Acrostic (Hastings' Dictionary)

A poem so composed that the initial letters of certain recurring periods (lines, distichs, etc.) follow some detinite arrangement. In the OT all the recognised acrostics are alphabetical, i.e. the initials make up the Ileb. alphabet. They are I'ss 0-10. 25. ;!4. 37. 111. 112. ll'.t. 115, I'r 31i'J-3i, La 1. 2. 3. 4, Sir ol'^-^'. See also Hab l-;-2'. The periods assigned to each letter may consist of one line (Fss 111. 112), two (I'ss 34. 145, etc.), three (La 3, etc.)

, or even sixteen lines (Ps 119) ; or the lines may vary in number, as esp. in La 1 and 2, and to some extent in the Psalms. Where the period consists of several lines, the initial letter is soineiimes repeated with each line (La 3) or distich (I's 1 HI). In other res|>ects the acrostics vary very much in style and subject, and, though usually late, undoubtedly belong to very different dates. Thus Pss 37 and 119 from their didactic style are evidently late, while the .Tahwi.

stic Ps 25 is comparatively early. The acrostic character of these poems often throws indirectly an inter- esting light on their history, showing us unmistak- ably the haiul of the reviser, who sometimes did not scruple to disturb their alphabetical character. The most striking exanqde ot this is in Ps 9-lU. originally one alphabetical psalm of usually four lines to each letter. This the reviser cut into two, in Ps 9 ad<ling vv.-", ' * as an appendix (comp.

Ps 2o, 34-^), and omitting two or three verses after vfi. In Ps 10 the verses represented by c-x were omitted to make room for the insertion of a very curious and ancient fragment in vv., 'i. Somewhat similar, but le.ss violent, alterations occur in P.ss 25. 34 and 37. Thus in Ps 25 the insertion of 'nS.s by the Elohistic reviser (see IlKXATElTt'll) in v.- gives n instead of 3 as the initial letter. It would seem also that v.'* has been substituted for a p ver.

se, or else that the latter has been omitted. The omission of the j verse in Ps 145 appears to be accidental. It is interesting to notice that when the psalms are, from their style and position in the Psalter, likely to be of late date, there is little or no interference with their alphabetical arrangement. The trans- position of the letters ;■ and a in La 2 and 3 cannot easily be accounted for. Bickell, ZcUsrh. fur Kathnl. Theol. (Innsbruck) 1882, p. 320 If., has shown that the conclusion of .

Sir, of which the original Ileb. is now lost, was alpha- betical, the letters c-r, vv.-i, -', being evident at once from the Syr. version. It has also been maintained that Nah 1, 2'' was originally alphabetical ; but if so, the text has been so altered by revision or corruiition that very few traces of this remain.

Some critics claim to have discovered a name acrostic in Ps 110, the initials of 1-1, after omitting the introductory words, spelling i;-j' ; but this coincidence can hardly be considered conclusive. F. II. Woods. "ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.— i. iiilnulilcliiiii. 11. 'I'fxt jtiiii TraiiMiilssiotl. 111. LltiTarv lll»t"l-v. It. Moilirri Crltlcls'in. V. Purpn.sw and Contents, vl. \nalysis. vlf. Autliorshit) and Onto. vltl. Tho Acts an<l .losei»hus. U. Tho lIl.Hiorlcal Valnc- of tlio Acts.

(1) A Priori Otjj.-cUons. (2) TliL' Acts and St. I'anPs Epistles. (8) Tho Arohioi)loirk-al Kvldonco. (4) Tho IVrlod of Transition. (.'>) Tho Karlv Coninuinltv In .Jenisalera. (0) Tho Spoorhcs. X. Souroo.H of tho Acts, xi. t'onchislon. xll. LItornturo. i. The AiTS OF THE APOSTLES, the fifth book in the English Canon, is unique in its char.acter. • Tho vi'i-ses are nuinbored In this article according to tho IT.-l.. Illhlo.

Charles Srrihvfr^K Sons 26 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES While we have four separate narratives of the life of our Lord, and a very considerable number of letters by different apostles, it is the only history of the early Church that can make any claim to be authentic. Some writers indeed, such as Holtzmann (llandkommentar, p.

3l)7), suggest that it is to be i)ut on the level of other works written in the second century recording the deeds of the apostles ; but such a position is quite untenable. Even if some of them, such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, may rest on an historical basis, that is the most which can be admitted. The greater number of them, most notably the Clementine Komaiices, for which there wa.s once claimed almo.st an equality with the Acts, are now decisively thrown to a later date.

The Acts is the sole remaining historical work which deals with the beginnings of Church history ; and this amongst other causes has made it a favourite mark of modern criticism. ii. Tkxt axi) Transmission.— Although our authorities for the transmission of the Acts are in the main similar to those for the Go.spels, they are fewer in number. Like the Gospels, it is contained in the five leading Uncials (n A B C I)) , in the Vulg.

, in the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, in the two chief Coptic VSS, and there are quotations from it in the leading Fathers. Two sources are, however, defective. We have nothing corresponding to the Curetonian and Sinaitic Sj' riac, nor do we even know whether such a text existed ; and the Old Lathi is very inadequately represented. On the other hand, we possess one other Uncial of considerable im- portance, namely, the Codex Laudianus (E) of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, a bilingual MS.

of the Acts only. In later Minuscules it is generally found forming one volume with the Catholic Epistles. The inadequate representation of the Old Latin and the absence of an old Syriac text are to be regretted, owing to the fact that the particular textual phenomena which they exhibit meet us in some authorities of the .Vets in a very conspicuous form, namely, what is called the Western text (by Sanday and Ileadlam, Romans, p. l.xxi, the 5 text ; by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p.

24, the (3 text). This is represented more or less definitely by the two bilingual MSS. D E, by the marginal readings of the Harclean Syriac, by the Old Latin so far as we can recover it (Codex Gigas, Floriacensis, and similar fragments, with the Paris MS. Latin 321, edited by M. Berger), and by Western Fathers, esp. Iren.eus, TertuUian, Cyprian, Lucifer, Augustine, Vigilius, Bede (some having a mixed text).

The characteristics of this text are well known ; it adds passages of considerable length, it paraphrases, it sometimes seems to correct the shorter text ; and all these characteristics appear, but in a very much more marked form, in the Acts ; it sometimes gives a different aspect to a passage by the variations from the shorter text, sometimes its variations give additional and apparently authentic information.

The problem of the origin of this text has caused in recent years a consider- able amount of discission. Some few critics, such as Bornemann (1848), have been bold enough to consider it the original text ; but that opinion has found few followers. Hendel Harris, in 1891, started a series of modern discussions by suggesting that the variations of Codex Bezie were due to Latinisation, and implied the existence of a bilingual MS. at least as early as 150 .v.d.

He also found signs of Montanist influence. His main theory was adequately refuted by Sanday in the GnartUan (18th and 25th May 1892), who ascribed the recension suggested by the Western text to Antioch. Kamsay, in 1892 (Church in Rom. Emp. p. 151, ed. 2), found evidence of a Catholic reviser who lived in Asia before the year 150, a locality which had already been suggested by Lightfoot (Smith's DIS- i. p. 42), while WH suggest N.W. Syria or Asia Minor (Or. Test. ii. p. 108). Dr.

Chase, in 1893, attacked the problem from another side, accepting Antioch as the locality, and finding the principal cause of the variations in retranslation from the Syriac, a position he failed to make good. Lastly, Dr. Bla.ss has suggested that the author issued two editions, and that both forms of the text are due to himself personally, the one representing a rough draft, the other a revision : again, a theory which is hardly satisfactory (see C^hase, Crit. Rev. 1894, p. 300 ff.

; Blass' reply begins in Hennathena, No. xxi. p. 122). A definite solution of the problem has not been attained, nor has it yet been attacked in a really scientific manner. A careful study of the MSS. D and E, and their relations, is necessary in order to eliminate their individual peculiarities. But in all probability the solution lies in the direction suggested by WH (p. 122 f.) If we compare the phenomena presented by the text of apocr.

writings we find just the same tendency to varia- tion, but in an even more exaggerated form. Popular literature was treated with great freedom by copyists and editors. Immediate edification or convenience was the one thing considered. During the first seventy years of their existence, i.e. up to the year A.D. 150, the books of NT were hardly treated as canonical. The text was not fixed, and the ordinary licence of paraphrases, of interpre- tation, of additions, of glosses, was allowed. The.

se could be exhibited most easily in early and popular translations into other languages. It was a process which would have a tendency to continue until the book was treated as canonical, and its text looked on as something sacred.

Although some whole eUisses of readings may be due to one definite place or time, yet for the most part they represent rather a continuous process, and it is not probable that any theory which attempts to tie all variations down to a special locality or a definite revision will now be made good. In one point, ho%vever, WH's conclusions will require modification. It must not be forgotten that Western authorities represent ultimately an independent tradition from the Archetype.

It is quite conceivable, therefore, that in any single reading, which is clearly not Western in its character, they may preserve a better tradition than the MSS whose text we should usually follow. We must, in other words, distinguish Western readings from readings in Western authorities. For example, "EW/ivas read by A D in 11-' may be correct. iii. The LiTEUAKT HISTORY of the Acts is similar to that of the great number of books of NT.

In the last quarter of the second century, when we begin to have any great extent of Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. Luke. This is the case esp. with Irenajus, who cites passages so continuous as to make it certain that he had the book before him substantially as we have it, but with many of the readings we call Western.

