Read Ebook: Fifteen New Ways for Oysters by Rorer S T

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 198 lines and 29031 words, and 4 pages

No one seriously pretends that the Clementine Homilies afford any evidence of the use or existence of the Acts; and few, if any, claim the Epistle to Diognetus as testimony for it. We may, however, quote the only passage which is pointed out. ".... these who hold the view that they present them to God as needing them might more rightly esteem it foolishness and not worship of God. For he who made the heaven and the earth, and all things in them, and who supplies to us all whatever we need, can himself be in need of none of those things which he himself presents to those who imagine that they give ." This is

compared with Acts xvii. 24: "The God that made the world and all things in it, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is served by men's hand as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life and breath and all things." There is nothing here but a coincidence of sense, though with much variation between the two passages, but the Epistle argues from a different context, and this illustration is obvious enough to be common to any moralist. There is not a single reason which points to the Acts as the source of the writer's argument.

Basilides and Valentinus are not claimed at all by apologists as witnesses for the existence of the Acts of the Apostles, nor is Marcion, whose Canon, however, of which it formed no part, is rather adverse to the work than merely negative. Tertullian taunts Marcion for receiving Paul as an apostle, although his name is not mentioned in the Gospel, and yet not receiving the Acts of the Apostles in which alone his history is narrated; but it does not in the least degree follow from this that Marcion knew the work and deliberately rejected it.

A passage of Tatian's oration to the Greeks is pointed out by some as showing his acquaintance with the Acts. It is as follows: "I am not willing to worship the creation

Dionysius of Corinth is rarely adduced by any one as testimony for the Acts. The only ground upon which he is at all referred to is a statement of Eusebius in mentioning his Epistles. Speaking of his Epistle to the Athenians, Eusebius says: "He relates, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite who was converted to the faith by Paul the Apostle, according to the account given in the

Acts, was appointed the first bishop of the church of the Athenians." Even apologists admit that it is doubtful how far Dionysius referred to the Acts, the mention of the book here being most obviously made by Eusebius himself.

Melito of Sardis is not appealed to by any writer in connection with our work, nor can Claudius Apollinaris be pressed into this service. Athenagoras is supposed by some to refer to the very same passage in Acts xvii. 24, 25, which we have discussed when dealing with the work of Tatian. Athenagoras says: "The Creator and Father of the universe is not in need of blood, nor of the steam of burnt sacrifices, nor of the fragrance of flowers and of incense, he himself being the perfect fragrance, inwardly and outwardly without need." And further on: "And you kings indeed build palaces for yourselves; but the world is not made as being needed by God." These passages occur in the course of a defence of Christians for not offering sacrifices, and both in language and context they are quite independent of the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, giving an account of the persecution against them, it is said that the victims were praying for those from whom they suffered cruelties: "like Stephen the perfect martyr:

'Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' But if he was supplicating for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren?" The prayer here quoted agrees with that ascribed to Stephen in Acts vii. 60. There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the Epistle, and the source from which the writers obtained their information about Stephen is of course not stated. If there really was a martyr of the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him, the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics conjecture that the author of Acts derived his materials,2 and in this case the passage obviously does not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never was such a martyr by whom these words were spoken, and the whole story must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts, then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the Acts of the Apostles were in existence in the year 177-178, when the Epistle of

Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be in the slightest degree established.

Ptolemaeus and Heracleon ueed not detain us, as it is not alleged that they show acquaintance with the Acts, nor is Celsus claimed as testimony for the book.

The Canon of Muratori contains a very corrupt paragraph regarding the Acts of the Apostles. We have already discussed the date and character of this fragment, and need not further speak of it here. The sentence in which we are now interested reads in the original as follows:

"Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt lucas obtime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicute et semote pas-sionem petri euidenter declarat sed et profectionem pauli ab urbes ad spania proficescentis."

It is probable that in addition to its corruption some words may have been lost from the concluding phrase of this passage, but the following may perhaps sufficiently represent its general sense: "But the Acts of all the Apostles were written in one book. Luke included to the excellent Theophilus only the things which occurred in his own presence, as he evidently shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter and also the setting forth of Paul from the city to Spain."

