith Abraham offered up Isaac, ' accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead ' (He 11'^). Here again the belief of a later age becomes the motive of the patriarch's act of renunciation. The narrative in Gn 22 contains no indication that the thought of a resurrection flashed through his agonized mind. Literature.— F. W. Weber, Syst. der altsyn. palastin. Theol. ausTarqum, Midrasch, u. Talmud, ISSO, ch. xix. ; J. B. Lig-htfoot, Galatians, 1865, p. 158 ff. ; Sanday-Headlam, Romam^, 1902, p. 102 ff. ; W. Beyschlag-, NT Theology, 1894-96, i. 364 fif. ; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christi- anity, 1896, p. 116 f. ; G. B. Stevens, Theology of the NT, 1901, p. 289; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT, 1882-83, i. 437 flf. James Strahan. ABSTIVET^CE. — Introduction. — The whole of morality on its negative side may be included under Abstinence. Christian moral progress (sanctification) includes a holding fast {Karix^a-Oai) of the good, and an abstaining from (dir^x^cOai) every form of evil (1 Th S^'*-). "While Christianity has general laws to distinguish the good from the bad, yet for each individual Christian these laws are focused in the conscience, and the function of the latter is to discriminate between the good and the bad — it cannot devolve this duty on out- ward rules. With it the ultimate decision rests, and on it also lies the responsibility (Ro 14"*, He 5"). The lists of vices and virtues,* of 'works of the flesh' and 'fruits of the spirit,' given in the NT are not meant to be exhaustive, but typical ; nor are they given to make needless the exercise of Christian discernment. The NT is not afraid to place in the Christian conscience the decision of what is to be abstained from and what is not, because it believes in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and because it exalts personal responsibility. It is necessary to make this clear, because, as we shall see, the ultimate tribunal of appeal in mat- ters of abstinence in the ordinary sense (i.e. in the sphere of things indifferent) is the Christian conscience. The ideal of Christian conduct is sometimes said to be self-realization, not self- suppression; consecration, not renunciation. These antitheses are apt to be misleading. In the self with which Christianity deals there are sinful ele- ments that have to be extirpated. Christian sanc- tification takes place not in innocent men, but in sinners who have to be cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit (2 Co 7'). To purify oneself ( I Jn 3') is not simply to realize oneself ; it is to do no sin. In all moral conduct there is suppression ; in Christian conduct there is extirpation. This nega- • See Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng. tr., 1904, p. 406 S., for lists. tive side of Christian conduct is abstinence. It is the crucifying of the flesh — death unto sin — and it is the correlative of 'living to righteousness,' ' being risen with Christ,' etc. Abstinence in this sense is an essential and ever-present moment in the Christian life. More narrowly interpreted, abstinence is a re- fraining from certain outward actions — as eating, drinking, worldly business, maiTiage, etc. It is thus applied to outward conduct, while continence (eyKpareia) is used of inward self-restraint. Cicero makes this distinction, though, from the nature of the case, he cannot always consistently apply it (see Lewis and Short, Lat, Vict., s. v. ' Abstinentia'). We may look first at the outward side of absti- nence, and then try to And out what the Christian principles are (as these are unfolded in the apos- tolic writings) that determine its nature and its limits. I. Ascetic practices.—!. Fasting.— (a) Fast- ing, or abstinence from food and drink, may be un- avoidable or involuntary (e.g. Ac 27-'' 22, 1 Co 4", 2 Co 6^* U'"',* Ph 412). Such fastings have a re- ligious value only indirectly. They may overtake the apostate as well as the apostle. If they are caused by devotion to Christian service, they are, like all other privations so caused, badges of fidelity ; and they may be referred to with reasonable pride by Christ's ministers (2 Co G'"- 1123). xhey ought to silence criticism (cf. Gal 6''', where St. Paul speaks of his bruises as (XTlyfxaTa tou 'l-qcrov), and they enforce Christian exhortation (Col 4'^ Eph 4'). On the principle that he who chooses the end chooses the means, such fastings are real proofs of fidelity to Christ. They are like the scars of the true soldier. (b) An absorbing pre-occupation with any pursuit may be the cause of fasting. The artist or the scientist may forget to take food, in the intensity of his application to his Avork ; or any great emo- tion like sorrow may make one ' forget to take bread.' Such a fast we have in Ac 9^, where St. Paul, we are told, was witliout food for three days after his conversion. As Jesus fasted in the wU derness (Mt 4'""), or at the well forgot His hungei (Jn 43''- )> so the ferment of the new life acted on St. Paul thus also. Fasting is not the cause of such pre-occupation, but the effect ; and so its value depends on the nature of the emotion causing it.f Such involuntary privations, however, are not fast- ing in the proper sense. In themselves they are morally indiflerent, as they may overtake any one irrespective of moral conditions ; but, when borne bravely and contentedly in the line of Christian duty, they are not only indications of true faith, but in turn they strengthen that faith (Ro 5^"^, Ph 4"). (c) Real fasting is purposive and voluntary. It is a total or partial abstinence from food for an unusual period, or from certain foods always or at certain times, for a moral or religious end. Such a fast is mentioned in Ac 13'-- * 14-'^ in connexion with ordination. It is associated with prayer. Some hold that it was the form to ' be permanently observed ' in such cases (Ramsay, St. Paul, 1895, p. 122). There is no mention, however, of fasting at the appointment of Matthias (Ac P^), or of the seven (G"). We cannot, therefore, take it as inher- ently binding on Christian Churches at such .solem- nities. It is rather the survival of ancient religious practices (like the fasting on the Day of Atone- ment), which on the occasions referred to were adopted through the force of custom, and served • These are sometimes explained as voluntary fasts — to use Hooker's expression (Ecc. Pol. v. 72. 8) — but the contexts seem decisive against that view. t This Vk'as probably what Jesus had in view in the saying in Mt 915. ABSTmENCE ABSTINENCE to solemnize the proceedings. The Atonement fast (Ac 27*) is mentioned only as a time limit after which navigation was dangerous. It is not said that St. Paul fasted on that day, though prohably he did. These Jewish survivals were conserved without investigation by the Palestinian Church, though, after what Jesus had said on fasting, we may be- lieve that the spiritual condition of the believer, rather than the performance of the outward rite, would be the essential element. Pharisiaism, how- ever, follows so closely on the heels of ritual that in some quarters it very early influenced Christi- anity (cf. Did. i. 3 : ' P'ast for those who persecute you' ; and Epiph. H(er. Ixx. II : 'When they \i.e. the Jews] feast, ye sliall fast and mourn for them ' ; cf. also Polycarp, vii. 2 ; Hernias, Vis. iii. 10. 6 ; and, in the same connexion, the interpolations in the NT [Mt 17^1, Mk 9-», Ac 10=*", 1 Co 7^]). Even the Pharisaic custom of fasting twice a week (Monday and Thursday) was adopted in some quarters, though these days were changed to Wed- nesday and P'riday (Did. viii. 1). These are the later dies stationum or crrdaeis (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 12, p. 877). See EBE v. 844^ To evaluate the practice of fasting, we must look to the end aimed at and the efficacy of this means to attain that end. (1) In many cases it would be mainly a nuitter of tradition. On any eventful occasion men might practise fasting, to ratify a decision or induce solemnity, as those Jews did who vowed to kill St. Paul (Ac 23^^). Under such a category would fall the Paschal and pre-baptismal fasts. Though not mentioned in the NT, they were early practised in the Christian Church (Eus. BE V. 24 ; Did. vii. ; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61). Tliere can be no doubt that ordination and bap- tismal and Paschal fasts may serve to solemnize tliese events, yet there is no warrant for making them an ecclesiastical rule. In such traditional fasting there is often, conscious! j^ or unconsciously, implicated the feeling that God is thereby pleased and merit acquired, and the result in such cases is Pharisaic complacency and externalism. Jesus, following the great prophets (Is 58^"'', Zee 8^*), had relegated outward rites to a secondary place. He demanded secrecy, sincerity, and simplicity in all tliese matters, and the Apostolic Church never wiioUy lost sight of His guidance. St. James, while emphasizing the value of prayer (5^"^°), says nothing of fasting, and he makes real ritual consist in works of mercy and blameless conduct (P^). Even when fasting was enjoined, the danger of externalism was recognized ( Hermas, Sim. v. 1 ; Barn. ii. 10 ; Justin Martyr, Dial. 15). St. Paul had to prove that such fastings could not be re- demptively of any value, that they were not bind- ing, that they did not place the observer of them on a higher spiritual plane than the non-observer, that even as means of discipline they were of doubtful value, and that they were perpetually liable to abuse (Col 2-»ff). (2) Fastings were used in certain cases to induce ecstatic conditions. This is a well-known feature in apocalyptic writings. Perhaps the Colossi an heretics did this (cf. & eSpaKcv ifx^arevwu, Col 2'^). St. John and the other Apostles with him are said to have fasted three days before writing tlie Fourth Gospel (Muratorian fragment). The Apocalypse, however, though a opacrts (vision), is lacking in the usual accompaniments of a vision, viz. prayer and fasting (contrast Hermas, Sim. v. 1). St. Peter's vision (Ac lO^'i") was preceded by hunger, but it was not a voluntary fast ; nor is there any reference to fasting in the case of St. Paul's visions (Ac 16* IB'-'f-, 2 Co 12"-), and the reference in the case of Cornelius (Ac 10^") is a later interpolation. It was more when direct prophetic inspiration be- came a memory rather than when it was a reality that men resorted to fasting in order to superin- duce it. (3) Fasting was resorted to also that alms might be given out of the savings. ' If there is among them a man that is poor and needy, and they have not an abundance of necessaries, they fast for two or three days, that they may supplj' the needy with necessary food ' (Aristides, Apology, xv.). Cf. also Hermas, Sim. v. 3. 7 : ' Beckon up on this day what thy meal would otherwise have cost thee, and give the amount to some poor widow or orphan, or to the poor.' Origen (hom. in Levit. x.) quotes an apostolic saying which supports this practice : ' We have found in a certain booklet an apostolic saying, " Blessed is also he who fasts that he may feed the poor " ' (' Invenimus in quodam lihello ab apostolis dictum— Beatus est qui etiam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem '). This saying might legitimately be deduced from such passages as Eph 4-^ and Ja 2"*, but the prac- tice easily associated itself with the idea of fasting as a work of merit. ' More powerful than prayer is fasting, and more than both alms.' 'Alms abolish sins' (2 Clem. xvi. 4 ; cf. Hermas, Sim. V. 3). Fasting done out of Christian love to the brethren is noble ; but, when done to gain salvation, it be- comes not only profitless but dangerous. ' Though I give all my goods to feed the poor and have not love, it protiteth me nothing' (1 Co 13^). (4) Again, fasting may have been viewed as giving power over demons (cf. Clem. Hom. ix. 9 ; Tertullian, de Jejuniis, 8 : ' Docuit etiam adversus diriora demonia jejuniis praeliandum ' ; cf. Mt 17^S Mk 9-^). Some find this view in the narrative of the Temptation (see EBi, art. ' Temptation '). This view of fasting, grotesque as it appears to us, is akin to the truth that surfeiting of the body dulls the spiritual vision, and that the spiritual life is a rigorous discipline (cf. 1 Co 9^'-''). What strikes one in the apostolic writings gener- ally, as contrasted with later ecclesiastical litera- ture, is the scarcity of references to fasting as an outward observance. Nowhere is the tradi- tional Church ascetic held up to imitation in the NT, as Eusebius ( HE ii. 23) holds up St. James, or Clement of Alexandria (Pferf. ii. 1) St. Matthew, or the Clem. Ho?n. (xii. 6, xv. 7) St. Peter, or Epiph- anius (Hcer. Ixxviii. 13) the sons of Zebedee. In the NT the references to fasting are almost all incidental, and apologetic or hostile. It is regarded as due to weakness of faith, or positive perversion. Neither St. John, St. James, St. Jude, nor St. Peter once mentions it as a means of grace. This silence, it is true, ought not to be unduly pressed ; yet it is surely a proof that they considered fasting as of no essential importance. Its revival in the Christian Church was due to traditionalism and legalism on the one hand, and to ascetic dualism (Orphic, Platonic, Essenic) on the other. In the NT the latter influence is strenuously opposed (Colossians and Pastorals), and the former is as vigorously rejected when it makes itself necessary to salvation, although it is tenderly treated when it is only a weak leaning towards old associations. The whole spirit of apostolic Christianity regards fasting as of little or no importance, and the experience of the Christian Church seems to be that any value it may have is infinitesimal compared with the evils and perversions that seem so inseparably associ- ated with it. According to Eusebius (HE v. 18), Montanus was the first to give laws to the Church on fasting. The NT is altogether opposed to such ecclesiastical laws. The matter is one for the indi- vidual Christian intelligence to determine (Ro 14^). St. Paul's language in 1 Co 9"^^- has been ad- duced in support of self-torture of all kinds ; but, while we must not minimize the reality of Christian ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE discipline, nothing can be legitimately deduced from this passage or any other in favour of fasting or flagellation as a general means of sanctification, nor is the Apostle's view based on a dualism Avliich looks on matter and the human body as inherently evil. It may be said that interpolations like 1 Co 7« (cf. Ac 103", Mt lT-\ Mk 9^9) reveal the beginnings of that ascetic resurgence which reached its climax in monastic austerities, and that there is at least a tinge of ascetic dualism in certain Pauline passages (e.g. Ro 8", 1 Co 5^ 7^"® 9"-^, 2 Co 41"- ", Col 3^) ; but even those who hold this view of these Pauline passages admit 'that there is very little asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in St. Paul's Epistles, while there is much that makes in the opposite direction ' (McGiffert, Apostol. Age, 1897, p. 136). We shall see, however, when we come to deal with the principles of abstinence as unfolded by St. Paul, that even this minimum residuum has to be dropped. We may conclude, then, that, according to the NT, fasting is not enjoined or even recommended as a spiritual help. The ideal is life with the Risen Christ, which involves not only total renunciation of all sinful actions but self-restraint in all conduct. When the individual Christian finds fasting to be a part of this self-restraint, then it is useful ; but one fails to find any proof in the NT that fasting is necessarilj' an element of self-restraint. When it is an etiect of an absorbing spiritual emotion, or when practised to aid the poor, or involuntarily undergone in the straits of Christian duty, then it is highly commendable. 2. The use of wine. — While drunkenness as well as gluttony is sternly condemned, nowhere is total abstinence, in our sense, enforced. In one passage it has even been contended that St. Paul indirectly opposes it (1 Ti 5^), but his words in our time would be simply equivalent to medical advice to the ett'ect that total abstinence as a principle must be subordinated to bodily health. Thus, while total abstinence is in itself not an obligatory duty, it may become so on the principle that we ought not to do anything by which our brother stumbles, or is ottended, or is made weak (1 Co 8^*). This principle, which is equally applicable to fasting, must be considered in deciding the Christian at- titude towards all outward observances. While Christianity recognizes the indifferent nature of these customs, while its liberty frees Christians from their observance, yet cases may arise when this liberty has to be subordinated to love and the interests of Christian unity. In 1 Co 8 the Apostle is dealing wdth the conditions of his own time ; our conditions did not engage his attention. Christian abstainers can find an adequate defence for their position in the degrading associations of strong drink in our modern life. On the other hand, total abstinence from strong drink is no more a univer- sally binding duty than fasting is, nor are ecclesi- astical rules called for in the one case more than in the other.* Both these customs fall within the sphere of things indifferent, and are to be deter- mined by the individual in the light of the nature of the Christian life, which is 'neither meat nor drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost' (Ro 14"). 3. Marriage and celibacy. — We are not here concerned with the NT doctrine of marriage (q.v.) in its totalitj', but Mith the question as to whether celibacy is commanded as a superior grade of living, and as to whether this is based on a dualistic view which regards the sexual functions as in their very nature evil. To begin with, marriage is viewed Vjy St. Paul as being in general a human necessity, as •The 'water-folk' found in the Eastern Church in the 3rd cent (who objected to wine at the Lord's Supper), cannot appeal to XT principles for a justification of their actions. indeed a preventive against incontinency. It is a ' part of his greatness that, in spite of his own somew^iat ascetic temperament, he was not blind to social and physiological facts' (Drummond, quoted in EGT on 1 Th 4'*). He recommends those who can to remain single as he is himself. In view of the approaching world-end in which he believed, marriage meant the multiplication of troubles that would make fidelity to Christ more difficult ; and perhaps in this light also the propagation of the race was undesirable. It is possible also that he may have been here influenced unconsciously by his Rabbinical training, and that he interpreted his own case as too generally applicable. He was a celibate for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Mt 1910-12^^ and he may have made the mistake of de- siring to universalize his own exceptional case. Yet there is no ground for the view that celibacy in itself is a superior form of life. * St. Paul does not say that it can produce that life or is necessary to it, but when it is a consequence of it, then it is of value. It is the supremacy of single-hearted devotion to Christ that he holds out as an ideal, and his view is that in some cases marriage en- dangers this. Again, marriage is not to him simply a preventive against uncleanness (see art. Soberness). It is also the object of sanctification, and its relations have their own honour (1 Th 4*; see Marriage, Virginity). He uses it as an illustration of the highest relationship ; he opposes those who prohibit it (I Ti 4^) owing to a false asceticism. It is true he does not there give reasons, as he does in the case of abstinence from food, because the same principle applies to both cases. While, then, we may admit that on this ques- tion his view was narrow, we may say with Sabatier (The Apostle Paul, Eng. tr., 1891, p. 164) that ' this narrowness, for which he has been so greatly blamed, does not arise from a dualistic asceticism. There is no dualism to be found in Paul's doctrine.' 