He lays stress on the fact that there is internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and is followed in this by the Muratoriau Fragment (Iren. Adv. Ilir. i. 23. 1 ; iii. 12. 12, 13. 3, 14. 1, 15. 1 ; iv. 15. 1). The book is also a-scribed to St. Luke by TertuUian (De h-iunio, 10) and Clement of .\lex. (Sfrom. v. 12. §83, p. 69fi, cf. Sanday, liL, p. (ifif.) ; while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. v.

24), in the letter concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons {ib. v. 1), and a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth {ib. iv. 23). By this date the work is an ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES integral portion of the Canon in all Churches, and there are no signs of any difference of opinion. Nor is tliere any reason for arguing that because our knowledge of it begins suddenly, therefore the book suddenly appeared in the Canon.

We have no decisive evidence earlier, because we have no books to contain tliat evidence. Jloreover, the wide area over which our evidence extends seems to imply that the iuscription to St. Luke is a genuine tradition, and not a mere critical deduction. For an earlier period tlie industry of critics has collected a number of parallels, on which indeed, for the most part, no great stress can be laid ; but two lines of arirument enable us to take the book farther back.

The unity of authorship of the Acts and St. Luke's Gospel must be admitted as axio- matic, and it is quite clear that Talian, Justin, and Marcion were acquainted with St. Luke's Gospel. Now, the existence of St. Luke's Go-spel implies the existence of the Acts, and this con- clusion is supported by a number of (larallels between the Acts and ,Ju.stin, which would not perhaps be bv themselves of great weight (Ac P = Ap. i. 50, 2»"' = Dial. «8. 7*- = Dial. 1(5, 17-3 = Ap. ii.

10, 2tV-a = Dial, m, 76). The use of St. Luke by Marcion clearly carries the Acts back to the early part of the second century; but we can go still earlier. Among the apostolic Fathers there are suggestions of contact with Barnabsts, Hennas, and Clement on which little stress can be laid, while Papias .shows himself acquainted with the persons mentioned by St. Luke ; but in Ignatius and I'olycarp (Ac '.i = Pol. 1, 102 = Pol. 2, 20^ = Pol. 2, 7»2 = Pol. 6, 8-1 = Pol. 12, l-'s = Ign. Marj.

6, (553 = Ign. Phil. 11, 10*' = Ign. Snvjn. '-i) there are resemblances which, altliough slight, are so exact as to make the hy- pothesis of literary obligation almo.st neces.sary, a.s Holtzmann even seems to think {Einleitnni/,'-' 1892, p. 40(5, ' there are still more noteworthy resem- blances with Justin, I'olycarp, and Ignatius '). This la.

st evidence is of increasing importance, as not only the genuineness but also the early date of the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius is becoming daily better established, and these quotations almost compel us to throw back the writing of the Acts into the 1st cent. — this is, of course, provided we accept the literary unity. If we accept the elaborate distinction of sources (see § x.) which has become fashionable lately, no evidence at an early date is valuable except for the words quoted.

The history subsequent to the second century need not detain us. Some few heretics appear to have left the work out of the Canon, and Chrysostom complains that it was not much read in his time ; but it is always with him as with all other Church writers, one of the accepted book.s. Its place in the Canon varies. The ordinary position is ininu'diately after the Gospels (Evv. Art. Cath. Paul, or Evv. Act. Paul. Calh.), and this is the place it occupies in almost all (Jr.- MSS.

from the Vatican onwards, in the Muratorian Fragment and later lists, in Syr. and Lat. MSS. The order, Erv. Paul. Act. Calh., is that of the Sin., some Minusiuiles, MSS. of the Pesliitta of the 5th and tith cent., the Codex Fuldensis and Vulg. MSS. from the l.'ilh cent. A third order is Ecv. Paul. Cath. Act., which is found in the Apostolic Canons, 85, the IJohairic and perhaps the Sahidic MSS., in Jerome's Bible and Spanish Vulg. MSS.

The only point of imijortance in the order would be whether there was an early tradition grouping the writings of St. Luke together. There is very Utile evidence of this. In stmie cases St. Luke'.s was placed fourth among the Gospels, but this happened, as a rule, in authorities which do not put the Acts next ; for example, the Codex Claromon- tanus and some Coptic authorities. There seems, however, .

some evidence for thinking that in Origen's time the order of the Gospels was Jn Mt Mk Lk, and that these were followed by the Acts. In the case of Irenaus, however, our oldest evidence for Asia and the West, we find the Gospel already separated from the Acts and definitely grouped with the other Gospels (Zahn, Geschichte (les A'eutest. Kanons, ii. ;54;i-383). iv. MODKUN Ci'.n'icisM. — 1.

By far the most prevalent opinion concerning the Acts has always been, and still is, that which ascribes it to St. Luke the companion of St. Paul. This is the opinion, not only of those critics who are classed as ortho- dox, but of Kenan, whilst it has recently been maintained with great vigour by Kamsay and Blass. It is, of course, compatible with very vary- ing estimates of its historical authority.

While Renan considers it valuable mainly as a witness to the opinions and ideas of the author's own time, Ramsay, on the other hand, claims for St. Luke a place in the very first rank of histcnians — i.e. amongst those who have good material, who use it well, and who write their history with a very clear insight into the true course of events. Even he, however, admits that for the earlier portion its value is tlependent on the value of the sources used. 2.

As soon as Baur began to develop his theory of Church history, it became apparent that it was inconsistent with the Acts ; and partly arising from a comparison with the history recorded in the Galatians and for other critical reasons, but partly owing to a different a priori conception of what was the nature of the development of the early Church, an opinion has widely prevailed that the Acts presents us with a fancy picture written in the second century in the interests of the growing (Catholicism of the day.

This has been the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller (to whom we owe by far the fullest investigation on this side), Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Hausrath, Moisten, Lipsius, Davidson, van Manen. and others. But in the extreme form in which it was held it is gradually being given up. Neither the late date nor the exaggerated view of the differences of parties in the early Church is really tenable.

The unhistorical character comes, it is now said, rather from defective knowledge and insight, not from deliberate purpo.se, and the writer wrote as he could rather than as he would. He represents, in fact, the opinions of his day, those of ' Heathen Christianity developing into Catho- licity' (Harnack, Jlist. of Dogma, Kng. tr. i. 56). Moreover, few would care for a much later date than 100 A.d. 'The authorship by St.

Luke would be just conceivable if some time about the year 80 were taken as the terminus ad quem ' (Holtzmann, Ilandkomm. p. 312). 3. The school of Baur had the great merit of establishing the fact that the Acts is an artistic whole, that the writer had a clear conception of the manner in which the Church developed, and wrote with that idea always before him. In the last ten years a series of writers have attacked the question of the sources of the Ixiok (see § x.)

in a manner quite inconsistent with this. They have imagined a number of writers who have gradually compiled the book by collecting and piecing together scrajis of other books, and by altering or cutting out such passages in the same as seemed inconsistent with their particular opin- ions. This view, in anything like an extreme form, is ab.solutely inconsistent with the whole character of the work.

A sufficient amount has been said about the various opinions which have been held, and it will be most convenient to pursue our subsequent investigations from the point of view which we consider most probable. V. PfurofiK AND C;oNTENT8. — The purpose Which the writer of the Acts had before him may bo 28 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES gathered from his own preface, corresponding as it tloes with the plan and arrangement of the work. There is indeed a slight obscurity.

He begins by referring to liis previous book in the words rhu /iff trpuiTov \6yoii, and very clearly sums up the contents of the work as being 7r«pl irarTcor S}V (jp^aro d 'ItJiToCs iroitii' Tf Kal StSi(TK(iv\ but he never gives the second part of the sentence. Its purport, however, may be gathered from the following verses. The apo.

s- tles were to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and of power, and were to be witnesses of the Lord in Jerusalem and in all Judsea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. In other words, the subject of the book is (1) the divine credentials of the apostles as exhibited in their power, and (2) the extension of the gospel in the stages marked by the words Jerusalem, Jud»a, and Samaria, the uttermost parts of the earth.

When we examine the structure of the book, we find that it almost exactly corresponds with these words. There is clear evidence of method. The writer begins with the enumeration of the names of the apostles and the members of the corjmunity. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the immediate outburst of power. Then the preaching in Jerusalem. In this we notice that all signs of the apostolic power and all points which lead to the spread of the gospel are specially noted.

An in- stance of the first is the story of Ananias and Sapphira ; of the last, the way in which the different stages in the growth of the Church are continually emphasised Ci'-" 4). In ch. 6 there is clearly a new start. Tlie appointment of the seven is dwelt on, both because of the immediate exhibition of power (0"), and because of the immense results which followed from the preaching of Stephen and the persecution which followed his death. In 8* the second stage of progress is entered upon.

The word spreads to Samaria (8-'^). The extension of the gospel is suggested by the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (S^e-"). In 9'-' comes Saul's conversion, an event of extreme importance for the writer's purpo.se. In 9^' is given another summary of the progress of the Church — by this time throughout all Judsa and Galilee and Sam- aria. A scries of incidents relating to the mis- sionary work of St.

Peter now follows (9', ll'*), selected as containing the first definite signs of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, "Apa Kal T0?5 (OvftTiv 6 8chs TTJV jueraroiai' (ts ^oiijtJ ebuKff. In 11'' we reach a further stage. The word is preached in I'htenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, and the Church of Antioch is founded — the word being preached there to those who are not Jews. In 12'-< again the spread of the word is dwelt on. Another stage in the narrative is ended.

