《Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》(Henry Alford) Commentator

Yüklə 4,17 Mb.
ölçüsü4,17 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   39

Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary - Acts(Henry Alford)

Henry Alford (7 October 1810 - 12 January 1871) was an English churchman, theologian, textual critic, scholar, poet, hymnodist, and writer.

Alford was born in London, of a Somerset family, which had given five consecutive generations of clergymen to the Anglican church. Alford's early years were passed with his widowed father, who was curate of Steeple Ashton in Wiltshire. He was a precocious boy, and before he was ten had written several Latin odes, a history of the Jews and a series of homiletic outlines. After a peripatetic school course he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1827 as a scholar. In 1832 he was 34th wrangler and 8th classic, and in 1834 was made fellow of Trinity.

He had already taken orders, and in 1835 began his eighteen-year tenure of the vicarage of Wymeswold in Leicestershire, from which seclusion the twice-repeated offer of a colonial bishopric failed to draw him. He was Hulsean lecturer at Cambridge in 1841-1842, and steadily built up a reputation as scholar and preacher, which might have been greater if not for his excursions into minor poetry and magazine editing.

In 1844, he joined the Cambridge Camden Society (CCS) which published a list of do's and don'ts for church layout which they promoted as a science. He commissioned A.W.N. Pugin to restore St Mary's church. He also was a member of the Metaphysical Society, founded in 1869 by James Knowles.

In September 1853 Alford moved to Quebec Chapel, Marylebone, London, where he had a large congregation. In March 1857 Lord Palmerston advanced him to the deanery of Canterbury, where, till his death, he lived the same energetic and diverse lifestyle as ever. He had been the friend of most of his eminent contemporaries, and was much beloved for his amiable character. The inscription on his tomb, chosen by himself, is Diversorium Viatoris Hierosolymam Proficiscentis ("the inn of a traveler on his way to Jerusalem").

Alford was a talented artist, as his picture-book, The Riviera (1870), shows, and he had abundant musical and mechanical talent. Besides editing the works of John Donne, he published several volumes of his own verse, The School of the Heart (1835), The Abbot of Muchelnaye (1841), The Greek Testament. The Four Gospels (1849), and a number of hymns, the best-known of which are "Forward! be our watchword," "Come, ye thankful people, come", and "Ten thousand times ten thousand." He translated the Odyssey, wrote a well-known manual of idiom, A Plea for the Queen's English (1863), and was the first editor of the Contemporary Review (1866 - 1870).

His chief fame rests on his monumental edition of the New Testament in Greek (4 vols.), which occupied him from 1841 to 1861. In this work he first produced a careful collation of the readings of the chief manuscripts and the researches of the ripest continental scholarship of his day. Philological rather than theological in character, it marked an epochal change from the old homiletic commentary, and though more recent research, patristic and papyral, has largely changed the method of New Testament exegesis, Alford's work is still a quarry where the student can dig with a good deal of profit.

His Life, written by his widow, appeared in 1873 (Rivington).




1. THE Author of this book is identical with that of the third Gospel, as plainly appears from the circumstance that in its address, to a certain Theophilus, reference is made to a former work, on the acts and words of Jesus, similarly addressed. Compare Acts 1:1, Luke 1:3. That Author is traditionally known as Lucas or Luke, spoken of Colossians 4:14, and again Philemon 1:24, and 2 Timothy 4:11. For notices respecting him, see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. iv. § i.

2. Nor is there any reason to reject the testimony of tradition in this matter. In chapters 27 and 28 we find our Author (see below, par. 4) accompanying Paul to Rome. In the passages above cited, all written from Rome, we find that Luke was there, in the company of that Apostle. So far at least there is nothing inconsistent with Luke having written this book; and if this book, the Gospel.

3. That no other writer has here assumed the person of the Author of the Gospel, may be gathered from the diction of this book strongly resembling that of the other. Supposing the student to consult the references in this Edition, he will be continually met by words and phrases either peculiar to the two books and not met with elsewhere (about fifty of these occur),—or mostly found in the two.

4. That no writer other than the Author of the rest of the book has furnished the parts in which the narrative proceeds in the first person, will be plain, if the matter be thus considered. ( α) We have evidence, both by his own assertion (Luke 1:3), and from the contents of the Gospel and this book, that Luke was a careful and painstaking writer. Now it would bespeak a degree of carelessness wholly unexampled,—for one who compiled a continuous memoir, to leave its component parts, derived from various sources, in their original fragmentary state, some in the third, others in the first person. Unquestionably such a writer would in such a case have translated the whole into the third person. ( β) Seeing that Luke does use the first person in Acts 1:1, and that the first person is resumed ch. (Acts 14:22) Acts 16:10-17; Acts 20:5-15; Acts 21:1-18; Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16, it is but a fair inference that in one and the same book, and that book betokening considerable care of writing and arrangement, the speaker implied by the use of the first person is one and the same throughout.

5. That the author never names himself, either as the author, or otherwise, can of itself not be urged as an objection to any hypothesis of authorship, unless by the occurrence of some mention, from which the authorship by another may be fairly inferred. But, if we have in this book no mention of Luke, we have as certainly no hint of any other person having furnished the narrative. On the other hand we have a hint by which it appears that some one other than all the specified companions of Paul on a certain occasion (Acts 20:4-5) was with him, and was the author of the narrative. After the mention by name of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus, we read, ‘These having gone forward waited for us at Troas:’ this pronoun including Paul and the writer, at least (see note there).

6. That Paul himself, in Epistles written during the journeys here described, does not name Luke, cannot be alleged as any argument why Luke should not have been the author of our narrative. For ( α), we have undoubted examples of Paul sometimes merely alluding generally to those who were with him, as Philippians 4:21-22;—sometimes sedulously suppressing their names while speaking of services performed by them, as 2 Corinthians 8:18; sometimes not mentioning or alluding to them at all, as in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Ephesians:—and ( β) strictly speaking, no Epistles appear to have been written by Paul while our writer was in his company, before his Roman imprisonment. For he does not seem to have joined him at Corinth, ch. 18, whence the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written:—or to have been with him at Ephesus, ch. 19,—whence (probably) the Epistle to the Galatians was written;—nor again to have wintered with him at Corinth, ch. Acts 20:3, at the time of his writing the Epistle to the Romans, and (possibly) that to the Galatians.

7. But independently of the above arguments to establish the identity of the author throughout, we may infer the same from the similarity of diction and style, which do not vary through the book. Here again we have, as will be seen abundantly in the references, terms peculiar to the writer occurring in various parts of the book;—favourite terms and phrases occurring in all parts of the book; which could not well have been the case, had he merely incorporated the memoirs of others. For compendious statements of these, the whole of which have been inserted in my references, I refer the reader to Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the N. T. vol. ii. pp. 4, 5.