4. World-flight is not encouraged in the NT. Slaves even are warned to abide in their situations, knowing that they are God's freemen (see art. Abuse). The necessity of labour is unfolded in the Thessalonian Epistles, against the practice of those who had given up work under eschatological influences. World-flight is not conquering the world, but rather giving up the idea of conquering it, abandoning the battlefield, and, as such, is contrary to the apostolic view. St. Paul did not, it is true, expatiate after the manner of modern moralists on the dignity of labour, t but he did insist on ' the divineness of those obligations and ties which constitute man's social life. . . .' The institutions of society — 'marriage, the state, the rights of possession — are of Divine appointment, and must be upheld and honoured, however short the time before the order to which they belong shall pass away forever ' (Stevens, Theol. of NT, 1899, p. 454). II. Ascetic principles. — Abstinence is wider than fasting or outward observances ; it implies principles by which these external actions are determined, and it keeps in view also the inner reality of which they are the expression. It in- cludes character as well as conduct. Indeed, it is this inward reality which is mainly of value in the Christian ideal of abstinence. 1. The verb do-Ktiv occurs only once in the NT (Ac 24^®), in this sense of a life whose activities are explained, in the way both of omission and com- mission, by an inner principle. St. Paul was accused of deliberately ott'ending Jewish legal sus- * Harnack (on Did. xi. 8) thinks Eph 532 recommends celibacy as a higher life for the Christian. See, however, Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, 1885, p. 202. t See Ilarnack's What is Christianity i (Eng. tr., 1904, p 123 ff.) for remarks qualifying the idea underlying the phrase, ' the dignity of labour.' ABSTINENCE ABSTINENCE ceptibilities. He denies the charge. AYhile he adheres to the heresy of 'the Way,' he does so without intentionally coming into collision with the customs or prejudices of others. Not only so, Vjut his plan is a studied attempt to conform to all customs of Jew and Gentile, of ' weak ' and 'strong,' consistently with his faithfulness to God and his being under law to Christ. This is his &y using severity towards the body or by abstaining from marriage or leaving our earthly callings that we can gain further sanctific-atiou. In ABUSE, ABUSEES ABYSS 11 fact, St. Paul says that this d 8'^ 11^; oeKTds, Pli 4^* ; dTroSeKTos, 1 Ti 2^ 5'^ ; ■n-poaS^xoiJi.o.L, He 1P5 . ei/7rp6(r5eKros, Ro \b^^- ^i, 2 Co 6'^ 8^2, 1 P 2^. We also hnd Xafx^dvo:, Gal 2" ; evapearos,* Ro 12'" - 14'8, 2 Co 5^ Eph 5'«, Fh 4'^ Col 3-», Tit 2^, He IS^i, and (vapiarws.* He 12-'* ; x'^P'^i 1 P 2-" ; and x^f'-'^^'^y Eph l*". It should be noticed that in the RV the adjective ' well-jileasing ' often takes the place of the AV ' acceptable ' ; and that in Eph P the familiar expression ' (his grace) wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved ' gives place to the more correct ' which he freely bestowed upon us,' etc. See the conmientaries of Westcott and Arniitage Robinson, in loc. 2 Co 8" (Titus 'accepted the exhortation') and He IP^ ('not accepting deliverance') do not call for comment. With 2 Co IP on the non-accept- ance of another gospel than that of Paul, compare 1 Ti P and 4^, 2 Ti P^ 4i» ; see also for the ' accepted time' (the day of opportunity for accepting the Divine message) 2 Co 6'-"'^ (cf. Lk 4^«). In Ro lo^i St. Paul hopes that the collection for the Jerusalem poor may be acceptable to the saints ; and, refer- ring to the same project in 2 Co 8^^, lays down tlie principle that contributions are acceptable in pro- portion to the willingness with which they are given. We are now left with the passages which speak of God's acceptance of man. Christians are ' child- ren of light,' are to ' prove what is acceptable (or well-pleasing) to the Lord' (Eph 5'» ; cf. Col 3'-"), to test and discern the Lord's will (Ro 12^). They are ' to make it their aim,' whether living or dying, ' to be well-pleasing to him ' (2 Co 5®). What then are the principles and practices that ensure tliis hap[)y consummation ? We may Hrst notice the familiar negative projiosition set forth in Gal 2'' and Ac lO^'* ' God accepteth no man's person ' (i.e. the mere outward state and presence) ; and over against it the comprehensive declaration of Ac 10^' ' In every nation he that feareth God ■ md workcth righteousness is acceptable to him.' This furni-hes a starting-point for a detailed enum- eration of tiie courses which are 'well-pleasing' to God, and which may be set forth as follows: the ottering of our bodies as a living sacrifice (Ro 1'2'-) ; the serving of Ciirist by not putting stumbling- blocks before weaker brethren (14'*) ; missionary work — the ' ottering up " of the Gentiles ( 15"*) ; the gift of the Philippian Church to St. Paul in prison * On the use of these words in inscriptions see A. Deissmann, liible Slndieg, 21if. The use of apeo-rov, 'pleasing,' and the verb apiuKui in the NT should also be noted. (Ph 4'8 ; cf. Mt 2531-^s) ; filial aff"ection to a widowed mother (1 Ti 5'') ; supplication and intercession for all men (1 Ti 2=*) ; undeserved suttering patiently endured (1 P 2'-"). All these may be looked upon as examples of the 'spiritual sacrifices' (1 P 2^), the offering of ' service with reverence and awe ' (He Fi-** ; cf. 13'''), which are 'acceptable' to God. He it is who ' works in us that which is well-pleas- ing in his sight through Jesus Christ ' (He 13-'). It is interesting and instructive to comiiare the grounds of ' acceptance ' in the circle of OT thought with those in the NT. In the former these grounds are partly ceremonial (Lv 22-'*), and partly ethical (Is I'-'i", Jer 6'-'* etc.), though here and there a higher note is struck (cf. Pr''2P, Mic 6^, Dt 10-*) ; in the latter the ceremonial association has entirely vanished except in a metaphorical sense, and be- come purely ethico-spiritual, as the above references prove. It was largely due to the prophets that the old ceremonial ground was gradually ethicized ; and, though it never died out under the earlier ' dispensation ' (which, indeed, reached its most rigid and mechanical development in the degener- ate Pharisaic cult of NF times), the way was ertectually prepared for the full proclamation of the spiritual message of the gospel by Jesus, who was Himself the perfect embodiment of ali thiit was acceptable and well-pleasing to God (cf. Mk P^, Mt 17^ JnS^^etc). There is a theological problem of importance raised by these passages — What is it that consti- tutes the ground of our acceptance with God ? The full treatment of this problem must be sought under the art. JUSTIFICATION, but the following considerations may be properly adduced here. Unquestionably the Christian religion is a religion of Grace, as contra-distinguished from Judaism and other faiths, which are religions of Law. Salvation, according to the NT throughout (explicitly in the writings of St. Paul, more or less implicitly else- where), is of God, and not of man ; not our own doings, but willingness to accept ivhat He has done for us, and what He is ready to do in us, is the condition of initial inclusion within the Kingdom of Divine love and life. This is the watershed which determines the direction and flow of all subsequent doctrinal developments in Christian theology ; it is what settles the question whether our thoughts and practice are distinctively Christian or not. There are, however, two alternative perils to be carefully avoided — antinomianism, on the one hand, which assumes our continued accei)tance with God irrespective of our moral conduct after- wards ; and the doctrine of salvation by works, on the other, which makes moral conduct the condi- tion of acceptance, thus surreptitiously introduc- ing the legal view of religion once more. This ' Either — Or ' is, however, a false antithesis, from which we are saved by the recognition of the ' mystical union ' of the l)eliever with God in Christ. By that act of faith, in virtue of which the sinner ' accepts ' Christ and ajipropriates all that He is and has done, he passes from a state of condemna- tion into a state of grace (Ro 8'), and is henceforth ' in Christ ' — organically united to Him as the member is to the body (1 Co 12'-'-), as the branch is to tiie vine (Jn 15'"'*). This 'justifying faith' is, however, not an isolated act ; it is an act that brings us into a [lermanent relation witli the source of spiritual life. Now, 'good works' in the Cliristian sense are a necessary proof and outcome of this relation, and as such are well-pleasing or ' acce])table' to God, because (a) they are a mani- festation of the spirit of Christ in us (Gal 2-" ; cf. V.-'); and (6) a demonstration of the continuance of the believer 'in Christ' (Jn 15« ; cf. Mt 5'8, Ph P"'-)- The relation of the believer to Christ, in other words, while it is religious in its root, ia ACCESS ACCESS 13 ethical in its fruit, and the quality and abundance of the latter naturally show the quality and potency of the faith-life of ■which it is the expression and outcome. Thus our ' works ' do not constitute our claim for acceptance with God after entering the Kingdom of Grace any more than before ; but they determine our place vjithin tlie Kingdom. There is an aristocracy of the spiritual as well as of the natural life ; the saved are one in the fact of salva- tion, but not in the magnitude of their attainments or the quality of their influence ; and they are more or less acceptable to God according to the entireness of their consecration and the value of their service. There is thus an adequate motive presented to us for perpetual striving after perfection, and St. Paul's spiritual attitude — ' not as though I had already attained, but I follow after' (Ph 3^-) — is the normal attitude of every true believer (cf. Col po-'-, 1 Th 41-^ 1 Jn 3-'2). It was given only to One to be altogether well-pleasing to God ; but it is the unfading ideal, and tiie constant endeavour of His true diisciples to follow in His steps, and in all things to become more and more like Him, as well as 'well-pleasing' to Him. See, further, artt. JUSTIFICATION, etc., and Litera- ture there specified. E. Griffith- J ONES. ACCESS.— This word in the Epistles of the NT is the translation of the Greek word irpoa-ayooyTj (Ro 5-, Eph 2's 3'- ; cf. 1 P 3'», where the verb is used actively). It has been treated very thoroughly in DCG {s.v. ). Here we shall conhne ourselves to — 1. The connotation of the word. — In classical Greek, the term Trpoaayuyevs was used primarily for ' one who brings to,' ' introduces to another as an intermediary,' mainly in a derogatory sense (cf. TTpocraywyevs Xrj/jL/jidTwv, one wlio liunts for another's licnefit — a jackal [Dem. 750. 21 ; cf. Aristid. ii. 369, 395] ; the spies of the Sicilian kings were called Trpo(Tayo}-/€h, ' tale-bearers ' [Plut. ii. 522 D]). It was, however, used later in a technical sense, the court wpoaayuyevs being a functionary whose business it was to bring visitors or suppliants into the king's presence. Trpocrayoryrj came thus to mean access to the royal presence and favour. It is from this association of ideas that the word derives its religious connotation in the NT. God is con- ceived in the kingly relation (as frequently in the OT), as one who.se favour is sought and found, and Christ as the irpoaay^jiyevs who introduces the sinner into the Divine presence. It is thus a form of words representing Him in the light of a Mediator between God and man ; and it throws light on the relation of the three parties in the transaction. 2. The light thrown on the character and attitude of God towards man. — The kingly con- cept represents God as supreme, one to whom all allegiance is due, and who has the power of life and death over all His subjects. In the OT, Jahweh, especially in the Psalms, is often repre- sented as the King of His people Israel (cf. Ps 10^® 24S-1U 444 472 68J4 etc.). It is noticeable, however, that in most of these passages the Oriental awe in which all potentates were habitually held is suffused with a sense of joy and pride in God as Israel's King ; His power, favour, and victorious character are mainly dwelt on. The idea which lies behind the NT references, however, is rather that of the difficulty of approach to the King's presence, not merely on account of His loftiness and majesty, but of His alienation, which demands a process of reconciliation. It suggests tliat the normal relation of the King and His subjects has been disturbed by rebellion or wrong-doing. The Divine dignity has been outraged, and His claim to obedience set at defiance. There is thus no longer a right of admittance to the Divine presence, unless the wrong is righted and the lost favour restored ; and, till that has been secured, the protection and kindly attitude of God can no longer be relied on. 3. The light thrown on the condition and attitude of man towards Gcd. — The suggestion is that man is conscious of Ijeing alienated from God by sin ; that he has no contidence in approaching God in consequence, being uncertain of his recej)- tion ; that he knows of nothing which he can do to restore the lost relation ; and that he is deeply sensible of the shame and peril of his condition. Tlie conception of the effects of evil-doing as separating God and man is one that runs through the priestly ritual of Judaism (cf. also the pro- phetic declaration in Is 59^ 'your iniquities have separated between you and your God'), and corre- sponds to a fact in the consciousness of pil awakened sinners. In the earlier experience of ... Paul this feeling was evidently poignantly emphasized ; and the sense of deliverance that came to him through the gospel may be taken as the measure of the pain and sorrow from which he had been delivered. i. The function fulfilled by Christ as the One through whom the renewal of the lost relation between God and man was accomplished. — The word Trpoaaywyrj is insufficient to represent this function. In itself it stands for the work of a functionary whose role is to act as a merely official link between the two parties, having no active part in the process of reconciliation, and having therefore no claim to the gratitude of the bene- ficiary in the process. On the other hand, the apostolic use of the word in its reference to the person and work of Christ includes the suggestion that the ' access ' to God refen-ed to has been accomplished by Christ Himself, and an over- whelming sense of gratitude is awakened by this fact. This appears in the four passages in which the word is used, especially in the last (1 P 3'^). According to this, the bringing of man to God is effected through the work of Christ in His Passion ; 'because Christ also suffered for sins once (a-n-a^, meaning here 'once for all' = a fact accomplished), the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us (Trpoaaydyrj) to God,' i.e. restore us to His favour, and lead us to the benefits of the Divine reconciliation. In Ro 5-, again, the ' access ' receives its meaning and privilege through its consummation in and bj- Christ, ' through whom we have also (/cat, ' copulat et auget' [Toletus], ' answering almost to our " as might be expected " ' [Alford]) got [i(xxhKa.p.iv) our {t7}v) access (introduc- tion) by our {rfi) faith, into this grace wherein we stand ' (see DCG i. 13*). Here tlie Person of the TTpoaaywyevs is chiefly thought of (' this has come to us through Him ') ; and the resulting beneflt is urged as a reason for holy exultation, since it means justification as a ground for ' rejoicing in the hope of glory.' In Eph 2'* a slightly different emphasis is suggested : 'for through Him we both {i.e. Jew and Gentile) have our access in one spirit unto the Father.' Here that revelation of God, not as uni- versal King but as the All-Father, which came through Jesus Christ, is included in the benefit secured by Him for mankind at large, and the reconciliation of humanity at variance with itself as well as with God is brought into the circle of mediation (cf. v.''* 'for he is our peace [i.e. He is the peace-maker, the TrpoTaywyevs between us, Jew and Gentile, who were once far oft" from each other] who hath made lx)th one' by His blood [v.13]). Through this word we are thus led into the deep places of tlie gospel as the reconciling agency of God to man, man to God, and man to man. LrrERATCRB. — To the literature in the DCG add John Foster, Lectures, 1853, ii. 69 ; R. W. Dale, The Jewish Temple and the ChrisUan Church, 1877, p. 205 ; A. J. Gordon, The Tu-o/old Life, 18S6, p. 175 ; W. M. Macgregor, Jesus Christ the Smi oj God, 1907, p. 175. E. GRIFFITH-JoNES. 14 ACCOUNT ACHAICUS ACCOUNT. — It will be sufficient merely to mention the use of the verb 'account' (\oylfofj.ai) in the sense of ' reckon,' ' deem,' ' consider' (Ro 8***, 1 Co 41, He ll'^ 2 P 3'5). Simple uses of the noun are found in Ac 19^", when the 'town-clerk' {q.v.) of Ephesus warns his fellow-citizens of the difficulty of giving ' account (\6yos) of this concourse ' ; and in Ph 4'" ' the fruit that increaseth to your account.' The only significant passages where the word is found are those dealing with the Judgment. Tlie declaration in Ro W^, 'Each one of us shall give account of himself to God,' must be studied in the light of the paragraph (vv.'^-i^) of which it is the conclusion. Those who are them- selves liable to judgment must not set themselves up as judges of one another, either to make light of sincere scruples or to reprove laxity. For one man to judge another is to usurp the prerogative of God, to whom alone (as universal sovereign and object of worship) man is answerable. The passage should be compared with 2 Co 5^", where the ' judg- ment-seat ' is called Christ's ; see also 1 Co 4^. St. Paul applies this doctrine, which is found in the Synoptic Gospels and was an integral part of primitive Christian teaching, to Jew and Gentile, to himself and his converts, to those who have died before the Parousia and those who are alive at it. The life in the body provides the oppor- tunity for moral action, and by the use they have made of it men are sentenced (cf. Gal 6**). A. Menzies {Com. on 2 Cor.) calls attention {a) to this aspect of the Judgment in contrast with that which represents the saints as judging the world and angels (1 Co 6-^- ; cf. Mt 19-») ; (6) to the incon- sistency between the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the doctrine of final judgment of men according to their actions. There is, however, in the present writer's opinion, no inconsistency here. The NT generally represents the saved as judged as well as the unsaved. The judgment of the latter, however, is retributory and involves rejection ; that of the former is for a place, higher or lower, within the heavenly Kingdom ; and this place is in accordance with the faithfulness and quality of their service while in the body. St. Paul, as the above references prove, is emphatic as to the fact and nature of this judgment (cf. 1 Co 3'^''^), and shows that, however true it is that salvation is by grace, there will be gradations in standing and in reward in the after-life. This is in harmony with the teaching of our Lord in the Synoptics, especially in the parables of service and reward (Lk 19i8-2» etc. ; cf. Mk 10^»). Cf. also, as to the fact of the saints having to give an account of their earthly stewardship, He 13''', 1 P 4^ : ' [evil- doers and slanderers of Christians] shall give account to him that is ready to judge tlie quick and the dead ' (in 1" to the Father, in V^ and 5^ to Christ). These may be regarded as special instances of the General Judgment already referred to. The expression dnodLOovai \6yov generally im- plies that defence is not easy. LiTRRATURE.