James Hastings.

Dictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) online

. (page 9 of 234)
Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 9 of 234)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

of the writer than that to be found in other
historical writers who are in the possession of
good sources. At the same time, this does not
mean that the assignment of these chapters to a
' Paul ' source is final or exclusive of others. Some
sections within these limits (e.g. Ac 15) may come
from some other Jerusalem or Antiochene source,
and some sections outside them (e.g. the story of
Stephen's death) may have come from the ' Paul '

If, on the other hand, it should ultimately
appear that the evidence from style has been



exaggerated or misrepresented, it will be necessary
to regard the ' we-sections ' as representing a
separate source, and consider the question whether
the rest of the chapters mentioned above came
from one or several sources. At present, however,
no one has shown any serious ground for thinking
that we can distinguish any signs of change of
style, or of doublets in the narrative, to point in
this direction.

(2) The problems presented by the earlier
chapters are much more complicated. The chief
point which attracts attention is that in the first
half of these chapters the centre of interest is
Jerusalem, or Jerusalem and the neighbourhood,
while in the second half it is Antioch. Here again
it is easier to begin by taking the later chapters
first, and to discuss the probable limits of the
Antiochene tradition, together with the possibility
that it may have lain before the writer of Acts as
a document, before considering the Jerusalem
tradition of the opening chapters.

(a) The Antiochene tradition. The exact limits
of this tradition are difficult to fix. It is clear
that to it the section describing the foundation of
the church at Antioch and its early history
(Ac H 19ff -) must be attributed ; but difficulties
arise as soon as an attempt is made to work either
backwards or forwards from this centre, as the
later sections, which can fairly be attributed to
Antiochene tradition, can also be attributed to the
Pauline source, while the earlier sections of the
same kind might be attributed to the Jerusalem
tradition. It is obvious that the ol /*>> ofo
Siaffiraptvres of Ac II 19 picks up the narrative of
8 1 " 4 . In 8 1 - 4 the story of Stephen's death is brought
to a close by the statement that tytvero d tv ^Keiv-g
Ttj i}fdp<?. du*>y/ /j,tyas tiri rty KK\r)(rlav r^v tv
'lepoffoXtifJUHr irdvres 8t difftr<ip-r]ffav KO.TCI ras xdpas
. . . ol fiitv oftv diacrwap^vres SiijXdov etia.yye\i6/j.fvoi
rbv \6yov. Then the writer gives two instances of
this evangelization by Philip and Peter in Samaria,
and by Philip alone on the road to Gaza. Next
he explains how the conversion of St. Paul put
an end to the persecution, and how the conversion
of Cornelius led to the recognition of preaching to
Gentiles by the Jerusalem community. Finally, he
returns to where he started from, and picks up his
story as to the Christians who were dispersed after
the death of Stephen, with the same formula
ol ptv oZv SiacriraptvTes in II 19 .

Thus there is an organic unity between 8 4 and
II 19 . But 8 4 is the end of the story of the
Hellenistic Jews, their seven representatives, and
the persecution which befell them ; and the begin-
ning of this story is in 6 8 . Between 6 6 and 8 4 there
is no break unless it be thought that the whole
speech of Stephen is the composition of the editor,
as may very well be the case. Is, then, 6 6 -8 4 to
be regarded as belonging to the Antiochene tradi-
tion ? Harnack thinks so, and it is very probable.
But it is also true that 6 6 -8 4 might have come
either from Jerusalem or from St. Paul himself,
and it is hard to see convincing reasons why the
Antiochene source which Harnack postulates should
not have come from the ' Paul ' source.

The same sort of result is reached by considering
the sections following II 19 ' 24 . Is ll 26 ' 30 ' Pauline'
or ' Antiochene ' ? The following section, 12 1 ' 24 ,
is clearly part of the Jerusalem tradition, but
what follows, ^^-IS 3 , might again be either
Pauline or Antiochene, and the same is true of
15 1 ' 35 , in which the account of the Council might
be Antiochene or Pauline, but is less likely to
represent Jerusalem tradition. These exhaust
the number of the passages which are ever likely to
be attributed to the Antiochene source. To the
present writer it seems that, unless it prove
possible (so far it has not been done) to find some

literary criterion for distinguishing between the
' Pauline ' and ' Antiochene ' sources, it will remain
permanently impossible to draw any line of de-
marcation between what Luke may have heard
about the early history of Antioch from St. Paul
and what he may have learnt from other Antiochene
persons. It also seems quite impossible to say
whether he was using written sources. This, of
course, does not deny that the so-called ' Antiochene
source ' represents Antiochene tradition. All that
is said is that this Antiochene tradition may have
come from St. Paul quite as well as from any one
else. On the merits of the case we can go no
further (for the possibility that Luke was himself
an Antiochene see LUKE).