Whilst this passage may prove the existence of the Acts about the end of the second century, and that the authorship of the work was ascribed to Luke, it has no further value. No weight can be attached to the statement of

Irenaeus assigns the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, as do Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, although without any statements giving special weight to their mention of him as the author in any way counterbalancing the late date of their testimony. Beyond showing that tradition, at the end of the second century and beginning of the third, associated the name of Luke with this writing and the third Gospel, the evidence of these Fathers is of no value to us. We have already incidentally mentioned that some heretics either ignored or rejected the book, and to the Marcionites and Severians

we may now add the Ebionites and Manichaeans. Chrysostom complains that in his day the Acts of the Apostles were so neglected that many were ignorant of the existence of the book and of its authors. Doubts as to its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for Photius states that some ascribed the work to Clement of Rome, others to Barnabas, and others to Luke the evangelist.

towards the end of the second century, and very little weight can be attached to it. There are too many instances of early writings, several of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to which distinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. Such tradition is notoriously liable to error.

We shall presently return to the question of the authorship of the third Synoptic and Acts of the Apostles, but at present we may so far anticipate as to say that there are good reasons for affirming that they could not have been written by Luke.

If we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is from no doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we have now arrived, but from the belief that closer examination of the contents of the Acts may enable us to test this result, and more fully to understand the nature of the work and the character of its evidence. Not only will it be instructive to consider a little closely the contents of the Acts, and to endeavour from the details of the narrative itself to form a judgment regarding its historical value, but we have in addition external testimony of very material importance which we may bring to bear upon it. We happily possess some undoubted Epistles which afford us no little information concerning the history, character, and teaching of the Apostle Paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements in the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value. It is unnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the unknown author of the Acts are at variance with these Epistles, we must prefer the statements of the Apostle. The importance to our inquiry of such further examination as we now propose to undertake consists chiefly in the light which it may throw on the credibility of the work. If it be found that such

portions as we are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy, it will become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document for miracles, which are antecedently incredible, cannot even be entertained. It may be well also to discuss more fully the authorship of the Acts, and to this we shall first address ourselves.

It must, however, be borne in mind that it is quite foreign to our purpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary problem presented by the Acts of the Apostles. We shall confine ourselves to such points as seem sufficient or best fitted to test the character of the composition, and we shall not hesitate to pass without attention questions of mere literary interest, and strictly limit our examination to such prominent features as present themselves for our purpose.

Luke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the Acts of the Apostles. In the Epistle to Philemon his name occurs, with those of others, who send greeting, verse 23, "There salute thee Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus; 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-labourers." In the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, mention is also made of him:--"Luke, the beloved physician, salutes you, and Demas." And again, in the 2 Epistle to Timothy, iv. 10:--"For

Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and departed into Thessalouica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia: 11. Only Luke is with me."

He is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament; and his name is not again met with till Irenaeus ascribes to him the authorship of the Gospel and Acts. There is nothing in these Pauline Epistles confirming the statement of the Fathers, but it is highly probable that these references to him largely contributed to suggest his name as the author of the Acts, the very omission of his name from the work itself protecting him from objections connected with the passages in the first person to which other followers of Paul were exposed, upon the traditional view of the composition. Irenaeus evidently knew nothing about him, except what he learnt from these Epistles, and derives from his theory that Luke wrote the Acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the passages where the first person is used. From these he argues that Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in the Gospel, and he refers, in proof of this, to Acts xvi. 8 ff., 13 ff., xx. 5 ff., and the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes Luke to have carefully written down. He then continues: "But that he was not only a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the Apostles, but particularly of Paul, Paul himself has also clearly shown in the Epistles, saying:..." and he quotes 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11, ending: "Only Luke is with me," and then adds, "whence he shows that he was