We get in 13' or 12-^ what is clearly intended to be a new departure. The amount of preparation shows us the importance that the author attaches to the first .setting out of Paul and Barnabas to- gether, and from this time onwards the narrative proceeds very definitely forward until the time when St. Paul reaches Home. We may again mark stages in tlie narrative — 13*-14-'' — commonly called the first missionary journey of St.

Paul ; in which we notice the emphasis laid on the exhibition of Siva^ns on the part of the apostle. In lo', "^ comes the apostolic council ; then 15*- 21"> the further missionary enterprise of St. Paul. Here we notice how it is always tlie points of departure which are dwelt on, as, for example, the first preaching in Europe and in great and im- portant towns. Then 21 "-28"' the series of events which ultimately lead St. Paul to Home.

Here the great fulness of detail arises partly from the better knowledge of the author, partly from the important character of the events, — St. Paul preaches before rulers and kings, Lk 21'2, — partly because they are all events which help in taking the go.spel to Rome. There the author leaves St. Paul preaching, because he has then accomplished the purpose of his narrative. Home is typical of the ends of the earth. A definite point is reached, and the narrative is definitely concluded.

(For arguments in favour of the definite conclusion of the work, see Lightfoot in Smith's Vli- i. 27, as against Ramsay, St. Paul, p 23.) The above sketch of the plan of the work has, at any rate, the merit of being an attempt to discover the author's purpose by an examination of his own language. The fault of other views is that they exaggerate points of minor importance.

A series of writers from Schneckenburger (1841) onwards have seen in the work a book of conciliating tendency, based on the parallelism between St. Peter and St. Paul ; and this view in a more or less modified form has been the prevailing one. It has, as will be suggested, this much truth, that the writer would pa.ss over for the most part incidents of a less creditable character; he did not, however, do .

so, as this theory implies, because he wished to con- ceal anything (he gives us quite sufficient hints of the existence of difference of opinion, 15'- •'"''■ 21-J''), but because they did not help in the aim of his work. He looks upon Christianity as a polity or society, and it is the growth of this society he depicts. The internal history is looked at in so far as it leads to external growth.

The view of Pfleiderer and some others is that the book was written from an apologetic point of view to defend Christianity against Judaism and paganism. With this object, like the later Chris- tian apologists, the writer depicts the Roman authorities as, on the whole, favourable to Chris- tianity, while he represents the attacks as coming from the Jews.

There is no doubt that he does so ; but the obvious reason for doing so was the fact that the author was narrating things as they happened, while he gives no hint that his work is intended to be apologetic. It is addressed to a believing Chris- tian, not to any outsider. vi. AX.\LYSIS. — A certain amount of discussion has taken place as to whether the Acts should be divided into two or three main parts. All such discussions are thoroughly fruitless.

There are quite clearly definite stages in the narrative, and the writer is systematic. We must observe the structure, but we are at liberty to make such divi- sions as seem convenient — rememliering that the divisions are not the writer's, but our own. The following is sugge.sted as a convenient analysis on the lines of the previous summary. The speeches are italicised: — Introduction. 1'-". The Apostolic Commission. ECU IN Jerusalem.

The Dames of tlie apostles and the completion of their number. Speech or' Peter. The gift of the Holy Spirit. Speech of Peter. Increase of the disciples. Healing of the impotent man. Speech of Peter. Imprisonment of I'eterand John. Spee&i of Peter before the Sanhedrin. Prayer of' the CUiirch on ttieir release. Communism of the early Church — Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira. Second imprisonment of Peter and John. Speech of Gamaliel. The appointment of the Seven. The preaching of Stephen.

The Hpeech of Ste])hen. Death of Stephen and persecution of the Church. Tub Cm- la- « oi-ia_ ♦2-47' U.S1 M-5'«. 9-lB 71-63 The Church in Jud.ea and Samaria. S-". Philip in Samaria, Simon Magns. 10-40 Philip and the Kthiopian eunuch. 91.30 Conversion of Saul. '. Extension of the Church. 31-43 Peter at Lydda and Joppa. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 29 10-. Conversion of Cornelius. Sjii^^cft o/ PfUr. 11-**. Discussion on the subject al Jerusalem, Speech o/ Peter.

TUK ClIl'RCII IN AsTiocn. 11"'-'. Foundntion of the Church In Antioch. •-*. Collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Mission of Paul and Hurnabas. joi-itt. Persecution of Herod. Peter thrown into prison. •«-=. Death of llerod. -. Proffress of the Church. 12aa-i;i5. IJaruabas and Saul sent forth ft-om Antioch. First Missiosarv Joubney of Paul and Barnabas. 13-'^. Cyprus. Klymas and Sergius Paulus. 13-5. Antioch in Plsidia. Speech of Paul to the Jews. 141-^. Iconium. *-^. I-ystra.

Speech of Paul to the Geniftes. "-M. V'isit to I>erbe and return journey to Antioch on the Orontes. IM-^. The apostolic council in Jerusalem. Speeches of Peter and Jamen. Letter to ih« Chmrches. SEroNn Missionary Journ'ey of St. Paul. ISM-ll"^. 1T"-1\ IS"-"! 10U31 The Churches revisited Journev into Europe. PbiUppl. Thessalonica and liercea. Athens. Sjietch of Paul in the Areopagus. Corinth. Keturn to Antioch in Syria. Visit to Jerusalem. TiiiBD Missionary Journey. I'J". Visit to Galatia. **-^.

\ polios at Ephesus. 191-'. Paul at Ephesus. Disturbance In the theatre. iH'-«. Journey iu Macedonia and Greece. '-'». Troas. ' "-21'". Journey to Jerusalem. Speech to eiders of Ephenu9 at Jfiletua. Paul in Jerusalem. 21'^-'. Disturbances arise. 2'J'-*'. J'aul'M npeech to the people. •S-'i^". Paul before the Sanhedrin. \z-xt_ i>aul .sent to Ca-sarea. 24i-2T_ Paulnnd FelLx. Speechenof Tertullusand Paul. 2.Vl'6. I'aul and Festus. SpeecJi be/ore Affrippa. 2T-2S"'. Journey to Kome. Paul in Rome.

2S"-3i. Inter\'iew with the Jews. Paul begins to preach. vii. AUTHOIifllTP AND DATE. — The following arguments enable us to fix with a considerable ai)proacli to certainty the authorship of the Acts. (1) It is quite certain that it is written by the author of the third Gospel.

This is shown by the preface, which, like that of the Gospel, is addressed to Theophilus, and shows that the author claims to have written such a Gospel, and by the identity of style between the two books (the best and nio.st recent demonstration is that of Friedrich). This fact may be taken as admitted on all sides. (•J) The presence of certain portions written in the first person, seems to imply that the writer was an eye-witness of some of the events he describes, and a companion of St.

Paul. In the Acts there are certain passages which are tech- nically known as the 'we' sections, viz. IG"-" 20^""21'-'«'27i-28".| Here the writer .speaks in the first person. Moreover, these sections and also the accompanyins; incidents, in which the writer does not lake part, but at wliich he was probably present, are presented with great fulne.ss and exactness of detail, and seem to imply that the writer was an eye-witne.ss. So far there is general agreement.

Hut two explanations then become jiossible. Either the author of these sections was the author of the Acts, who changes the person when he becomes himself one of the companions of St. Paul, or these passages are one of the sources which the compiler of the work makes use of. All probability is in favour of the lirst view. The style of the ' we ' sections is that of the author. It is perfectly true, indeed, that the author works u)) his sources in his own phra.seology.

as may lie seen by a study of the third (iospel ; but it is hardly possible to believe that a writer so artistic as the author of the Acts certainly is slionld have left these exceedingly incongruous lirst jiersons. So keenly has this been felt, that it has been suggested that the author introduced these sections in tlie first person to give an appearance of genuineness to his narrative — a suggestion which refutes both itself and some other tlieories.

An examination of the scope of these sections lends itself to the same view. The first section begins at Troas (Iti"') and continues to Philippi (10'"'); the .second begins at Philippi (20^) and continues over tlie whole period to the end of the book, the third person being occasionally adopted, as in 16'', when the event recorded concerns only St. Paul and some of his companions, and not the whole party, nor the author personally. The mo.

st reasonable explanation of that fact is that the writer of these .sections joined the party at Troas and went to Philippi ; that after an interval of some years he again joined St. I'aul at Philippi, perhaps his native place, and accompanied him first to Jeru- salem and then to Rome. If any other hypothesis be adopted, it is difficult to account for the exceedingly fragmentary character of the sections.

On the other side, it is argued tliat the ' we ' sections are so much more historical in their char.acter than some of the other sections, and so much fuller in detail, that they clearly betray a different hand. But the difference is never greater than would be found in passing from the work of an eye-witness to the work of one who, although a contemporary, is not an eye-witness.

It is urged, again, that the work cannot be from the hand of a contemporarj' because of the inexactness and incorrectness of the knowledge of apostolic times which it exhibits. But this is really begging the whole question. We have no right to argue that a book is late because it is unhistorical, unless we have objective reasons for stating that it is so, which overpower the positive evidence for the early date.

The balance of probability is in favour of the author of the Acts being identical with the author of the ' we ' sections, and therefore of being a companion of St. Paul, but a companion who joined the apostle somewhat late in his career, and who therefore could only have a second-hand acquaintance with earlier events. (.3) The tradition of the Church from the end of the second centurj' is that the author was Luke, a companion of St.