8. And again, the notes will be found repeatedly to point out cases where the narrator takes up again (with his characteristic μὲν οὖν or otherwise) the thread of history previously dropped (see e.g., and compare, ch. Acts 11:16, Acts 1:5; Acts 11:19, Acts 8:1-4; Acts 21:8, Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5 ff.: Acts 22:20, Acts 7:58, Acts 8:1, &c.).

9. Another interesting source of evidence on this head is pointed out by Mr. Smith, in his valuable work on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. He has shewn that in the various narratives of sea voyages in this book, and in that of the stilling of the storm in the Gospel, Luke has, with remarkable consistency, shewn himself to be just so much acquainted with the phrases and habits of seamen, as a landsman well habituated to the sea, but himself no seaman, might be expected to be. To specify instances would be beyond my limits, besides that Mr. Smith’s very interesting and ingenious argument and illustrations would be spoiled by abridgment. I can only refer my reader to his work(1).

10. To the same class belong the intimations, slight indeed but interesting, discoverable here and in the Gospel in the descriptions of diseases, that the author was one well acquainted with them and with the technical language of the medical profession. Of this kind are συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, Luke 4:38; πυρετοῖς κ. δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον, Acts 28:8; see also Luke 8:43-44,—Acts 3:7; Acts 12:23; Acts 13:11, and compare Colossians 4:14.

11. It will be necessary to mention the various hypotheses which have substituted some other narrator for Luke in the parts of the Acts where the first person is used, or have merged his personality in that of some other companion of Paul: and, irrespective of the above arguments, to deal with them on their own merits. ( α) Bleek and De Wette hold TIMOTHEUS, and not Luke, to have been the companion of Paul and the narrator in the first person,—and Luke to have inserted those portions from a journal kept by Timotheus, and without alteration. But this is not consistent with ch. Acts 20:4-5; where, when the companions of Paul have been named, and Timotheus among them, it is said οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν τρωάδι: the escape from this objection attempted by making οὗτοι refer to Tychicus and Trophimus only, being on all ordinary rules of construction, inadmissible. This reason is, to my mind, sufficient: those who wish to see others brought out, and the supports of the hypothesis (which are entirely negative and inferential) invalidated, may consult Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T., vol. ii. pp. 9 ff.

( β) SILAS was the narrator in the first person, and indeed the author of the latter part of the book, beginning with ch. Acts 15:13 (30?), in the form of personal memoirs, which then were worked up. This hypothesis, which has not any thing resembling evidence to support it, is sufficiently refuted by the way in which the mention of Silas is introduced ch. Acts 15:22 (included by the hypothesis in his own work) as being a ‘chief man among the brethren.’ If it be answered that this notice of him was inserted by Luke,—Is it, I would ask, likely, that an author who was at no more pains in his work than to leave the first person standing in the narrative of another which he used, would have added to the mention of new individuals notices of this kind?

( γ) More ingenious, and admitting of more plausible defence, is the hypothesis, which identifies Luke himself with Silas. The latest and ablest vindication of this view is contained in an article by the Author of the literary history of the N. T. in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lit. for Oct. 1850. The chief arguments by which he supports it are these:—

(1) “The author of the Acts appears, in the early part of his history, to have been well acquainted with the acts and sayings of Peter, as he was afterwards with those of Paul. Now the only persons whom this description would fit, are Silvanus (or Silas), and Mark (see 1 Peter 5:12-13). That Mark did not after Acts 15. travel with Paul, we know: but Silas did, and from that time we find greater precision in the narrative as regards the history of that Apostle.”

But to this it may be answered,—that the difference between the kind of acquaintance which the historian possesses with Peter and his sayings and doings, and that with Paul and his history, is very observable even to a cursory reader. No where in the first part of the book does he use the first person: and no where, although the testimony has plainly come in many parts from autoptic authority, does the narrator himself appear as the eye-witness. In fact, all that the above argument insists on, is easily and naturally satisfied, by the long and intimate companionship of Luke and Silvanus as fellow-travellers with Paul, during which time Luke may have gathered, if Silvanus must be considered as his authority, all that we now find in the former parts of our history(2).

(2) “Luke and Silvanus (Silas) are no where mentioned together. Luke is never mentioned in the Acts: Silas is never coupled with Luke in the addresses or salutations of the Epistles. And the two names, Silvanus from silva, and Lucanus from lucus, are so cognate that they might well be the appellations of one and the same person.”

This ingenious argument, if well weighed, will be found to have but little force. As to Luke not being named in the Acts, the fact itself goes for nothing. If it have any prima facie weight, it would be against the hypothesis. That one who was careful to insert an explanatory notice respecting one so well known as σαῦλος ὁ καὶ παῦλος, should take no notice at all of the fact hereafter likely to occasion so much confusion,—that he who was named Silas in the history, was known by Paul, and mentioned in his Epistles, as Lucas,—is hardly probable. But let us observe the occasions on which Silvanus and Lucas have been mentioned by Paul. In 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and 2 Thessalonians 1:1, we have Silvanus joined with Paul and Timotheus. In 2 Corinthians 1:19, we have an allusion to the preaching of Christ at Corinth by Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. Accordingly in Acts 18:5, we find that Silas and Timotheus came from Macedonia and joined Paul at Corinth: this occurring in a part of the history when (I am speaking according to the ordinary and prima facie inference, from the disuse of the first person since Acts 16:17) the author was absent from Paul. Now let us turn to Colossians 4:14, Philemon 1:24.(3) These Epistles belong to a time when we know by the latter chapters of the Acts, that the writer of the history was with Paul. Accordingly I find Lucas mentioned in both places. So far at least is in remarkable accordance with the common view that Silas and Lucas were not one, but two persons, and that the latter was the author of the Acts, and not the former. It may be said that Paul called the same person Lucas whom he had previously called Silvanus: and this may be supported by his variations between Peter and Cephas. But (1) I conceive that the case of Peter was too exceptional an one (both names having apparently been given him and used by our Lord Himself) to found an analogy upon: and (2) Peter’s names are forms of the same meaning in two different languages, not words of similar meaning in the same language.

But the principal argument in my mind against this hypothesis (over and above that from ch. Acts 15:22) is, that it would introduce unaccountable confusion into the form and expression of a history, which on the common view is lucid and accountable enough. Imagine Silas to be the speaker in ch. 16, and Luke to be merged in Silas. Then ‘we,’ from ver. 10 to ver. 18, = Silas and Timotheus. In ver. 19, it would be natural to desert the first person, in order to express what happened to Paul and Silas, and not to Timotheus. The same specification of Paul and Silas might, for the same reason, be continued during the stay at Philippi, i.e. to the end of that chapter. But is it conceivable, that the ‘we’ should not be resumed when the journey begins again ch. Acts 17:1,—that it should not be used ch. Acts 18:11, seeing that from 2 Corinthians 1:19 it was Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who were preaching during that time at Corinth—in fact, that it should never be resumed till ch. Acts 20:5, at the very place (Philippi) where it was dropped before?

The argument from the similarity of silva and lucus is too unsubstantial to deserve serious attention. And that built on the assumption that the author of the third Gospel and the Acts must have held a place of greater honour than we find assigned to Lucas, is purely arbitrary, and sufficiently answered by observing that he is ranked with Marcus, apparently his fellow-Evangelist, in Philemon 1:24. Rather would it seem probable, that the men of word and action, in those times of the living energy of the Spirit, would take the highest place; and that the work of securing to future generations the word of God would not be fully honoured, till from necessity, it became duly valued.

12. I shall now endeavour to sketch out the personal history of the author of the Acts, as for as it can be gathered, during the events which he relates.

The first direct intimation of his being in the company of Paul, occurs ch. Acts 16:10, at Troas, when Paul was endeavouring (looking for a ship) to sail into Macedonia. Now at this time, Paul had been apparently detained in Galatia by sickness, and had just passed through (preaching as he went, see ch. Acts 18:23) that country and Phrygia. It is hardly probable that he had visited Colossæ, as it lay far out of his route, but he may, in the then uncertainty of his destination, have done so. (See Colossians 2:1 and note.) I say this, because it is remarkable that in sending Luke’s salutation to the Colossians (Colossians 4:14), he calls him ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός. This designation might recall to their minds the relation in which Luke had stood to Paul when in their country; or more probably may have been an effusion of the warm heart of Paul, on recollection of the services rendered to him on that journey by his loving care. At all events such a designation, occurring in such a place, is not inconsistent with the idea that Luke about that time became Paul’s companion on account of the weak state of his health. Further to establish this is impossible: but what follows is not inconsistent with it. We find him in the Apostle’s company no further than to Philippi, the object perhaps of his attendance on him having been then fulfilled.(4)

13. If we seek for any trace of previous connexion between Luke and Paul, we find nothing but the very slightest hint, and that perhaps hardly to be taken as such. In ch. Acts 14:21-22 we read, that Paul, after the stoning at Lystra, departed with Barnabas to Derbe, and returned through Lystra and Iconium and Antioch (in Pisidia) confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain in the faith, καὶ ὅτι διὰ πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τ. βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. This ἡμᾶς may be, as commonly understood, spoken by the writer as a Christian, and of all Christians: but it may also be indicative of the writer’s presence:(5) and I cannot help connecting it with the tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch:(6) though Antioch in Syria is there meant. Certainly, in the account (ch. 13) of the events at Antioch in Pisidia, there is remarkable particularity. Paul’s speech is fully reported: the account of its effect vv. 44–49 given with much earnestness of feeling:—and one little notice is added after the departure of Paul and Barnabas, ver. 52, which looks very like the testimony of one who was left behind at Antioch. Whether this may have been the place of Luke’s own conversion, we know not; but a peculiar interest evidently hangs about this preaching at Antioch in the mind of the narrator, be he who he may: and Mark had departed, who might have supplied the Cyprian events (see ver. 13).

14. After the second junction with Paul and his company, ch. Acts 20:5, we find him remaining with the Apostle to the end of our history. It would not be necessary to suppose this second attachment to him to have had the same occasion as the first. That which weakness of body at first made advisable, affection may subsequently have renewed. And we have reason to believe that this was really the case. Not only the epithet ἀγαπητός, Colossians 4:14, but the fact, that very late in the life of the Apostle (see Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii.) when “all in Asia were turned away from him” (2 Timothy 1:15), and Demas, Crescens, and Titus had for various reasons left him, the faithful Luke still remained (2 Timothy 4:11), bespeaks an ardent and steady attachment to the person of him who in all probability was his father in the faith.

15. Of the subsequent history and death of Luke nothing is known.



1. The principal enquiry respecting the sources of the narrative in the Acts relates to the first part as far as ch. 13. After that, the history follows the Apostle Paul, of whom its writer was subsequently the constant companion. From him therefore the incidents might be derived, where the writer himself was not present. I shall before the end of this section enquire how far the appearances warrant our supposing that his testimony has furnished such portions.

2. I proceed to enquire into the probable sources of the first part of our history. And here something will depend on our answer to another question,—When is it probable that Luke was engaged in drawing up the book? I shall endeavour to support in another section my firm conviction that its publication took place at the end of the two years mentioned in ch. Acts 28:30-31. It may be convenient for me at present to assume that to have been the case, but my argument does not altogether depend on that assumption. I proceed on the hardly deniable inference, that of the last voyage and shipwreck a regular journal was kept by Luke—probably set down during the winter months at Malta. It must then be evident, that at this time the purpose of writing a δεύτερος λόγος was ripened in his mind. But how long had this purpose been in his mind? Am I altogether beside the mark in supposing, that it was with this purpose among others that he became one of Paul’s company on the return to Asia in ch. Acts 20:4-5? Whether (see Prolegg. to Luke, § iv: 2, 3) the Gospel was written for the most part during the interval between Luke being left at Philippi in ch. 16 and his being taken up at the same place in ch. 20, or afterwards in Palestine,—on either supposition it is not improbable that the writing of the Acts was at this time already designed,—either as a sequel to the Gospel already finished, or simultaneously with the Gospel, as its future sequel.

3. It is very possible that the design may have grown under his hands, or more properly speaking have been by little and little suggested by the direction of the Spirit of God. He may have intended, on leaving Philippi with Paul (ch. Acts 20:4-5), only to draw up a διήγησις of his own travels in company with that Apostle, to serve as a record of his acts and sayings in founding the churches in Europe and Asia. However this may have been, we find him recording minutely every circumstance of this voyage, which I take to have been the first written portion of the book. At any time during that or subsequent travels, or during the two years at Rome, he may have filled in those parts of the narrative which occurred during his absence from Paul,—by the oral dictation of the Apostle.

4. Let us now suppose Paul already in custody at Cæsarea. The narrative has been brought down to that time. The circumstances of his apprehension,—his defence before the Jews,—their conspiracy,—his rescue from them and transmission to Felix,—all this has been duly and minutely recorded,—even the letter of Claudius Lysias having been obtained, probably by acquaintance with some one about Felix. An intention similar to that announced in παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς (Luke 1:3) is here evidently shewn.

5. But now Providence interposes, and lays aside the great Apostle for two years. During all this time Luke appears to have been not far from his neighbourhood, watching the turn of events, ready to accompany him to Rome, according to the divine announcement of ch. Acts 23:11. But “they also serve, who only stand and wait.” What so natural, as that he should avail himself of this important interval to obtain, from Cæsarea and Jerusalem, and perhaps from other parts of Palestine, information by which he might complete his hitherto fragmentary notices? That accurate following up of every thing, or rather tracing down of every thing from its source,—what time so appropriate for it as this, when among the brethren in Judæa he might find many eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and might avail himself of the διηγήσεις which of all places would be most likely to abound there where the events themselves had happened? During this interval therefore I suppose Luke to have been employed in collecting materials, perhaps for his Gospel, but certainly for the first part of the Acts.

6. His main source of information would be the church at Jerusalem. There, from James, or from some apostolic men who had been on the spot from the first, he would learn the second and fuller account of the Ascension,—the weighty events of the day of Pentecost, the following acts and discourses. In the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the apostles and elders at this time, which raised them above ordinary men in power of spirit and utterance, it would be merely an inference from analogy, that their remembrance of the words uttered at remarkable crises of the apostolic history should be something surpassing mere human recollection: that these hallowed words of the Spirit’s own prompting should have abode with the church for its comfort and instruction, and finally have been committed to writing for all subsequent ages.

7. But if analogy would a priori suggest this, the phænomena of our history confirm it. The references (which have been on that account a singularly interesting labour) will shew to the attentive student in those speeches, quite enough peculiarities to identify them as the sentiments and diction of the great Apostle of the circumcision, while at the same time there is enough of Luke’s own style and expression to shew that the whole material has been carefully worked over and græcized by his hand.

8. It has been much disputed whether Luke used written documents in constructing this part of the Acts.(7) It may have been so. Detailed memoirs of some of the most important events may have been drawn up. If so, ch. 2 would in all probability be such a memoir. The letters, ch. Acts 15:23-29 (Acts 23:26-30), must have been of this kind: some of the discourses, as that of Peter ch. Acts 11:5-17, containing expressions unknown to Luke’s style (see reff.): more or less, the other speeches of Peter, containing many striking points of similarity to (both) his Epistles,—see reff. At the same time, from the similarity of ending of the earlier sections (compare ch. Acts 2:46-47; Acts 4:32 ff.; Acts 5:42; Acts 9:31; Acts 12:24), from the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to Luke in the midst of such speeches as those noticed above (e.g. σταθέντα ch. Acts 11:13, and see Dr. Davidson p. 30 for a list, which I have incorporated in the reff.), the inference must be (as in the last paragraph) that such documents were not adopted until their language had been revised, where thought necessary, by the author himself. The very minute and careful detail of ch. 12, evidently intended to give the highest authority to the narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliverance,—so that the house itself of Mary the mother of John Mark is specified, the name of the female servant who went to the door, her remarks and the answer made to her, are all given,—has apparently been the result of diligent enquiry on the spot, from the parties concerned. We can hardly resist the inference that the very same persons who fifteen years before had been witnesses of the deliverance, now gave the details of an occurrence which they could never forget, and described their own feelings on it.

9. Whether Luke at this time can have fallen in with Peter personally, is very questionable. That Apostle certainly does not appear to have been at Jerusalem when Paul visited it: and from the omission of all mention of him after ch. 15, the natural inference is, that he was not there during any part of Paul’s imprisonment. (See note on Galatians 2:11, and Prolegg. to 1 Pet. § ii. 6, 7.)

10. But one very important section of the first part of the Acts is concerned with events which happened at Cæsarea,—and derived from information obtained there. There dwelt Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven (ch. Acts 21:8): a most important authority for the contents of ch. 6 and 8(8), if not also for some events previous to ch. 6. There too, we may well believe, still dwelt, if not Cornelius himself(9), yet some of the συνεληλυθότες πολλοί of ch. Acts 10:27,—the persons perhaps who had gone to fetch Peter from Joppa,—at all events plenty who could narrate the occurrences of that memorable day, and the words which formed the great proœm of the Gentile Gospel.

11. Connected with the Cæsarean part of our history, is one minute touch of truth and accuracy, which is interesting as pointing to careful research and information of the most trustworthy kind. The awful death of Herod Agrippa I. had happened on a great public occasion. It appears that the celebration of a festival in honour of Cæsar had also been selected as the time of audience for an embassy of the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, and during this audience, after making an oration to the embassy, Herod was struck by the hand of God. Now of this latter particular, the Sidonian embassy, the Jewish historian knows nothing. (See the passage quoted, ad loc. ch. Acts 12:21.) But Luke, who had made careful enquiries on the spot, who had spent a week at Tyre, ch. Acts 21:4-7,—and Paul, who had friends at Sidon, ch. Acts 27:3, were better acquainted with the facts of the occurrence than to overlook, as Josephus did, the minute details in the general character of the festival.

12. One or two sections in the former part of the Acts require separate consideration.

( α) The apology of Stephen, from its length and peculiar characteristics, naturally suggests an enquiry as to the source whence it may probably have been obtained by Luke. And here I should feel little hesitation in ascribing a principal share in the report to him who was so deeply implicated in Stephen’s martyrdom,—who shews by his own reference (ch. Acts 22:20) to the part taken by him on that occasion, how indelibly it was fixed in his memory,—and who in more than one place of his recorded speeches and writings, seems to reproduce the very thoughts and expressions of Stephen. At the same time, it would be improbable that the church at Jerusalem should have preserved no memorial of so important a speech as that of her first martyr before his judges. So that, however we may be inclined to attribute much of its particularity and copiousness to information derived from Paul, it must be classed, as to its general form, among those contributions to the history obtained by Luke at Jerusalem.

( β) The narrative of the conversion of Saul in ch. 9 can hardly fail to have been derived from himself. I have shewn in the notes that there are no discrepancies between this and the two other relations of the same event, but such as may easily be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances under which each is given, and the necessarily varying expressions of narratives which were afterwards not reduced into harmony with each other, but written faithfully down as delivered.

13. Agreeable with the above suppositions is the fact, that the former part of the book presents more traces of Hebraistic idiom, not only in speeches, but in the form of the historical narrative(10).

14. I proceed now to au enquiry promised in par. 1 of this section: How far we have indications of the lacunæ in the author’s personal testimony in the latter part having been filled in by that of Paul.

Perhaps one of the best sections for the purpose of this examination will be that from ch. Acts 17:16 to Acts 18:5, which relates to a time when Paul was left alone. Do we discover in the narrative or speech the traces of an unusual hand, and if so, whose is it? That some unusual hand has been here employed, is evident: for in the six verses 16–21 inclusive, we have no fewer than nine expressions foreign to Luke’s style(11), or no where else occurring: and in the speech itself, no fewer than nineteen(12). Now of these twenty-eight expressions, five are either peculiar to, or employed principally by Paul(13); besides that we find the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, so frequently (see reff.) used by him of his own spirit or feelings. That the ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the speech exceed in number the expressions indicative of his style, may fairly be accounted for by the peculiar nature of the occasion on which he spoke. Here I think we can hardly fail to trace the hand of the Apostle by quite as many indications as we might expect to find. That Luke should, as in every other case, have wrought in the section into his work, and given it the general form of his own narrative, would only be natural, and we find it has been so(14).

15. It may be instructive to carry on the examination of this part of the history somewhat further. At ch. Acts 18:5, Silas and Timotheus joined Paul at Corinth. One at least of these, Timotheus, was afterwards for a considerable time in the company of Luke in the journey from Philippi to Jerusalem. But on his arrival at Corinth, no alteration in the style of the narrative is perceptible. It still remains the mixed diction of Paul and Luke: the ἅπ. λεγγ. are fewer, while we have some remarkable traces of Paul’s hand(15). Again, in vv. 24–28 of the same chapter, we have a description of what took place with regard to Apollos at Ephesus, when Paul himself was absent. This portion it would be natural to suppose might have been furnished by Apollos himself, were it not for the laudatory description of ver. 24. If not by Apollos, then by Aquila and Priscilla to Paul on his return to Ephesus. And so it seems to have been. The general form is Luke’s: the peculiarities are mostly Paul’s(16).

16. The examination of these sections may serve to shew that the great Apostle appears to have borne a principal part in informing Luke with regard to such parts of his history: the traces of this his share in the work being visible by the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to him in the midst of the ordinary narrative from Luke’s own pen. These he preserved, casting the merely narrative matter into the form in which he usually wrote.

17. It yet remains, before terminating this section, to say something of the speeches reported in the latter part of the Acts. Are they Paul’s own words, or has Luke in this case also gone over the matter, and left the impression of his style on it?

These speeches are, ( α) the discourse to the Ephesian elders in ch. Acts 20:18-35,—( β) the apology before the Jews, ch. Acts 22:1-21,—( γ) the apology before Felix, ch. Acts 24:10-21,—( δ) the apology before Agrippa and Festus, ch. Acts 26:1-29.

( α) The discourse to the Ephesian elders is a rich storehouse of phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul. These are so numerous, and so remarkable, that nothing short of a complete study of the passage, with the references, will put the reader in full possession of them. Very faint traces are found of the hand of Luke(17). Of those mentioned in the note, scarcely any are decisive, whereas hardly a line of the whole is without unmistakable evidences that we have here the words of Paul. In the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, I hope to shew the importance of this discourse, as bearing on the very difficult question of the diction and date of those precious and to my mind indubitable relics of the great Apostle(18).

( β) The apology before the Jews (ch. Acts 22:1-21) was spoken in Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic). Another interesting question is therefore here involved, Did Luke understand Hebrew? The answer to the two questions will be one and the same. We may find the diction of this translation either so completely Luke’s, as to render it probable that he was the translator;—or it may bear traces, as usual, of Paul’s own phraseology set down and worked up by Luke. In the former case, we may confidently infer that he must have understood Hebrew: in the latter, we may (but not with equal confidence, for Paul may by preference have given his own version of his own speech) conclude that that language was unknown to him. If again the speech is full of Hebraisms, it may lead us to infer that Paul himself was not the translator into Greek, but one who felt himself more strictly bound to a literal rendering than the speaker himself, who would be likely to give his own thoughts and meaning a freer and more Grecian dress. Now we do find, (1) that the speech is full of Hebraisms: (2) that while it contains several expressions occurring no where but in the writings of Luke,(19) not one is found in it peculiar to Paul, or even strikingly in his manner. Our inference then is that Luke himself has rendered this speech, from having heard it delivered;—and consequently, that he was acquainted with Hebrew.

( γ) The short apology before Felix (ch. Acts 24:10-21) contains some traces of Paul’s manner,(20) but still they are scanty, and the evidences of Luke’s hand predominate, as may be seen from the reff. Its very compendious character makes it probable that it may have been drawn up by Luke from Paul’s own report of the substance of what he said.

( δ) The important apology before Agrippa and Festus (ch. Acts 26:1-29) is full of Paul’s peculiar expressions.(21) It was spoken in Greek, and taken down very nearly as spoken. Some phrases however occur in it which seem to belong to Luke;(22) just enough to shew the hand which has committed the speech to writing. We must remember however that several of these are expressive of meanings not elsewhere occurring in Paul’s composition, which therefore he may well, in uttering, have thus expressed.

18. Our conclusion from this examination may be thus stated: (1) That in all cases the diction of the speeches was more or less modified by Luke’s hand. (2) That they are not in any case (as some have supposed) composed by him for the speaker, but were really in substance, and for the most part in very words, uttered as written. (3) That the differences apparent in the greater or less amount of editorial diction in different speeches, remarkably correspond to the alleged occasions and modes of their delivery:—where Paul spoke Hebrew, hardly any traces of his own style being discernible,—as also where a short compendium only of his speech is given; while on the other hand speeches manifestly reported at length and which were spoken in Greek originally, are full of the characteristic peculiarities of Paul himself.

19. For many other interesting particulars connected with the sources of the narrative in the Acts, I refer the student to Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T. vol. ii.



1. The Gospel of Luke commences with a preface, in which he declares his object with sufficient precision. Dedicating it to his friend Theophilus, he describes it as a record of τὰ πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα,—and asserts his purpose in writing it to be, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. Now there can be little question that both these descriptions apply to the Acts also. The book is introduced without preface, as a second part following on the former treatise: a δεύτερος λόγος to the Gospel.

2. I have stated with regard to the Gospel, that we can hardly suppose Luke’s design to have confined itself to Theophilus, but must believe that he followed the common practice of dedicating his work to some one person of rank or influence, and describing it as written for him. The same applies also to the Acts: and the class of readers for whom Luke wrote is the same as before; viz. Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles.

3. If a further specification of his object in writing be required, it can only be furnished by an unprejudiced examination of the contents of the book. These are found to be, The fulfilment of the promise of the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit: the results of that outpouring, by the dispersion of the Gospel among Jews and Gentiles. Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may be ranged. Immediately after the ascension, Peter, the first of the twelve, the Rock on whom the church was to be built, the holder of the keys of the Kingdom, becomes the great Actor under God in the founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first great group of sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews (ch. 2) and Gentiles (ch. 10) is his office,—and by him, in the Lord’s own time, is accomplished. But none of the existing Twelve were (humanly speaking) fitted to preach the Gospel to the cultivated Gentile world. To be by divine grace the spiritual conqueror of Asia and Europe, God raised up another instrument, from among the highly educated and zealous Pharisees. The preparation of this instrument for the work to be done,—the progress in his hand of that work—his journeyings, preachings and perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem, and being brought to testify in Rome,—these are the subjects of the latter half of the book, of which the great central figure is the Apostle Paul.

4. Nor can we attribute this with any probability to a set design of a comparison between the two great Apostles, or of an apology for Paul by exhibiting him as acting in consonance with the principles which regulated Peter. All such hypothesis is in the highest degree unnatural and forced. The circumstances before the narrator’s view would, without any such design, have led to the arrangement of the book as we now find it. The writer was the companion of Paul;—and in the land which had been the cradle of the Church he gathered materials for the portion which might join his Gospel to the narrative with which Paul’s history began. In that interval, Peter was the chief actor: Peter was the acknowledged ‘chosen vessel’ in the first days of the Gospel. But Luke does not confine himself to Peter’s acts. He gives at length the mission of Philip to the Gaza road and the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch, with which Peter had no connexion whatever. He gives at length the history of Stephen—the origin of the office which he held,—his apology,—his martyrdom,—how naturally, as leading to the narrative of the conversion of him who took so conspicuous a part in the transactions of that day.(23)

5. Any view which attributes ulterior design to the writer, beyond that of faithfully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are answered by the book in the course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied purposes of the writer:—e.g., the sedulous offer of the Gospel to the Jewish people,—their continual rejection of it,—the as continual turning to the Gentiles:—how strikingly does this come out before the reader as we advance,—and how easily might this be alleged as the design,—supported as the view would be by the final interview of Paul with the Jews at Rome, and his solemn application of prophecy to their unbelief and hardness of heart. Again, in the course of the book, more and more strongly does it appear that God’s purpose was to gather a people out of the Gentiles to His name: so that by Michaelis this is assigned as one of two great objects of the book. And so we might pass on through the whole cycle of progress of the faith of Christ, and hypotheses might be raised, as each great purpose of Providence is seen unfolding, that to narrate it was the object of the work.



1. I see no cause for departing from the opinion already expressed in the Prolegomena to Luke’s Gospel (Vol. I., Prol., § iv. 1) that the Acts was completed and published at the expiration of the two years described in the last verse of chap. 28. No reason can be assigned, why, had any considerable change in the circumstances of Paul taken place, it should not have been mentioned by Luke. The same will hold still more strongly of the death of the Apostle.

2. The prevalent opinion of recent critics in Germany has been, that the book was written much later than this. But this opinion is for the most part to be traced to their subjective leanings on the prophetic announcement of Luke 21:24. For those who hold that there is no such thing as prophecy (and this unhappily ia the case with many of the modern German critics), it becomes necessary to maintain that that verse was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Hence, as the Acts is the sequel to the Gospel, much more must the Acts have been written after that event. To us in England, who receive the verse in question as a truthful account of the words spoken by our Lord, and see in them a weighty prophetic declaration which is even now not wholly fulfilled, this argument at least has no weight.

3. The last-mentioned view (which is that of De Wette) differs from that of Meyer (Edn. 1), who saw in ch. Acts 8:26 ( αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος) a terminus a quo, and in the omission of all mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, a terminus ad quem, for the publication of the history; which he was therefore inclined to place at the beginning of the Jewish war, after the destruction of Gaza by the revolutionary bands of the Jews, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the notice of ch. Acts 8:26 cannot be fairly thus taken: see note there, in which I have endeavoured to give the true meaning of ἔρημος as applying to ὁδός and not to Gaza, and as spoken by the angel, not added by the Evangelist. Meyer’s latter terminus, and the argument by which he fixes it, I hold to be sound. It would be beside all probability, that so great, and for Christianity so important an event, as the overthrow of the Jewish city, temple, and nation, should have passed without even an allusion in a book in which that city, temple, and nation, bear so conspicuous a part.

4. Meyer also (Edn. 1, Einl. p. 7) endeavoured to render a reason why the subsequent proceedings of Paul in Rome should not have been noticed. They were, he imagines, well known to Theophilus, an Italian himself, if not a Roman. But this is the merest caprice of conjecture. What convincing evidence have we that Theophilus was a Roman, or an Italian? And this view would hardly (though Meyer laboured to make it do so) account for the narration of what did take place in Rome,—especially for the last verse of the book. It is fair to state that in subsequent editions Meyer has abandoned this view for that impugned at the beginning of par. 2.

5. De Wette attempts to account for the history ending where it does, because the words of our Lord in ch. Acts 1:8 had been accomplished, and so the object of the history fulfilled. But how were they more accomplished at that particular time than before? Rome had not been specified in that command: and he who now preached at Rome was not formally addressed in those words. Rather, if the object of the writer had been merely to trace these words to their fulfilment, should he have followed the actual Apostles to whom they were spoken, many of whom we have reason to believe much more literally preached ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, than St. Paul. But no such design, or none such in so formal a shape, was in the mind of our Evangelist. That the Lord commanded and his Apostles obeyed, would be the obvious course of history; but that the mere bringing of one of those Apostles to the head of the civilized world should have been thought to exhaust that command, is inconceivable as a ground for breaking off the narration.

6. Still more futile is the view that it was broken off because the promise of ch. Acts 23:11 was now fulfilled ( οὕτως σε δεῖ καὶ εἰς ῥώμην μαρτυρῆσαι). For on this view, the being brought before Cæsar ought to have been expressly narrated: another promise having been given to Paul, ch. Acts 27:24, μὴ φοβοῦ, παῦλε, καίσαρί σε δεῖ παραστῆναι. Indeed this very argument tells forcibly in favour of the date commonly assigned. Without attributing it as an object in the mind of the writer, to relate the fulfilment of every divine promise recorded by him, we may at least regard it as probable, that had he been able to chronicle the fulfilment of this promise, he would have done so, seeing that the apology before Cæsar was so weighty an event, and that three former apologies, those before the Jews, before Felix, and before Festus and Agrippa, had been inserted.

7. If we look at the probabilities of the matter, we shall find that the time commonly assigned was by very far the most likely for the publication of the book. The arrival at Rome was an important period in the Apostle’s life: the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no immediate determination of his cause: a large amount of historic material was collected:—or perhaps, taking another view, Nero was beginning ‘in pejus mutari:’ none could tell how soon the whole outward repose of Roman society might be shaken, and the tacit toleration which now the Christians enjoyed be exchanged for bitter persecution. If such terrors loomed in the prospect of even those who judged from worldly probabilities, there would surely be in the church at Rome prophets and teachers, who might tell them by the Holy Ghost of the storm which was gathering, and might warn them that the words lying ready for publication must be given to the faithful before its outbreak, or never. It is true that such a priori considerations would weigh little against presumptive evidence furnished by the book itself: but when arrayed in aid of such evidence, they carry with them no small weight: when we find that the time naturally and fairly indicated in the book itself for its publication, is that one of all others when we should conceive that publication most likely.

8. We thus get A.D. 63 (see the following table) for the date of the publication.

9. The same arguments which establish the date, also fix the place. At Rome, among the Christians there, was this history first made public, which has since then in all parts and ages of the church formed a recognized and important part of the canon of Scripture.

10. As regards the title of the book, we may observe, that it appears to represent the estimate, not of one culling these out of more copious materials, but of an age when these were all the Acts of the Apostles extant: and probably therefore proceeded not from the author, but from the transcribers.



... Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25), recounting the ὁμολογούμεναι θεῖαι γραφαί, says, τακτέον ἐν πρώτοις τὴν ἁγίαν τῶν εὐαγγελίων τετρακτὺν οἷς ἕπεται ἡ τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων γραφή. And in iii. 4,— λουκᾶς τὸ μὲν γένος ὢν τῶν ἀπʼ ἀντιοχείας, τὴν δὲ ἐπιστήμην ἰατρός, τὰ πλεῖστα συγγεγονὼς τῷ παύλῳ, καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς δὲ οὐ περιέργως τῶν ἀποστόλων ὡμιληκώς, ἧς ἀπὸ τούτων προσεκτήσατο ψυχῶν θεραπευτικῆς ἐν δυσὶν ἡμῖν ὑποδείγματα θεοπνεύστοις καταλέλοιπε βιβλίοις· τῷ τε εὐαγγελίῳ … καὶ ταῖς τῶν ἀποστόλων πράξεσιν, ἃς οὐκέτι διʼ ἀκοῆς, ὀφθαλμοῖς δὲ αὐτοῖς παραλαβὼν συνετάξατο. And many earlier fathers, either by citation or by allusion, have sufficiently shewn that the book was esteemed by them part of the canon of Scripture.

( α) Papias (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) does not mention nor refer to the Acts. He speaks indeed of Philip, and his daughters, but mistakes him (?) for Philip the Apostle: and of Justus surnamed Barsabas. Nor are there any references in Justin Martyr which, fairly considered, belong to this book. Such as are sometimes quoted may be seen in Lardner, vol. i. p. 122. The same may be said of Clement of Rome. Ignatius is supposed to allude to it ( μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν. Smyrn(24) § 3, p. 709. Compare Acts 10:41): so also Polycarp ( ὃν ἔγειρεν ὁ θεός, λύσας τὰς ὠδῖνας τοῦ ᾅδου. Phil. § 1, p. x 1005. Compare Acts 2:24).

( β) The first direct quotation occurs in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (A.D. 177) given in Euseb. H. E. v. 2. Speaking of the martyrs, they say, ὑπὲρ τῶν τὰ δεινὰ διατιθέντων ηὔχοντο, καθάπερ στέφανος ὁ τέλειος μάρτυς· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταύτην.

( γ) Irenæus frequently and expressly quotes this book: and in book iii. ch. 14, p. 201 f., he gives a summary of the latter part of the Acts, attributing it to Luke as its writer.

( δ) Clement of Alexandria quotes it often, and as the work of Luke: e.g. καθὸ καὶ ὁ λουκᾶς ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀπομνημονεύει τὸν παῦλον λέγοντα· ἄνδρες ἀθηναῖοι, κ. τ. λ. (see Acts 17:22-23) Strom. v. 12 (83), p. 696 P.

( ε) Tertullian often quotes it expressly: e.g. ‘Adeo postea in Actis apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum habebant, non accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant’ (compare Acts 19:1-3), De baptismo, c. 10, vol. i. p. 1211. And again: ‘cum in eodem commentario Lucæ, et tertia hora orationis demonstretur, sub qua Spiritu Sancto initiati pro ebriis habebantur, et sexta, qua Petrus ascendit in superiora,’ &c. De jejuniis, c. 10, vol. ii. p. 966.

2. ( α) The Marcionites (cent. iii.) and the Manichæans (cent. iv.) rejected the Acts as contradicting some of their notions. “Cur Acta respuatis jam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium prædicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio Spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Actorum.” Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 2, vol. ii. p. 472. And of the Manichæans, Augustine says, “Manichæi canonicum librum cujus titulus est Actus Apostolorum repudiant. Timent enim evidentissimam veritatem, ubi apparet, Sanctum Spiritum missum qui est a Domino Jesu Christo evangelica virtute præditus.” Epist. ccxxxvii. 2, vol. ii. p. 1035.

( β) Some modern critics in Germany, especially Baur, have made use of the hypothesis, that the Acts is an apology for Paul (see above, § iii. 4), to throw discredit on the book, and to bring down its publication to the second century. But with the hypothesis will also fall that which is built on it; and from the reasoning of the preceding sections it may be seen how utterly impracticable it would have been for an imitator to draw up narratives and speeches which should present the phænomena, in relation to the facts underlying them, which these do.

3. The text of the Acts, in D and E of the leading MSS., and their cognates in the mss. and versions, is varied by many interpolations of considerable length. It may suffice to point out a few of these, referring the student to the various readings to examine them in detail:

chap. Acts 10:25; Acts 11:2; Acts 11:17; Acts 11:25-26; Acts 11:28; Acts 12:10; Acts 14:2; Acts 14:7; Acts 14:18-19; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:12; Acts 15:20; Acts 16:10; Acts 16:30; Acts 16:35; Acts 16:39-40; Acts 17:15; Acts 18:4; Acts 18:27; Acts 19:1; Acts 20:3; Acts 23:24; Acts 24:24; Acts 25:24; Acts 27:1; Acts 28:31.

Of these, some are remarkable as bearing considerable appearance of genuineness, e.g. those in ch. Acts 12:10, Acts 16:10; some are unmeaning and absurd, as those in ch. Acts 14:19, Acts 16:39. Considerable uncertainty hangs over the whole question respecting these insertions. A critic of eminence, Bornemann, believes that the text of the Acts originally contained them all, and has been abbreviated by the hand of correctors: and he has published an edition on this principle.

4. The great abundance of various readings in the Acts, and the extent of space consequently devoted to them, will be observed by every reader. In no book of the N. T., with the exception of the Apocalypse, is the text so full of variations as in this. To this result several reasons may have contributed. In the many backward references to the Gospel history, and anticipations of statements and expressions occurring in the Epistles, temptations were found inducing the corrector to try his hand at assimilating, and as he thought reconciling, the various accounts. In places where ecclesiastical order or usage was in question, insertions or omissions were made to suit the habits and views of the church in after times. Where the narrative simply related facts,—any act or word apparently unworthy of the apostolic agent was modified for the sake of decorum. Where St. Paul relates over again to different audiences the details of his miraculous conversion, the one passage was pieced from the other, so as to produce verbal accordance. These circumstances render the critical arrangement of the text in this book a task more than usually difficult.



1. The chronology of the Acts has been the subject of many learned disquisitions both in ancient and modern times. It must suffice here (1) to point out to the reader those recent works where he will find the whole matter thoroughly discussed, and the results of older enquiries stated and criticized: and (2) to furnish a table arranged according to years, in which the contemporary sacred and profane history may be placed side by side, according to the conclusions which I myself have been led to form.

( α) The treatise of Anger, de temporum in Actis Apostolorum rations, Lips. 1833, was by far the best complete discussion of the chronology which had appeared up to that time: and the student who masters this not very voluminous work, will be in entire possession of the state of the enquiry when it was published.

( β) But the ground has since been again gone over, and Anger’s results somewhat shaken, by Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, Göttingen, 1848, which is now the best and most important work on the subject. I have been led in several places to differ from Wieseler, but I do not on that account underrate the value of his researches. His work, as well as that of Anger, should be in the hands of every student who wishes to master the chronology of the apostolic period.

( γ) A work often referred to in these Prolegomena, Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, will be found by the English reader to contain a very useful résumé of the views and arguments of other writers as well as his own conclusions; and is accompanied with the table usual in the German writers, giving at one glance the various dates assigned by different chronologists for the events in the apostolic history.

2. I proceed to give the chronological table above promised. It will be observed that the chronology of the Acts takes us only to the end of the second year of St. Paul’s (first) imprisonment at Rome. With the important and difficult question respecting a second imprisonment, we are here in no way concerned. It will come before us for full discussion in the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, Vol. III. (§ ii. 17 ff.)





(TIBERIUS) (sole) Emperor from Aug. 19, A.D. 14. 30 783 TO 36 789

CAIAPHAS, appointed by Valerius Gratus procurator of Judæa, A.D. 25 (Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) …

PONTIUS PILATUS, from A.D. 26, or early in 27 (Jos. Antt. xviii. 4. 2: see below, A.D. 36). (Vitellius, Prefect of Syria, A.D. 34.) Pilate is sent to Rome (to answer for his conduct) by Vitellius, late in 36: for (Antt. xviii. 4. 2) Tiberius died before his arrival there.

THE ASCENSION (May 18, Wieseler). PENTECOST (May 27), Effusion of the Holy Spirit. A.D. 30–37, the events related Acts 2:42 to Acts 6:8. Prosperous progress of the faith in Jerusalem.

37 790 (CALIGULA Emperor from March 16 (Tacit. Ann. vi. 50).)

displaced by Vitellius at the Passover. JONATHAN, son of Ananus (Antt. xviii. 4. 3) … displaced by Vitellius at Pentecost (Antt. xviii. 5. 3). THEOPHILUS, son of Ananus (Antt. ib.) …

Marcellus, appointed by Vitellius ἐπιμελητής of Judæa (Antt. ib.). MARYLLUS sent by Caligula to Judæa as Hipparch (Antt. xviii. 6. 10). (Herod Agrippa I. appointed by Caligula, a few days after his accession, king of the tetrarchy of Philip, i.e. Batanæa, Trachonitis, and Auranitis (Antt. xviii. 6.10).) (His brother Herod made king of Chalcis.)

Martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:59).—Dispersion of the disciples (Acts 8:4)—Philip, and afterwards Peter and John, at Samaria (Acts 8:5-25).—Philip converts the Æthiopian eunuch, and preaches from Azotus to Cæsarea (Acts 8:26; Acts 8:40).—Conversion of Saul (late in the year) (Acts 9:1-19).

38 791 TO 40 793

(On Aretas being in possession of Damascus, see note, Acts 9:24-25.) (P. Petronius Turpilianus, Prefect of Syria, A.D. 39.) (Agrippa returns from Rome to his new kingdom, in the 2nd year of Caligula (Antt. xviii. 6. 11).) (Antipas goes to Rome to solicit the title of king, but is banished to Lyons, and his tetrarchy given to Agrippa (Antt xviii. 7. 2) A.D. 39–40. See Antt. xix. 8. 2.)

Peace of the Churches (Acts 9:31).—Circuit of Peter (Acts 9:32-43).—He preaches to Cornelius and his Gentile friends at Cæsarea (Acts 10:1-48).—Gives an account of the same to the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-18)—After spending three years in Arabia and Damascus (Galatians 1:15-18), SAUL goes up to Jerusalem (First visit) and meets Peter (Acts 9:26-29. Galatians 1:18): remains fifteen days, then being in danger of his life is sent by the brethren to Tarsus.

41 794 (CLAUDIUS Emperor from Jan. 24 (Suet. Calig. 58).) TO 43 796

removed by Agrippa (Antt. xix. 6. 2). SIMON son of Boëthus, surnamed Canthçras: removed by Agrippa in the same year A.D. 42. MATTHIAS son of Annas … removed by Agrippa in 43. ELIONÆUS son of Cantheras …

(AGRIPPA appointed by Claudius king over the whole dominions of Herod the Great his grandfather (Antt. xix. 5. 1).) HEROD AGRIPPA, King of Judæa: comes to his kingdom in 42, in the 2nd consulship of Claudius (Antt. xix. 5. 3–6. 1). (Vibius Marsus, Prefect of Syria, A.D. 42.)

Meantime the Gospel had been preached to Gentiles at Antioch (Acts 11:19-20). Barnabas is sent thither by the Church at Jerusalem, rejoices at what had taken place, and fetches Saul from Tarsus. They remain a year at Antioch (Acts 11:26).—The disciples are first called Christians (ib.).—Agabus prophesies a famine (Acts 11:28): supplies sent to the brethren in Judæa by the hands of Barnabas and Saul (Second Visit) (Acts 11:30),—perhaps after Herod’s death.

44 797

(Death of Herod Agrippa (Antt xix. 8.2).) CUSPIUS FADUS, Procurator of Judæa, the younger Agrippa being retained at Rome (Antt xix. 11. 2). (C. Cassius Longinus, Prefect of Syria, Antt. xx. 1. 1.)

Martyrdom of James the brother of John (or perhaps late in the preceding year) (Acts 12:2).—Imprisonment (at the Passover) and miraculous escape of Peter (Acts 12:3-17). DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA, very soon after, at Cæsarea (Acts 12:23).

45 798

removed by Herod King of Chalcis (Antt xx. 1. 3). JOSEPH son of Cami, ib.…

(Herod king of Chalcis obtains from Claudius the power of appointing the High Priests and the custody of the temple and the sacred treasure (Antt. xx. 1. 3).)

First missionary journey of Barnabas and Saul (henceforward PAUL) (Acts 13:1 to Acts 14:28), to Cyprus and Asia Minor (46 or 47). This journey hardly occupies more than a year: they consequently return to Antioch in 47 or 48. After their return they remain a long time at Antioch with the disciples (Acts 14:28).

46 799 47 800 48 801

removed by Herod King of Chalcis, prob. in 47 (Antt. xx. 5. 2). ANANIAS son of Nebedæus, ib.…

TIBERIUS ALEXANDER, Procurator of Judæa (Antt. xx. 5. 2). The great famine is raging in Judæa (ibid.). VENTIDIUS CUMANUS, Procurator of Judæa. Antt xx. 5. 2. (About the same time, “in the eighth year of Claudius” (Antt. ibid.), Herod, king of Chalcis, dies (See also Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 1).)

49 802

(Agrippa the younger appointed king of Chalcis (B. J. ii. 12. 1).) (Titus Ummidius Quadratus, Prefect of Syria, Antt. xx. 6. 2: B. J. ii. 12. 5.)

Yüklə 4,17 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   39

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə