same document should alter it into the third pronoun "they," or insert the name Timothy (Acts xvii. 14, xviii. 5, xix. 22). The only answer that has been given to this objection is, that the writer or compiler of the Acts, through carelessness, sometimes left the "we" of the original document unchanged, -a carelessness which, as Meyer observes, is something unparalleled, and even monstrous.1 Besides, the authorship of Timothy is inconsistent with the book itself. In Acts xx. 4, 5 we read, "And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. These, going before, tarried for us at Troas;" where it is evident that the persons named, among whom was Timothy, who went before, are different from the narrator, who remained behind with the apostle. To remove this objection, Ulrich proposes to read the passage thus: "There accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus" (where, in the original document, ey stood). Here a full stop is supposed, and then follows: "But the Asiatics, Tychicus and Trophimus, these (namely, the Asiatics) going before, tarried for us at Troas." The catalogue of Paul's companions is thus divided into two parts-those who accompanied him, and those who went before; and by this method Timothy is included among the "we" party who accompanied Paul. But such a construction is unnatural, if not inadmissible, and is, as Schwanbeck observes, an evident makeshift, to avoid a difficulty arising from the plain sense of the passage.2 Mayerhoff goes further, and supposes that the whole of the Acts as well as the third Gospel was written by Timothy, and that Luke acted only in the capacity of a transcriber. "The part of Luke," he observes, "both in the Gospel and 1 So also Renan observes: "Such an error might only exist in a most careless compilation; but the third Gospel and the Acts form a work very well prepared, composed with reflection, and even with art; written by the same hand, and on a connected plan." 2 Schwanbeck's Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 161, 162. in the Acts of the Apostles, is entirely subordinate—that of a transcriber of the works composed by Timothy; and it is only a later tradition which made Luke what he never was in reality, an attendant on Paul in his journeys, and the author of the Acts as well as of the Gospel." This opinion accounts for the similarity of style pervading these two books, and which forms a difficulty in the way of the other hypothesis. But it is exposed to all the objections already brought forward to the partial authorship of Timothy; and, besides, is encumbered with its own peculiar difficulties. No reason can be assigned, if Timothy were the author of the Acts and the third Gospel, why these works have been ascribed to the unknown Luke in preference to one so well known as Timothy. Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which Timothy is for the first time mentioned as "one who was well reported of by the brethren" (Acts xvi. 2): the author would hardly have thus written of himself to Theophilus. Another person supposed to be the author of a considerable portion of the Acts is Silas. This opinion has been adopted and defended by Schwanbeck. He supposes that from ch. xv. 13 and onwards was written by Silas; and that this document was inserted by Luke, as the general editor, in his work, with a few trifling alterations. The chief reason assigned for this is the minuteness with which the transactions at the Council of Jerusalem are recorded, as if the account was the report of an eye-witness. This hypothesis is wholly unsupported by external testimony, and is entirely founded on arbitrary assumption. The same objection, arising from the arbitrary change from the first to the third personal pronoun, which was brought against the authorship of Timothy, applies here with equal force. Besides, this opinion is opposed to the manner in which Silas is introduced to the readers of the book along with Judas Barsabas, as "chief men among the brethren" (Acts xv. 22). The only answer that Schwanbeck gives to this objection is, that this notice was either an insertion by the 1 Mayerhoff's Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, p. 21. editor, or, what is more probable, that it referred only to Judas, but was extended by the editor to Silas.1 Such arbitrary conjectures cannot possibly be encountered by argument. A fourth hypothesis, advanced by Hennel, is that Luke and Silas are the same person. "There is reason," he observes, "to conjecture that Luke and Silas are one person. The pronoun'we' occurs in the narrative for the first time in ch. xvi. 10, 'We endeavoured to go into Macedonia.' The only companions of Paul at that time were Silas and Timothy (ch. xv. 40, xvi. 3, 4, 6). Accordingly, one of these three wrote the Acts of the Apostles. But it is evident from ch. xx. 4, 13, that neither Paul nor Timothy wrote it. Silas therefore was the author. Wherever the pronoun 'we' occurs, there is no reason against the opinion that Silas was of the company. The name Silas or Silvanus has nearly the same import as Lucas or Lucanus,—the one being derived from silva, a wood, and the other from lucus, a grove; both being only Latinized forms from the original Greek or Hebrew name of the author." 2 Hence it is inferred that Luke, to whom the early Fathers assigned the authorship of Acts, is the same as Silas, who from internal evidence appears to have been its author. These arguments, however, have little force. The hypothesis is exposed to all the arguments already adduced against the partial authorship of Silas. In the epistles of Paul, Silas and Luke are both mentioned as if they were different persons,-there being not the slightest intimation given us of their identity. No argument can be based on the supposed similarity of names. The identity of Cephas and Peter, both signifying a rock, is not parallel, as these names do not signify similar things, but precisely the same thing; and besides, they are from different languages, the one being Hebrew and the other Greek-not like lucus and silva, words of the same language. A man may translate his name from one language to another, as was done by the French refugees after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, who, when they came to England, 1 Schwanbeck's Quellen, pp. 173, 174. 2 Ibid. p. 170. translated their names into English; but it is very farfetched to argue that cognate names in the same language, "Grove" and "Wood," probably belong to the same as person. We do not at present enter upon a consideration of the credibility of the Acts as an authentic history, because the examination of particular points will naturally occur in the course of our exposition. We would only observe that there are two distinct lines of argument which demonstrate the trustworthiness of the book. First, the agreement which exists between the Acts and the epistles of Paul is of such a nature as to prove them to have been independently written; and thus they mutually corroborate each other. This line of argument has been carried out by Paley in his masterly work the Hora Paulina. Examples of such undesigned coincidences will be given in their proper place. A second proof of the credibility of the history is the agreement of the narrative of the Acts with information. derived from other sources. This agreement embraces many particulars. The historical transactions recorded in the Acts are in accordance with the information given us by such independent writers as Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. The statements with regard to the governors of particular countries, and the political condition of particular cities, are corroborated by coins which have come down to us.1 And the topography of the places mentioned in the account of the missionary journeys of Paul corresponds both with ancient geography as given by Strabo, and with the investigations of modern travellers. Frequently this agreement extends to minute particulars, and is of a complicated nature, such as could not possibly have occurred in the work of a forger. We shall have frequent occasion to notice instances of such agreement in the course of our exposition. According to the views of De Wette, the second part of the Acts, where the author depended on his own observation and on his intercourse with Paul, is much more credible 1 The reader is here specially referred to Akerman's Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament. than the first part, which is drawn chiefly from traditionary accounts. In the first part, he observes, there are "inexplicable difficulties, exaggerations, incorrect statements, doubtful facts, unsatisfactory information, and traces of ignorance with Jewish history and customs."1 But when he adduces proofs of such an assertion, they are found to be for the most part irrelevant, or difficulties which, when carefully examined, admit of explanation. The instances brought forward of apparent contradictions and misstatements will all be examined in their proper place. Baur, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Schrader, and other writers of the Tübingen school, go much further. They have attempted to transfer to the Acts the mythical character which Strauss has assigned to the Gospels. Baur supposes that it was written toward the middle of the second century, and that it is not a purely historical work, but a conciliatory treatise by a disciple of Paul, with a view to reconcile the opinions of that apostle with those of Peter and the other original apostles. So also Zeller observes: "The Acts is the work of a Pauline of the Romish church: the time of its composition may most probably be fixed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130, after Christ."2 Hence the historical truth in it is but small; and the miracles recorded are to be accounted for not from natural causes, but either as the inventions of the writer or as mythical tales. Such an attempt of extreme criticism never received much support in Germany; and in all probability it would have been forgotten, had it not been for the distinguished ability and learning of its two great promoters and defenders, Baur and Zeller. It seems to have arisen entirely from the views of the school regarding the impossibility of miracles; and as the natural solution of miracles had failed, they endeavoured to substitute their mythical hypothesis. We shall revert to this subject when we consider "the design of the Acts." We have little information concerning Luke himself, the author of the Acts. His name Lucas is a contraction for 1 De Wette's Apostelgeschichte, p. 12. 2 Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, p. 488. |