Paul ; and this exactly corre- •sponds with the circumstances already described. St. Luke is the only companion of St. Paul, so far as our knowledge goes, who fulfils the conditions. The Acts could not have been written by Timothy, for Timothy was a companion during an interval when the 'we' sections cease (Ac 17"); nor by Titus, for we know from Gat 2'' that he was with St. P.aul earlier ; nor by .Sila.s, who was at the council (Ac Ib'^). St.

Luke is never mentioned in any of the earlier Kpistles, but he is in the later. Corroborative evidence of the Lucan authorship has been found in the medical terms used (Col 4'*, Lk 8'», Ac 28» etc.) (4) The argument ir. favour of the Lucan author- ship of both the (iospel and Acts, based on a chain of coincidences, has been ))ut very .strongly by Bp. Lightfoot. (n) Tradition gives to the Gospel the name of St. Luke, a companion of .St. Paul.

(h) Internal but unobtrusive evidence shows its Pauline character. It dwells particularly on the universality and freedom of the gos]iel ; and it refers to less obvious incidents in our Lord's life mentioned by St. I'aul (1 Co \V-» = Lk 22'», 1 Co 1b'>, Lk 24*'). (c) The Acts of the Apostles was certainly written by the same person as the Gospel, (rf) All independent line of argument shows that it was written by a companion of St.

Paul, (c) It, too, is I'aul ine in its character (so far as we are at liberty to use that word). It represents the same universality and freedom of the gospel, and the 30 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES same idea of the Christian Cliurch, but more in the concrete (see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 124-128). (5) The balance of argument is clearly, then, in favour of St. Luke as author of the Acts. There is, however, still room for doubt as to the time when It was written.

(a) One theory places it almost immediately after the close of the narrative, and just before the outbreak of the Neronian peree- ciuion. The book, it is urged, comes to an abrupt conclusion, and the only explanation is that it is unfinished. As has been pointed out above, there is no real rea.son for saying the book is unfinished. The arrival of St. I'anl in Rome formed a .suitable conclusion, and the ending is similar in character to the ending of the Gospel.

In the extreme form this argument is untenable, but it is still quite possible to hold that the narrative concluded here, because not many more events had occurred. More- over, it might be held that the tone in relation to the empire represented the period before rather than after the Neronian persecution. The early date is still held by Blass, and the arguments against it are not very strong. (fe) The argument for a later date is generally based on Lk 21-<> as compared with Mt 24'^, Mk l:i".

It is stated that the form of the prophecy there recorded has been nrndified by the knowledge of what happened at the siege of Jerusalem. The Gospel therefore was written after that event, and the Acts somewhat later, under the Flavians. The criticism of Blass, however, has very considerable weight, that there is little in the prophecies re- corded by St. Luke which goes much beyond the language of V)n 9* ; and the reason given for a late date can hardly be considered demonstrative.

Neither can that of Ramsay, who thinks that the Gospel must have been written just after Titus was associated in the empire with his father, so as to explain the incorrect date of Tiberius (Lk 3'). No arguments are certain, and the language of Lk 21-' would in any ca.se be quite compatible with a date some time before .v. I).

70 ; but perhaps on the whole the amount of perspective contained in the book is hardly compatible with the earlier date, just as the relation of the third Gospel to the other two suggests the later date, and a period shortly after 70 is the most probable. Whether we can, as Ram.say suggests, press the rpuTOf of l', and argue that a third treatise was in contemplation, is very doubtful. Tht' fnllowini; are dates suj?

£re,<ite(l by various writers, and are for the most part taken from lloltztiiann : — 64-70 (Hug, A. Maier, SclitRH-kenburtjer, Hitzitr, (»rau, Nosgen, Blass), c. SO (Kwald, I.ei-hler, iileek, Kenan, Mever, Weiss, Kamsav), 75-100 (Wendt, Spltuil, 110 (Kostlin, .Mant'old), 9.") (Hil^enfeldl'. c. 100 ( Volkmarl, 110-1-20 (I'Heiderer), Trajan and Ila^lriao (Schwepler. Zeller, Overbeck, Davidson, Kelm. llausrath), 125-150 (Straatman, Meiibo4)m, van .

\Ianen>, The artrnments for a later date are plven most ftiUy atnonp recent writers by Holtzmann {EinUitnnfj, 1S92, p. 405) as follows:— (1) Ac<juaintanco with the Panline Epistles (IJom, Gal. Cor. Kph, Thess, and Heb), also with .Tosephus. (2) DelibtT- ate correction of the narrative of (lal l>t-« in Ac 9"", of (lal oi-io In i..,i-33, of (ial 2" in Ac l,"j»"=. (3) ITnhlstorical acc4>nnt of speakinir with toncnes (Ac 2-'*), of St.

Paul's relations with the law, atid legendary narratives such as that of tlie death of .\(jrippa. 12*3. (4) Thc'writer is contemporary in time with the literary activity of Plutarch as shown by "the parallel lives; and of .\rrian and Pausanias (narratives i>f .lourney). also of the nepioSot of dirterent apostles. (5) Atmo- sphere of tlie Catholic Cliurch ; parallelism of St. Peter and St. Paul ; traces of the hierarchical view of the Church and esp.

the sacramental theory of layintj on of hands, (fi) Ile.«em. blances with the Pastoral Kpis'tles. (7) Importance assigned to tile political side of Christianity ; the Koinan Empire always represented as favourable tt> ChristiaiUty. It is very difficult to deal with some of these objections quite seriously. Even if the use of the Pauline Kpistles were proved, it is difficult to see what that has to do with the late date of the Acts.

The contradirtinns with the I'auline Kpistles are largely dependent on a priori views of Church history. Some points, as the resemblance to I'lutarch, are purely fanciful. The political point of view is exactly that of St. Paul's Epistles. One point requires perhaps slightly fuller investi- gation ; and the remaining points, so far as they are serious, will be best dealt with in an independent survey of the historical character of the work. viii.

The Relation of the Acts to Joseph fs presents to us, under the auspices of modern criticism, a curious double problem. While older critics, like Zeller, contented themselves with pointing out historical discrepancies, later critics since Keim (Gesch. Jcsn, iii. 1872, 134, and Attsdem Urchriste.nthum, 1878, 18) have attempted to show that St. Luke made u.se of Josephus. The crucial pas.sage is that concerning Theudas (Ac S^").

In his speech Gamaliel is made to refer to a rebellion under a leader of that name ; but according to Jos. this took place at least ten years later, under Cnspius Fadus, and long after that of Judas the Galihean. So far the problem was simple, but it is now main- tained that the mistake arose from the misappre- hension of a passage of Josephus. In one paragrapli he speaks about Theudas, in the next of the Sons oi Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the origin of the mistake.

The two passages are quoted thus — Jos. Ant. XX. V. 1 f. &cv8as . . TTfldd rhv Trpo(p'i]T-qs yap $Kfy€v flvai, K.T.K. 4»a5oj . , e^4iTffjL^iv t\riv iinreajf . . in' ai/Tovi, TjTiS . . iroAAoi/s . . Acts SSO f- aviari) 0€u5ay \4yo}v iivai riva kavrov . . tj ai'T}p(6rj Kal iracrej oVoi <Tav, K.T.K, fjLfra Tovrov dve'ffTTj loi/Sns 6 FaAiAatoy 4v toTs 7]/dfpaL^ rrjS a-7roypa<f'7js Kal iLtrfffTTjfft \ahp iitiatu avTov.

irpiy TOuToty 5e Ka\ ol iraiSts 'loySa toD FaAiAafou aTT-fix^V^av Tov rhv \ahv airh 'PwfxaittJV atTO(JTi](rav- Toy Kvpivlov TTJs 'louSaias Tt^i.r}Tivov^os. Now, whatever plausibility this comparison may have at first sight is very much diminished when we remember that the two passages in Jos. do not immediately follow one another, but are separated by an interval of 20 lines or more. Nor when we come to examine them do we find any close resemblance in the language.

There are words common to both accounts, but they are none of them characteristic ; it is not easy to describe a revolt without using the word awoarriaai in some form, while the details are different in the two accounts ; the Acts give 4000 men, Jos. gives no number. This is recognised by Clemen (SK, 1805, p. 339), who is of opinion that the author of the Acts had read .los. but forgotten him. Is this resemblance, or fancied resemblance, supported by any other passages ?

Keim and the author of Supernatural lieliijion have collected a large number of parallel passages, but they are not of a character to bring conviction. On the other hand, the argument of Zeller (Eng. tr. i. p. 2.32) on the discrepancy between the Acts and Jos. in the case of the death of Herod Agrippa is (jnite sufficient to prove inde- pendence ; and this argument has been very well brought out by Schiirer. Wluatever the differences between the Acts and Jos.

prove, they are only conceivable on the suppo-sition of independence. Most of these do not affect our estimate of the historical character of the work ; the difficulty about Theudas, even if it admits of no solution, may cast doubts on the historical character of Gamaliel's speech ; it does not really affect the question of the Lucan authorship of the Acts. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 31 ix. THE Historical Value OF THE Acts— l.yi priori Objections.

— In invesligatiiig the historical value of the Acts, we must lirsl of all clear the ground by putting on one side a number of a priori objections. To say that the document is un- historical because it narrates miraculous events, or because it contains accounts of angels, is simply to beg the question. Even if we were quite certain that such events were impossible and never occurred, we have abundant evidence for knowing that the early Christians believed in them. St.

Paul claims himself to have worked what were believed both by him and his readers to be miracles (Blass, Acta Apuxtolornm, p. ri f.) Again, all such difficulties a.s arise from an a priori theory of Church history must be banished. To deny docu- ments because they conflict with one's theories, is to argue in a vicious circle.