— See lit. on art. Judgment ; the Comm. in loce. ; W. N. Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theol., 1898, p. 459 ff. E. Griffith-Jones. ACCURSED.— See Anathema. ACCUSATION.— See Trial-at-Law. ACELDAMA.— See Akeldama. ACHAIA. — Achaia {'Axa'ta) was, in the classical period, merely a strij) of fertile coast-land stretch- ing along the soutli of the Gulf of Corinth, from the river Larisus, which separated it from FAia, to tlie Sythas, which divided it from Sicyonia, while tne higher mountains of Arcadia bounded it on the south. Its whole length was about 65 miles, its breadth from 12 to 20 miles, and its area about 650 sq. miles. The Achseans were probably the remnant of a Pelasgian race once distributed over the whole Peloponnesus. Though they were celebrated in the heroic age, they rarely figured in the great Hellenic period, keeping themselves as far as possible aloof from the conflicts between the Ionian and Doric States, happy in their own almost uninterrupted prosperity. It is not till the last struggle for Hellenic independence that they appear on the stage of history. The cities which formed the famous Achaean League became the most powerful political body in Greece ; and, when the Romans subdued the country (146 B.C.), they at once honoured the brave con- federation and spared the feelings of all the Hellenes by calling the new province not Greece but Achaia. As constituted by Augustus in 27 B.C., the province included Thessaly, ^tolia, Acharnania, and part of Epirus (Strabo, XVII. iii. 25), being thus almost co-extensive with the modern kingdom of Greece. As a senatorial province Achaia was governed by a proconsul, who was an ex-prajtor. In A.D. 15 Tiberius took it from the Senate, adding it to Macedonia to form an Imperial province under the government of a legatus ; but in 44 Claudius re- stored it to the Senate. ' Proconsul ' (avBdiraros, Ac 18^^) was therefore the governor's correct official title at the time of St. Paul's residence in Corinth. Nero, as 'a born Philhellene,' wished to make Greece absolutely free. ' In gratitude for the recognition which his artistic contribu- tions had met with in the native land of the Muses . . . [he] declared the Greeks collectively to be rid of Roman govern- ment, free from tribute, and, like the Itahans, subject to no governor. At once there arose throughout Greece movements, which would have been civil wars, if these people could have achieved anything more than brawling ; and after a few months Vespasian re-established the provincial constitution, so far as it went, with the dry remark that the Greeks had unlearned the art of being free ' (Mommsen, Provinces, i. 26'2). To the end of the empire Achaia remained a senatorial province. The administrative centre was Corinth [q.v.), where the governor had his official residence. During a prolonged mission in that city, St. Paul was brought into contact with the proconsul Gallio [q.v.], the brother of Seneca. The rapid progi'ess of the gospel in Achaia is partlj^ explained by the fact that Judaism had already for centuries been working as a leaven in many of the cities of Greece. Sjjarta and Sicj^on are named among the numerous free States to which the Romans sent letters on behalf of the Jews about 139 B.C. (1 Mac 15-^), and VhWo's Legatio ad Gaium (§ 36) testifies to the presence of Jews in Boeotia, yEtolia, Attica, Argos, and Corinth. Only three Achpean cities are mentioned in the NT — Athens, Corinth, and CenchrciC — but the address of 2 Cor. to ' all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia,' and the liberality of 'the regions of Achaia' (2 Co 9^ 11'°), prove that there must have beeo many other unnamed centres of Christian faith and life in the province. While 1 Co 16'^ refers to the house of Stephanas as 'the firstfruits of Achaia,' Ac 17^ rather indicates that the Apostle's brief visit to Athens had already borne some fruit, ' Dionysius, Damaris, and others with them ' being Achjean believers. Athens (q.v.) was either reckoned by itself or else entirely overlooked. Literature. — The Histories of Polybius and Livy ; A. Holm, Hititory of Greece, Eng. tr. London, 1894-98, vol. iv. ; T. Momm- sen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire-, Eng. tr., Lmidiui, 19119, i. 260 ff. ; J. Marquardt, Rom. Stnatsverwaltmir), tievveil., Leipzig, 18S5, i. 321 f. ; C. v. Weizsacker, Apostolic A■ Is best represented bj- 55 (D = Codex Bezae*), 1001 (E = Codex Laudianus t) ; by three pairs of connected MSS, 7 (Apl. 261)-264 (233), 200 (83)-382 (231), 70 (505>-101 (40) ; and by a few other MSS which have suffered more or less severely from E con- tamination. It is also well represented in the text of the com- mentary of Andreas (A'^P). /b is found in two branches, /bi and /b2. The best representatives of /w are 62 (498), 6602 (200), 365 (214 = as<='")and a few other minuscules ; the best representa- tives of ib2 are the pair 78 ('von der Goltz's MS') and 171 (7) which are almost doublets, and 157 (29). I'^ is also found in two branches 7=1 and /c2. The best representatives of 7 i^i are 208 (307), 370 (353), 116(-), 551 (216) ; the best representatives of Vc^ are 364 (137) X and a series of other MSS contaminated in varying degrees by K. 2. The Latin Versions. — The Old Latin or ante- Hieronymian text is not well represented. As in the Gospels, it may be divided into two main branches, African and European. (1) The African is represented by Codex Floriacensis (h), now at Paris, formerly at Fleury, containing a text which is almost identical with that of Cyprian ; it is in a very fragmentary condition, but fortunately the quotations of Cyprian and Augustine (who uses an African text in Acts, though he follows the Vulgate in the Gospels) enable much of the text to be reconstructed. (The best edition of h is by E. S. Buchanan, Old Latin Biblical Texts, v. [Oxford, 1907].) Accord- ing to Wordsworth and White, a later form of the African text can be found in the pseudo-Augustinian de Divinis Scripturis sive Speculum (CSEL xii. 287-700), but the character of this text is still somewhat doubtful. (2) The European text is best represented by g (Gigas) at Stockholm, which can be supplemented and corrected by the quotations in Ambrosiaster and Lucifer of Cagliari (see esp. A. Souter, ' A Study of Ambrosiaster,' ?'&' vii. 4 [1905]). A branch of the European text of a Spanish or Provengal type is found in p, a I'aris MS from Perpignan, and in w, a Bohemian MS now in Wernigerode, but in both MSS there is much Vulgate contamination. Other primarily European mixed MSS are 8, a Bobbio palimpsest (saec. v.-vi.) at Vienna, x in Oxford, and g2 in Milan. A Spanish lectionary of perhaps the 7th cent, known as the Liber Comious, which has many early readings, has been edited by G. Morin from a Paris MS of the 11th cent, and is quoted by Wordsworth and White as t. (3) Besides these purely Latin MSS, we have the Latin sides of the Gr»co-Latin MS 85 (D) or d (Codex Bezae), and of the Latino-Greek MS 1001 (E) or e. The latter of these agrees in the main with the European text as established b3' g-Ambro- siaster-Lucifer, but the text of d is in many ways unique, and may possibly have been made for the private use of the owner of 65, or perhaps of the archetype of 65. (4) The Vulgate. — It is impossible here to enumerate the hundreds of Vulgate MSS of the Acts. Their study is a special branch of investigation, which has little bearing on the Acts, and for all purposes, except that of tracing the history of the Vulgate, the edition of Wordsworth and White may be regarded as sufficient. 3. The Syriac Versions. — It is probable from the quotations in Aphraates and Ephraim that there existed originally an Old-Syriac Version of Acts, corresponding to the Evnngelion da-MepJiar- reshe represented by the Curetonian and Sinaitic MSS ; but no MS of this type has survived. • This MS is adequately described by F. G. Kenyon {Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT^, 88 ff.) or in other well- known handbooks. t Besides the details noted in the handbooks, it should be observed that this MS, after being- used by Bede in North- umbria, passed to Germany, whence it was probably obtained by Laud, who gave it to the Bodleian Library. { As an instance of the advance in knowledge which von Soden's labours have produced, it should be noted that this MS used to be regarded as one of the principal authorities for the ' Western ' text, and was at one time deemed worthy of a separate edition. 16 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (l)The oldest Svriac Version of the Acts is therefore the Peshitta, probably made by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411- 435) (see F. C. Burkitt, 'S. Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel,' TS vii. 2 [IDUl] p. 57 f.). {X.B.—The Peshitta is quoted by Tischendorf as Syrsch.) „ , , , ^ (2) Besides the Peshitta we have the Earklean made by Thomas of Heraclea. This was based on an earlier Syriac text, made in 506 bv Polycarp for Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis, the modern Membij on the Euphrates), which is no longer extant for Acts. Thomas of Heraclea revised the Philoxenian with the help of Greek MSS in the Library of the Enaton at Alexandria, and enriched his edition with a number of critical notes giviny: the variants of these Greek MSS which often have a most remarkable text agreeing more closely with Codex Bezs than with any other known Greek MS. {N.B.— It is quoted by Tischendorf as Syrp.) (3) There is also a lectionary of the so-called ' Palestinian ' type, which was probably in use about the 7th cent, in the neighbourhood of Antioch. (On the nature of the ' Palestinian ' Syriac literature see F. C. Burkitt, JThSt ii. [1901] 174-185.) i. The Egyptian Versions.— The two Versions, Bohaiiic and Sahidic, which are extant for the Gospels, exist also for Acts, and there are a few fi-agments of Versions in other dialects. The re- lative date of these Versions has not been finally settled, but the opinion of Coptic scholars seems to be increasingly in favour of regarding the Sahidic as the older form. The Bohairic agrees in the main witii the H text, but the Sahidic has many / readings (see E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts, London, 1912, for the best Sahidic text). 5. Secondary Versions. — Versions of Acts are also found in Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Persian, and other languages ; but none of them is of primary importance for the text. 6. Quotations in early writers. — The earliest quotations long enough to have any value for de- termining the text are in Irenseus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, who may be regarded as representing the text of the end of the 2nd cent, in Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. For the 3rd cent, we have Origen and Didymus, representing the Alexandrian school ; Cyprian for Africa, and No- vatian for Italy. For the 4th cent. Athanasius and Cyril represent the later development of the Alexandria text ; Lucifer, Jerome, and Ambrosi- aster represent the text of Rome and Italy ; Augustine, that of Africa ; Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem the Palestinian text, which according to von Soden is I; the later Church writers mostly use the K text, though they sometimes show traces of probably local contamination with H and /. 7. Textual theories. — As soon as textual criticism began to be based on any complete view of the evidence, it became obvious that the chief feature to be accounted for in the text of Acts was the existence of a series of additions in the text in the Latin Versions and Fathers, usually supported by the two great bilingual MSS 55 and 1001 (D and E), frequently by the marginal readings in Syr"arci^ and sporadically by a few minuscules ; opposed to this interpolated text stood the Alexandrian text of 51, 52 (B S), and their allies; while between the two was the text of the mass of MSS agreeing sometimes with one, sometimes with the other, and sometimes combining both readings. (1) The first really plausible theory to meet even part of the facts was Westcott and Hort's {The New Te/itament in Greek, vol. ii. [Cambridge, 1882]), who suggested that the later text {K) was a recension based on the two earlier types. They regarded 55 (Codex Bezse) as representing the 'Western' text, and 51 and 52 as representing as nearly as possible the original text. The weak point in their theory was that they could not explain the existence of the Western text. (2) Founded mainly on the basis of their work, two theories were suggested to supply this deficiency. (a) Rendel Harris (' A Study of Codex Bezte in TS ii. 1 [1891], and Foiir Lectures on the Western Text, Cambridge, 1894) and F. H. Chase (The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezce, London, 1893) thought that retranslation from Latin and Syriac would solve the problem ; but no amount of retranslation will account for the relatively long Bezan additions. (6) F. ^Mdiss, [Acta Apostolorum secundum formam quce videtur JRomanam, Leipzig, 1897, and also in his commentary, Acta Apostolorum, Gottingen, 1895) thought that Luke issued the Acts in two forms : one to Theophilus (the Alexandrian text), and the other for Rome (the Western text); but his reconstruction of the Roman text is scarcely satisfactory, and the style of the additions is not sufficiently Lucan. (3) More recently von Soden [Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1902-1910, p. 1834 fi'.), using the new facts as to the MSS summarized above, has revived Blass's theory in so far that he thinks that the interpolated text witnessed to by 55 and the Latin Versions and Fathers really goes back to a single original ; but, instead of assigning this original to Luke, he attributes it to Tatian, who, he thinks, added a new recension of Acts to his Diatessaron. The weak point in this theory is that the only evidence that Tatian edited the Acts is a passage in Eusebius * which states that he emended 'the Apostle.' This may refer to Acts, but more probably refers to the Ej)istles. Accord- ing to von Soden, the / text did not contain all the interpolations, K contained still fewer, and H contained none. He thinks that in the 2nd cent, there existed side by side the Tatianic text and a non-interpolated text which he calls I-H-K. From these two texts there arose the Latin Version — predominantly Tatianic — and most of the early Fathers were influenced by Tatian. Later on, in the 4th cent., three revisions were made : (a) H, by Hesychius in Alexandria, wiiich preserved in the main the text of I-H-K without the Tatianic ad- ditions, but with a few other corruptions ; (b) K, by Lucian, in Antioch, which had many Tatianic corruptions, as well as some of its own ; (c) /, in Palestine, possibly in Jerusalem, which preserved many Tatianic additions, though in a few cases keeping the I-H-K text against H. 55 (D) is the best example of this text, but has suffered from the addition of a much greater degree of Tatianic corruption than really belongs to the / text, owing to Latin influence. The general relations of the various forms of the text, according to von Soden, can be shown roughly in the following diagram : lU-K H I /b /c KT Obviously this complicated theory cannot be dismissed without much more attention than it has yet received. It may prove that the ' text with additions ' is not Tatianic but is nevertheless a single text in origin. It is also very desirable to investigate how far it is possible to prove that there was an / text, derived from I-H-K, which • TOv S' anoa-ToKov (fmcri To\iJifjpa.(rai tjytovat (US tniSiopdovixevov ai/riav rriv Trjs 4>pd(Teois trvvra^iv (Eus. HE iv. 29. 6). This scarcely sounds as though a series of interpolations was intended. AUTtt OF THE APUiSTLES ACTS or THE APOSTLES 17 nevertheless did not possess, in its oi-iginal state, all the ' Bezan ' interpolations.* If it were possible to say that the interpolations were a connected series (whether Tatianic or not is of minor im- portance), the text in which they are imbedded would become extremely valuable, and we should have no right to argue, as is now often done, that, because the interpolations are clearly wrong, there- fore the text in which they are found is to be condemned. For instance, in Ac 15^^ the Latin text interpolates the Golden Eule into the Apos- tolic decrees. That is no doubt wrong. Bat it does not follow that the text omitting ttviktov, in which this interpolation is placed, is not original. Literature. — The general textual question can be studied in H. von Soden, Die Schriften des NT, Berlin, 1902-1910, esp. pp. 1649-1840 ; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textital Criti- cism, of the XT"^, London, 1912 ; E. Nestle, Einfilhrung in das griech. NT'-i, Gottingen, 1909 (the Eng. tr. is' from an older edition of the period before von Soden) ; K. Lake, The Text oj the AT6, London, 1911. Important for the study of the Latin are von Soden, ' Das lat. NT in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians,' TU xxxiii. [Leipzig, 1909]; and Wordsworth-White, A'ow. Test. Dom. nost. les. Christi secundum edit. S. Hieronymi, vol. ii. pt. i. [Oxford, 1905] which also gives a clear statement of the best editions of the separate MSS of the Old Latin and the Vulgate (pp. v-xv). II. Tradition as to Authorship.— So far back as tradition goes, the Acts is ascribed to St. Luke, the author of the Third Gospel, and com- panion of St. Paul (see, further, Luke). This tradition can be traced back to the end of the 2nd cent. (Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12; Tertull. de Jejuniis, 10; Iren. adv. Hcer. I. xxiii. 1, in. xii. 12 fl"., IV. XV. 1 ; and the Canon of Muratori). If the connexion with the Third Gospel be accepted, as it certainly ouglit to be, the fact that Marcion used the Gosjiel is evidence for the existence of Acts, unless it be thought that the Gospel was written by a contemporary of Marcion who had not yet written Acts. Farther back tradition does not take us : there are no clear proofs of the use of Acts in the Apostolic Fathers (see The New Testa- ynent in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905) or in the early Apologists. (For the later traditions concerning Luke and his writings see Luke.) Tiie value of this tradition must necessarily de- pend on the internal evidence of the book itself. The arguments can best be arranged under the two heads of favourable and unfavourable to the tradition. 