(b) The Jerusalem tradition. It is obvious that
Ac P-5 42 represents in some sense a Jerusalem
tradition, and it is scarcely less clear that 8 5 ' 40 9 31 -
II 18 12 1 ' 24 represent a tradition which is divided
in its interests between Jerusalem and Csesarea.
It is, therefore, necessary to deal first with the
purely Jerusalem sections, and afterwards with the
Jerusalem-Csesarean narrative, before considering
Avhether they are really one or more than one in

(a) The purely Jerusalem sections. The most
important feature of Ac P-5 42 is that 2 1 ' 47 seems to
contain doublets of S 1 ^ 35 , and that the suggestion
of a multiplicity of sources is supported by some
linguistic peculiarities.

21-13 The gift of the Spirit, accompanied by the shak- 4*1
ing of the house in which the Apostles were.

214-36 A speech of Peter. 31-26

237-41 The result of this speech is an extraordinarily 44
large number of converts (5000, 3000).

242-47 The communism of the Early Church. 434. SB

Of this series of doublets the twice-told story of
the early ' communism ' of the first Christians and
the repetition of the shaking of the house at the
outpouring of the Spirit are the most striking, but
the cumulative effect is certainly to justify the
view that we have two accounts, slightly varying,
of the same series of events.

This result finds remarkable corroboration in
certain linguistic peculiarities of Ac 3 f . as com-
pared with ch. 2. In the former the word dpcwnfa-as
is used in the sense ' raised up to preach ' (S 26 ; cf.
S 22 ), and ijyeipe is used of the Resurrection, but in
the latter d^acmjo-as is used of the Resurrection.
In Ac 3 f. Jesus is described as a TTCUJ 8eou (3 13 - 26
427. 30^ k u k i n cfo 2 as &vdpa dirodedety/jL^vov cbr6 rov
Oeov. In Ac 3 f. Peter is almost always accompanied
by John (3 1 - 8-4> u 4 19 ), but in ch. 2 he appears alone
or 'with the other apostles.'

That Ac 2 and 3 f. are doublets is thus probable ;
moreover, as the linguistic characteristics of 3 f . are
peculiar and not Lucan, it is more probable here
than anywhere else in Acts that we are dealing
with traces of a written Greek document under-
lying Acts in the same way as Mark and Q underlie
tlie Lucan Gospel. To this branch of the Jerusalem
tradition Harnack has given the name of ' source
A,' and to Ac 2 the name of ' source B.' According
to him, the continuation of A can be found in 5 1 ' 16 ,
and he also identifies it with the Jerusalem-
Csesarean source (see below). B is continued in
517-42 A C i more probably, he thinks, belongs to
B than to A, but may have a separate origin.

If A be followed, we get a clear and probable
narrative of the history of the Jerusalem Church,
but it begins in the middle. According to it, Peter
and John went up to the Temple and healed a lame
man ; in connexion with the sensation caused by
this wonder Peter explained that he wrought the
cure in the name of Jesus, whom he announced as
the predestined Messiah. As the result of this
missionary speech a great number of converts were
made (about 5000 [4 4 ]). Peter and John were
arrested, but later on released after a speech by


Peter, and a practical defiance of the command of
the authorities not to preach in the name of Jesus.
Then follows a description of the joy of the Church
at the release of Peter and John, and an account of
their prayer 56s rots SoiJXou <rov ftera irappTjcrias ir&crris
\a\fiv rbv \6yov <rov. In answer to their prayer, the
Spirit was outpoured amid the shaking of the room
in which they were, after which they were able,
as they had asked, to speak the word /nerd Trapprfffias.
Finally, a picture is drawn of the prosperity of the
Church, and of the voluntary communism which

The narrative gives an intelligible picture of the
events which led to the growth of the Jerusalem
Church and of an organization of charitable dis-
tribution that ultimately led to the development
described in Ac 6. Moreover, it has several marks
of individuality, and an early type which suggests
that we have here to do with a source used by Luke,
probably in documentary form, rather than a Lucan
composition. This applies especially to Peter's
speech, which is in some ways one of the most
archaic passages in the NT. Peter does not
describe Jesus as having been the Messiah, but
as a irals Oeov (more probably ' Servant of God ' than
' Child of God,' and perhaps with a side reference
to the ' Servant of Jahweh ' in Is 53, etc.) a phrase
peculiar to source A, 1 Clement, the Martyrdom
of Polycarp, and the Didache. He then goes on
to announce that God has glorified this iratj by the
Resurrection, and that He is the predestined
Messiah (rbv TrpoffKfxeipifff^fov ~KpiffT6v), who will
remain in the Heavens until the 'restoration of
all things.' Recent research in the field of eschato-
logy and Messianic doctrine has brought out clearly
the primitive character of this speech. The same
can also be said of the prayer of the Church in
4 24 ' 1 , in which the phrase rbv &yiov iraidA <rov 'Ir)ffovi>,
5i> txP lffa -s (' made Christ ' ?) is very remarkable.

Thus source A commends itself as an early and
good tradition, but it begins in the middle ana tells
us nothing about the events previous to the visit of
Peter and John to the Temple. Apparently it was to
fill up this gap that Luke turned to source B, which
seems to relate some of the same events, but in a
different order ; and, though Harnack doubts this,
it seems, on the whole, probable that Ac 1, or at
least vv. 6 " 12 , ought to be regarded as belonging
to it. According to this narrative, the disciples
received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost amid
the shaking of the room, after which Peter made
a speech, in many points resembling that in Ac 3,
but without the characteristic phraseology of A,
and with the addition of many more ' testimonia '
as to the Resurrection. A great number of converts
(about 3000) were made ; and, in the enthusiasm
which prevailed, a spirit of voluntary communism
flourished, and an organization of charitable dis-
tribution came into being.

This narrative does not seem so convincing as
that of source A. But if Ac 1 be regarded as
belonging to it, it has the advantage of connecting
the story of the Church at Jerusalem directly with
the events that followed the Crucifixion a period
on which A is silent. Now, it is tolerably clear
that A was a written Greek source used by Luke,
just as he used Mark in the Gospel ; for, although
it has been ' Lucanized,' it still retains its own
characteristic expressions. Presumably, therefore,
a copy of this document came into Luke's possession,
and he supplemented it at the beginning with B ;
but, whether B was a written source or oral tradi-
tion, it is impossible to say. The question presents
in this respect a remarkable parallel to the state of
things in the last chapters of the Gospel of Luke.
Here also the writer made use of a Greek document
Mark and supplemented it with a Jerusalem
tradition whether written or oral it is impossible

to say either because the Marcan narrative broke
off, as it breaks off in the existent text of Mark, or
because he desired to correct the Marcan tradition.
It is, moreover, plain that this Jerusalem tradition
at the end of Luke is the same as that in source B
of the Acts. The question then suggests itself
whether source A the written source of Acts
may not belong to the same document as ' Mark '
the written source of the Gospel. If we suppose
that the original Mark contained a continuation of
the Gospel story down to the foundation of the
Church in Jerusalem, and either that Luke dis-
liked the section referring to the events after the
Crucifixion, or perhaps that his copy had been
mutilated, the composition of this part of Acts
becomes plain ; * but it also becomes a question
whether the John who accompanies Peter in source
A (and nowhere else) is not John Mark, rather
than John the son of Zebedee.

All this, however, is hypothetical. The actual
existence of the source A in ch. 3f. and of the
supplementary source B in ch. 2 is a point for
which comparative certainty may be claimed.

The problem then arises, how far these sources
can be traced in the following chapters of Acts.
Harnack is inclined to see in 5 17 ' 41 a doublet of
4 1 ' 23 , and to assign the latter to A, the former to
B. This is not improbable, but it is not so certain
as the previous results. It is, for instance, by no
means improbable that the apostles were twice
arrested, and, as the story is told, 5 17 seems a not
unnatural continuation of ch. 4. It is, however,
true that the characteristic ' Peter and John ' is
not found in 5 17ff> ; but, on the other hand, the
rather curious phrase dpx'77 '' is applied to Jesus
in 3 18 and 5 31 (elsewhere in NT only in He 2 10 12 2 ),
which militates somewhat against the view that
these chapters belong to different sources. In the
same way the story of Ananias and Sapphira in
Ac 5 1 ' 11 would fit quite as well on to B as on to A,
with which Harnack connects it. Linguistically
there is no clear evidence, but it may be noted
that 0<fy3os is a characteristic of the Christian com-
munity in B in 2^, and is repeated in S 5 - u . It is
not found in A, though from the circumstances of
the case not much weight can be attached to this.
It therefore must remain uncertain whether Ac 5
ought to be regarded as wholly A, wholly B, or be
divided between the two sources.

(/3) The Jeritsalem-Ccesarean sections. These are
Ac 8 8 ' 40 9 s1 -! I 18 12 1 ' 23 , which describe Philip's evan-
gelization of Samaria, followed by the mission of
Peter and John, Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian
on the road to Gaza, and his arrival in Caesarea,
Peter's mission to Lydda, Joppa, and Csesarea,
and return to Jerusalem, Peter s arrest, imprison-
ment, and escape in Jerusalem, and Herod's death
in Csesarea. Harnack thinks that all these pas-
sages represent a Jerusalem-Caesarean tradition,
which he identifies with source A. It is certainly
probable that 8 14 ' 25 belongs to A, owing to the
characteristic combination of Peter and John, and
it may be regarded as reasonable to think that
this also covers the rest of the section, so that
8 5 -* may be attributed to A. It is more doubtful
when we come to the two other sections. If, how-
ever, any weight be attached to the suggestion
that A is connected with Mark, it is noteworthy
that 12 1 ' 23 is also very clearly connected with the
house of Mark and his mother.

The section 9 31 -! I 18 remains. This is much more
clearly Csesarean than either of the others, and
might possibly be separated from them and as-

* See Burkitt, Earliest Soureet of the Gospels, London, 1911,
p. 79 f., where the suggestion is made that the early part oi
Acts may represent a Marcan tradition, though the bearing
on this theory of the double source A and B in Acts is not




cribed to a distinct Csesarean source. If so, the
suggestion of Harnack and others that the source
might be identified with the family of Philip,
which was settled in Caesarea, is not impossible ;
from 21 8 (a ' we-clause ') we know that Luke came
into contact with him there. It is also obvious
that the information given by Philip might be the
source of much more of that which has been ten-
tatively attributed to source A, or on the other
hand might conceivably be identified with source
B ; the truth is, of course, that we here reach the
limit of legitimate hypothesis, and pass into the
open country of uncontrolled guessing.

The result, therefore, of an inquiry into the
sources of the Jerusalem tradition is to establish
the existence of a written Greek source, A, in
Ac 3f., with a parallel narrative B apparently
the continuation of the Lucan Jerusalem narrative
in the Gospel ; and these two sources, or one of
them, are continued in ch. 5. In 8 5 ' 40 is a further
narrative which has points of connexion with A.
Ac 9 31 -!! 18 is a Csesarean narrative, probably con-
nected with Philip, and this raises difficulties in
relation to A, for 8 3 ' 40 has also points of connexion
with Philip. Finally 12 1 ' 23 is a Jerusalem narrative
connected with Peter and Mark ; but here also the
possibility of a connexion with Csesarea remains

DITIONS. So far as the ' we-clauses' and the prob-
ably Pauline tradition are concerned, this question
has already been discussed. While there are traces
of probable inaccuracy, there is no reason to doubt
the general trustworthiness of the narrative. The
Antiochene narrative and the Jerusalem-Caesarean
narrative (the ' Philip ' clauses) can be judged with
more difficulty, as we have no means of comparing
the narratives with any other contemporary state-
ments. Here, however, we have another criterion.
It is probable that Luke is dealing with traditions,
and, at least in the case of A, with a document.
We cannot say how far he alters his sources, for
we have no other information as to their original
form, but we can use the analogy of his observed
practice in the case of the Gospel. Here we know
that he made use of Mark ; and we can control his
methods, because we possess his source. In this way
we can obtain some idea of what he is likely to
have done with his sources in Acts. On the whole,
it cannot be said that the application of this
criterion raises the value of Acts. In the Gospel,
Luke, though in the main constant to his source
Mark, was by no means disinclined to change the
meaning of the story as well as the words, if he
thought right. It is possible that he was justified
in doing so, but that is not the question. The
point is that he did not hesitate to alter his source
in the Gospel ; it is therefore probable that he
did not hesitate to do so in the Acts.

Besides this, on grounds of general probability,
various small points give rise to doubt, or seem to
belong to the world of legend rather than to that
of history for instance, the removal of Philip by
the Spirit (or angel ?) from the side of the Ethiopian
to Azotus ; but the main narrative offers no real
reason for rejection. The best statement of all
the points open to suspicion is still that of Zeller-
Overbeck (The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., Lon-
don, 1875-76), but the conclusions which Zeller
draws are often untenable. He did not realize
that in any narrative there is a combination of
really observed fact and of hypotheses to explain
the fact. The hypotheses of a writer or narrator
of the 1st cent, were frequently of a kind that we
should now never think of suggesting. But that
is no reason why the narrative as a whole should
not be regarded as a statement of fact. The exist-
ence, in any given narrative, of improbable ex-

planations as to how events happened is not an argu-
ment against its early date and general trust-
worthiness, unless it can be shown that the ex-
planation involves improbability not only in fact
but also in thought it must not only be improb-
able that the event really happened in the manner
suggested, but it must be improbable that a narra-
tor of that age would have thought that it so hap-
pened. Judged by this standard, the Antiochene
and Jerusalem-Caesarean traditions seem to deserve
credence as good and early sources.

The same thing can be said of source A in the
purely Jerusalem tradition. But the problem
raised by source B is more difficult. If it be as-
sumed that Ac 1 does not belong to it, it can only
be compared with source A. To this it seems in
ferior, but on the whole it narrates the same events,
and it would certainly be rash to regard B as
valueless. No doubt it is true that, if the events
happened in the order given in A, they cannot
have happened in the order given in B, but it is
quite possible that many details in B may be cor-
rect in spite of the fact that they are told other-
wise or not told at all in A.

If, on the other hand, Ac 1 be assigned to B,
the question is more complicated. According to
Ac 1, the Ascension took place near Jerusalem
forty days after the Resurrection, and the infer-
ence is suggested that the disciples, including
Peter, never left Jerusalem after the Crucifixion.
That this was Luke's own view is made quite plain
from the Gospel, except that there does not appear
to be any room in the Gospel narrative for the forty
days between the Resurrection and the Ascension.
The problems which arise are therefore : (1) How
far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be recon-
ciled? (2) Is it more probable that the disciples
stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee ?

1. How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1
be reconciled ? Various attempts have been made
to find room in the Gospel for the ' forty days.'
They have not, however, been successful, as the
connecting links in the Gospel narrative are quite
clear from the morning of the Resurrection to the
moment of the Ascension, which is plainly intended
to be regarded as taking place on the evening of
the same day. According to Lk 24 8ff -, the sequence
of the events was the following. Early on Sunday
morning certain women went to the tomb, and to
them two men appeared who announced the Resur-
rection ; the women believed, but failed to con-
vince the disciples. Later on in the same day (tv
avrrj rfj rifdpq.) two disciples saw the risen Lord on
the way to Emmaus, and at once returned to Jeru-
salem to tell the news (dvaa-Tdvres afrry r% &pg.).
While they were narrating their experience the
Lord appeared, led them out to Bethany, and was
taken up to heaven. The only place wnere there
is any possibility of a break in tne narrative is v. 44
(elirev 5), but this possibility (in any case contrary
to the general impression given by the passage) is
excluded by the facts that elirev St is a peculiarly
Lucan phrase (59 times in Luke, 15 times in Acts,
only once elsewhere in the NT), and that it never
implies that a narrative is not continuous, and
usually the reverse. Moreover, that Lk 24 s2 , what-
ever text be taken, refers to the Ascension is
rendered certain by the reference in Ac I 2 . Thus,
there is no doubt that the Gospel places the Ascen-
sion on the evening or night of the third day after
the Crucifixion. It is equally clear that Acts
places the Ascension forty days later, if the text
of I 3 (Si ij/Li^puv reffffapdKovra) is correct ; and, though
there is, it is true, some confusion in the text at
this point, it is not enough to justify the omission
of ' forty days ' (see esp. F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum
secundum formam quce videtur Romanam, Leipzig,
1896, p. xxiii). The only possible suggestion,




therefore, is that the writer found some reason to
modify his opinions in the interval between writ-
ing the Gospel and the Acts. Whether he was
right to do so depends on the judgment passed on
various factors, which cannot be discussed here,
but may be summed up in the question whether
the evidence of the Pauline Epistles does not sug-
gest that the earliest Christian view was that
Ascension and Resurrection were but two ways of
describing the same fact, and whether this is not
also implied in the speeches of Peter in Ac 2 and
3 * (cf. especially Ro 8 24 , Ph I 23 , Ac 2 W 3 13 ' 18 ). The

Online LibraryJames HastingsDictionary of the apostolic church (Volume 1) → online text (page 9 of 234)