Although there are few serious critics who now accept tlie Tubingen theories, yet many of their assumptions have •icquired a traditional hold on the minds of writers, and consciously or unconsciously affect their argu- ments. Similarly, objections based on the liier- archioal or sacramental tendencies of a book as.sume that we can find the beginning of such tendencies in the Church ; which we clearly cannot do. Much the same may be said of the suppo.sed parallelisms between St. I'eter and St.

Paul. According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument for the critical position is the correspondence between the acts of St. Peter and the other apostles on the one side, and these of .St. Paul on the other. Both begin their ministry with the healing of a lame man ; both work miracles, the one with his shadow, the other with napkins. Demons flee in the name of St. Peter and in the name of St. Paul. St. Peter meets Simon Magus; St. Paul Elymits and the Ephesian magicians. Hoth raisi! the dead.

Both receive divine honours. Both are supported by Pharisees in the council. St. Paul is stoned at Lystra, Stephen at .reru.salem. St. Paul is ma<le to adopt the language of St. Peter, St. Peter of St. Paul, and so on. The value of such an argument is one which can only depend upon individual feeling. It is, of course, perfectly true that they both occupy prominent places, tiiat they are, in fact, the writer's heroes ; but that dues not prove the unhistorical character.

We may well refer to Plutarch's lives. Because the writer tiiids parallels between the lives of two men, it does not prove that his narrative is fictitious. But, further, although there are resemblances, there are very considerable differences as well, and the resemblances arise largely from the positions in which tlu^ apostles were placed. There is nothing unnatural in the points of similarity, and they are balanoed by many points of difference.

Lastly, all arguments against the Lucan author- ship, or the historical character of the work, drawn from the f.act that the writer clearly h.as a definite plan and jiurpose, are ijuite beside the mark. The distinction between a history and a chronicle is just this, that a history hits a plan. The writer, from personal knowledge or other sources, forms a conception of the course of events, and writes his history from that point of view. In the present case the writer wishes to illustr.

ate and describe the steps by which the Christian Church h;us developed. From that point of view he .seU'cLs his materials; from that point of view he describes the events and the periods which are to liim important ; from that point of view he empliasizes the careers of ,St. Ste]ihen, of .St. Peter, of St. Paul. Ills view may be right or may be wrong, but l)ecau.se a writer h.as a view he is not neces,sarily unhistorical. We hope to show that the merit of .St.

Luke lies in having brought out just the point of view which w;us important, and that, although there are points in which he is perhaps incorrect, substantially his history is true and trustworthy. 2. The AcCs and St. P<turs Epistles. — A consider- able portion of the narrative of the Acts is con- temporary with certain of .St. Paul's Epistles. Here, then, we have some opporiunity of controlling the narrative, and here we have to meet a very curious couibiuation of arguments.

It is now niaintaiiied that the Acts is late, and its narrative unauthentic because of differences from St. Paul's Eiiistles, and then that these Epistles are its sources. To prevent these arguments conHicting, we have to suppose a deliberate falsification of the narrative of (ialatians by the author of the Acts, and an e.xtracu'diiiary capacity on his part to conceal his obligations. The parallels quoted are very slight, but most numerous in the case of the Epistles ot the captivity.

Even here they have little value as implying literary obligations ; but if, as we believe, St. Luke, the author of the Acts, was St. Paul's companion in captivity, and possibly acted as his amanuensis, it is natural that his phraseology should be influenced by that personal contact. Tliere are three pa.ssafres -wblch demand a more e.xiict com- parisuD. (<l) Oiil l"-"=Ac !!'«-'». («) Oiil 2<-"> =Ac l.')'-". (c) Galanf- =Ae isss-".

(a) If we examine the first pnssapes we notice fjiiite definitely certain discrepancies. Tlie Acts contain no reference to llie visit to Aral)ia ; we stionld not salluT tV(»m tile narrative that tliree years had elapsed before the visit to Jernsnlem : while tlie state- ment that lie was nnlinown by face to the Churches that were in Jndiea. is supposed to be inconsistent with the fact that lie preached In the synapoirues of ,)erusa1em. Hut how far do these discrepancies talie us ?

It is quite clear tliat St. Lulce selects what he rcijutres for bis purjiose. and it is possible tliat he linew of the journey to Arabia and did not tliiiik it necessary to record it ; nor. afrain. does he (-ive exact indications itf tlie time elapsed. There is no necessary inconsistency ; but stiit tlie obvious Impression created by tiie narrative is that the writer did not know of the Arabian Journey, nor of the len{,'tli of time which b.ad elapsed before the .

lerusalem visit, and tlie two narratives pive a somewliat ditlVrent impression. St. Paul wisties to emphasize his independence of theajtostles ; St. Luke wishes to siiow that St. I'aiil was received liy them. Hut each hints at tiio other side. St. Paul clearly implies that tie was reeeive<i by them : St. Luke as clearly, that there was some hesitation about doint; so, and St. Luke's lanpuajie makes it plain that even if lie had preached in synajjofjues in .

lerusalem he had not preached in ,Iuda-a. The accounts arc dilferent and to all appearance lnde[iendent, they represent ditferent points of view, they supplement one another; they are not incon- sisttnt. (b) The same may be said in the main concerninir the next narrative (Oat '2'-i''=.\c 1.')'-"), The very careful examination of IJK^itfoiiHOtriirfiifn/,. p. \t^9) reltresents. on the whole, a very fair historical conclusion.

No sensible person will find any dis- crepancy if St, Paul, plvlnc his internal motive, states that he went by revelation, and St, Luke pl\es the external motive. It Is <|aite natural that St. Luke should pive tlie public liistory, St. Paul tile private. What Is more important to notice is the incidental testimonv that eacli account ^'ives to tlie other. Wo gather IVom St, Paul Ills treat desire to be on pood terms with the leadtnp apostles— if he is not.

he fears he will run In vain and tabour In vain ; we patlier that they receive him in a friendly manner— lliey pive him the rlpht hand of fellowship : althouph llley are looked upon by some of tlieir followers as belnp antagonistic to St. Paul. St. Paul does not think so, Apain. from llie Acts we pallier that the conclusion was not carried out without much dispute, and itresiimahiv was not acceptable to all; and we e<|ually pnther. as we would from St.

Paul, that those who had caused the disturtianee had claimed that they represented the opinions of lh<- chief apostles. It has lieen assumed that Ac l.'> refers to the same event as Oal 'Ji-n*; but tills, althoiiph commonlv, is not universally accepted. Wliv. It Is asked, does St. Paul omit all reference to the visit recorded in Ac IIM? This Is a penulne ditllculty. It has been suppesled that there has been a dlsarraiipement In the Acts. and.

owlnp to a confusion of sources, olii' of the later visits has been liiiplieatcd. The arpument apalnst this is that Harnabas is representeil as the companion of St, Paul, and that he had left him at a later date, A mistake in ehronolopy is probable, but not a mistake as to the companionship. On the other side, liainsav (.SV, Aim/, p. 4S) Identities the visit of Oal .21-1(1 „,ii|, Hint of Ac 1 1-1".

He lays prent stress on the diffleulty Involved In supposlnp that St, Paul omitted all reference to this Journey. Hut the reasons plveii bv Llphtfoot -that the apostles were not In .lerusalem. ami that therefore there was no need for tlie visit to be mentioned — are accejited by Hurt iJiiditinfic ChriHtiaiiiti/, [>. Td las sutticlent. We must refer the reader to Kamsay'sown liook for the discussion of the subject, but can only say that he has not succeeded In convincing us.

A reasonable 32 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES criticism must say that the two narratives we are considering refer to the same events ; that the accounts they contain are independent and supplementary, but not contradictory isee the discussion between Sauday and Kamsay in Expositor, Feb. l*yti, and foil, numbers). to) The third point need not detain us lon^r. It is merely that St. Luke does not record a narrative concerning St. Peter mentioned by St. Paul.

He may have been ignorant of it ; he may have thought that it did not answer his purpose ; he may even have thought it better to omit an incident which he felt was discreditable. AVhat is important to notice is that the narrative in Galatians proves conclusively that the standpoint of the Acts is correct. It was quite impossible that St. Paul could accuse St. Peter of hypocrisy unless he had already adopted bis view. It is clear from Gal '2' '*'.

that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the standpoint of Paul' (Harnack, Iliat. of Dogma, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 90). An examination of these narratives proves the independence of the two accounts, and each corroborates the other in various points. Wlien we turn to the general narrative in the Acts and compare it with that which can be gathered from the Epistles, we find three characteristics — inde- pendence, broad resemblances, and subtle points of contact.

All the Epistles which correspond to the same period will fit into the narrative, while the minute coincidences which have been brought out by Paley, whose argument is not out of date, — more particularly that concerning the collection for the saints, — have very substantial evidential value. 3. The Archoeological Evidence. — A great test of the accuracy of the writer in the last twelve chapters is given by the evidence from archaeology.

Its strength and value are so great that we need only refer to it. The investigations of the last twenty or thirty years have tended more and more to confirm the accuracy of the writer. In almost every point where we can follow him, even in minute details, he is right. He knows that at the time when St. Paul visited Cyprus it was governed by a proconsul ; this was the case only between the years B.C. 22 and some time early in the 2nd cent. ; then a change was made, probably in Hadrian's reign.

He knows that the magistrates of Philippi were called (rrpaT-qyol, and were attended by lictors, but that those of Thessalonica were iraKirapxc'. He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not Iconium, are cities of Lycaonia. The subject has been worked out in considerable detail by Lightfoot and Kamsay, and it is sufficient to refer to them. It is enough, too, to refer here to the very complete investigations of the account of St.

Paul's voyage and shipwreck made by James Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul). We need not enter into details, as they are admitted. What we must emphasize is the bearing of this evidence. It proves, in the first place, that in the latter portion of the Acts the writer had good and accurate sources of information. It is quite im- possible that he should be correct in all these points unless he had good material, or was himself conversant with the events.

But it also proves, however we think he acquired the information, that he was accurate in the use of his sources. It is quite inconceivable that a writer who is so accurate in a large ninnber of small and difficult points could have, as is maintained, used .losephus, and used him with incredible inaccuracy. This evidence, on the other hand, does not prove that the writer is necessarily as trustworthy in the earlier portions of the history, where his sources of information were less good.

It does suggest that he would get as accurate information as possible, and reproduce it correctly. 4. We pass backward to the transition period, which begins with the preaching of Stephen ami 3Xtends to the end of the apostolic council. This is clearly the most important period in the history, and we have few means of controlling it. We have little independent evidence. What we can point to, in the first place, is the naturalnes.i of the whole history.

There were the germs of universal- ism in Christianity, but these needed opportunity to develop ; and the whole history shows that the expansion arose from the natural reaction of events on the Christians, not from any deliberate purpo.se or from any one definite event. Take first the per- secution. Zeller (Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 229) lays great stress on the fact that in the early chapters the Sadducees are the persecutors, in the later the Pharisees. But this inconsistency is thoroughly natural.

At first the Sadducees oppose the Christians, because, being the official hierarchy responsible to the Romans for the order of the country, they fear disturbances ; the Christians are merely a sect of devout and zealous Jews in favour with the Pharisees. But when once the universalist element inherent in Christianity is made apparent by the teaching of Stephen, the devout and zealous Jews are offended, the Pharisees take up the persecution, and it becomes a reality.

We may notice again incidentally how it is the entrance of the freer Hellenic spirit in the person of Stephen which first brings out this universalistic element. The persecution leads quite naturally to a dispersion of the Christians, more particularly of those associated with Stephen, and consequently to the spread of Christianity. In all that follows St. Peter takes the lead, a position which is quite in accordance with what we know from Galatians (see above, § ix. 2).

The stages work out gradually and naturally, the pressure of faith and enthusiasm leads the preachers of Christianity onwards. First come the Samaritans, then ' devout men ' who are yet not circumcised ; then the preaching to Gentiles ; then the growth of a definite Vhriiitian community in Antioch, i.e.

a community which the outer world clearly recognised as something distinct from Judaism, and which would naturally appear first in a place removed from older associa- tions ; then the first recorded journey of St. Paul, ■with its unexpected and far-reaching developments, and ils subtle corroborations in the Romans (10'^). Xaturally enough, there gradually arises a Juda- ising party in Jerusalem, and the older apostles find themselves acting as mediators between the two parties.

The position which is ascribed to them by the Acts is always recognised by St. Paul, and he claims equally to be recognised by them ; while both the Acts" and St. Paul recognise the extreme party as claiming their authority although without entire justification (Ac IS^-i, Gal 2i-). The whole story as told in the Acts is natural and consistent, and gives a much more credible account of the development of Christianity than any modern one constructed on a priori ideas. 5.

The Early Communil;/ in Jerusalem. — The first section of the Ac (11, 5''-) has been often treated as the least liistorieal portion of the book. It is less true to say that it has been attacked. It is rather the case that it has been set on one side ('the idealised picture of the Jerusalem com- munity,' Holtzmann). And the examination of it is difficult, for we have little that is definite with which to compare it.

Tlie theory, however, put forward is that this was written from the point of view of the author's own time, and from that aspect we can examine it. We know how the writer of the Clementine Homilies reproduces in the earliest days of the Church the doctrine and the organisation of his own time — he represents St. Peter as appointing bishops in every church.

Now, at any rate, the writer of the Acts lived forty years later^ and at a time when both the doctrine and the organisation of the Church were much more developed ; yet we find absolutely no traces of this either in tlie speeches or in the narrative of the first five chapters. ACTS OF THE Al'OSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 33 To work this out in detail would be beyond the scope of the present article, but it may be illus- trated in some points. The ChrisUiliiijn is through- out primitive.

Our Lord is called 'h|<roi)i Xpurrus i Na(,a'pa.os (2-"- 3« 4'''), a name which occurs in the Gospels, but elsewhere only twice, when St. Paul, in llie later chapters of the Acts, is referring to his earlier life. So again the next phrase that meets us is irors $eov (3'^- -' 4'-'-*'), which occurs nowhere else in ST of our Lord, and elsewhere is used of llim in the Didache, which clearly represents very early tradition. Again, we notice how very markedly .

Xpioros is not a pereonal name, rhf ■irpoKfy_fipLrT^.4vov ufiiv Xp. 'iTjir. (3-^), ttvpiov aurhf Hal Xpurriv 6 Bebt 4roirj<rcv (2''). One more phrase we may notice, apxiyi" (3" 5")i which occurs el.sewhere in Hebrews twice (2'" 12-), and nowhere else in NT. \Ve find nowhere the expression i;.!)s Beov. Whereas St. Paul 'placarded' Chri.st crucified (Gal 3'), we find here, as we might expect, that St. Peter has to take towards the death of Christ a purely defensive altitude (3'*).

We have no reference to Cliri.st's pre-existence. We have, in fact, a re- presentation of what must have been, and what we have independent evidence to show was the eai'iest Christian teaching about Christ: — the proof that lie was the Messiah, afforded by His resurrection, of which the apostles were witnesses, and by the Scriptures. Similar is the relation to the universal character of the Gospel.

We are told that the Acts was written from a universalist (loint of view, and the statement is (piite true in a sense ; but we find that St. Peter's speeches are not affected by it. God raised up Jesus to give re- pentance to Israel (5-") ; Ye are the sons of the prci))h(ts and of the covenant (3^). There are i-lenients of univer.salism, but they are incidental. The promise is to Israel first (3*) ; so (2''''') ' to you is the promi.

se and to your children, and to all those that are afar off ; 3-' ' in Israel all the families of the earth shall be blc.s.sed.' The standpoint of these chapters is, in fact, that of the Jewish prophets. There is the germ from which future development can come, but the development is not there. (.)ne last point we may mriition in this conitexion is the eschaUiloiiij.

It is thoroughly Jewish and primitive, ' that He may send the Christ, who hatli been appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heavens nmst receive until the times of the restoration of all things,' S'"- -' ; the Messianic kingdom is called the Kaipol an- i//u{«ui.

There is nothing about the iiersonal resurrection, which, of course, is a point which would not trouble the primitive community In the first years of its existence ; and it is difficult to understand how a Greek writer who had seen the Neronian persecutions, and knew the needs of ;i later generation, could have invented this primi- tive idea of things. If we pa.ss to the organisation of the com- munity, again.

It is quite unlike the conception which we should expect from a Gi^ntile Christian iif forty or fifty years later. It is perfectly true that stress is laid on the unity of the primitive community, and it may be tliat this is exaggerated with a purpose ; but no object could be gained by the representation which is given of its form aii<l character. There is no trace of any later organisation, nor mention of presbyters. The Christians have. In fact, not yet been cast out of the synagogues.

They are regular in their worship In the temple (Ac 2'"', Lk 24''). They take part In the morning and evening sacrifices. Tliey observe the Jewish hours of prayer. They join in the synagogue wor.ship ((!" i>'^). They are not only conforming Jew.s, they are devout (Ac 212" 22'-). They do not yet realise that they are separate from Judaism. They are but a sect, the sect of the Nafcopoioi (Ac 24'').

One more point may be noticed, the community of goods ; the exact char- acter of this it is unnecessary to discuss here. It is sufficient to point out that no rea-son has been suggested to explain why it should have so much (•mpliasis laid on it, or why it should have been invented if it were not historical. It has been said that we have little evidence for correcting this. The archieological evidence which we foun<i In ch. 13 f. here fails us. But we have a few indirect hints.

The position of the Twelve we may gather from 1 Co !)•' \iy' ; of St. Peter from 1 Co 15% Gal 2^ ; of St. John from Gal 2'-' ; of the brethren of the Lord from 1 Co gs. A certain amount of incidental evidence is given by the Ebionite traditions concerning the position of St. James ; and they correspond with what is suggested by the later parts of tlit; Acts, where we have an account of the .state of afiairs by one who is presumably an eye-witness. It is clear that the.

se early chapters give a picture of the primitive community which is quite different from what existed within the experience of the writer, and which is in itself probable. Is it then likely that this should be the result of the historical imagination of the writer, or is it not more pro- bable that it is historical in character and based on written evidence ?

We have no reason to doubt tliat we possess an historical account of the words of the Lord ; and the same witnesses who recorded these, either by tradition or In writing, would be eijually likely to record the speeches and acts of the leading apostle of the infant Church. 6. The Speeches. — One more point under this heading demands investigation, namely, the speeches.

Are these genuine records of speeches actually delivered, or were they written by the historian in accordance with the fashion of tho day ? We may notice two points, to begin with. They are all very short, too short to have been delivered as they stand, and for the most part the style in which they are written is that of the historian. They are clearly, therefore, in a sense his own compositions. But the .same can also be said of a considerable intmber of the speeches In the Gospel.

We can compare St. Luke's account in this case with that of other authorities, and we find, indeed, a slight modification side by side with general accuracy ; we find the style of the author, but the matter of the authority. On the other hand, there is no rea.son for thinking ("/ priori that the speeches cannot be historical. As has just been jjointed out, the speeches of the leading apo.

stles would impre,<is themselves on the growing community, and would be remembered as the words fif the Lord were remembered. Putting aside a priori C(msiderations, we must as far as possible examine tlie character of the speeches themselves ; and we must first see what light St. Paul's Kpi.stles throw on the suViject. According to 1 Co IG"' the main subjects of St.

Paul's preaching were the death and resurrec- tion of Christ, as proved by the Scriptures and as witnessed to by the apostles, an<l other inci<Untal allusions in the Kpistles support this (1 'I'h 1'" 4"). Now, if we turn to St. Paul's .speech at I'isldian .\ntloch addressed to the Jews (l.S'"-"), we find that the writer has exactly realised what was necessary for the situation. 'I'he basis Is scriptural, and till' central fact clearly is, the proof of tlie re.surrei'tlon.

Just at the end we have a definitely Pauline tiuich introduced (v.'»). This shows that the writer clearly gr.

asps the situation as it is hinted at by the apostle in his own letters, and as was exactly in accordance witli the demand* of the situation ; and this is compatible either with his being a writer using a good soiuve, and re- produi'lMiT accurately a speech which he finds iii 34 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ACTS OF THE APOSTLES that source, or with his being a companion of the apostle, who knows the apostle's preaching well, and gives a typical speech showing the general character of his argument.

It is very difficult to conceive of it <as a tour de force of historical imagi- nation. And this argument becomes stronger when it is found that it is applicable to all the speeches in the book. We have already touched i>n those of St. Peter, and have seen how clearly they re- produce an early stage of doctrinal development. Whatever dilticulties there may be in the speech of Steiihen, it certainly does not bear the marks of being a rhetorical composition. The speeches of St.

Paul from first to la.st are singularly harmoni- ous with the situation. The transition in tone from that we have already examined to that addressed to the heathen at Iconium or to that at Athens, is most marked. When we come to the later speeches addressed to the Jews, to Felix, and to Agrippa, what we notice at once as very extra- ordinary is the repetition of the narrative of the conversion.

Now that is comprehensible on the supposition that the narrative was repeated on two occasions, but is not so if we are dealing with rhetorical exercises. But St. Luke was, on our supposition, with St. Paul during all these events, and would therefore have accurate knowledge.

These speeches then, although written in the author's style, are clearly authentic ; and we may argue in the same way about the other speeches, all of which are, in different ways, suitable to the occasion on which they claim to have been delivered. The presence of the author's hand in the speeches cannot be denied. Their literary form is due to him. He may possibly have summed up in a typical speech the characteristics of St. Paul's preaching before certain clas.ses of hearers.

Some details or illustrations may be due to him, such as the mention of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech, or that of Judas in Peter's first speech. But no theory which does not admit the possession of good evidence, and the acquaintance of the author with the events and persons that he is describing, is con.sistent with the phenomena of the speeches. They are too lifelike, real, varied, and adapted to their circumstances to be mere unsubstantial rhe- torical exercises. X. SotTEcKS OF THE ACTS.

— Until recently, critics seem to have contented themselves with either vague indications of the .sources of the .\cts, or a complete denial of the possibility of discovering them, at any rate in the earlier portions (Weiz- sacker, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Prteiderer, Baur, Schwesler). Recently, however, the problem has been attacked by a number of scholars, mostly of inferior rank, who do not seem to have attained any succe.ss, and whose method is not likely to lead to any substantial results.

Of these, Sorof considers that Timothy, the writer of the ' we ' sections, has combined a genuine writing by St. Luke and a St. Peter .source. According to Peine there was an original Jerusalem Christian source, which was used in the Gospels and extended to ch. 12 of the Acts, but which knew notliing of the missionary jour- neys of St. Paul. I'he latter portion is partly due to the Redactor (II), partly to other sources.

Spitta distinguishes an A source, the work of Luke, which contiiins about two-tliirds of the Acts, and is also used in tlie Gospel, and a B source of Jewish- Christian origin, which runs parallel witli tlie first through the whole of the Acts. Van Manen distinguishes a third document, which conUiined, however, only the ' we ' sections, and these very much edited, a Paul biography, and a Peter bio- graphy. The most elaborate theory is that of C. Clemen.

He distinguishes an ' Urchristliche Predigt,' an ' Krste Gemeindege.schichte,' and ' Zweite Gemeindegeschiclite,' and Historia Hclleni- starum, which has been worked into an Historia Petri ; this was combined with an Historia Pauli which included the ' we ' sections (Itinerarium Pauli) by a K who was free from party bias, then came a Judaising R, and then an anti- .Judaising R. Jiingst distinguishes an A source, apparently the work of St. Luke ; a B source, the work of an anti-Judaiser and a R.

It may be added, that both Clemen and .Jiingst consider that the original sources have been very much rearranged by the different redactors, and the true sequence of events destroyed. A very few words are necessaiy concerning these theories. The statement of them is really a suffi- cient condemnation. There is no harmony in the results obtained ; and the method is so a priori and unscientific that no result could be obtained.

The unity of style of the book and its artistic completeness make any theory impossible which considers that it arose from piecing together bits of earlier writings. Somewhat more on right lines are the attempts of B. Weiss and Hilgenfeld, in the fact that they do not consider that more than one source is used in any separate passage. Weiss thinks there was one early history which contained an account of the early community, of Stephen, of Philip, of the journeys of Peter, of the council.

Hilgenfeld has three sources, A Ac l'=-5- O-"-" 12i, ^3_ B Ac 6-8", C 91-3" iiiT-29. and both profess to be able to distinguish what is due to the source and what to the author, the method being for the most part absolutely arbitrary. A study of St. Luke's Gospel shows us that the work is quite certainly a literary whole pro- ceeding from one author, that this author made use of materials partly written, partly probably oral, and that he reproduced them probably largely in his own style.

If we compare a section from this Gospel with the parallel one from St. Mark, which clearly represents very nearly the original source, we shall find that the difference, although one not affecting the main sense, is of a character which would make it quite impossible to arrive at one document from the other.

We may notice, again, that although there is a certain uniform- ity of style running through the whole Gospel, yet the character of the source used seems to a certain, although undefined, extent to have modi- fied it. Now, in the Acts there is admittedly a certain difference in style between the earlier chapters and the later. The later, like the prologue to the Gospel and Acts and the ' we ' sections, being written in a purer (ireek style, the earlier being more Aramaic in character.

Stated vaguely anil generally, this is true, although no investigations have yet made it definite. The utmost it is at present safe to assert, is that there appears to be a difference in style in the earlier chapters, which suggests a written source. Starting from the conclusion that the author was St.

Luke, we must ascribe to him the conception of the history as a whole, and presumably, there- fore, all the framework which is part of that conception, the object of the author being to mark the stages in the progress of Christianity. For the whole of the last section, from 20^ onwards, the author was either an eye-witness or in close con- tact with those who were such ; as also in the sec- tion lO'J-*', and here we have the fullest and most detailed account.

For all the remaining portions of St. Paul's journeys he could clearly have access to the very best inform.ation ; and it is to be noticed here that generally, although not invariably, the information is perfectly accurate, so far as it can be tested, but not so full as in the later sections.

For the stories concerning Philip in the first part of the book it is not necessary to go beyond ACTS OF THE APOSTLES ADAH 35 personal information ; there is no sign of great exactness of knowledge, and the incident recorded 21* will explain how that information was ac- quired. For the earlier history of St. Paul a source is not required ; St.

Luke had heard the storj' told at least twice, probably much oftener, and there is just that vagueness couceniing chrono- log>' wliich is almost invariably the characteristic of information dependent upon oral tradition. Of some other sections it is difficult to speak definitely. For the council the author would be able to supplement information gained from St. Paul by information sained in Jerus.

It has been hinted that there is probably a written source behind portions of the first five chapters ; we cannot define its limits in these chapters, nor say whether or no, as is possible, it included some later narratives, such as those of St. Peter (9, ll" and 12'-*') ; it probably did not include chs. 6-7. No investigations have been made which authorise us to speak more certainly than this ; but it has been suggested (see Blass on 12'^-") that these chapters had some connexion with St.

Mark. It is doubtful whether any certain conclusions are possible, although a more scientific and more compreliensive study of the style of the Gospel and Acts may perhaps lead to some result. xi. CdNcll'^iox. — It now only remains to sum up the concliLsion of what, owing to the variations of opinicm, has necessarily been a somewhat con- troversial article. 1. The Third Go.

spel and the Acts of the Apostles are the work of the same person ; and all tradition and argument suggest that the author was St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul. 2. He wrote the Gospel to describe as accurately as he could the life and preaching of Jesus ; he wrote the Acts to describe the growth and spread of the Christian Church. 3. lie had formed a clear idea in his mind of the steps and cour.se of this growth, and arranged his work so as to bring out these points.

The object he had in view would influence him in the selection of his materials and the proportional importance he would ascribe to events ; but it would be taking far too artificial a view of his work not to allow some influence to various less prominent ideas, and even to the accidental cause of the existence or non- exi.stence of information on different points. The extent to wliich he caiTied out his purpose would be in some measure dependent on his oppor- tunities. 4.

Although he had a definite aim, and con- structed a history with an artistic unity, there is no reason for thinking tliat the history is therefore untrustworthy. He narrated events ius he believed they happened, and he gives a thoroughly consistent history of the period over which it extends. 6. The exact degree of credibility and accuracy we can ascribe to him is dependent on his sources of information. From ch. 12 onwards his source was excellent ; from ch. 20 onwards he was an eye- witness.

Fur the previous period he could not in all ca.ses attain the same degree of accuracy, yet he was personally acquainted with eye-witnesses throughout, acid may very probably have had one or more written documents. In any case, his history from the very beginning shows a clear idea of historical per.sjiective, and of the stages in the growth of the community, even if certain charac- teristics of the primitive Church in .Jerusalem have been exaggerated. LiTHRATCKE. — (1) The Text.

— Bosliles tho (jpnoral works of Tlschondorf, Scrivener, and Wostcott and Hort. the followini;. amon^ oiIht. spoclnl works may bo montlontMl :— .1. f). Miclia*, lis, Cnriu hi rtr. Syr. Aclor'um AiiohI. ".'>.%: K. A. Iloriif- iniinii. AcUi Apo'l. ml Cod. ('iinUihrigienniKrldtm rfceimiiit, l'<is; Bf>lshclm, />/«" Apoftefffeitrfiicfitf nnd die Ojfenfmrtini; Juhannin in einer alten lattiniichen CthtrMttung, 18J9; 8. IJerper, La Pttiimmente de FUury, 1SS9 ; esrtr. de la Re rue de thiol, et jthiloM.

; .1. Kt*tnk-1 Harris, Stud'/ of Cod. Seziie TeJ-tn and Studiejt. II.i.lS9I ; P.Corssen.Der Cj/priiini.sche Ttxtder Acta ApoHt. prot^TBin of the tivmnasiuui of Scboenberp at Berlin, 1592; W. Sandav. Guardian, ISth anil 25th May 1S92; K. II. Chase. Old Si/r. Element in the Text of Cod. Beza'e, 1S93 ; F. Blass. SA', ISlli, p. SC, llermathena, x.xl. p. 121, 1895; 8. Berber.

Cn Ancien texte Latin de» Actee d€i< apdtreti retrouri dan'i nn SlanuseritprosenantdePerpignan; Tire des notices et extraitu, 1S95. (21 Commentaries. — Chrysostom (oh. 407), Beda (o6. 785), Calvin (oh. \iM\. (Irotius (1(544), Bcnpel (1742), Olshausen (1882, ed. Iv. by Kbrard, ls02l, MeycrdSW, ed. vii. by Wendt, 1SS8. V.ng. tr. bv Gloafr and Oicksonl, de Wette (1S;JS, ed. iv. by Overbeck, 18701, Allord (1849, ed. vi. IsCs), Wordsworth (1857, ed. iv.

1SS7I, Ewald, Die 3 ertiten Eranfjflien und die Jpostelgeschichte (l57U, Cook in the Speaker's (?r)m. (Is.. n.Xisgpn (1852), I.uthardt and Zockler in Strack and Zockler's Kom. (l5S6, ed. ii. 1894), T. K. Pixj^e (I*>St»), Holtzniann in Iland-k-ommentarstim Xeuen TeHtament{\^9'ly, Blass, .4f((£ ApOHt.ttire Liicae ad Theophilum Liber alter (1S95); Kendall, Acta of Apostles (IS97). (3) General Introduetiona. — S. Davidson (ls4s-5i, andapain, from a dirtor. nt point of view, ISIiS. e<l. ill.

1S94>, Heuss (1860), F. Bleek 11^64. Eni;. tr. IMV,"!, Ad. Hilgcnfeld (Ib'.'J), H. 1. Iloltzmann ilss.',, ed. Hi. 1892), G. Salmon (18S5, ed. ^■U. 1S94), B. Weiss (1>M>. Enpr. tr. 188s). (4) Special Treatises on the Actfi.^tJohn Liphtfoot, Hebrew ami Talmudical Exereitations on the Acts of the Apostles (lli7S): Palev. florae Paulinae (1770, ed. bv Birks 1850) ; Zeller, Die Afwstilgeschichte (18,%4. En(r. tr. 187!)); .J. B. Liphtfoot, Galatians. 180.',, pp. 81 f., 88 f., 109 f , 276 f.

; Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. (1877) : .1. B. Liphtfoot In Smith's DI? i. 2.') (51 Works on Earli/ Church History. — Neander, y^;7«;isu«(; und Leitung (18,32. 'ed. v. 1862, Enp. tr. 1842. 1840); Baur, Paulus (18451 : Coiivbeare and Howson. 87. Paul, ed. ii. (18561 ; Kitsohl, Die Entstthung der Altkatholischen Kirche (ed. ii. 18.'>71; Lechler. Das Ajtostolische und Xachnpostolische Zeit- alter (1857. ed. ii. 1885, Knjj. tr. 18861 ; Ewald, Gesch. des Apost. Zeitalters (Eng. tr.

Iliston/ of fsrael, vol. \i.)\ Kenan, Les A/wtres, p. X. (18661. Les'Erangiles, p. 4;i5 (1877); Farrar. Li/e and work o/St. Paul i.\^12), Earh/ fhtr/s ofChristianilif (18821; Lewin, Life and Epistlesof St. Ai w/ ('18721 ; Weizsiirkef, Das Apostolische Zeilalter (18^6, 2nd ed. 1892. Enp. tr. l-lMl ; Ptleifierer. Crchristenthum (ls871; Ilamsay. The Church in the Rom. A'/»;>/re(i893); H<»rt. Judaistic Christianity i.\^'.t4i; Kainsay. 87. Paul. the Traveller and the Roman Cifizt u ii^'.*'>\.

(61 Monographs on Special Points. — .lames Smith, Vouage and Shipicreck of St, Am/ (1848. e<l. iv. 18801; ,1. B. LiKhtloot. Essai/s on ' .Supernatural fieligion,^ pp. 291-302, I)iseoverios lllust'ratinp the Acts of the .Vpostle.s (1889); J. Frledrich, Das Lukas- Erangeli um unddieApostelgeschichteWerkedesselhen IVr/aAj^^rA (18901; Th. Momnisen nnd Ad. llarnaek. 2wr .-I/^'/*. telgeschichte, xxviii. \G;Sitsungsherichtederkoniglich Pre us- sischen Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin, p.

491 (1^95). (7) The Acts and Jos. (.see Carl Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe, \u 66, n. M) ; Keim, Geschichte Jesu ron Xazara, ill. pp. I:i4, 4^0 (1n72>, and 'Jos. Im Neuen Testa- ment ' in A us a em Vrchristenthmn, 1. p. 1 (18781 ; Iloltzmann, Z.fur W. Th. 1878, ji. 8.% 1877, p. '.35 ; Krenkel. ib. 1873, [,. 441 ; Schilrer, ib. 1876, n. 574; The author of 'Snpernatnral Kelipion.' Furtnightltf Renew, xxil. p. 490, 1877; Krenkel, Josejihus u. Lucas, LeliizlB.

1894; Bousset In Theol. Litig. 1895. ccd. 391. (8) Sources. — Sorof, IHe Entstehung der Apostelgesch. isitti ; Feine, Eine rorkanon. Cberlieferungdes Lukasin Erang.nnd Apostelgesch. 1891 ; Spitta. bie Apostelgesch. ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert (1891) ; van Manen, Paulue I., f)ie llandflinqer der Aposteln (181H)) ; C, Clemen, Die Chrono- logie der Paulinischen Briefe (Is931, nnd SK (1S9.\ p. 2971; .Ic.hnnn .liinpst. file Quellen der Apostelgeschichte (189.51; Ad. Hilpenfeld.

Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellenschriften untermcia, Z.fur It'. Th. 1S95, iip. 06, 186. 884. 481. A. C. Headla.m. ACUB (B 'AKov<t>, A 'AKoifi), 1 Es 5". — His sons were among the 'temple .servants' who returned with Zerub.' Called Bakbuk, Ezr 2^\ Neh l''^. ACUD ('AkoW, AV Acua), 1 Es 5\— His sons were among the ' teinpli^ servants ' who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub (3V;= 'cunning'), Ezr 2'' ; omitted in Neh 7. ADADAH (^77"), Jos W^.

—A city of Judali in the Xegcb. The site may be at the ruin 'A(r(id'ili in the desert south-east of Beersheba. ADAH (^T't)-— !• f^ne of the two wives of Lamech, antl mother of .lalial and .lubal ((in 4"''-")- 'I'he name possibly denoted 'brightness' (cf. Arab. t/hadSt), Cain's other wife being named ' Zillah,' or ' Shadow,' ' Darkness.' These names have been cited to support the view of the mythological basis of the Genesis narr.itive.

Hut the name may simply denote 'adornment' (Lenorniiint, Le,i Oriijines, p. 183 f.) According to .los. (Ant. i. ii. 2)"Lamech 36 ADAIAH had 77 sons bom to him of Adah and Zillah. 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives of Esau (Gn 36^) ; mother of Eliphaz, and ances- tress of Edomite tribes, Teman, Zejiho, Gatam, Kenaz, Amalek. In Gn 26" (P) the daughter of Elon the Hittite, whom Esau takes to wife, is named Basemath.

The names in Gn 36 have suffered in the process of redaction, and this may account for the confusion. Jos. {Ant. II. i. 2), though mentioning Esau's age, and therefore referring to Gn 26^*, gives Adah and Oholibamah ('AXi^i/iij) as the names of Esau's wives. For a discussion on the name, see Baethgen's Beitrdge, p. 149. H. E. Ryle.