1. In favoar of the tradition of Lake's author- ship is the evidence of the ' Ave-sections,' or pass- ages in which the writer speaks in the first person. These are Ac 16'"-" 20^ 2^8 27' 28i«. They form together an apparent extract from a diary, which begins in Troas and breaks oft' in Philippi, on St. Paul's second journey ; begins again in Philippi, on his last journey to Jerusalem ; and continues (with only the apparent break of the episode of St. Paul and the Ephesian elders [20^®"^^] which is told in the third person) until Jerusalem is reached and St. Paul goes to see James ; then breaks oft" again during St. Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and Caesarea ; begins again when St. Paul leaves Caesarea ; and continues until the arrival in Kome, when it finally ceases. It is, of course, theoretically possible that these sections are merely a literary fiction, but this possibility is excluded by the facts (a) that there is no conceivable reason why the writer should adopt this form of writing at these points, and these only, in his narrative ; (6) that by the general consent of critics these passages have all the signs of having really been composed by an eye-witness of the events described. It is, there- * The de Rebaptismate has not yet been sufficiently studied from this point of view. A monograph analyzing its evidence on the lines of F. C. Burkitt's Old Latin and the Itala might be valuable. VOL. I. — 2 fore, only necessary to consider the other possi- bilities : (1) that we have here from the writer of the whole work the descri|)tion of incidents which he had himself seen ; (2) that the writer is here using an extract from the writing of an eye-wit- ness and has preserved the original idiom. The only way of deciding between these two possibilities is to make use of literary criteria, and this has been done in recent years with especial thoroughness by Harnack in Germany and Hawkins in England. For any full statement of tiie case reference must be made to their books ; the prin- ciple, however, and the main results can be summarized. If the writer of Acts is merely using the first person in order to show that he is claiming to have been an eye-witness, the writer of the ' we- clauses' is identical with the redactor of the Gospel and Acts. Now, in the Gospel we know that he was using Mark in many places, and, by noting the redactorial changes in the Marcan sec- tions of Luke, we can establish his preference for certain idioms. If these idioms constantly recur in the ' we-clauses,' it must be either because the ' we-clauses ' were written by the redactor, or be- cause the redactor also revised the 'we-clauses,' but without changing the idiom. As a fact we find that the ' we-clauses ' are more marked by the characteristic phraseology of the redactor than any other part of the Gospel or Acts. We are, therefore, apparently reduced to a choice between the theory that the redactor of the Gospel and Acts wrote the ' we-clauses,' and the theory that he redacted them with more care than any other part of his compilation, except that he allowed the first person to stand. The former view certainly seems the more probable, but not sufficient attention has been paid to the observation of E. Sclmrer (2'hLZ, 1906, col. 405) that the facts would also be ex- plained if the writer of the ' we-clauses ' and the redactor of Acts came from the same Bildungs- sphdre. It would be well if some later analyst would eliminate from both sides the idioms which are common to all writers of good Greek at the period, for undoubtedly an element of exaggera- tion is introduced by the fact that in the Marcan source there were many vulgarisms which all re- dactors would have altered, and mostly in the same way. It should also be noted that there are a few ' Lucanisms ' which are not to be found in the 'we-clauses.' The details on which this argument is based will be found best in J. C. Hawkins, HorcB Synopticce^, Oxford, 1909, pp. 174- 193; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 19-85. There is also a good r6sum6 in J. Moffatt, LNT, p. 294 £f. 2. Against the tradition it is urged ( 1 ) that the presentment of St. Paul is quite different from that in the Pauline Epistles, (2) that on definite facts of history the Acts and Epistles contradict each other ; and it is said in each case that these facts exclude the possibility that the writer of Acts was Luke the companion of St. Paul. (1) The "presentment of St. Paul in the Epistles and in Acts. — It has been urged as a proof that the writer of Acts could not have been a companion of St. Paul, that whereas St. Paul in the Epistles is completely emancipated from Jewish thought and practice, he is represented in the Acts as still loyal to the Law himself, and enjoining its observ- ance on Jews. The points which are really crucial in this argument are (a) St. Paul's circumcision of Timothy (Ac 16^), as contrasted with his teaching as to circumcision in the Epistles ; (/3) his accept- ance of Jewish practice while he was in Jerusalem (Ac 2121^- )) as contrasted with his Epistles, espe- cially Galatians and Romans ; (7) the absence of ' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in Acts ; (5) St. Paul's acceptance of a compromise at the Apostolic 18 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Council (Ac 15), as contrasted with the complete silence of the Epistles as to this agreement. If these four propositions were sound, they would certainly be strong evidence against the Lucan authorship of Acts. But there is much to be said against each of them on the following lines. (a) In Ac 16^ St. Paul circumcises Timothy, but the reason given is that he was partly Jewish. There is no evidence in the Epistles that the Apostle would ever have refused circumcision to a Jew : it was part of the Law, and the Law was valid for Jews. The argument in the Epistles is that it is not valid for Gentiles ; and, though logic ought perhaps to have led St. Paul to argue that Jews also ought to abandon it, there is no proof that he ever did so. It is also claimed that the incident of Titus in Gal 2^ shows St. Paul's strong objection to circumcision ; but in the first place it is emphatically stated that Titus was not a Jew, and in tlie second place it is quite doubtful whether Gal 2'* means that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised, or that, being a Greek, he was not compelled to be circum- cised, though as an act of grace he actually was circumcised. (^) It is quite true that in Ac 2P^^- St. Paul accepts Jewish custom : what is untrue is that it can be shown from his own writings that he was likely to refuse. (7) There certainly is an absence of ' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in the Acts, if we accept the reconstructions which are based on the view that in the Epistles we have a complete exposition of St. Paul's teaching. But, if we realize that the Epistles represent his treat- ment by letter of points which he had failed to bring home to his converts while he was with them, or of special controversies due to the arrival of other teachers, there is really nothing to be said against the picture given in the Acts. (5) If the exegesis and text of Acts be adopted which regard the Apostolic decrees as a compromise based on food-laws, it is certainly very strange that St. Paul should have said nothing about it in Galatians or Corinthians, and this undoubtedly affords a reasonable argument for thinking that the account in Ac 15 is unhistorical, and that it cannot have been the work of Luke. But it must be remembered that there is serious reason for doubting (i.) that the text and exegesis of Ac 15^ point either to a food-law or to a compromise, (ii. ) that Galatians was written after the Council (see G. Resch, 'Das Aposteldecret,' TU xxviii. [1905] 3 ; J. Wellhausen, ' Noten zur Apostel- geschichte,' in GGN, Gottingen, 1907; A. Harnack, Apostelge.ichichte, Leipzig, 1908, p. 188 ff. ; K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, pp. 29ff.,48ff.). (2) Rather more serious are the objections raised to the accuracy of certain definite statements, in the light of contrasting statements in the Epistles, and the conclusion suggested that the writer of Acts cannot have been a companion of St. Paul. Many objections of this kind have been made, but tlie majority are trivial, and the serious ones are really only the following : (a) the description of glossolalia in Ac 2 as compared with 1 Co 12 tl. ; (b) the account of St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts as compared with Gal 2 ; (c) the movements of St. Paul's companions in Macedonia and Achaia in Ac 17'» 18' as compared with 1 Th 3"-8. (a) The account given of glossolalia in 1 Co 14 shows that it was in the main unintelligible to ordinary jjersons. • He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the congregation ' (1 Co 14'' ; cf. vv.*- "• ^) ; 'If any man speaketh in a tongue let one interjnet' (1 Co 14^"). On the other hand, the narrative in Ac 2 describes the glossolalia of the disciples as a miraculous gift of speech that was simultaneously intelligible to foreigners of various nations, each of whom thought that he was listening to his own language. It is argued that this latter glossolalia is as unknown to the historian of psychology as the glossolalia described in 1 Cor. is well known ; and it is suggested that Luke or his source has given a wrong account of the matter. In support of this it must be noted that the immediate judg- ment of the crowd, on first hearing the glossolalia of the disciples, was that they were drunk, and Peter's speech was directed against this imputa- tion. It is not probable that any foreigner ever accused any one of being drunk because he could understand him, and so far the account in Acts may be regarded as carrjnng its own conviction, and showing that behind the actual text there is an earlier tradition which described a glossolalia of the same kind as that in 1 Co 12-14. But, if so, is it probable that a companion of St. Paul would have put forward so ' un-Pauline ' a description of glossolalia ? There is certainly some weight in this argument ; but it is to a large extent discounted by the following considerations. (a) It is not known that Luke was ever with St. Paul at any exhibition of glossolalia. Certainly there is no- thing in Acts to suggest that he was in Corinth. (/3) In all probability we have to deal with a tra- dition which the writer of Acts found in existence in Jerusalem more than twenty years after the events described. Let any one try to find out, by asking surviving witnesses, exactly what happened at an excited revivalist meeting twenty years ago, and he will see that there is room for considerable inaccuracy. (7) To us glossolalia of the Pauline type is a known phenomenon and probable for that reason ; it is a purely physical and almost patho- logical result of religious emotion, while glossolalia of the ' foreign language ' type as described in Acts is improbable. But to a Christian of the 1st cent, both were wonderful manifestations of the Spirit, and neither was more probable than the other. The whole question of glossolalia can be studied in H. Gun- kel, Die Wirkimgen des heiligen Geistes, Gottingen, 1899 ; H. Lietzmann's Commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch zum NT, iii. 2, Tiibingen, 1909 ; J. Weiss, ' 1 Cor." in Meyer's Krit.-Exeg. Kommentar, Gottingen, 1910 (9th ed. of '1 Cor.'). (b) The accounts given in Acts and Galatians of St. PauVs visits to Jerusalem. — The points of divergence, which are serious, are concerned with (a) St. Paul's actions immediately after the con- version ; (/3) his first visit to Jerusalem ; (7) his second visit to Jerusalem. (a) St. PauVs actions immediately after the con- version. — The two accounts of this complex of in- cidents are Ac 9i"-3" and Gal l^^'^K The main points in the two narratives may be arranged thus in parallel columns : — Acts. Galatiaks. 1. Visit to Damascus immedi- 1. Visit to Arabia immediately ately after the conversion. after the conversion. 2. Escape from Damascus and 2. A ' return ' to Damascus. journey to Jerusalem. 3. Retreat from Jerusalem to 3. A visit to Jerusalem ' after Tarsus in Cilicia. three years.' 4. Departure to the ' districts of Syria and Cilicia." The difference between these accounts is obvious, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Acts is here inaccurate. It should be noted, however that the inaccuracy apparently consists in tele scoping togetlier two visits to Damascus and omit ting the Arabian journey which came between them St. Paul, by speaking of his ' return ' to Damascus, implies that the conversion had been in that city and in 2 Co 11*^'* ('in Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damas- cenes to take me, and I was let down in a basket through a window') we have a corroboration of the ACTS OP THE APOSTLES ACTS OP THE APOSTLES 19 escape mentioned in Acts, though it clearly must come after the visit (probably of a missionary character) to Arabia, in order to account for the hostility of Aretas. Thus, so far as the enumera- tion of events is concerned, the inaccuracy of Acts resolves itself into the omission of the Arabian visit, and the consequent telescoping together of two visits to Damascus along with a proportion- ate shortening of the chronology. (/3) St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. — The de- tails of this visit are a more serious matter, and Acts and Galatians cannot fully be reconciled, as is plain when the narratives are arranged in parallel columns. Ac 928-30. ' And when he was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples : and they were all afraid of him, not helieving that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them g'oing in and coming out at Jeru- salem, and he spake and dis- puted against the Hellenists ; but they went about to kill him.' OAL 118-23. • After three years I went up to Jerusalem to become ac- quainted with Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now touching the things which I write to you, before God, I lie not. Then I came into the districts of Sy ria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judsa which were in Christ : but they only heard say. He that persecuted us once now preachelh the faith of which be once made havoc' No argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks of a period of preaching in Jerusalem which attracted sufficient attention to endanger St. Paul's life, Mhile Galatians describes an essentially private visit to Peter ; probably both documents refer to the same visit, as they place it between •St. Paul's departure from Damascus and his arrival in Cilicia, but they give divergent accounts of it. (7) St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. — It is possible that the difficulties here are due to a mis- taken exegesis rather than to any real divergence between Acts and Galatians. If we start from the facts, it is clear that St. Paul describes in Gal 2''" his second visit to Jerusalem. In the course of this he held a private interview with the apostles in Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was free to continue his preaching to the Gentiles without hindrance. It is also clear from Ac 11-^^- 12^ that St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was during the time of the famine. If Ave accept the identi- fication of the second visit according to Acts with the second visit according to Galatians, there is no difficulty beyond the fact that Acts does not state that St. Paul and the other apostles discussed their respective missions when they met in Jerusalem ; but, since this discussion altered nothing — the Gentile mission had already begun — tliere was no special reason why Luke should have mentioned it. Usuallj^ however, critics have assumed that the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal 2^"'" is not the second but the third visit referred to in Acts, so that the interview with the ajjostles described in Gal 2 is identified with the ' Ajiostolic Council' in Ac 15. Great difficulties then arise : it is obviously essential to St. Paul's argument that he should not omit any of his visits to Jerusalem, and it is not easy to understand why, if he is writing after the Apostolic Council, he does not mention tlie decrees. There would seem to have been a party in Galatia which urged that circumcision was necessary for all Christians ; this point had been settled at the Apostolic Council. If the Council had taken place, why did St. Paul not say at once that the judaizing attitude had been condemned by the heads of the Jerusalem Church ? These difficulties have been met in England since the time of Lightfoot by assuming that the Apos- tolic decrees had only a local and e[/hemeral import- ance, in which case it does not seem obvious why they are given so prominent a place in Acts. In Germany this difficulty has been more fully ap- preciated, and either the account in Ac 15 — identi- fied with Gal 2 — has been abandoned as wholly unhistorical, or the suggestion has been made that the account in Gal 2 is really a more accurate statement of what happened during St. Paul's interview with the ajio>tles, wliich probably took place during the famine, while the ' decrees ' mentioned in Acts really belong to a later period — perhaps St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem — and have been misplaced by Luke. All these suggestions (and a difierent combination is given by almost every editor) agree in giving up the accuracy of Ac 15. On the other hand, if the view be taken that Gal 2 refers to an interview between St. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the time of the famine, and that it settled not the question of circumcision, but that of continuing the mission to the Gentiles which had been begun in Antioch, there is no further difii- culty in thinking that Ac 15 represents the dis- cussion of the question of circumcision whicli inevitably arose as soon as the Gentile mission expanded. It is, therefore, desirable to ask whether the reasons for identifying Gal 2 and Ac 15 are decisive. The classical statement in Eng- lish is that of Lightfoot (Epistle to the Galatians, p. 123ff. ), who formulates it by saying that there is an identity of geography, persons, subject of dispute, character of the conference, and result. Of these identities only the first is fully accurate ; and it applies equally well to the visit to Jerusalem in the time of the famine. The persons are not quite the same, for Titus and John are not mentioned in Acts. The subject is not the same at all, for in Galatians the question of the Law is not discussed (and was apparently raised only by St. Peter's conduct later on in Antioch), bttt merely whether the mission to the uncircumcised should be continued,* while in Acts the circum- cision of the Gentiles is the main point. The character of the conference is not the same at all, for in Galatians it is a private discussion, in Acts a full meeting of the Church ; and the result is not the same, for tiie one led up to the Apostolic decrees, while the otiier apparently did not do so. Lightfoot to some extent weakens these objections by suggesting that St. Paul de- scribes a private conference before the Coimcil, but in so doing he weakens his own case still more, for he can give no satisfactory reason whj- St. Paul should carefullj' describe a private conference, but omit the public meeting and official result tu which it was preliminary. Thus, if the identification of Gal 2 and Ac 15 be abandoned, the objections which are raised against the account in Acts fall to the ground, and the resultant arguments against the identi- fication of the writer of Acts with Luke are proportionately weakened. The question may be studied in detail in C. Clemen, Paulus, GJessen, 1904 ; A. C. McGiffert, A History nf Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1S97 ; A. Harnack, Apostel- gesch., Leipzig, 1908; J. B. Lig-htfoot, Galatians, Canibridge, 1865 ; K. Lake, Earlier EpistUs of St. Paul, London, 1911 ; C. W. Emmet, Galatiaiis, London, 1912. (c) The movements of St. PauVs companions in Macedonia and Achnia in Ac 17^^ 18^ compared ivith 1 Th 5"-^.