Historical Difficulties of Acts xv

6. Historical Difficulties of Acts xv

The difficulty really lies where Luke has to do with Pauline accounts. The locus classicus is Acts xv. 1 sqq., compared with Gal. ii. 1 sqq. Earlier and later attempts to harmonize these passages upon the basis of another journey to Jerusalem must be rejected. The most frequent method of lightening the difficulty is to show that according to Luke's ieculties of port the decree was applicable to the Acts xv. original community, that it was not an ordinance for converts from heathenism to which they were bound for the sake of salvation, that in general it involved nothing new so far as the general duty of Christians was concerned, and that therefore it was not necessary for Paul to mention it either to the Galatians or, indeed, later to make it a matter of injunction. Thin does not do away with the necessity for further attempts at enlightenment, and in view of the feat that the issuance of the decree can not be doubted while only the question of the occasion is in dispute, and further, since it is given by an author whose intention to be trustworthy appears from Luke i. 3, it is a duty not only of barmonistie interest but of historical exposition to attempt the solution of the problem. A beginning is to be made with a question of textual criticism. The olt oi* of Gal. ii. b has usually been regarded as relating the sentence to the circumcision of Titus. But in fact it may have been that this construction of the sentence influenced the introduction of those two words and that they are to be stricken out (so Ambroeiaster, Tertullian, Viotorinus, Ireaseus, Pelagius, and the codices D, d, and e). Verse 5 then may refer to the recognition on the part of Paul and Barnabas of the decree known to the Galatians. Paul is dealing with the calumnies uttered against him to the effect that he was a time.eerver (Gal. i. 10). He relates, therefore, the history of the events in his life which led up to the decree, states his independence as an apostle, tells of his exposition of his teaching before the authorities in Jerusalem, arms that he had sot yielded to the subjection of the "false brethren" (Gal. ii. 4) so far as Titus was concerned though he had yielded a point elsewhere; while so far as the meeting with Peter in Antioch was concerned, Peter had received the blame. When compared with Acts xv. this narrative seemed to be obscure, sad relief was sought by the addition of the ols o'vaii in question in order to reconcile Paul and Luke. Paul was able to give adhesion to the decree so far as he did in permitting it to be sent to his congregations, indeed in personally imparting it to them (Acts avi. 4), but he did not obligate himself to apply it to his mission field, though he was not personally opposed to it. While James could not disavow his own proposal (Acts axi. 2b), he could recognize that Paul was not bound to advance the matter and might have been ready to protect Paul in the latter's position. Finally Luke may have had an interest in informing Theophilus,

who had perhaps already learned something of the affair, of the entire development.

If the course of this explanation should prove correct, it may be supposed that in other matters the author was well oriented, that in more or less weighty affairs his observation had been true and

that his version is correct. He handles y. The the history rather in the way of ad Author's doting significant events than of a Methods. complete narration. With regard to the sections in which the first person is used, it is now seldom affirmed that they proceed from a man who falsely claims to have been present, and it is generally assumed that an eye-witness stands behind those sections. But it is sometimes held that the eye-witness is a different person from the author of the book, though against this is the lack of linguistic differences in the two portions of the text. Moreover, the time indications of the " we " sections agree well with those of the Pauline epistles concerning the .companionship of Luke and Paul. If all the indications be taken together, the pronouncement of historians like Curtius and Ranks, of philologists like Bless and Vogel, and archeologists like Ramsay, as well as of a host of theologians, to the effect that the authorship by Luke of the Acts of the Apostles is best supported is not easily to be combated.

Some other questions remain for consideration. One is that of sources. A starting-point like that given for the Gospel in the parallel accounts is not furnished for Acts, and consequently no sure results are attained. The relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles is also debated, one 8. Remain- affirming the frequent use of them, ing another asserting that they were in PRoblems. accessible to the author. It can not be definitely proved that literary dependence existed between the two sets of writings. A difficult question is that of the date, which can not be fixed at the conclusion of Paul's two years at Rome (Bless). The dependence of the Gospel upon Mark, which was not written before the death of Peter, gives the superior date. Krenkel in 1894 attempted to show literary dependence upon Josephus; in that case the earlier date would be 75 80 A.D. Tradition is silent as to the place of writing, though in Rome both writings were known at an early date. In the matter of the diffusion of these writings before the name of Luke was attached to them, the testimony of Clement of Rome (as implied by his citation of passages) is not easy to contest, and the same may be said of citations in Hernias, Barnabas Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, and Papias. With respect to the text it may be said that in no other book of the New Testament is the text in so bad a condition as in Acts. It is due to Bless that a new stadium has been reached in its treatment. This scholar observes that in a number of manuscripts circulated in the East of which D is the example among the uncials, one form of text is current which is no less original than that of the received text, and that of the two forms of text thus existent one is that of the original first draft while the other is the result of a revision by Luke's own hand. Bless in 1900 maintained that neither of these forms of the text is the original, but that both are the editions of a prior form (TSK, 1900, pp. 11, 19). That the hypothesis of the use of sources will be fully disproved in case of the establishment of this view is to be regarded as doubtful.

(Paul Ewald.)

Bibliography: On the personality of Luke, consult the introductions prefixed to the commentaries and the pertinent sections in the works on Biblical introduction; also A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipsic, 1908, Eng, transl.. Edinburgh, 1907; W. M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician and Other Studies, New York, 1907; DB, iii. I61-182; EB, iii. 2830-33.

On matters of criticism consult the works cited under Biblical Introduction II., particularly Zahn, and under Paul. Special treatises on authorship, credibility, and the like are: H. H. Evans, St. Paul the Author of the Third Gospel, London, 1884-86; J. Friedrich, Das Lukaeevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte 1Verke deaaelben Verjaaaera, Halls 1890; A. C. Hervey, Authenticity of Luke, London, 1892; F. H. Chase, Credibility of the Acts, iii. 1901. On origins and sources consult: E. Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte each ihrem Inhalt and . ... Ursprung, Stuttgart, 1854, Eng. transl., with Overbeck's Introduction to Acts, 2 vols., London, 1875; H. J. Litzinger, Die Entatehung den Lukaaevangeliuma und der Apostelgeschichte, Essen, 1883; F. Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, Are Quellen and deren geschichtlichen alert, Halle, 1891; J. Jüngat, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, Gotha, 1895; B. Weiss, Die Quellen den Lukaeeaangeliuma, Stuttgart, 1907; J. Horner, Gospels of Matthew and Luke: a Vindication of their Agreement and Accuracy, Pittsburg, 1908; A. Harnack, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das N. T., III., Die Apoetelgoschichk, Leipsic, 1908, Eng. transl., New Testament Studies. III., The Acts, London, 1908. Other problems are discussed in: F. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften den Lukas, Berlin, 1817, Eng. traasl., London, 1825; M. Schneckenburger, Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, Bern, 1841; J. R. Oertel, Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte, Halle, 1868 (on the historicity); W. Stewart, The Plan of Luke's Gospel, Glasgow, 1873; W. M. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, chap. viii., London, 1876; W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke, ib. 1882; A. Kloatermann, Problems in Aposteltexte, Gotha, 1883; P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrape, Leipsic, 1890; J. M. Stiffer, Introduction.to the Study of Acts, New York, 1892; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire New York, 1893; idem, St. Paul the Traveller, ib. 1896; M. Krenkel, Jcaephua and Lukas Leipsic 1894; J. Weiss, Ueber die Abeicht and den literdtrischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte, Marburg, 1897 (makes Acts an apologetic work addressed to the heathen world); DB, i. 25-35, iii. 162-173; EB, i. 37-57, ii. 1761-1898.

For the Gospel the beat commentary in English is A Plummer, Edinburgh, 1897, which eentswne a goed list of the earlier literature. Other commentaries are: C. W. Stein, Halle, 1830; J. Ford, London, 1851; J. H. Schol- ten, Het pauliniach evanpel%e Leyden, 1870; M. Vernet, Paris, 1870; H. Cowie% New York, 1881; W. H. Van Doren, 2 vols., ib.1881; P.Schanz, Tübingen, 1883; T. Lindsay, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887; F. Godet, 3 vols., Neuchâtel, 1875, Eag, tranal, of earlier edition, Edinburgh, 1875; C. Robinson, New York 1889; H. D. M. Spence, in Pulpit Commentary. London, 1889; H. Burton, ib. 1890; F. W. Farrar, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1890; A. MaoIaren, New York, 1894 J. C. Ryle, 2 vols., London, 1896; P. Girodon Penis, 1903; J. M. S. Baljoa,Uttecht 1908.

Commentaries on the Acts are: F. Blass, Göttingen, 1895, and an edition of the text, Leipsic, 1897; F. Rendall, London, 1897 (the two works just mentioned are the beat); P. J. Gloag, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1870 (ultraconservative); J. S. Howson, Companions of St. Paul, London, 1871; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge Bible, Cam- bridge, 1879 H. B. Hackett, Philadelphia, 1882 (long regarded as the beat); C. F. NSegea, Leipsic, 1882; A. C. Hervey, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., London, 1884; T. M. Lindsay, Edinburgh, 1885 (very helpful); D. Thomas, London, 1889; W. Arnot, The Church in the House, New Yok 1891 G. T. Stokes, in Expositor's Bible, 2 vols., London, 1891; J. M. Stiffer, ib. 1894; B. B. Loomis, Studio in the Acts, New York, 1896; J. Beleer,

65
Beiträge aw Erkl.Srurp der AposteIgeschichte, Freiburg, 1897 (takes especial note of codes D); J. ICnabenbauer, Paris, 1899 (in Latin); R. B. Rackham, London, 1901; W. Robertson, Studies it the Acts, Edinburgh, 1901; A. Schlatter, Stuttgart, 1902.