Copyright
James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 7 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 7 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Clement of Alexandria, who may be regarded as
representing the text of the end of the 2nd cent, in
Gaul, Africa, and Alexandria. For the 3rd cent,
we have Origen and Didymus, representing the
Alexandrian school ; Cyprian for Africa, and No-
vatian for Italy. For the 4th cent. Athanasius
and Cyril represent the later development of the
Alexandria text ; Lucifer, Jerome, and Ambrosi-
aster represent the text of Rome and Italy ;
Augustine, that of Africa ; Eusebius and Cyril of
Jerusalem the Palestinian text, which according to
von Soden is /; the later Church writers mostly
use the K text, though they sometimes show traces
of probably local contamination with H and /.

7. Textual theories. As soon as textual criticism
began to be based on any complete view of the
evidence, it became obvious that the chief feature
to be accounted for in the text of Acts was the
existence of a series of additions in the text in the
Latin Versions and Fathers, usually supported by
the two great bilingual MSS 55 and 1001 (D and E),
frequently by the marginal readings in Syr Harcl ,
and sporadically by a few minuscules ; opposed to
this interpolated text stood the Alexandrian text
of 51, 52 (B K), and their allies; while between the
two was the text of the mass of MSS agreeing
sometimes with one, sometimes with the other,
and sometimes combining both readings.

(1) The first really plausible theory to meet even
part of the facts was Westcott and Hort's (The
New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. [Cambridge,
1882]), who suggested that the later text (K) was
a recension based on the two earlier types. They
regarded 55 (Codex Bezae) as representing the
' Western ' text, and 51 and 52 as representing as
nearly as possible the original text. The weak
point in their theory was that they could not
explain the existence of the Western text.

(2) Founded mainly on the basis of their work, two
theories were suggested to supply this deficiency.

(a) Rendel Harris (' A Study of Codex Bezae in
TS ii. 1 [1891], and Four Lectures on the Western
Text, Cambridge, 1894) and F. H. Chase (The Old
Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezce, London,



1893) thought that retranslation from Latin and
Syriac would solve the problem ; but no amount
or retranslation will account for the relatively
long Bezan additions.

(b) F. Blass (Act a Apostolorum secundum formam
quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1897, and also in
his commentary, Acta Apostolorum, Gottingen,
1895) thought that Luke issued the Acts in two
forms : one to Theophilus (the Alexandrian text),
and the other for Rome (the Western text) ; but
his reconstruction of the Roman text is scarcely
satisfactory, and the style of the additions is not
sufficiently Lucan.

(3) More recently von Soden (Die Schriften des
Neuen Testaments, 1902-1910, p. 1834 ff.), using
the new facts as to the MSS summarized above,
has revived Blass's theory in so far that he thinks
that the interpolated text witnessed to by 55 and
the Latin Versions and Fathers really goes back
to a single original ; but, instead of assigning this
original to Luke, he attributes it to Tatian, who,
he thinks, added a new recension of Acts to his
Diatessaron. The weak point in this theory is
that the only evidence that Tatian edited the Acts
is a passage in Eusebius * which states that he
emended ' the Apostle.' This may refer to Acts,
but more probably refers to the Epistles. Accord-
ing to von Soden, the / text did not contain all
the interpolations, K contained still fewer, and H
contained none. He thinks that in the 2nd cent,
there existed side by side the Tatianic text and a
non-interpolated text which he calls I-H-K. From
these two texts there arose the Latin Version
predominantly Tatianic and most of the early
Fathers were influenced by Tatian. Later on, in
the 4th cent., three revisions were made : (a) H, by
Hesychius in Alexandria, which preserved in the
main the texit of I-H-K without the Tatianic ad-
ditions, but with a few other corruptions ; (b) K,
by Lucian, in Antioch, which had many Tatianic
corruptions, as well as some of its own ; (c) /, in
Palestine, possibly in Jerusalem, which preserved
many Tatianic additions, though in a few cases
keeping the I-H-K text against H. 55 (D) is the
best example of this text, but has suffered from
the addition of a much greater degree of Tatianic
corruption than really belongs to the / text, owing
to Latin influence.

The general relations of the various forms of the
text, according to von Soden, can be shown roughly
in the following diagram :

I-U-K




i A A



Obviously this complicated theory cannot be
dismissed without much more attention than it
has yet received. It may prove that the 'text
with additions ' is not Tatianic but is nevertheless
a single text in origin. It is also very desirable
to investigate how far it is possible to prove that
there was an / text, derived from I-H-K, which



* TOW 8' airo<rr6Aov <a<rt TO\HTJ<r<il nvaf aMtv firrai^paa-ai <!><avdt
W? eiriSiopSovfitvov avrotv T^V Trjs <p<wrecos tnJiraf iv (Eus. HE iv.
29. 6). This scarcely sounds as though a series of interpolation!
was intended.



AUTS OF THE APOSTLES



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES



17



nevertheless did not possess, in its original state,
all the ' Bezan ' interpolations.* If it were possible
to say that the interpolations were a connected
series (whether Tatianic or not is of minor im-
portance), the text in which they are imbedded
would become extremely valuable, and we should
have no right to argue, as is now often done, that,
because the interpolations are clearly wrong, there-
fore the text in which they are found is to be
condemned. For instance, in Ac 15 28 the Latin
text interpolates the Golden Rule into the Apos-
tolic decrees. That is no doubt wrong. But it
does not follow that the text omitting WIKTOV, in
which this interpolation is placed, is not original.

LITERATURE. The general textual question can be studied
in H. von Soden, Die Schri/ten des NT, Berlin, 1902-1910, esp.
pp. 1649-1840 ; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criti-
cism of the NT*, London, 1912 ; E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das
griecfi. NTS, Gottingen, 1909 (the Eng. tr. is from an older
edition of the period before von Soden) ; K. Lake, The Text oj
the NTS, London, 1911. Important for the study of the Latin
are von Soden, ' Das lat. NT in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians,' TU
xxxiii. [Leipzig, 1909]; and Wordsworth- White, Nov. Test.
Dom. nost. les. Christi secundum edit. S. Hieronymi, vol. ii.
pt. i. [Oxford, 1905] which also gives a clear statement of the
best editions of the separate MSS of the Old Latin and the
Vulgate (pp. v-xv).

II. TRADITION AS TO AUTHORSHIP. So far
back as tradition goes, the Acts is ascribed to St.
Luke, the author of the Third Gospel, and com-
panion of St. Paul (see, further, LUKE). This
tradition can be traced back to the end of the 2nd
cent. (Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 12; Tertull. de Jejuniis,
10; Iren. adv. Hcer. I. xxiii. 1, in. xii. 12 ff.,
IV. xv. 1 ; and the Canon of Muratori). If the
connexion with the Third Gospel be accepted, as
it certainly ought to be, the fact that Marcion
used the Gospel is evidence for the existence of
Acts, unless it be thought that the Gospel was
written by a contemporary of Marcion who had
not yet written Acts. Farther back tradition does
not take us : there are no clear proofs of the use
of Acts in the Apostolic Fathers (see The New Testa-
ment in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905) or in
the early Apologists. (For the later traditions
concerning Luke and his writings see LUKE. )

The value of this tradition must necessarily de-
pend on the internal evidence of the book itself.
The arguments can best be arranged under the
two heads of favourable and unfavourable to the
tradition.

1. In favour of the tradition of Lake's author-
ship is the evidence of the ' we-sectibns,' or pass-
ages in which the writer speaks in the first person.
These are Ac 16 10 " 17 20 4 21 18 27 1 28 18 . They form
together an apparent extract from a diary, which
begins in Troas and breaks off in Philippi, on St.
Paul's second journey ; begins again in Philippi,
on his last journey to Jerusalem ; and continues
(with only the apparent break of the episode of St.
Paul and the Ephesian elders [20 18 " 38 ] which is told
in the third person) until Jerusalem is reached and
St. Paul goes to see James ; then breaks off again
during St. Paul's imprisonment in Jerusalem and
Csesarea ; begins again when St. Paul leaves
Csesarea ; and continues until the arrival in Rome,
when it finally ceases.

It is, of course, theoretically possible that these
sections are merely a literary fiction, but this
possibility is excluded by the facts (a) that there
is no conceivable reason why the writer should
adopt this form of writing at these points, and
these only, in his narrative ; (b) that by the
general consent of critics these passages have all
the signs of having really been composed by an
eye-witness of the events described. It is, tnere-

* The de Rebaptismate has not yet been sufficiently studied
from this point of view. A monograph analyzing its evidence
on the lines of F. C. Burkitf a Old Latin and the Itala might
be valuable.

VOL. I. 2



fore, only necessary to consider the other possi-
bilities : (1) that we have here from the writer of
the whole work the description of incidents which
he had himself seen ; (2) that the writer is here
using an extract from the writing of an eye-wit-
ness and has preserved the original idiom.

The only way of deciding between these two
possibilities is to make use of literary criteria, and
this has been done in recent years with especial
thoroughness by Harnack in Germany and Hawkins
in England. For any full statement of the case
reference must be made to their books ; the prin-
ciple, however, and the main results can be
summarized.

If the writer of Acts is merely using the first
person in order to show that he ia claiming to
have been an eye-witness, the writer of the ' we-
clauses' is identical with the redactor of the
Gospel and Acts. Now, in the Gospel we know
that he was using Mark in many places, and, by
noting the redactorial changes in the Marcan sec-
tions of Luke, we can establish his preference for
certain idioms. If these idioms constantly recur
in the ' we-clauses,' it must be either because the
' we-clauses ' were written by the redactor, or be-
cause the redactor also revised the 'we-clauses,'
but without changing the idiom. As a fact we
find that the ' we-clauses ' are more marked by the
characteristic phraseology of the redactor than
any other part of the Gospel or Acts. We are,
therefore, apparently reduced to a choice between
the theory that the redactor of the Gospel and Acts
wrote the ' we-clauses,' and the theory that he
redacted them with more care than any other part
of his compilation, except that he allowed the first
person to stand. The former view certainly seems
the more probable, but not sufficient attention has
been paid to the observation of E. Schiirer (ThLZ,
1906, col. 405) that the facts would also be ex-
plained if the writer of the ' we-clauses ' and the
redactor of Acts came from the same Bildungs-
sphdre. It would be well if some later analyst
would eliminate from both sides the idioms which
are common to all writers of good Greek at the
period, for undoubtedly an element of exaggera-
tion is introduced by the fact that in the Marcan
source there were many vulgarisms which all re-
dactors would have altered, and mostly in the same
way. It should also be noted that there are a
few ' Lucanisms* which are not to be found in the
'we-clauses.'

The details on which this argument is based will be found
best in J. C. Hawkins, H orce Synopticce*, Oxford, 1909, pp. 174-
193; A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 19-85.
There is also a good resume in J. Moffatt, LNT, p. 294 ff.

2. Against the tradition it is urged (1) that the
presentment of St. Paul is quite different from
that in the Pauline Epistles, (2) that on definite
facts of history the Acts and Epistles contradict
each other ; and it is said in each case that these
facts exclude the possibility that the writer of
Acts was Luke the companion of St. Paul.

(1) The presentment of St. Paul in the Epistles
and in Acts. It has been urged as a proof that
the writer of Acts could not have been a companion
of St. Paul, that whereas St. Paul in the Epistles
is completely emancipated from Jewish thought
and practice, he is represented in the Acts as still
loyal to the Law himself, and enjoining its observ-
ance on Jews. The points which are really crucial
in this argument are (a) St. Paul's circumcision of
Timothy (Ac 16 3 ), as contrasted with his teaching
as to circumcision in the Epistles ; (|3) his accept-
ance of Jewish practice while he was in Jerusalem
(Ac 21 21ff< ), as contrasted with his Epistles, espe-
cially Galatians and Romans ; (7) the absence of
' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in Acts ; (S) St.
Paul's acceptance of a compromise at the Apostolic



18



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES



Council (Ac 15), as contrasted with the complete
silence of the Epistles as to this agreement.

If these four propositions were sound, they would
certainly be strong evidence against the Lucan
authorship of Acts. But there is much to be said
against each of them on the following lines.

(a) In Ac 16 3 , St. Paul circumcises Timothy, but
the reason given is that he was partly Jewish.
There is no evidence in the Epistles that the
Apostle would ever have refused circumcision to a
Jew : it was part of the Law, and the Law was
valid for Jews. The argument in the Epistles is
that it is not valid for Gentiles ; and, though
logic ought perhaps to have led St. Paul to argue
that Jews also ought to abandon it, there is no
proof that he ever did so. It is also claimed that
the incident of Titus in Gal 2 3 shows St. Paul's
strong objection to circumcision ; but in the first
place it is emphatically stated that Titus was not
a Jew, and in the second place it is quite doubtful
whether Gal 2 3 means that Titus, being a Greek,
was not compelled to be circumcised, or that,
being a Greek, he was not compelled to be circum-
cised, though as an act of grace he actually was
circumcised. () It is quite true that in Ac 21 21ff>
St. Paul accepts Jewish custom : what is untrue is
that it can be shown from his own writings that
he was likely to refuse, (y) There certainly is an
absence of ' Pauline ' doctrine in the speeches in
the Acts, if we accept the reconstructions which
are based on the view that in the Epistles we have
a complete exposition of St. Paul's teaching. But,
if we realize that the Epistles represent his treat-
ment by letter of points which he had failed to
bring home to his converts while he was with
them, or of special controversies due to the arrival
of other teachers, there is really nothing to be
said against the picture given in the Acts. (5) If
the exegesis and text of Acts be adopted which
regard the Apostolic decrees as a compromise
based on food-laws, it is certainly very strange
that St. Paul should have said nothing about it in
Galatians or Corinthians, and this undoubtedly
affords a reasonable argument for thinking that
the account in Ac 15 is unhistorical, and that it
cannot have been the work of Luke. But it must
be remembered that there is serious reason for
doubting (i.) that the text and exegesis of Ac 15 28
point either to a food-law or to a compromise,
(ii.) that Galatians was written after the Council
(see G. Resch, 'Das Aposteldecret,' TU xxviii.
[1905] 3 ; J. Wellhausen, ' Noten zur Apostel-
geschichte,' in GGN, Gb'ttingen, 1907 ; A. Harnack,
Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig, 1908, p. 188 ff. ; K. Lake,
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, pp.
29 ff., 48 ff.).

(2) Rather more serious are the objections raised
to the accuracy of certain definite statements, in the
light of contrasting statements in the Epistles, and
the conclusion suggested that the writer of Acts
cannot have been a companion of St. Paul. Many
objections of this kind have been made, but the
majority are trivial, and the serious ones are really
only the following : (a) the description of glossolalia
in Ac 2 as compared with 1 Co 12 ff. ; (b) the
account of St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts
as compared with Gal 2 ; (c) the movements of St.
Paul's companions in Macedonia and Achaia in
Ac 17 15 18 5 as compared with 1 Th 3 lf -.

(a) The account given of glossolalia in 1 Co 14
shows that it was in the main unintelligible to
ordinary persons. ' He that speaketh in a tongue
edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth
the congregation ' (1 Co 14 4 ; cf. vv. 6 - " *) ; 'If any
man speaketh in a tongue let one interpret'
(1 Co 14 27 ). On the other hand, the narrative in
Ac 2 describes the glossolalia of the disciples as a
miraculous gift of speech that was simultaneously



intelligible to foreigners of various nations, each
of whom thought that he was listening to his own
language. It is argued that this latter glossolalia
is as unknown to the historian of psychology as
the glossolalia described in 1 Cor. is well known ;
and it is suggested that Luke or his source has
given a wrong account of the matter. In support
of this it must be noted that the immediate judg-
ment of the crowd, on first hearing the glossolalia
of the disciples, was that they were drunk, and
Peter's speech was directed against this imputa-
tion. It is not probable that any foreigner ever
accused any one of being drunk because he could
understand him, and so far the account in Acts may
be regarded as carrying its own conviction, and
showing that behind the actual text there is an
earlier tradition which described a glossolalia of
the same kind as that in 1 Co 12-14. But, if so,
is it probable that a companion of St. Paul would
have put forward so ' un-Pauline ' a descriptioi of
glossolalia ? There is certainly some weight in this
argument ; but it is to a large extent discounted
by the following considerations. (a) It is not
known that Luke was ever with St. Paul at any
exhibition of glossolalia. Certainly there is no-
thing in Acts to suggest that he was in Corinth.
(8) In all probability we have to deal with a tra-
dition which the writer of Acts found in existence
in Jerusalem more than twenty years after the
events described. Let any one try to find out, by
asking surviving witnesses, exactly what happened
at an excited revivalist meeting twenty years ago,
and he will see that there is room for considerable
inaccuracy. (7) To us glossolalia of the Pauline
type is a known phenomenon and probable for that
reason ; it is a purely physical and almost patho-
logical result of religious emotion, while glossolalia
of the ' foreign language ' type as described in Acts
is improbable. But to a Christian of the 1st cent,
both were wonderful manifestations of the Spirit,
and neither was more probable than the other.

The whole question of glossolalia can be studied in H. Gun-
kel, Die Wirkungen des neiligen Geistes, Gottingen, 1899 ; H.
Lietzmann's Commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch zum NT,
iii. 2, Tubingen, 1909 ; J. Weiss, ' 1 Cor.' in Meyer's Krit.-Exeg.
Kommentar, Gottingen, 1910 (9th ed. of ' 1 Cor. 1 ).

(b) The accounts given in Acts and Galatians of
St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem. The points of
divergence, which are serious, are concerned with
(a) St. Paul's actions immediately after the con-
version ; (B) his first visit to Jerusalem ; (7) his
second visit to Jerusalem.

(a) St. PauVs actions immediately after the con-
version. The two accounts of this complex of in-
cidents are Ac 9 10 ' 80 and Gal I 16 - 24 . The main
points in the two narratives may be arranged thus
in parallel columns :

GALATIANS,

1. Visit to Arabia immediately

after the conversion.

2. A ' return ' to Damascus.

8. A visit to Jerusalem ' after
three years.'

4. Departure to the 'districts
of Syria and Cilicia.'

The difference between these accounts is obvious,
and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Acts is
here inaccurate. It should be noted, however,
that the inaccuracy apparently consists in tele-
scoping together two visits to Damascus and omit-
ting the Arabian journey which came between them.
St. Paul, by spealking of his ' return ' to Damascus,
implies that the conversion had been in that city,
and in 2 Co H S2f - ('in Damascus the ethnarch of
Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damas-
cenes to take me, and I was let down in a basket
through a window ') we have a corroboration of the



ACTS.

1. Visit to Damascus immedi-

ately after the conversion.

2. Escape from Damascus and

journey to Jerusalem.

3. Retreat from Jerusalem to

Tarsus in Cilicia.



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES



ACTS OF THE APOSTLES



19



escape mentioned in Acts, though it clearly must
come after the visit (probably of a missionary
character) to Arabia, in order to account for the
hostility of Aretas. Thus, so far as the enumera-
tion of events is concerned, the inaccuracy of Acts
resolves itself into the omission of the Arabian
visit, and the consequent telescoping together of
two visits to Damascus along with a proportion-
ate shortening of the chronology.

(/3) St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. The de-
tails of this visit are a more serious matter, and
Acts and Galatians cannot fully be reconciled, as
is plain when the narratives are arranged in
parallel columns.



Ac 926-30.

' And when he was come to
Jerusalem, he assayed to join
himself to the disciples : and
the? were all afraid of him,
not believing that he was a
disciple. But Barnabas took
him, and brought him to the
apostles, and declared unto
them how he had seen the
Lord in the way, and that he
had spoken to him, and how
at Damascus he had preached
boldly in the name of Jesus.
And he was with them going
in and coming out at Jeru-
salem, and he spake and dis-
puted against the Hellenists ;
but they went about to kill
him.'



GAL 118-28.

' After three years I went up
to Jerusalem to become ac-
quainted with Cephas, and
tarried with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw
I none, save James the Lord's
brother. Now touching the
things which I write to you,
before God, I lie not. Then I
came into the districts of Syria
and Cilicia. And I was still
unknown by face unto the
churches of Judaea which were
in Christ : but they only heard
say, He that persecuted us
once now preacheth the faith
of which he once made havoc.'



No argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks
of a period of preaching in Jerusalem which
attracted sufficient attention to endanger St.
Paul's life, while Galatians describes an essentially
private visit to Peter ; probably both documents
refer to the same visit, as they place it between
St. Paul's departure from Damascus and his
arrival in Cilicia, but they give divergent accounts
of it.

(7) St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. It is
possible that the difficulties here are due to a mis-
taken exegesis rather than to any real divergence
between Acts and Galatians. If we start from the
facts, it is clear that St. Paul describes in Gal 2 1 ' 10
his second visit to Jerusalem. In the course of this
he held a private interview with the apostles in
Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was free
to continue his preaching to the Gentiles without
hindrance. It is also clear from Ac H 27ff - 12 25 that
St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was during
the time of the famine. If we accept the identi-
fication of the second visit according to Acts with
the second visit according to Galatians, there is no
difficulty beyond the fact that Acts does not state
that St. Paul and the other apostles discussed their
respective missions when they met in Jerusalem ;
but, since this discussion altered nothing the
Gentile mission had already begun there was no
special reason why Luke should have mentioned
it. Usually, however, critics have assumed that
the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal 2 1 ' 10 is not
the second but the third visit referred to in Acts,
so that the interview with the apostles described in
Gal 2 is identified with the ' Apostolic Council ' in
Ac 15. Great difficulties then arise : it is obviously
essential to St. Paul's argument that he should
not omit any of his visits to Jerusalem, and it is
not easy to understand why, if he is writing after
the Apostolic Council, he does not mention the
decrees. There would seem to have been a party



Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 7 of 234)