— The ditterence between these narratives is concerned with the movements of Timothy and Silas. According to Acts, when St. * From the context it is clear that to evayye\iov T19S aKpofivarCai . . . TTJ! TrepiTo^ris means the gospel for the Uncircumcision (i.e. the Gentiles) and the Circumcision {i.e. the Jews). 20 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES Paul ■went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas in Beroea, and sent a message to them either from Athens or from some intermediate point, asking them to rejoin him as soon as possible, but they did not actually join him until he readied Corinth (Ac 18^). This arrival of Timothy at Corinth is mentioned in 1 Th S**, but, according to the im- plication of 1 Th 3"-, Timothy (and Silas ?) had already reached Athens and been sent away again with a message to Thessalonica. In this case Acts omits the whole episode of Timothy's arrival at and departure from Athens, and telescopes together two incidents in much the same way as seems to have been done with regard to St. Paul's visits to Damascus immediately after the conversion. This is the simplest solution of the question, though it is possible to find other conceivable theories, such as von Dobschiitz'a suggestion that 1 Tli 3^ need not mean that Timothy came to Athens, as the facts would be equally covered if a message from St. Paul had intercepted him on his way from Beroea to Athens and sent him to Thessalonica. The best account of various ways of dealing- with the question is given by E. von Dobschiitz, ' Die Thessalonicherbriefe,' in Meyer's Krit.-Excget. EommentarT, Gottingen, 1909. Summary. — The general result of a consideration of these divergences between Acts and the Epistles suggests that the author was sometimes inaccurate, and not always well informed, but it is hard to see that he makes mistakes which would be im- possible to one who had, indeed, been with St. Paul at times but not during the greater part of his career, and had collected information from the Apostle and others as opportunity had served. On the other hand, the argument from literary affini- ties between the ' we-clauses ' and the rest of Acts remains at present unshaken ; and, until some further analysis succeeds in showing why it should be thought that the ' we-clauses ' have been taken from a source not written by the redactor himself, the traditional view that Luke, the companion of St. Paul, was the editor of the whole book is the most reasonable one. III. Date of Acts and Reception in the Canon. — The evidence for the date is very meagre. If the Lucan authorship be accepted, any date after the last events chronicled, i.e. a short time before A.D. 60 to c. A.D. 100, is possible. The arguments which have been used for fixing on a more definite point are : ( 1 ) the date of the Lucan Gospel, which by the evidence of Ac 1^ is earlier ; (2) the abrupt termination of Acts ; (3) tiie possibility that the writer knew the Antiquities of Josephus, which cannot be earlier than A.D. 90. 1. The date of the Lucan Gospel. — It has usually been assumed that this must be posterior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but it is doubtful whether there are really any satisfactory proofs that this was the case. The only argument of importance is that in the apocalyptic section of Mark (ch. 13) expressions which might be supposed to refer to the fall of Jerusalem have been altered to correspond with the real facts of the siege. Actually, however, the most striking change is merely that the vague Marcan reference to Daniel's ' abominat ion of desolation ' has been replaced by a description of Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Of course, if we knew that Luke was later than the fall of Jerusalem, it would be a rational assumption to think that the change was due to the influence of the facts on the writer ; but the force of the argument is not so great if we reverse the proposition, for to explain ' the abomination of desolation ' as a prophecy of a siege is not specially difficult. The most, tiierefore, that can })e said is that this argument raises a slight presumption in favour of a date later than A.D. 70. 2. The abrupt termination of Acts. — Acts ends apparently in the middle of the trial of St. Paul : he has been sent to Lome, and has spent two years in some sort of modified imprisonment, but no verdict has been passed. From this Harnack has argued {Neiie Vntcrnuchungen zur Apostel- geschichfe, p. 6511.) that the Acts must have been written before the end of the trial was known. This argument would be important if it were the only explanation of the facts. But two other possibilities have to be considered. In the lirst place, it is possible, though perhaps not very probable, that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third book beginning with the account of St. Paul's trial in Rome. In the second place, it is possible that the end of Acts was not so abrupt to the ears of contemporaries as it is to us, for the two years may be the recognized period during which a trial must be heard, and after which, if the prosecution failed to appear, the case collapsed. The case of St. Paul had been originally a prosecution by the Jews, and probably it still kept this character, even though the venue was changed to Rome. But the Jews, as Luke says in Ac 28-\ did not put in an appearance, and therefore the case must have collapsed for lack of a prosecution, after a statutory period of waiting. What this period was we do not know, but a passage in Philo's in Flaccum points to the probability that it was two years. According to this, a certain Lambon was accused of treason in Alexandria, and the Roman judge, knowing that he was dangerous, but that the evidence was insufficient to justify a condem- nation, kept him in prison for two years (Steriav), Avhich Philo describes as the ' longest period ' (t6v fjLrjKiaTov xp^vov). If this be so, Luke's termination of Acts is not really so abrupt as it seems, but implies that St. Paul was released after the end of the two years, because no Jews came forward to prosecute ; it is easy to understand that, as this was not a definite acquittal, Luke had no interest in emphasizing the fact. 3. The knowledge of Josephus shown in Acts.— The evidence for this is found in the case of Theudas. The facts are as follows. In Ac 5^^ Gamaliel is made to refer to two revolts which failed— first, that of Theudas, and after him that of Judas the Galilsean in the days of the Census (i.e. A.D. 6). Both these revolts are well known, and are described by Josephus ; but the difficulty is that Judas really preceded Theudas, whose re- volt took place in the procuratorship of Fadus (c. A.D. 43-47). The revolt of Theudas was thus most probably later than the speech of Gamaliel, and the refer- ence to it must be a literary device on the part of Luke, who no doubt used the speeches which he puts into the mouths of the persons in his nariative with the same freedom as was customary among writers of that period. But the remarkable point is that Josephus in Ant. XX. also mentions Judas of Galilee after speaking of Theudas ; * and the suggestion is that Luke had seen this and was led into the not unnatural mistake of confusing the dates. He apparently knew the correct date of Judas, and remembered only that Josephus had spoken of him after Theudas, and was thus led into the mistake of thinking that Theudas must have been earlier than Judas. If the case of Theudas be admitted, it is also possible that in the descrii)tion of the death of Ilerod Agrippa some details have been taken by Luke from the description of the death of Herod the * After describing Theudas' revolt, Josephus continues :_7rpbs T0UT019 5c KoX ol TraiSe? 'loiv^a ToO TaKiKaiov ai'T)xOi)(Ta>', ToC Tov Ka'av O.TTO 'Pai/Jiaiiuv d7roa-n)(rarT05 KvpifCov tt)? 'Iou6aias TifiiJTe- voi'T05, tu? cu TOt? npo TOVToji' t8ii}\ui{TafX€Vf *Ia»caj/3o? kol ^t^u>v oi)f OLVaaTavphMTai. 7Tpo• Imprisonment of Peter and John. Speech of Peter. Peter [and John]. 422-31. " Their release. Meeting of the Church. Gift of the Spirit. Peter [and John]. 482-518. " Communism in the Church. Peter, Barnabas [Ana- nias, Sapphira] . 617-42. •• Imprisonment of Peter and John. Speech of Gamaliel. Peter [and John]. 61-7. It Appointment of the Seven. The apostles. 68-16. Preaching of Stephen. His arrest. Stephen. 7I-S8. " Speech of Stephen. His death. Stephen. 84-25. Samaria. Philip's preaching. Philip, Peter [and John]. Simon llagus. Simon Magus. 828-40. The road to Gaza. Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian. Philip. 91-31. The road to Damascus. Conversion of Saul, and extension of the Church. Paul. 932.1048. Lydda, Joppa, Ossarea. Peter's journey through Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea. Conversion of Cornelius. Peter. Speech of Peter. 111-18. Jerusalem. Peter's speech on Cornelius' conversion. Peter. 1119-28. Antioch. Foundation of Gentile Christianity. Hellenistic Jews, Barna- bas, Paul. 1127-80. Collection for Jerusalem. Barnabas, Paul. 121-24. Jerusalem. Herod's persecution. Peter's imprisonment. Death of Herod. Peter. 1225. Return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch. Barnabas, PauL 131-1428. Journey. First missionary journey. Paul. 151-35. Jerusalem. Apostolic Council. Peter, James, Paul. 1536-1822. Journey. Second missionary journey. Paul. 1823-2116. „ Third missionar.v journej'. Paul. 2117-2311. Jerusalem* Paul's deal ings with James. His arrest. Speech to Sanhedrin. PauL 2312-2632. Caesarea. Paul's imprisonment in Csesarea. Felix. Festus. Agrippa. Paul. 271-2816. Journey. Journey to Rome. PauL 2817-31. Rome. Paul and Jews in Rome. Paul. to preach to Gentiles without insisting on the Jewish Law, and how this had been perceived to be the work of the Spirit by the Jewish apostles who recognized the revelation to this efiect to St. Paul and to St. Peter (Ac Q'^*^- 2221 ^ib i5iff.)_ 3. The sources used in Acts. — The most super- ficial examination of Acts shows that it is divided most obviously into a ' Peter ' part and a ' Paul ' part ; it is, therefore, not strange that the critics of the beginning of the 19th cent, thought of dividing Acts into narratives derived from a hypothetical ' Acts of Peter ' and a hypothetical 'Acts of Paul.' But further investigation has gone behind this division : it has been seen that important questions are involved in the relation of the ' we-clauses ' to the rest of the narrative relating to St. Paul, the story of the Antiochene 1223-81 Qj. even more. There is nothing in these sections which cannot have come from St. Paul or his entourage, and the inaccuracies in the narrative, as compared with the Epistles, do not seem to point to any greater fallibility on the part of the writer than that to be found in other historical writers who are in the possession of good sources. At the same time, this does not mean tliat the assignment of these chapters to a ' Paul ' source is final or exclusive of others. Some sections within these limits (e.g. Ac 15) may come from some other Jerusalem or Antiochene source, and some sections outside them (e.g. the story of Stephen's death) may have come from the 'Paul' source. If, on the other hand, it should ultimatel.'y appear that the evidence from style has been ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 23 exaggerated or misrepresented, it will be necessary to regard the ' we-sections ' as representing a separate source, and consider the question whether the rest of the chapters mentioned above came from one or several sources. At present, however, no one has shown any serious ground for thinking that we can distinguish any signs of change of style, or of doublets in the narrative, to point in this direction. (2) The problems presented by the earlier chapters are much more complicated. The chief Eoint which attracts attention is that in the first alf of these chapters the centre of interest is Jerusalem, or Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, while in the second half it is Antioch. Here again it is easier to begin by taking the later chapters first, and to discuss the probable limits of the Antiochene tradition, together with the possibility that it may have lain before the writer of Acts as a document, before considering the Jerusalem tradition of the opening cliapters. (a) The Antiochene tradition. — The exact limits of this tradition are difficult to fix. It is clear that to it the section describing the foundation of the church at Antioch and its early history (Ac IP^^") must be attributed ; but difficulties arise as soon as an attempt is made to work either backwards or forwards from this centre, as the later sections, which can fairly be attributed to Antiochene tradition, can also be attributed to the Pauline source, while the earlier sections of the same kind might be attributed to the Jerusalem tradition. It is obvious that the ol fxev odv Siaairapivrei of Ac 11'" picks up the narrative of S'"*. In S^-'* the story of Stephen's death is brought to a close by tlie statement that iyivero 8i iv iKeiv-Q ry Tifiipq. diajy/xos fiiyas eTrl t7]v iKKXrjcriav t7]v iv 'lepoaoKvfJiOLr iravTe^ Sk diecnrdprjaav /card rds x'^P"-^ . . . ol ij.ku odv 8Lather. The section 9^'-ll'8 remains. This is much more clearly Caisarean than either of the others, and might possibly be separated from them and as- • See Burkitt, Earliest Sources of the Gospels, London, 1911, p. 79 f., where the suggestion is made that the early part of Acts may represent a Marcan tradition, though the bearing on this theory of the double source A and B in Acts is not mentioned. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 25 cribed to a distinct Cesarean source. If so, the suggestion of Harnack and others that the source miglit be identified with the family, of Philip, which was settled in Csesarea, is not impossible ; from 21^ (a ' we-clause') we know that Luke came into contact with him there. It is also obvious that the information given by Philip might be the source of much more of that which has been ten- tatively attributed to source A, or on the other hand might conceivably be identified with source B ; the truth is, of course, that we here reach the limit of legitimate hypothesis, and pass into the open country of uncontrolled guessing. The result, therefore, of an inquiry into the sources of the Jerusalem tradition is to establish the existence of a written Greek source, A, in Ac 3f., with a parallel narrative B — apparently the continuation of the Lucan Jerusalem narrative in the Gospel ; and these two sources, or one of them, are continued in ch. 5. In 8^"*" is a further narrative which has points of connexion with A. Ac9^'-lP^isa Caesarean narrative, probably con- nected with Philip, and this raises difficulties in relation to A, for H^-'^ has also points of connexion with Philip. Finally 12i-23is a Jerusalem narrative connected with Peter and Mark ; but here also the possibility of a connexion with Caesarea remains open. V. Historical Value of the Various Tra- ditions. — So far as the ' we-clauses ' and the prob- ably Pauline tradition are concerned, this question has already been discussed. While there are traces of probable inaccuracy, there is no reason to doubt the general trustworthiness of the narrative. The Antiochene narrative and the Jerusalem-Csesarean narrative (the ' Philip ' clauses) can be judged with more difficulty, as we have no means of comparing the narratives with any other contemporary state- ments. Here, however, we have another criterion. It is probable that Luke is dealing with traditions, and, at least in the case of A, with a document. We cannot say how far he alters his sources, for we have no other information as to their original form, but we can use the analogy of his observed practice in the case of the Gospel. Here we know that he made use of Mark ; and we can control his methods, because we possess his source. In this way we can obtain some idea of what he is likely to have done with his sources in Acts. On the whole, it cannot be said that the application of this criterion raises the value of Acts. In the Gospel, Luke, though in the main constant to his source Mark, was by no means disinclined to change the meaning of the story as well as the words, if he thought right. It is possible that he was justified in doing so, but that is not the question. The point is that he did not hesitate to alter his source in the Gospel ; it is therefore probable that he did not hesitate to do so in the Acts. Besides this, on grounds of general probability, various small points give rise to doubt, or seem to belong to the world of legend rather than to that of history — for instance, the removal of Philip by the Spirit (or angel ?) from the side of the Ethiopian to Azotus ; but the main narrative otters no real reason for rejection. The best statement of all the points open to suspicion is still that of Zeller- Overbeck {The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., Lon- don, 1875-76), but the conclusions which Zeller draws are often untenable. He did not realize that in any narrative there is a combination of really observed fact and of hypotheses to explain the fact. The hypotheses of a writer or narrator of the 1st cent, were frequently of a kind that we should now never think of suggesting. But that is no reason why the narrative as a whole should not be regarded as a statement of fact. The exist- ence, in any given narrative, of improbable ex- planations as to how events happened is not an argu- ment against its early date and general trust- worthiness, unless it can be shown that the ex- planation involves improbability not only in fact but also in thought — it must not only be improb- able that the event really happened in the manner suggested, but it must be improbable that a narra- tor of that age would have thought that it so hap- pened. Judged by this standard, the Antiochene and Jerusalem-Csesarean traditions seem to deserve credence as good and early sources. The same thing can be said of source A in the purely Jerusalem tradition. But the problem raised by source B is more difficult. If it be as- sumed that Ac 1 does not belong to it, it can only be compared with source A. To this it seems in ferior, but on the whole it narrates the same events, and it would certainly be rash to regard B as valueless. No doubt it is true that, if the events happened in the order given in A, they cannot have happened in the order given in B, but it is quite possible that many details in B may be cor- rect in spite of the fact that they are told other- wise or not told at all in A. If, on the other hand, Ac 1 be assigned to B, the question is more complicated. According to Ac 1, the Ascension took place near Jerusalem forty days after the Resurrection, and the infer- ence is suggested that the disciples, including Peter, never left Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. That this was Luke's own view is made quite plain from the Gospel, except that there does not appear to be any room in the Gospel narrative for the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The problems which arise are therefore: (1) How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be recon- ciled? (2) Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee ? 1. How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be reconciled ? — Various attempts have been made to find room in the Gospel for the ' forty days.' They have not, however, been successful, as the connecting links in the Gospel narrative are quite clear from the morning of the Resurrection to the moment of the Ascension, which is plainly intended to be regarded as taking place on the evening of the same day. According to Lk 24^^-, the sequence of the events was the following. Early on Sunday morning certain women went to the tomb, and to them two men appeared who announced the Resur- rection ; the women believed, but failed to con- vince the disciples. Later on in the same day (iv avry ry rj/jLipg.) two disciples saw the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and at once returned to Jeru- salem to tell the news {dvaardi'Tes avTrj ry (bpq.). While they were narrating their experience the Lord appeared, led them out to Bethany, and was taken up to heaven. The only place where there is any possibility of a break in the narrative is v.*^ (elirev 54), but this possibility (in any case contrary to the general impression given by the passage) is excluded by the facts that etTrei' 5^ is a peculiarly Lucan phrase (59 times in Luke, 15 times in Acts, only once elsewhere in the NT), and that it never implies that a narrative is not continuous, and usually the reverse. Moreover, that Lk 24^^, what- ever text be taken, refers to the Ascension is rendered certain by the reference in Ac P. Thus, there is no doubt that the Gospel places the Ascen- sion on the evening or night of the third day after the Crucifixion. It is equally clear that Acts places the Ascension forty days later, if the text of 1* (5i 7]ixepCiv TeaaapaKovra) is correct ; and, though there is, it is true, some confusion in the text at this point, it is not enough to justify the omission of ' forty days ' (see esp. F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1896, p. xxiii). The only possible suggestion. 26 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES therefore, is that the writer found some reason to modify his opinions in the interval between writ- ing the Gospel and the Acts. Whether he was right to do so depends on the judgment passed on various factors, which cannot be discussed here, but may be summed up in the question wliether the eviileiice of the Pauline Epistles does not sug- gest that the earliest Christian view was that Ascension and Resurrection were but two ways of describing the same fact, and whether this is not also implied in the speeches of Peter in Ac 2 and 3 * (cf. especially Ro 8^, Ph 1^3, Ac 2^3 Sif-'S), The evidence is not sufficient to settle the point, but it shows that the problem is not imaginary. 2. Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee?— The evidence tliat the disciples went to Galilee is found in Mark.f The end of Mark is, of course, missing, but there are in the existing text two indications that the appearances of the risen Christ were in Galilee, and therefore that the disciples must have returned there after the Crucihxion. (a) Mk H^''-, « All ye shall be offended ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.' This seems intended to prepare the way for the flight of the disciples after the arrest in Geth- semane ; the meaning of the second part, ' I will go before you into Galilee,' is obscure, but in any case it implies a return to Galilee. (6) Mk 16^ (tlie message of the young man at the tomb), ' Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee, there shall you see him.' Here it is quite clearly stated that the first appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples is to be in Galilee, and once more it must be urged that this implies that the disciples went there. On the other hand, the evidence of Luke and the Acts is that the disciples did not leave Jeru- salem, and that, so far from the risen Lord announ- cing His future appearance to the disciples in Galilee, He actually told them to remain in Jerusalem. That the two traditions thus exist cannot be questioned, nor can they be reconciled without violence. If, however, we have to choose between them, the Galilsean tradition seems to deserve the preference. It is in itself much more probable that the disciples fled to Galilee when they left Jesus to be arrested by Himself, than that they went into Jerusalem. If they were, as the narra- tive says, panic-stricken, Jerusalem was the last place to which those who were not inhabitants of that city would go. Moreover, it is not diflicult to see that the tendency of Christian history would have naturally emphasized Jerusalem and omitted Galilee, for it is certainly a fact that from the be- ginning the Christian Church found its centre in Jerusalem and not in Galilee. Why this was so is obscure, and there is a link missing in the history of the chain of events. This must be recognized, but what either source B or Luke himself (if Ac 1 be not part of source B) has done is to connect up the links of the chain as if the Galihean link had never existed. So far as this goes, it is a reason for not accepting Ac 1 as an accurate account of history ; and this judgment perhaps reflects on source B and certainly in some measure on Luke. It must, however, be noted that it ought not seriously to attect our judgment on Luke's account of later events. The period between the Crucifixion and the growth of the Jerusalem community was naturally the most obscure point in the history of Christianity ; and, even if Luke • Of course, if this be so, there is a contradiction between Ac 1 and 2, and it becomes more probaVjle (a) that Ac 1 is from a separate tradition from source 15 ; {b) tiiat source B, like A, was a written document wVien used by Luke. t Secondary evidence is to be found in Mt 28, Jn 21, and the ' Gospel of Peter,' but Mark is the primary evidence. went wrong in his attempt to find out the facts at this point, that is no special reason for rejecting his evidence for later events when he really was in a position to obtain sound information. All that is really shown is that, unlike Mark, he was never in close contact with one of the original Galila;an disciples. VI. Chronology of Acts. — There are no definite chronological statements in the Acts, such as those in Lk 3^ But at five points syn- chronisms with known events can be establishetl and used as the basis of a chronological system. These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Ac 12^^^) ; the famine in Judfea (II-'"^ 12-^); Gallio's pro- consulate in Corinth (18^^) ; the decree of Claudius banishing all Jews from Rome (18-) ; and the arrival of Festus in Judjea (25^). 1. The death of Herod Agrippa. — Agrippa I., according to the evidence of coins * (if these be genuine), reigned nine years. The beginning of his reign was immediately after the accession of Caligula, who became Emperor on 16 March, A.D. 37, and within a few days appointed Agrippa, who was then in Rome, to the tetrarchy of Philip, with the title of king ; to this in 39-40 the tetrarchy of Antipas was added. Later on, Claudius added Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. The ditticulty is that Josephus says that Agrippa died in the seventh year of his reign. This would be between the sjjring of 43 and that of 44, but it does not agree with the evidence of the coinage, unless it be supposed that Agrippa dated his accession from the death of Philip rather than from his appointment by Caligula. 2. The famine in Judaea.— Our information for the date of this event is found in Josephus and Orosius. Josephus (Ant. XX. v.) says that the famine took place during the procuratorship of Alexander. Alexander's term of ottice ended in A.D. 48, and this is therefore the terminus ad qitcm for the date of the famine. His terra of ottice began after that of Fadus. It is not known when Fadus retired, but he was sent to Judtea after the death of Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44, so that Alexander's term cannot have begun before 45, and more probably not before 46. Thus Josephus fixes the famine within a margin of less than two years on eitlier side of 47. Orosius (vil. vi.), a writer of the 5th cent., is more definite, and fixes the famine in the fourth year of Claudius, which, on his system of reckon- ing (see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem ? London, 1898, p. 223, which supplements and corrects the statement in St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, do. 1895, p. 68 f. ), was prob- ably from Sept. 44 to Sept. 45, or jjossibly from Jan. 45 to Jan. 46. This statement has, of course, only the value which may be attributed to the sources of Orosius, which are unknown ; but it supports Josephus fairly well, and it is not probable that Orosius was acquainted with the Antiquities, so that his statement has independent value. 3. Gallio's proconsulate. — This date has recently been fixed with considerable definiteness by the discovery of .a fragment of an inscription at Delphi t which contains a reference to Gallio as proconsul (which must be proconsul of Acliaia), and bears the date of the 26th ' acclamation ' of tlie Emperor Claudius. This acclamation was before 1 Aug. A.D. 52 [CIL vi. r25b), as an inscription of that date refers to the 27th acclamation, and after 25 Jan. 51, as his 24th acclamation came in his 11th tribunician year (i.e. 25 Jan. 51-24 Jan. 52). More- over, it must have been some considerable time after 25 Jan. 51, as the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th acclamations * See F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews, London, 1881, p. 130. t First published by A. Nikitsky in Russian, in Epigraphical Studies at Delphi, Odessa, 189S, and now most accessible in Deissmann's Paulua, Tubingen, 191L AUTiS OF THE APUSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 27 all came in the 11th tiibunician year, and the 25th acclamation has not yet been found, so that really the end of 51 is the earliest probable date for the 26th acclamation. Thus the Delphi in- scription must be placed between the end of 51 and 1 Aug. 52. At this time Gallio was in office. The proconsul usually entered on his office in the middle of the summer (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Staats- reclit^, ii. [Leipzig, 1888] 256), and normally held it for one year only, though sometimes he continued in it for another term. According to this, Gallio must have come to Corinth in July 51. Twelve months later is not absolutely impossible, though it is improVjable, for we do not know whether Claudius had been acclaimed for a long or a short time before 1 Aug. 52, merely that by then his 27th acclamation had taken place. According to Ac 18'-, St. Paul's trial took place VaWiwvos 5k oLvdvirdrov 6vtos, and this is usually taken to mean ' as soon as Gallio became proconsul.' Probably this is correct exe- gesis, though scarcely an accurate translation ; and, if so, St. Paul's trial must have been in the summer of 51, or, with later date for Gallio, in the summer of 52. i. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome. — Ac- cording to Ac IS-, the Emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Kome. The same fact is mentioned by Suetonius {Claudius, 25), who says: ' ludseos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit,' but no date is given. Tacitus does not mention the fact ; nor does Josephus. Orosius (VII. vi. 15) states that it was in the ninth year of Claudius, which probably means Sept. 49-Sept. 50. He states that this date is derived from Josephus, which is clearly a mistake, unless he is referring to some other writer of that name (cf. Deissmann, Paidus), but the date agrees very well with that of Gallic's proconsulate ; for, if the trial before Gallio was in Aug. 51, and St. Paul had been in Corinth 18 months (Ac 18'^), the Apostle must have reached Corinth in April 50, at which time Aquila had just arrived in consequence of the decree of Claudius. 5. The arrival of Festus in Judaea. — This date is unfortunately surrounded by great difficulties. The facts are as follows : Eusebius, in his Chroni- con, places the arrival of Festus in the second year of Nero, which probably means not Oct. 55-Oct. 56 — the true second year of his reign — but, accord- ing to the Eusebian plan of reckoning, Sept. 56- Sept. 57. Josephus states that Felix, whom Festus replaced, was prosecuted on his return to Rome, but escaped owing to the influence of Pallas his brother. But Pallas was dismissed, according to Tacitus, before the death of Britannicus, and Britannicus was, also according to Tacitus, just 14 years old. Britannicus was born in Feb. 41, so that Festus must have entered on his office, according to this reckoning, before A.D. 55. Nevertheless, Josephus appears to place the gi'eater part of the events under Felix in Nero's reign, and this can hardly be the case if he retired before Nero had reigned for three months. It is thought, therefore, either that Tacitus made a mistake as to the age of Britannicus, or that Pallas retained considerable influence even after his fall. Various other arguments have been used, but none is based on exact statements or has any real value. Thus, in view of the fact that the combination of statements in Josephus and Taci- tus seems to give no firm basis for argument, we have only Eusebius and general probability to use. General probability really means in this case con- sidering whether the Eusebian date fits in with the date of St. Paul's trial by Gallio, and has, therefore, most of the faults of circular reason- ing. Still, the Eusebian date comes out of this test fairly well. St. Paul was tried by Gallio in Aug. A.D. 51. We may then reconstruct as follows : — Trial by Gallio— Aug. 51. Corinth to Antioch— end of 51. Arrival at Ephesus — summer of 52. Departure from Ephesus and arrival at Corinth — autumn of 54. Arrival at Jerusalem and arrest — summer of 55. Two years' imprisonment — 65 to summer 57. Trial before Festus — summer 57. In view of the evidence as to Gallio, this is the earliest possible chronology, unless we suppose that two years in prison means June 55-summer 56, which is, indeed, part of two years, though it is doubtful Avhether it could have been described as SieTias irXrjpwdeiffTjs — the phrase used in Ac 24-''. Summary. — These are the only data in Acts for which any high degree of probability can be claimed. The date of Gallio is by far the most certain. If we combine with them the further data in Galatians, we obtain a reasonably good chronology as far back as the conversion of St. Paul. The second visit to Jerusalem in Galatians is identical either with the time of the famine or with that of the Council. If the former, it can be placed in +46, if the latter, in + 48 ; and the conversion was either 14 or 17 years before this, according to the exegesis adopted for the statements in Galatians ; though, owing to the ancient method of reckoning, 14 may mean a few months more than 12, and 17 a few months more than 15. Thus the earliest date for the conversion would be A.D. 31, the latest 36. It should, however, be remembered that the period of 14 years reckoned between the first and second visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem depends entirely on the reading AIMAGTCON in Gal 2^, which might easily have been a corruption for AIAAGTCjON ( = ' after 4 years'), and that the 14 years in question are always a difficulty, as events seem to have moved rapidly before and after that period, but during it to have stood relatively still. The possibility ought not to be neglected that the conversion was 10 years later than the dates suggested, i.e. in 41 or 46. This is especially important, in view of the fact that the evidence of Josephus as to the marriage of Herod and Herodias suggests that the death of John the Baptist, and therefore the Crucifixion, were later than has usually been thought (see K. Lake, ' Date of Herod's Marriage with Herodias and the Chron- ology of the Gospels,' in Expositor, 8th ser. iv. [1912] 462). LiTERATiTRB. — For literature on the subject see A. Harnack, Chronolociie, Leipzig, 1897-1904, i. 233-9; the art. in HDB on 'Chronology' by C. H. Turner (older statements are almost entirely based on K. Wieseler's Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, Hamburg, 1848) ; C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904. VII. The Theology of Acts.— The theology of Acts is, on the whole, simple and early, showing no traces of Johannine, and surprisingly few of Pauline, influence. In common with all other canonical writings, it regards the God of the Christians as the one true God, who had revealed Himself in time past to His chosen people the Jews ; and it identifies Jesus wdth the promised Messiah, who will come from heaven to judge the world, and to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on the earth. There is, however, just as in the Third Gospel, a noticeably smaller degree of interest in the Messianic kingdom than in Mk. and Mt. , and a proportionately increased interest in the Spirit. This may probably be explained as due to the fact that the writer belonged to a more Gentile circle than those in which Mk. and Mt. were written. It is strange that in some respects Acts is less ' Gentile ' or ' Greek ' than the Epistles. This is partially explained by the fact that much of so-called Faulinismus has been read into the Epistles ; but, even when an allowance 28 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES has been made for this fact, the difficulty re- mains. The points on •which the theology of Acts requires discussion in detail are its christology, eschatology, attitude to the OT and Jewish Law, doctrine of the Spirit, and doctrine of baptism. 1. Christology. — In Acts Jesus is recognized as the Christ, but the Christology belongs to an early type. There is no suggestion of the Logos-Christ- ology of the Fourth Gospel, or even of the Epistles of the Captivity. ' The Christ ' appears to have the quite primitive meaning of ' the king of the kingdom of God, who is appointed by God to judge the world ' (cf. ^v dvacTTrjcras 'Itjctovv, wj Kal iv ry xj/aKfii^ y^ypairrai ry deirripcfi- vios fiov elcrv, iyw (TT]fj.epov yeyevvrjKd ere, wliich, strictly interpreted, must mean that Jesus became God's Son at the Resurrection, for in the context dvaarrjo-as can be given no other translation. On the other hand, it must be remembered that many critics think that this same quotation from Ps 2 is connected with the Baptism in Lk 3-,* in which case the further quotation in Lk 4^*, irvevpLa Kvpiov iir' ifxe, oD e'iveKev ixp'-'^^" M^i kt\., acquires increased force, for the connexion of exptcev with Xpiaros is obvious. This, again, reflects light on Ac 10^ (ojs ^XP'O'"' o-vrbv 6 Oebs irvevfiaTi. dyiui /cat Swd/iet) and the similar phrase in 4'-". It must remain a problem for critics how far this difi'erence between Ac IS^^*- and 10^ and 4-'' is accidental (or merely apparent), and how far it is justifiable to connect it with the fact that Ac 13 (which agrees with Ro 1^) belongs to the Pauline source, while Ac 4 and 10 belong to the Jerusalem source A and the closely connected or identical Jerusalem-Caesarean source (which agree with at all events one interpretation of the meaning of the Baptism in Mk 1). The possible difi'erence must, however, in any case not be exaggerated. The whole of early Christian literature outside Johannine influence is full of appai'ent inconsistencies, because XpiarSs sometimes means ' the person who is by nature and predestination the appointed Messiah,' some- times more narrowly ' the actual Messiah reigning in the Kingdom of God.' In the former sense it was possible to say eXvai rbv Xpia-Tbv'lrja-ovv f (Ac 18^), or that i5ei wadeiv rbv Xpiurdv (17^). In the latter sense it was possible to speak of Jesus as top wpo- Kexeipi.ff/j.ii'ov vfjitv Xpiffrbv (3'-"), where, in the light of the whole passage, the Tbv irpoKex^'-P'-'^l^ivov iifitv mo.st probably has reference to the Resurrection, though other interpretations are possible ; or to say KvpLov avrbv Kai Xpiffrbv iirolTjcrev 6 debs tovtov rbv 'l7);jovv (2"'), which with less doubt may be referred to the Resurrection. The point seems to be that, on the (jue hand, Luke wishes to say that Jesus is the Christ, and that, on the other, he does not * The text is doubtful : the editors usually give £ru el 6 vJds ixot 6 ayaTTTfTo?, ev (roi ijv£6io)v TraOeiv tov Xpiarbv avrov iir\-qpwaev ovTuis. iieTavo-qaaTe odv, Kal ewLa-Tpexpare, wpbs rb e^aXeKpdijvai v/xQv rds d/xaprias, Sttws dv ^Xdwai Kaipol dvaypv^ews dwb irpo(T(hirov rod Kvpiov Kal dirocrre'iXy] rbv ir poKexei-pi-(y t^-^vov v/jliv Xpiarbv 'Irjffovv, 5p del ovpavbv fj.kv de^affOai &XP'- Xpo^'^" diroKaracrdcTews irdvTUiv, Kr\. Here there is a verbal connexion between the suffer- ing of the Christ and the blotting out of sins, but no suggestion of any causal connexion. The writer says that the Jews put the Messiah to death, as had been foretold, but they did it in ignorance ; and, if they repent, this and other sins will be blotted out, and Jesus will come as the predestined Messiah. The cause of the blotting out of sins is here, as in the OT prophets, repentance and change of conduct {iin(jrp€\l/are) ; nothing is said to suggest that this would not have been effective without the suffering of the Messiah. 2. Eschatology. — There is comparatively little in Acts which throws light on the eschatological expectation of the writer. As compared with Mark or St. Paul, he seems to be less eschato- logical, but traces of the primitive expectation are not wanting. In P^ the Parousia of the Messiah is still expected : ' This Jesus who has been taken up into Heaven shall so come as ye have seen him go into Heaven ' ; and, though it is not here stated that the witnesses of the Ascension shall also live to see the Parousia, this seems to be implied. The same sort of comment can be made on S-"'* and 17^^ ; but otherwise there is little in Acts to bear on the eschatological expectation. This was, indeed, to be expected in a book written by Luke, who in his Gospel gi-eatly lessened the eschatological elements found in Mark and Q. 3. The OT and Jewish Law. — For the Avriter of Acts the OT was the written source of all revela- tion. The sufficient proof of any argument or exjilanation of any historical event was to be found in the fact tliat it had been prophesied. Like all Greek-writing Christians, he uses the LXX and does not stop to ask whether it is textually accurate. But a distinction must be made between the OT as prophecy and the OT as Law. In the latter sense the position taken up in Acts is that the Law of the OT is binding in every detail on Jewish Chri-stians, but not binding at all on GentUe Cliristians. The most remarkable example of this is the picture given in ch. 25 of St. Paul's acceptance of the Law in Jerusalem, and the cir- cumcision of Timothy'. Whether this can be re- conciled with the Apostle's own position is a point for students of the Ejiistles to settle ; the present ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS (APOCR\TK\L) 29 writer believes that in this respect Acts gives a faithful representation of St. Paul's own view (see the admirable discussion in Harnack, Apostel- gesch., pp. 8 and 211-217). The reason for thinking that the Law was still binding on Jews but not on Gentiles must be sought in a distinction between the Law as source of salvation — it was not this for any one — and the Law as command of God — this it was for the Jew, but not for the Gentile. As prophecies, the OT books are accepted without question, and there is no trace of the Jewish con- troversy which raised the dispute aa to the correct exegesis of the OT. This controversy can be traced in the Epistle of Barnabas, and found its extreme result in the attitude of Marcion, but in Acts it cannot be found, and apparently this is because the dispute had not yet arisen. (For the best summary of this question see Harnack, Apostel- gesch., p. 8 n.) i. The Spirit. — It is not quite clear whether Acts rejrards all Christians as inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is at least certain that it regards this as true of all the leaders, and of all who were fuUy Christians. It would appear possible, however, from such episodes as that of the Christians in Ephesus who had been baptized only in John's baptism, that a kind of imperfect Christianity was recognized ; these Ephesians are described asfrndrp-ds, even before they had been baptized. On the other hand, the inadequacy of their baptism was dis- covered by St. Paul because they had not received the Spirit, so that even from this passage it would seem that Cliristians were regarded normally as inspired by the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is usually referred to as rb irvtvua Tb iL-yiov or rb dyiov irvevna (21 times), or as rb TTvevfia (9 times), or as TTvevfxa dywv (16 times), once as irvevna Kvplov, once as Tb irvev/xa Kvplov, and once as rb irveO/xa 'Itjv nepioSoi, ev aiy ireptet'xorro 7rpa^€is UeVpou, 'lojai'vov, 'AvSpe'ou, 0a)fjta, navAov ypd(^ei Se avras, ws Sr]Kol to aiiTO ^tfiKiov, AeuKios Xapi^'os. From this it is plain that Photius had seen a corpus of Acts, and interpreted some passage in the text to mean that the five Acts were all written by Leucius Charinus. It is therefore desirable to examine earUer hterature for (1) mention of Leucius, (2) mention of the five Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, either as a corpus or as separate writings. 1. References to Lencius. — i. Ix the East. — Epiphaniirs (Fanar. li. 6), when speaking of the Alogi, mentions as famous heretics Cerinthus and Ebion, Merinthus and Cleobius or Cleobulus, Claudius, Demas, and Hermogenes, and says they Charles Scribner's Sons. 30 ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) were controverted by St. John Kal tQiv dfj. TroWu}i>. Presumably, therefore, Epiphaniua was acquainted with some book in which Leucius appeared as a companion of St. John, but it will be noted that he does not suggest that Leucius was in any way heretical, but rather that he controverted heretics. Apart from this sohtary mention there is no trace of Leucius in Greek Christian \\Titings until Photius. ii. In the West. — It is quite different in the West ; here there is a series of witnesses to Leucius. (1) Pacian (f c. 390), bishop of Barcelona. — In Ep. iii. 3 Pacian wT-ites to Semp. Novatianus concerning the Proclan party of the Montanists, * who claimed some connexion with Leucius, which Pacian denied; and the natural interpretation of his words seems to be that he regarded Leucius as an orthodox Christian to whom the Montanists tried to attach their origin ; but the passage is obscure : 'Et primum hi plurimis utuntur auctoribus; nam puto et Graecus Blastus ipsorum est. Theodotus quoque et Praxeas vestros aliquando docuere : ipsi illi Phryges [i.e. Montanists] nobiliores, qui se animatos mentiuntur a Leucio, se institutes a Proculo gloriantur.' (2) Aiigustine. — In the contra Felicem, ii. 6, written earlier in the 5th cent., Augustine says : 'H.abetis etiam hoc in scripturis apocryphis, quas canon quidem catholicus non admittit, vobis autem [i.e. the Mani- chseans] tanto graviorea sunt, quanto a catholico canone seeluduntur ... in actibus scriptis a Leucio (codd. 'Leutio') quos tamquam actus apostolorum scribit, habes ita positum : "etenim speciosa figmenta et ostentatio simulata et coactio visibilium nee quidem ex propria natura procedunt, sed ex eo hominequiperseipsum deterior factus est per seductionem." ' As is shown later, Augustine was acquainted with the Apocryphal Acts of Peter, Andrew, Thomas, John, and Paul, of which the first four were accepted only by Manichaeans, the last (Paul) probably by Catholics also. There is nothing, however, to show from which he is quoting here, and the passage is not in any of the extant frag- ments. Thomas is excluded, as we probably have the complete text, and the passage is unlike what we possess of the Acts of Peter or Paul. It is there- fore probable, as Schmidt argues {Alte Petrusakten, p. 50), that he is referring to Andrew or John — the two Acts for which the Leucian authorship is other- wise most probable. But the point is not certain, and the possibility remains that he is referring to a Manichsean corpus of Acts, collected by Leucius. (3) Euodius of Uzala. — In the de Fide contra Manichaeos, ch. 38 (printed in Augustine's works [ed. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. xlii.]), written by Euodius, the contemporary of Augustine, the Acts of Andrew is attributed to Leucius. The full quota- tion is given by Schmidt (p. 53), who thinks that it probably, though not certainly, impUes that Euodius also regarded Leucius as the author of a corpus of Acts, but argues that this opinion was probably based only on an interpretation of the passage of Augustine quoted above. However this may be, it remains clear that Euodius regarded the Acts of Andrew as IVIanichaean and the work of Leucius. (4) Innocent I. — In a rescript of 405 to E.xsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, Innocent says : 'Cetera autem quae vel sub nomine Matthiae vel sub nomine lacobi minoris, vol sub nomine Petri et Johannis quae aquodam Leucio scripta sunt (vel sub nomine Andreae quae a Nexo- charide et Leonida philosophis), vel s>ib nomine Thomae et si qua sunt alia {r.l. talia), non solum repudianda verum etiam noveris damnanda.' The words enclosed in brackets are probably an interpolation (see Zahn, Acta Joannis, 209), and Nexocharides and Leonidas the philosophers are otherwise unknown persons. The text is certainly not quite in order, but Leucius is clearly indicated as the author of the Acts of Peter and of John. * From pseudo-Tertullian, Tfcfut. omn. fleer, viii. 19, x. 26, it appears that some Montanists were Kara. UpoKAov, others Kara Ai(7\ivrjv (see Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, p. Ixvi, n. 1). (5) The Decretum Gelasianum (6th cent.), — After rejecting as apocryphal the Acts of Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Philip, the ^vTiter goes on to give a hst of Apocryphal Gospels, and then con- tinues : 'Libri omnes quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocryphi.' _ As there follow several Mani- cha?an writings, it is tolerably certain that here, as elsewhere, 'disciple of the devil' means 'Mani- chsean,' but it is not clear to which books reference is made. There is a slight presumption that the books made by Leucius are not identical with any ah-eady mentioned, and this would suggest either the Acts of John, which are not otherwise men- tioned, or possibly the Acts of Pilate, which in the Latin version are connected with the name of Leucius Charinus. Schmidt, however, while think- ing that the Acts of John are certainly intended, is inclined to beheve that the writer may have meant the whole Manichaean collection. (6) Turribius of Astorga (c. 450). — In a corre- spondence with his fellow-bishops, Idacius and Creponius, Turribius discusses the Hterature of the Manichaeans and Priscillianists. Among these he mentions 'Actus illos qui vocantur S. Andreae, vel illos qui appellantur S. loannis, quos sacrilego Leucius ore conscripsit, vel illos qui dicuntur S. Thomae et his similia, etc' Here clearly Leucius is regarded as the author of the Acts of John, and presumably not of the others — though, if a certain laxity of syntax be conceded, the Acts of Andrew might be added — certainly not of the Acts of Thomas. (7) Mellitus. — The writer of a late Catholic version -of the Acts, who took to himself the name of Mellitus, probably intending to identify himself withMeUto of Sardis (c. 160-190), says: 'Volo solhcitam esse fraternitatem vestram de Leucio quodam qui scripsit apostolorum actus, loannis evangelistae et sancti Andreae vel Thomae apostoK, etc' ; so that he must have regarded Leucius as the author of these three Acts, but there is no suggestion of the full corpus of five. Schmidt thinks that he probably derived his knowledge from the letter of Turribius and a list of heretical writings, which was once annexed to it, though it has now disappeared ; the letter was probably taken up into the works of Leo, with whom Turri- bius corresponded (see Schmidt, p. 61). It does not appear probable from internal evidence that Mellitus had any first-hand knowledge of the Apocryphal Acts. (8) Further traces of Leucius, under the corrupt form of Seleucus, can perhaps be traced in pseudo- Hieronymus, Ep. ad Chromatium et Heliodorum, and in hterature dependent upon it (see Schmidt, p. 62) ; but no importance can be attached to this late and inferior composition. It would appear from these data that (a) the earliest traditions connected Leucius with St. John, and did not regard him as heretical. (6) A quite late tradition regarded him as the author of the corpus of five Acts — Paul, Peter, John, Andrew, and Thomas — which the Manichaeans used as a substitute for the canonical Acts, and the Priscil- lianists in addition to the canonical Acts, (c) E.x- ternal evidence suggests that Leucius was probably the author of the Acts of John, and, with less clearness, of Andrew, but not of Peter, Paul, or Thomas ; and this conclusion is supported by in- ternal evidence. 2. The evidence for the Acts as a collection. — i. In the West.— (1) Fhila.strius of Brescia (.38.3- 391). — In his Liber de Hairesibus, 88, we have the earliest evidence for a corpus of Apocyrphal Acts. He begins by referring to those who use ' apocryfa, id est sccreta,' instead of the canonical OT and NT, and mentions as the chief of those who do this the 'Manichaei, Gnostici, Nicolaitae, Valentiniani et ACTS (APOCR\THAL) ACTS (APOCR\THAL) 31 alii quam plurimi qui apocryfa prophetarum et apostolorum, id est Actus separates habentes, canonicas legere scripturas contemnunt.' Later on he gives more details in a passage where the text is unfortunately clearly corrupt : 'Nam Manichaei apocrj'fa beati Andreae apostoli, id est Actus quos fecit veniens de Ponto in Greciam [quos] conscrip- serunt tunc discipuli sequentes beatum apostolum, unde et habent Manichaei et alii tales Andreae beati et Joannis actus evangelistae beati et Petri similiter beatissimi apostoli et Pauli pariter beati apostoli : in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna et prodigia, etc' TMiatever may be the true text of this passage, it clearly implies (a) that the IManichaeans used a corpus of ApocrA'phal Acts in place of the canonical Acts of the Apostles ; (h) that this corpus contained the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Paul ; (c) the Acts of Thomas is not mentioned (Schmidt [p. 44] thinks that this is merely accidental) ; {d) Leucius is not mentioned. (2) Augustine. — In the controversial WTitings of Augustine against the Manichseans there are manj^ allusions to the Apocryphal Acts. Reference may especially be made to (a) the de Sermone Domini in Monte (i. 20, 6.5), in which allusions can be traced to the Acts of Thomas ; (6) the contra Adimayitum, 17, where allusions to the Acts of Thomas and Acts of Peter can be identified ; (c) the contra Faustum Manicheum (Ub. xiv. and xxx.) ; (d) the contra Felicem ; and (e) the de Civitate Dei. Schmidt (44 ff.) has shown, from the consideration of these passages, that the Manichaeans used the five Acts of John, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, and Paul, while the Cathohcs rejected the first four, but accepted the Acts of Paul. The crucial pass- age for this conclusion is c. Faustum, xxx. 4, in which Faustus the ISIanichee says : ' Mitto enim ceteros eiusdem domini nostri apostolos, Petrum et Andream, Thomam et ilium inexpertum veneris inter ceteros beatum Joharmem . . . sed hos quidem, ut dixi, praetereo, quia eos vos [i.e. the Catholics] exclusistis ex canone, facUeque mente sacrilega vestra daemoniorum his potestis importare doctrinas. Num igitur et de Christo eadem dicere poteritis aut deapostolo Paulo, quemsimiliterubique const at etverbo semper practulisse nuptis innuptas et id opera qaoque ostendisse erga sanctissimam Theclam ? quodsi haec daemoniorum doctrina non fuit, quam et Theclae Paulus et ceteri ceteris adnuntiaverunt apostoli, cui credi iam poterit hoc ab ipso memoratum, tam- quam sit daemoniorum voluntas et doctrina etiam persuasio eanctimonii ? ' As Schmidt says, it is clear that Faustus gava up the use of the Acts of Andrew, John, Peter, and Thomas, because his opponents refused to recognize their authority, but rehed on a Pauhne document relating to Thekla. Before the discovery of the Acts of Paul it was possible to think that this might be the so-called Acts of Paul and Thekla. It is now, however, fairly certain that this latter docu- ment in its present form is merely an extract from the older Acts of Paul ; there is no reason, there- fore, to doubt that Augustine and Faustus both recognized the Acts of Paul, which had not yet been entirely deposed from the Canon. (3) Innocent I. and Exsuperius. — A correspond- ence (in A. D. 405) between Innocent i. and Exsup- erius, bishop of Toulouse (see the quotation above), shows that the Apocr^-phal Acts were used in Spain not only by IManichaeans but also by Priscillian- ists. . It is not quite clear to which Acts Innocent refers. Besides mentioning the Acts of Peter and John (of which certainly the latter and probably the former also are ascribed to Leucius), he refers to Acts of Matthias and of James the less, which do not elsewhere appear in the Manichaean corpus, as well as to those of Andrew, which in some texts (see Zahn, Gesch. des A'T Kanons, Leipzig, 1888- 92, ii. 244 ff .) are ascribed to Nexocharide (v.l. Xenocharide) and Leonidas ; Fabricius (Codex Apocryphns, ii. 707) thinks that these names are a corruption of Charinus and Leucius. (4) Leo the Great and Turribius (440-461) . — Forty years after the time of Innocent, the correspond- ence between Leo and Turribius, bishop of Astorga in Spain, throws more hght on the use of the Apocrj'phal Acts by the PrisciUianists. Leo com- plains that the PrisciUianists 'scripturas veraa adulterant ' and ' falsas inducunt.' Turribius found that the PrisciUianists and Manichseans were mak- ing great progress in Spain, and for this reason had elicited a letter of condemnation from Leo. He also expressed himself further in his letters to Idacius and Creponius, and apparently annexed a selection of heretical passages from the Apocryphal Acts to justify his disapproval. This selection is, however, unfortunately no longer extant, but it is plain that he was acquainted with the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John (for text see above, 1. (6)). He also refers to a Memoria Apostolorum, 'inquo admagnam perversitatissuae auctoritatem doctrinam domini mentiuntur, qui totam destruit legem veteris Testa- menti ct omnia quae S. Moysi de diversis creaturae factorisque divinitus revelata sunt, praeter reliquaa eiusdem libri blas- phemias quaa referre pertaesum est.' This Memoria Apostolorum is also mentioned by Orosius (ConsuJtatio ad Augustinum, in Patr. Lat. xUi. 667), and Schmidt (p. 50) thinks that it is the source of a quotation from a Manichaean writing which Augustine could not trace : ' Sed Apostolis dominus noster interrogantibus de Judaeorum prophetis quid sentiri deberet, qui de adventu eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putabantur, commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire respondit "Demisistis vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuia fabulamini."' ii. In the East. — (1) Eusebius. — In HE iii. 25. 6 the Acts of John and Andrew are mentioned to- gether with 'those of the other apostles,' and are regarded as books used by heretics. In iii. 3. 2 the Acts of Peter are mentioned, and in iii. 3. 5 and iii. 25. 4 the Acts of Paul. The Acts of Thomas are not quoted, nor is any reference made to Leucius. (2) EphraimSyrus (c. 360). — In his commentary' Ephraim says that the apocr^-phal correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians was ■RTitten by the followers of Bardesanes, 'in order that under cover of the signs and wonders of the Apostle, which they described, they might ascribe to the name of the Apostle their own godlessness, against which the Apostle had striven.' This apocryphal correspondence was contained in the Acts of Paul, but it also circulated in some SjTiac and Armenian NT MSS ; no doubt it was an excerpt from the Acts, but it is not clear whether Ephraim knew the Acts or the excerpt. It is, however, much more probable that Ephraim is here referring to the Acts, as the correspondence alone does not seem ever to have been regarded by the SjTiac Church as heretical. (3) Epiphanius. — In the Panarion Epiphanius mentions the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John in connexion with the Encratites {Pan. xlvii. 1), the ApostoUci {ib. Lxi. 1), and other heretics (cf. xxx. 16, bdii. 2). But there is no sign of any con- sciousness that there was a Manichsean corpus, or that there was any connexion with Leucius. At the same time a note in Photius (Bibl. cod. 179) states that Agapius used the Acts of Andrew, so that the Eastern Manichseans must have used at least some of the Acts. (4) Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 374). — At the Second Council of Nicsea (787) a quotation was read from Amphilochius' lost book -n-epl tQv \pevS- eiriypdcpuiv rQv wapa aiperiKoTs, in which he proposed Sei^opiev 5^ rd /3i/3Xta ravra . & Trpocpepovcriviju'ti' ol dirbffra- rai Trjs iKKXrjcrlas, ovx^ tCov a.iro(TT6\(i}v irpd^eis dXXd 5ai)j.bvwv (rvyypdp.paTa. It also appears from the Acts of the CouncU that the Acts of John was quoted and condemned. It was resolved that no more copies were to be made and those already existing were to be burnt. 32 ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) ACTS (APOCRITHAL) (5) John of Thcssalonica (c. 6S0). — In the preface to his recension of the reXelcoais Mapias (M. Bonnet, ZWT, ISSO, p. 239 ff.), Jehn explains that the Acts of Peter, Paul, Andrew, and John were hereti- cal productions, but seems to argue that they made use of genuine material, just as had been the case with the reXetwo-is. From this evidence, which is given with a full and clear discussion in his Alie Petrusakten (cf. also his Acta Pauli, 112 f.), C. Schmidt draws the following conclusion : (a) The Manichseans had formed a corpus of the five Acts, but were not them- selves the authors of any of them. They used this corpus instead of the canonical Acts, and the Priscilhanists used it in addition to the Canon. (b) In the course of the struggle between the Mani- chseans and the Church the view was adopted that the corpus was the work of a certain heretical Leucius. (c) The name of Leucius originally be- longed to the Acts of John alone, and was errone- ously attributed to the other books, (d) In this way the Acts of Paul, which was originally recog- nized as orthodox if not canonical, came to be regarded as heretical. On the evidence as we have it no serious objec- tion can be made to these propositions ; it might, however, be a matter for investigation whether the corpus of the Manichaeans was also used by the Eastern Manichseans, or was the peculiar possession of the Western branch. II. The I X dividual Acts.—I. The Acts of Paul. — By far the most important discovery con- cerning the Apocryphal Gospels in recent years was the Coptic text of the Acts of Paul found by C. Schmidt in the Heidelberg Pap>TUS 1, and pub- hshed by him in his Acta Pauli, Leipzig, 1903 (and in a cheaper form without the facsimile of the text, in 1905). This is not indeed complete, and there are still minor problems connected with the order of the incidents, but the main facts are now plain ; and the general contents of the Acts may be re- garded as roughly established, with the exception of certain rather serious lacunse, especially at the beginning and in the middle. The contents, as we have them, can be divided most conveniently as follows : (1) /re Antioch. — Paul is in the house of a Jew named Anchares and his wife Phila, whose son is dead. Paul restores the boy to hfe, and makes many converts ; but he is suspected of magic, and a riot ensues in which he is ill-treated and stoned. He then goes to Iconium. (2) In Iconium {the Thekla-story) . — Here the well-known story of Thekla is placed, and on the way to Iconium we are introduced to Demas and Hermogenes, who are represented as Gnostics with a pecuhar doctrine of an dvdffTaffis not of the flesh. In Iconium Paul was entertained by Onesiphorus, and preached in his house on dvdcrTaTis therefore raised persecution against Paul and Thekla. Paul was scourged and banished from the town ; Thekla was condemned to be burnt. From the flames she was miraculously preserved, and went to Antioch, where she found Paul. In Antioch her beauty attracted the atten- tion of Alexander, a prominent Antiochian, and her refusal to consent to his wishes led to her con- demnation to the wild beasts. A lioness protected her, but ultimately, after a series of miraculous rescues, she was forced to jump into a pond full of seals and committed herself to the water with the baptismal formula. Ultimately the protection of Queen Tryph^na and the sympathy of the women of Antioch secured her pardon. She returned to the house of Tryphaena and converted her and her servants, and then followed Paul in man's clothing to Myrrha. Then she returned to Iconium, and finally died in Seleucia. The text of this whole story is very defective in Coptic, but it is preserved separately in Greek, and enough remains in the Coptic to show that the Greek has kept fairly well to the original storv. (3) In Myrr/^a.— Thekla left Paul in M>Trha. Here he healed of the dropsy a man named Hermo- krates, who was baptized. But Hermippus the elder son of Hermokrates was opposed to Paul, and the younger son, Dion, died. The text is here full of lacunse, but apparently Paul raised up Dion, and punished Hermippus with bUndness, but after- wards healed and converted him. He then went on to Sidon. (4) In Sidon. — On the road to Sidon there is an incident connected with a heathen altar, and the power of Christians over the demons or heathen gods, but there is unfortunately a large lacuna in the text. In Sidon there is an incident which apparently is concerned with unnatural vice, and Paul and other Christians were shut up in the temple of Apollo. At the prayer of Paul the temple was destroyed, but Paul was taken into the amphitheatre. The text is defective, and the manner of his rescue is not clear, but apparently he made a speech and gained many converts, and then went to T>Te. (5) In Tyre. — Only the beginning of the story is extant, but apparently the central feature is the exorcism of demons and the curing of a dumb child. After this there is a great lacuna, in which Schmidt places various fragments deahng with the question of the Jewish law ; and it appears possible that the scene is moved to Jerusalem and that Peter is also present. (6) Paul in prison in the mines. — In this incident Paul appears as one of those condemned to work in the mines (? in Macedonia), and he restores to life a certain Phrontina. Presumably he ultimately escaped from his imprisonment, but the text is incomplete. (7) In Philippi. — The most important incident connected with Philippi is a correspondence with the Corinthians, dealing with certain heretical views, of which the main tenets are (a) a denial of the resurrection of the flesh ; (6) the human body is not the creation of God ; (c) the world is not the creation of God ; (d) the government of the universe is not in the hands of God ; (e) the crucifixion was not that of Christ, but of a docetic phantasm ; (/) Christ was not born of Mary, nor was he of the seed of David. (8) A farewell scene. — The place in which this scene is laid cannot be discerned from the frag- ments which remain, but it contains a prophecy of Paul's work in Rome, placed in the mouth of a certain Cleobius. (9) The martyrdom, of Paul. — The last episode gives an account of the martyrdom of Paul, and the text of this is also preserved as a separate docu- ment in Greek. According to it, Paul preached without any hindrance, and there is no suggestion that he was a prisoner. On one occasion, while he was preaching, Patroclus, a servant of Nero, fell from a window and was killed. Paul restored him, and he was converted. When Nero heard of this miracle, Patroclus acknowledged that he was the soldier of the /3a(ri\€i>s l-qcrovs XpiarSs. Nero caused him and other Christians to be arrested, condemned Paul to be beheaded, and the other Christians to be burnt. In prison Paul converted the prefect Longinus and the centurion Cestus, and pro- phesied to them hfe after death. Longinus and Cestus were told to go to his grave on the next day, when they would be baptized by Titus and Luke. At hia execution milk spurted from his ACTS (APOCR\THAL) ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) 33 neck instead of blood, and afterwards he appeared to Nero, who was so impressed that he ended the persecution. The narrative ends with the baptism of Longinus and Cestus at the grave of Paul. The testimony of early writers to the Acts of Paul. — Since the discovery of the Coptic Acts, which show that the 'Acts of Paul and Thekla' is an extract from the Acts of Paul, there is no justification for doubting that Tertullian refers to the Acts of Paul in de Baptistno, 17 : 'Quoflsi qui Pauli perperam inscripta le^funt, exemplum Theclae ad lieentiaiu niulienmi docendi tinguendique defendunt, sciant in Asia presbyteruin, qui earn scripturani construxit quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum se id amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse.' This statement is extremely valuable, because it gives us clear evidence as to the provenance of the Acts, proves that it is not later than the 2nd cent., and shows that it was composed in the great Chm-ch, not in any heretical or Gnostic sect. _ Origen quotes the Acts in de Principiis, i. 2, 3, and in in Johannem, xx. 12. In both cases he gives the Acts of Paul definitely as the source of his quotation, but neither passage is found in the extant texts. He apparently regards the Acts as only shghtly inferior to the Canonical Scriptures. Eusebius in HE iii. 25 ranks the Acts of Paul, with the Shepherd of Hermas, Ep. of Barnabas, the Apoc. of Peter, the Didache, and possibly the Johannine Apocalypse, as among the v6da. But he does not appear to place it with the Acts of Andi-ew and John and 'the other apostl6s' (per- haps the Acts of Peter and Thomas) which are AroTra iravT-rj Kal Sva-ffe^rj. Hence he probably did not regard the Acts of Paul as heretical. In the Claromontane hst of books of the OT and NT the Acts of Paul comes at the end in the company of ' Barnabae epistula, Johannis revelatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastor, Actus PauH, Revela- tio Petri,' which suggests somewhat the same judg- ment as that of Eusebius. From the Commentary of Hippolytus on Dn 3'^ it seems clear that he regarded the Acts of Paul as definitely historical and trustworthy. Com- bating those who doubted the truth of the story of Daniel in the hons' den, he says : et yap TriKTrevofifv on IIauA.ov eij S-qpCa KaraKpiGevTOi aifieSeis CTT* avToi' 6 \euju et? tou? 7r66as ai'aTreo'aji' 7r(pU\€LX^v auTor, ttws ovx' '"'' '"^^ ToO AauiiqK yti-dju.ei'a vriixTeiicrOjU.ej'; This incident is not extant in the Coptic texts, but a full account, stated to be taken from the Ueplodoi UaiXov, is given by Nicephorus CaUistus (cf . Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kanons, ii. 2. p. 880 ff.), and there is therefore no doubt but that Hippolytus re- garded the Acts of Paul as httle less than canonical. Finally, the passage quoted above from Augus- tine, c. Faust. XXX., makes it clear that in the Chm-ch of Africa, as late as the time of Augustine, the Acts of Paul was accepted as authoritative and orthodox, even if not canonical. The date of the Ads of Paul. — The testimony of early wi-iters furnishes a safe terminus ad quern. The Acts must be earlier than TertulUan's de Baptismo. The precise date of this tractate is uncertain, but at the latest it is only a few years later than a.d. 200, so that the Acts must at all events belong to the 2nd centtuy. The question is whether it is a great deal or a very little earlier. Schmidt is influenced by the frequent use of the canonical Acts and the Pastoral Epistles to choose a date not much earher than 180 ; on the other hand, Harnack thinks that the complete silence as to the Montanist movement, or anything which could be construed as anti-Montanist po- lemics, points to a date earlier than 170. Between these two positions a choice is difficult : probably we cannot really say more than that between 160 VOL. I. — T, and 200 is the most hkely period for the compo- sition of the Acts of Paul. (See especially C. Schmidt, Ada Paidi, 176 ff., where the whole question is thoroughly discussed, and reference made to the hterature bearing on the subject.) The theology of the Ads of Paul. — From the theo- logical point of view the Acts of Paul has excep- tional value as giving a presentment of the ordinary Christianity of Asia at the end of the 2nd cent., undisturbed by polemical or other special aims. So far as the doctrine of God is concerned, the teaching of the Acts is quite simple— it is that 'there is one God, and his Son, Jesus Christ,' which is sometimes condensed into the statement that there is no other God save Jesus Christ alone. It is thus in no sense Arian or Ebionite, but at the same time distinctly not Nicene. It is also definitely not Gnostic, for the Supreme God is also the Creator, and the instigator if not the agent of redemption. The general view which is implied is that the world_ was created good, and man was given the especial favour of being the son of God. This sonship was broken by the Fall, instigated by the serpent. From that moment history be- came a struggle between God, who was repairing the evil of the Fall, through His chosen people Israel and through the prophets, and the prince of this world, who resisted His efforts, had pro- claimed himself to be God (in this way heathen re- ligion was explained), and had bound all humanity to him by the lusts of the flesh. The result of this process was the existence of ayvwala. and ir\6,vri followed by (pdopd, aKadapala, ridovf), and ddvaros, and the need of an ultimate judgment of God, which would destroy all that was contaminated. But in His mercy God had sent His Holy Spirit into Mary, in order in this way, by becoming flesh, to destroy the dominion of evil over flesh. This Holy Spirit was_ (as in Justin MartjT) identical with the spirit which had spoken through the Jewish prophets, so that the Christian faith rested through- out on the Spirit, which had given the prophets to the Jews and later on had been incarnate in the Christ who had given the gospel. It should be noted that there is no attempt to distinguish be- tween the Logos and the Spirit. 'Father, Son, and Spirit' is a formula which seems to mean Father, Spirit or Logos, and the Son or Incarnate Spirit. It is clear that this is the popular theology out of which the SabeUian and Arian controversies can best be explained. For the reconstruction of late 2nd cent. Christology in popular circles the Acts of Paul is of unique value. There is also a marked survival of primitive eschatological interest : the expectation of the coming of Christ, and the estabUshment of a glorious kingdom in which Christians will share, is almost central. The means whereby Christians ensure this result are asceticism and baptism. The latter is prob- ably the necessary moment, and is habituaUy called the Tna, but determines first to strengthen the Ephesian community. On the feast day of Artemis he goes to the Temple, and after a speech inflicts death on the priest. He then encounters a young man who has killed his father because he had accused him of adulterj\ John raises the father, and converts both father and son ; he then goes to SmjTua. (2) Second visit to Ephesus. — John returns to Ephesus to the house of Andronicus, who had been converted during his first visit. Drusiana, the wife of Andronicus, dies from the annoyance caused her by a yoimg man KaUimachus, but after her burial John goes to the tomb and sees Christ appear as a young man ; he is instructed to raise up Drusiana and also a young man, Fortun- atus, who has been buried in the same place. Fortunatus is, however, not converted, and soon dies again. (3) The most important fragment of the Acts is that which seems to follow upon the episode of Drusiana, as she remains one of the chief persons. This was discovered in 1886 by M. R. James in Cod. Vind. 63 (written in 1324) and pubh.shed in 1897 in TS V. 1. It gives a long and extremely Docetic account of the Passion of Christ, and of a revelation which the true Christ made to the disciples while the phantasmal Christ was being crucified, and includes a hymn which was used, among others, by the Priscilhanists (Augustine, Ep. 237 [253]). (4) The death of John. — During the Sunday worship John makes a speech, and partakes with the brethren of the Eucharist. He then orders his grave to be dug, and after prayer, and emphasis on his virgin hfe, hes do^-n in the grave and either dies or passes into a permanent trance. The testimony of early writers, and the date of the Acts of John. — The earhest writer to use the Acts of John is Clement of Alexandria. In the Adumbrationes to 1 Jn 1^ (ed. Potter, p. 1009) he says : 'Fatur ergo in traditionibus quoniam Johannes ipsum corpus quod erat extrinsecus tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et ei duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse sed locum manui tribuisse disciouU.' 36 ACTS (APOCR\THAL) ACTS (APOCRYPHAL) This is a certain reference to the Acts of John (ed. Bonnet, 195 f.), and these Latin ' adumbration es ' are generally recognized as derived from the Hypotyposes. A similar reference, but less cer- tain, is in Strom, vi. 9. 71 : aXX' IvX fxev ToC trcoTTJpos rb crUofiia airaiTe'v co?