always with him and inseparable from him, &c, Ac." The reasoning of the zealous Father deduces a great deal from very little, it will be observed, and in this elastic way tradition "enlarged its borders" and assumed unsubstantial dimensions. Later writers have no more intimate knowledge of Luke, although Eusebius states that he was born at Antioch, a tradition likewise reproduced by Jerome. Jerome further identifies Luke with "the brother, whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches" mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as accompanying Titus to Corinth. At a later period, when the Church required an early artist for its service, Luke the physician was honoured with the additional title of painter. Epiphanius, followed later by some other

writers, represented him to have been one of the seventy-two disciples, whose mission he alone of all New Testament writers mentions. The view of the Fathers, arising out of the application of their tradition to the features presented by the Gospel and Acts, was that Luke composed his Gospel, of the events of which he was not an eye-witness, from information derived from others, and his Acts of the Apostles from what he himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed, had witnessed.1 It is generally supposed that Luke was not born a Jew, but was a Gentile Christian.

Some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition, that the Gospel and Acts were written by Luke "the beloved physician," by the supposed use of peculiarly technical medical terms, but very little weight is attached by any one to this feeble evidence which is repudiated by most serious critics, and it need not detain us.

As there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of the author's identity proceeding from himself, and tradition does not offer any alternative security, what testimony can be produced in support of the ascription of

these writings to "Luke"? To this question Ewald shall reply: "In fact," he says, "we possess only one ground for it, but this is fully sufficient. It lies in the designation of the third Gospel as that 'according to Luke' which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels. For the quotations of this particular Gospel under the distinct name of Luke, in the extant writings of the Fathers, begin so late that they cannot be compared in antiquity with that superscription; and those known to us may probably themselves only go back to this superscription. We thus depend almost alone on this superscription." Ewald generally does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully sufficient," but it is doubtful, whether in this case, any one who examines this evidence will agree with him. He himself goes on to admit, with all other critics, that the superscriptions to our Gospels do not proceed from the authors themselves, but were added by those who collected them, or by later readers to distinguish them. There was no author's name attached to Marcion's Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian. Chrysostom

very distinctly asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their names at the head of their works, and he recognizes that, but for the authority of the primitive Church which added those names, the superscriptions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He conjectures that the sole superscription which may

purpose, and it must be acknowledged that the ascription of the third Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late and unsupported tradition.

Let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three passages in the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely nothing about Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been doubted whether the designation "the beloved physician" in the Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, does not distinguish a different Luke from the person of that name in the Epistles to Philemon and Timothy. If this were the case, our information would be further reduced; but supposing that the same Luke is referred to, what does our information amount to? Absolutely nothing but the fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer of these letters, whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome, and that he was known to the church of Colossae. There is no evidence whatever that this Luke had been a travelling companion of Paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning him or had composed a Gospel. He is not mentioned in Epistles written during this journey and, indeed, the rarity and meagreness of the references to him would much rather indicate that he had not taken any distinguished part in the proclamation of the Gospel. If Luke be and be numbered amongst the Apostle's , Tychicus is equally "the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord." Onesimus the "faithful and beloved brother,"

and Aristarchus, Mark the cousin of Barnabas, Justus and others are likewise his . There is no evidence, in fact, that Paul was acquainted with Luke earlier than during his imprisonment in Rome, and he seems markedly excluded from the Apostle's work and company by such passages as 2 Cor. i. 19. The simple theory that Luke wrote the Acts supplies all the rest of the tradition of the Fathers, as we have seen in the case of Irenaeus, and to this mere tradition we are confined in the total absence of more ancient testimony.

The traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed, and has been widely held up to our own day, represents Luke as the author of the Acts, and, in

the passages where the first person is employed, considers that he indicates himself as an actor and eye-witness. These passages, where is introduced, present a curious problem which has largely occupied the attention of critics, and it has been the point most firmly disputed in the long controversy regarding, the authorship of the Acts. Into this literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a very short way; for, however interesting the question may be in itself, we are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible which can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to it sufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding the authorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references for those who care more minutely to pursue the subject.

After the narrative of the Acts has, through fifteen chapters, proceeded uninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change to the first person plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter. Paul, and at least Timothy, are represented as going through Phrygia and Galatia, and at length "they came down to Troas," where a vision appears to Paul beseeching him to come over into Macedonia. Then, xvi. 10, proceeds: "And after he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go forth into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the Gospel unto them." After verse 17, the direct form of narrative is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not reappear until xx. 5, when, without explanation, it is resumed and continued for ten verses. It is then again abandoned, and recommenced in xxi. 1-18, and xxvii. 1, xxviii. 16.

It is argued by those who adopt the traditional view, that it would be an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a writer as the author of the third Synoptic and Acts, to have composed these sections from documents lying before him, written by others, leaving them in the form of a narrative in the first person, whilst the rest of his work was written in the third, and that, without doubt, he would have assimilated such portions to the form of the rest. On the other hand, that he himself makes distinct use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1, and consequently prepares the reader to expect that, where it is desirable, he will resume the direct mode of communication; and in support of this supposition, it is asserted that the very same peculiarities of style and language exist in the passages as in the rest of the work. The adoption of the direct form of narrative in short merely indicates that the author himself was present and an eye-witness of what he relates, and that writing as he did for the information of Theophilus, who was well aware of his personal participation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for him to give any explanation of his occasional use of the first person.

Is the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in these particular sections of his work, without a word of explanation, more intelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory of their being by the author himself as an eye-witness? On the contrary, it is maintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis becomes much more

inexplicable. On examining the sections it will be observed that they consist almost entirely of an itinerary of journeys, and that while the chronology of the rest of the Acts is notably uncertain and indefinite, these passages enter into the minutest details of daily movements ; of the route pursued, and places through which often they merely pass , and record the most trifling circumstances . The distinguishing feature of these sections in fact is generally asserted to be the stamp which they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal knowledge of the circumstances related.

Is it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of the Acts should intrude his own personality merely to record these minute details of voyages and journeys? That his appearance as an eye-witness should be almost wholly limited to the itinerary of Paul's journeys and to portions of his history which are of very subordinate interest? The voyage and shipwreck are thus narrated with singular minuteness of detail, but if any one who reads it only consider the matter for a moment, it will become apparent that this elaboration of the narrative is altogether disproportionate to the importance of the voyage in the history of the early Church. The traditional view indeed is fatal to the claims of the Acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it contains, for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively unimportant and commonplace. The writer's intimate acquaintance with the history of Paul, and his claim to participation in his work, begin and end with his actual

journeys. With very few exceptions, as soon as the Apostle stops anywhere, he ceases to speak as an eyewitness and relapses into vagueness and the third person. At the very time when minuteness of detail would have been most interesting, he ceases to be minute. A very long and important period of Paul's life is covered by the narrative between xvi. 10, where the sections begin, and xxviii. 16, where they end; but, although the author goes with such extraordinary detail into the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and unsatisfactory is the account of the rest of Paul's career during that time! How eventful that career must have been we learn from 2 Cor. xi. 23-26. In any case, the author who could be so minute in his record of an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be minute in his account of more important matters in his history. In the few verses, ix. 1-30, chiefly occupied by an account of Paul's conversion, is comprised all that the author has to tell of three years of the Apostle's life, and into xi. 19--xiv. are compressed the events of fourteen years of his history . If the author of those portions be the same writer who is so minute in his daily itinerary in the sections, his sins of omission and commission are of a very startling character. To say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an elaborate trifler.

Does the use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. 1 in any way justify or prepare the way for the

sudden and unexplained introduction of the first person in the sixteenth chapter? Certainly not. The in these passages is used solely in the personal address to Theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation contained in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at once dropped when the history begins. If the prologue of the Gospel be applied to the Acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is at once implied, which would rather justify the supposition that these passages are part of some diary, from which the general editor made extracts. Besides, there is no explanation in the Acts which in the slightest degree connects the with the . To argue that explanation was unnecessary, as Theophilus and early readers were well acquainted with the fact that the author was a fellow-traveller with the Apostle, and therefore at once understood the meaning of "We," would destroy the utility of the direct form of communication altogether; for if Theophilus knew this, there was obviously no need to introduce the first person at all, in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to chronicle minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little interest. Moreover, writing for Theophilus, we might reasonably expect that he should have stated where and when he became associated with Paul, and explained the reasons why he again left and rejoined him. Ewald suggests that possibly the author intended to have indicated his name more distinctly at the end of his work; but this merely shows that, argue as he will,

he feels the necessity for such an explanation. The conjecture is negatived, however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. As in the case of the fourth Gospel, of course the "incomparable modesty" theory is suggested as the reason why the author does not mention his own name, and explain the adoption of the first person in the passages; but to base theories such as this upon the modesty or elevated views of a perfectly unknown writer is obviously too arbitrary a proceeding to be permissible. There is, besides, exceedingly little modesty in a writer forcing himself so unnecessarily into notice, for he does not represent himself as taking any active part in the events narrated; and, as the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving, he might well have remained impersonal to the end.

On the other hand, supposing the general editor of the Acts to have made use of written sources of information, and amongst others of the diary of a companion of the Apostle Paul, it is not so strange that, for one reason or another, he should have allowed the original direct form of communication to stand whilst incorporating parts of it with his work. Instances have been pointed out in which a similar retention of the first or third person, in a narrative generally written otherwise, is accepted as the indication of a different written source, as for instance in Ezra vii. 27--ix; Nehemiah viii.--x.; in the Book of Tobit i. 1-3, iii. 7 ff., and other places;s and Schwanbeck has

pointed out many instances of a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of the middle ages. There are various ways in which the retention of the first person in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from some other written source, might be explained. The simple supposition that the author, either through carelessness or oversight, allowed the to stand is not excluded, and indeed some critics, although we think without reason, maintain both the third Gospel and the Acts to be composed of materials derived from various sources and put together with little care or adjustment. The author might also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-traveller of Paul, and retained the original form of the document to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative; or, as many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the original document to remain, in order himself to assume the character of eyewitness, and of companion of the Apostle. As we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to discredit such an explanation.

We shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from which critics maintain that the author compiled his

work. It is sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite traces of many documents, few if any writers deny that the writer made more or less use of earlier materials. It is quite true that the characteristics of the general author's style are found throughout the whole work.1 The Acts are no mere aggregate of scraps collected and rudely joined together, but the work of one author in the sense that whatever materials he may have used for its composition were carefully assimilated, and subjected to thorough and systematic revision to adapt them to his purpose. But however completely this process was carried out, and his materials interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style and language, he did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of independent written sources. Some writers maintain that there is a very apparent difference between the first twelve

chapters and the remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much more Hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion, although this is not received without demur. As regards the sections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have in any case been much manipulated by the general editor, and largely contain his general characteristics of language, it is at the same time affirmed that they present distinct foreign peculiarities, which betray a borrowed document. Even critics who maintain the sections to be by the same writer who composed the rest of the book point out the peculiarly natural character and minute knowledge displayed in these passages, as distinguishing them from the rest of the Acts. This of course they attribute to the fact that the author there relates his personal experiences; but even with this explanation it is apparent that all who maintain the traditional view do recognize peculiarities in these sections, by which they justify the ascription of them to an eye-witness. For the reasons which have been very briefly indicated, therefore, and upon other

A careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, we think, leave any doubt that the work could not have been written by any companion or intimate friend of the Apostle Paul. In here briefly indicating some of the reasons for this statement, we shall be under the necessity of anticipating, without much explanation or argument, points which will be more fully discussed farther on, and which now, stated without preparation, may not be sufficiently clear to some readers. They may hereafter seem more conclusive. It is unreasonable to suppose that a friend or companion could have written so unhistorical and defective a history of the Apostle's life and teaching. The Pauline Epistles are nowhere directly referred to, but where we can compare the narrative and representations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle, they are strikingly contradictory.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet