성경 주석서

영감 받은 역사가는 사도행전의 이야기를 다음과 같이 시작한다. I. 자신의 복음서, 곧 그리스도의 생애에 관한 기록을 언급하고 그것을 간략히 요약하면서 시작하는데, 그 복음서를 자기 친구 데오빌로에게 헌정했던 것처럼 이 책도 그에게 헌정한다(행 1:1, 2). II. 그리스도의 부활에 대한 증거들과, 그분이 제자들과 나누신 대화, 그리고 부활 후 사십 일 동안 땅에 머무시며 그들에게 주신 가르침을 요약하면서 시작한다(행 1:3-5). III. 그리스도께서 하늘로 승천하신 일과, 승천하시기 전에 제자들이 그분과 나눈 대화, 그리고 승천하신 후에 천사들이 그들에게 한 말씀에 대한 구체적인 이야기로 시작한다(행 1:6-11). IV. 그리스도의 승천으로부터 성령이 부어지기까지, 갓 태동한 그리스도의 교회와 그 상태에 대한 전반적인 개관으로 시작한다(행 1:12-14). V. 유다의 죽음으로 그 거룩한 무리에 생긴 빈자리를 그의 자리에 맛디아를 선출함으로써 채운 일에 대한 구체적인 설명으로 시작한다(행 1:15-26).

서론

이 책은 복음서에 대하여, 열매가 그것을 맺는 나무에 대하여 가지는 관계와 같다. 복음서에서 우리는 한 알의 밀이 땅에 떨어져 죽는 것을 보고, 사도행전에서는 그것이 많은 열매를 맺는 것을 본다(요 12:24).

복음서에서는 그리스도께서 자기 피로 교회를 사시는 것을 보고, 여기서는 그렇게 사신 교회가 실제 존재로 일어서는 것을 본다. 먼저 팔레스타인의 유대인들 가운데서, 다음에는 주변 이방인들 가운데서, 마침내 고대 세계의 위대한 수도에 발판을 얻기까지, 예루살렘에서 로마로 장엄하게 뻗어 간다. 이 책은 앞선 복음서의 속편일 뿐 아니라 뒤따르는 서신서들의 서론으로도 결코 가치가 덜하지 않다. 이 역사가 없다면, 수신자들의 역사적 형편을 전제하고 거기서 그 신선함과 핵심과 힘을 많이 얻는 신약의 서신서들은 지금과 전혀 같지 않았을 것이며, 여러 곳에서는 거의 이해하기 어려웠을 것이다.

이 책의 진정성, 신빙성, 정경적 권위는 고대 교회 안에서 결코 의문시되지 않았다. 이 책은 신약의 보편적으로 인정된 책들, 곧 호몰로구메나 목록에서 복음서 바로 뒤에 놓인다(우리의 더 큰 주석 제5권 서론 iv, v쪽 참조). 물론 2세기와 3세기의 몇몇 이단 분파들, 곧 에비온파, 세베루스파(유세비우스, 교회사 4.29 참조), 마르키온파, 마니교도들은 이를 배척하였다. 그러나 그들의 반론은 전혀 비평적 성격을 갖추지 못했으므로(앞서 언급한 서론 xiii, xiv쪽 참조) 아무 무게도 없을 뿐 아니라, 오히려 기독교회가 줄곧 이 책을 인정해 온 근거가 얼마나 견고했는지를 간접적으로 보여 준다.

그러나 우리 시대에는 신약의 주요 책들이 다 그러했듯이 이 책의 진정성도 날카롭고 오래 지속된 논쟁의 대상이 되었다. 드 베테는 누가가 전체 저작의 저자임을 인정하면서도 그 앞부분은 신뢰할 수 없는 자료에서 작성되었다고 판정한다(신약 서론 2a, 2C). 그러나 바우어를 수장으로 한 튀빙겐 학파는 훨씬 더 나아갔다. 사도행전의 진정성이 흔들리지 않는 한 복음서들이 요한 이후 시대의 산물이라는 그들의 환상적인 이론은 들을 가치조차 얻을 수 없었으므로, 그들은 이 책의 앞부분은 신뢰할 수 없고 뒷부분은 그들이 난공불락으로 여기는 갈라디아서와 정면으로 모순되며, 베드로가 전했고 사도들 사후 에비온파만이 독점적으로 보존했다는 좁은 유대주의적 원형의 기독교에 맞서, 바울이 기독교에 부여한 보편적 형태를 세우려는 목적으로 사실을 의도적으로 왜곡했다는 내적 증거를 지닌다고 주장한다. 누군가가 건전한 비평과 정당한 증거의 모든 원칙을 모욕하는 신약 주요 책들의 기원 가설을 세우려고 그토록 많은 세월과 학식과 탐구와 재능을 쏟았다는 것은 고통스러운 일이다. 학파로서 이 무리는 결국 해체되었다. 그 수장은 그 이론 전체의 유일한 옹호자가 된 것을 보다가 버림받았다고 탄식하며 세상을 떠났다. 동료들 중 일부는 그런 냉혹한 연구를 아예 버리고 더 잘 맞는 철학 연구로 돌아갔고, 일부는 신약 기록의 역사적 진실성에 대한 공격을 수정하여 따라갈 가치도 없는 입장으로 물러섰으며, 또 다른 이들은 점차 건전한 원칙에 가까워졌다. 이 모든 해악에 대한 한 가지 보상은 신약 각 책과 초기 기독교회사에 관한 변증적·비평적 문헌이 티어쉬, 에브라르트 등 많은 이들의 펜에서 풍성히 더해졌다는 점이다. 이 학파의 주장들을 언급할 필요가 있을 때에는 사도행전, 고린도전서, 갈라디아서의 관련 본문에서 다룰 것이다.

이 책과 제3복음서 사이의 명백한 관련성, 곧 이 책 스스로가 같은 저자의 단순한 계속편임을 표방한다는 사실과 두 작품의 문체에 나타나는 두드러진 유사성은, 초대 교회가 만장일치로 이를 누가에게 돌린 것이 옳았음을 의심할 여지를 남기지 않는다. 일부 까다로운 비평가들이 역사 앞부분의 자료에 대해 제기한 난점은 견고한 근거가 없다. 후크가 서술의 정황성에서 결론짓듯 역사가 자신이 최초 장면들의 목격자였다는 것은 전혀 그럴듯하지 않다. 그러나 일부 장면에는 수백 명의 목격자가 있었고, 나머지 모든 장면에도 충분한 증언자가 있었으므로, 역사가는 구전과 문서 증언을 통해 그가 역사 속에 생생히 담아 낸 모든 세부 사항을 얻을 수 있었다. 우리는 주석을 통해 이 부분의 혼란, 모순, 오류에 대한 드 베테의 불평이 근거 없음을 보이리라 믿는다. 같은 비평가와 한두 사람은 역사가가 1인칭 복수 ‘우리’로 말하는 후반부를 디모데에게 돌리려 하며, 그가 직접 본 일들을 기록해 두었고 누가가 그것을 그대로 역사에 넣었다고 가정한다. 여기서 이 근거 없는 가설을 자세히 반박할 수는 없지만, 독자는 에브라르트(복음 역사, 클라크 번역 110절, 원저 Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelische Geschichte, 1850의 127절)와 데이비슨(신약 서론 제2권 9-21쪽)에게서 그 반박을 찾을 수 있을 것이다.

이 역사와 사도 서신들 사이의 의도되지 않은 일치들은, 그렇게 증언된 사실들의 진실성을 위한 논증으로서, 페일리가 Horæ Paulinæ에서 비길 데 없는 솜씨로 제시하고 다루었으며, 버크스 씨는 Horæ Apostolicæ에서 여기에 여러 기발한 보충을 더했다. 조웨트(성 바울의 서신들 제1권 108쪽 이하)는 그중 일부에 이의를 제기했는데, 적어도 오늘날에는 어떤 경우에 일정한 이유가 없지 않다. 그러나 그조차 이 증거 노선에서 페일리의 저작 전체는 공격할 수 없다고 인정한다.

이 역사의 목적에 대해서도 많이 쓰였다. 확실히 ‘사도들의 행적’은 매우 부분적으로만 기록되어 있다. 그러나 이 제목에 대해 역사가에게 책임을 물을 수는 없다. 이 책에 아무 계획도 없다고 보는 한 극단과, 정교하고 복잡한 계획 위에 구성되었다고 보는 다른 극단 사이에서, 우리는 그 의도를 기독교의 확산과 기독교회의 발생을 기록하는 데 있다고 보면 충분히 진리에 가까울 것이다. 곧 먼저 옛 신앙의 자리인 팔레스타인의 유대인들 가운데서, 다음에는 안디옥을 본거지로 삼아 주변 이방인들 가운데서, 마침내 제국 로마 위에 그 깃발이 휘날리는 것이 보이며 보편적 승리를 예고하기까지의 기록이다. 이렇게 보면, 처음에는 베드로의 수고가 거의 독점적으로 큰 자리를 차지하고, 이방인의 위대한 사도가 무대에 오른 뒤에는 그와 나머지 열두 사도가 거의 완전히 역사에서 사라지는 것도 설명하기 어렵지 않다. 큰 광명이 떠오를 때 작은 빛들이 사라지는 것과 같다.

사도행전 서론

이 책에 붙은 “사도행전”이라는 제목이 하나님의 권위로 주어졌거나 저자 자신이 붙였다는 증거는 없다. 그러나 이 제목은 약간의 차이는 있어도 언제나 기독교회가 이 책에 붙여 온 제목이다. “행전”이라는 말은 오늘날 때때로 쓰이는 것처럼 법령이나 법률을 뜻하지 않고, 사도들이 행한 일들을 뜻한다. 그것은 사도들이 기독교회를 세우고 확립하는 과정에서 행한 일을 기록한 것이다. 그러나 주목할 점은 이 책이 주로 베드로와 바울의 행적을 기록한다는 사실이다. 베드로는 유대인과 이방인 모두에게 기독교회의 문을 열도록 위임받았다(마 16:18-19 주석 참조). 바울은 복음을 특별히 이방 세계에 전하도록 택함을 받았다. 이 두 사도가 기독교회를 세우고 조직하는 일에서 가장 두드러지고 탁월한 인물들이었으므로, 그들의 수고에 대한 특별하고 영구적인 기록이 작성되는 것이 합당하다고 여겨졌다. 동시에 다른 사도들에 대한 간간한 언급도 주어진다. 그러나 유대 밖에서의 그들의 수고와 그들의 죽음에 대해서는, 야고보의 죽음(행 12:2)을 제외하고, 거룩한 저자들이 아무 정보도 주지 않았다.

고대의 모든 증언은 이 책의 저자를 누가로 돌리는 데 일치한다. 이 책은 초기 기독교 저자들에게 반복해서 언급되고 인용되었으며, 반대 의견 없이 누가의 작품으로 언급된다. 같은 사실은 이 책 자체에서도 분명하다. 이 책은 데오빌로라는 같은 사람에게 보낸 “먼저 쓴 글”을 기록한 바로 그 사람이 쓴 것이라고 밝힌다(행 1:1과 눅 1:3 비교). 또 같은 필치에서 나온 것임을 뚜렷하게 보여 준다. 저자가 복음서에서 끝낸 바로 그 시점에서 역사를 이어받고 있기 때문에, 이 책은 분명히 그 복음서의 계속으로 의도되었다(행 1:1-2).

이 책이 어디서, 또 어느 때 기록되었는지는 확실히 알려져 있지 않다. 그러나 역사가 바울이 로마에 머문 둘째 해까지 이어지므로(행 28:31), 사도행전은 분명히 주후 62년 무렵만큼 늦은 시기에 기록되었다. 또한 바울의 생애에서 그 뒤에 일어난 사실들이나 다른 역사적 사건을 전혀 언급하지 않으므로, 그 시기에서 훨씬 뒤에 기록되지는 않은 것이 분명해 보인다. 따라서 이 책의 연대를 대체로 주후 63년경으로 잡는 것이 일반적이었다. 또한 이 책은 로마에서 기록되었을 가능성이 크다. 행 28:16에서 누가는 바울과 함께 자신이 로마에 도착한 일을 언급한다. 누가가 그 도시를 떠난 일을 언급하지 않으므로, 사도행전은 그곳에서 기록되었다고 추정할 수 있다. 어떤 이들은 이 책이 애굽의 알렉산드리아에서 기록되었다고 보았으나, 그 견해에는 충분한 증거가 없다.

이 책의 정경적 권위는 같은 저자가 기록한 복음서의 권위와 같은 기초 위에 서 있다. 교회 안에서 어느 시대에도 이 책의 진정성이 의문시된 적은 없다.

이 책은 일반적으로 기독교회의 역사, 따라서 기록된 최초의 교회사로 여겨져 왔다. 그러나 이 책이 교회의 일반사를 목적으로 삼았다고 볼 수는 없다. 많은 중요한 사건들이 생략되어 있다. 이 책은 바울의 회심 이후 예루살렘 교회에 대해 설명하지 않는다. 바울이 아라비아로 간 일(갈 1:17)도 빠져 있다. 애굽이나 바벨론에서 복음이 전파된 일(벧전 5:13), 로마 교회의 설립, 바울의 여러 항해와 파선(고후 11:25)에 대해서도 설명하지 않는다. 또한 대부분의 사도들의 수고를 생략하고, 서술을 주로 베드로와 바울의 활동에 한정한다.

이 역사의 목적과 중요성은 다음 사항들에서 배울 수 있다.

1. 이 책은 “약속된 성령의 강림과 역사에 대한 기록”을 담고 있다. 주 예수께서는 자신이 하늘로 떠난 뒤 성령을 보내셔서 구속의 큰 일을 계속 이루게 하시겠다고 약속하셨다(요 14:16-17; 요 15:26; 요 16:7-14). 사도들은 위로부터 능력을 입을 때까지 예루살렘에 머물라는 지시를 받았다(눅 24:49). 네 복음서는 주 예수의 생애, 가르침, 죽음, 부활에 대한 기록을 담고 있다. 그러나 그분의 복음의 가장 두드러진 승리들이 그분의 승천 이후, 성령의 영향 아래 일어나리라는 점을 그분이 염두에 두셨다는 것은 분명하다. 그러므로 성령의 강림과 사람들의 영혼에 대한 그분의 영향은 구속 사역의 가장 중요한 부분이었다. 이에 대한 참되고 영감된 기록이 없다면, 구속 사역에서 아버지와 아들과 성령 하나님이 행하신 일에 대한 설명은 완전하지 않았을 것이다. 그 계획에 관한 아버지의 목적은 구약에서 분명히 알려졌다. 그것을 성취하시기 위해 아들이 행하신 일의 기록은 복음서들에 담겨 있다. 그리고 성령의 행하심에 대한 기록을 담은 책이 필요했다. 그러므로 복음서들이 사람들을 구원하기 위한 그리스도의 사역의 기록으로 여겨질 수 있듯이, 사도행전은 같은 위대한 사역에서 성령께서 행하신 일들의 기록으로 여겨질 수 있다. 이 책이 없었다면, 성령께서 새롭게 하시고 구원하시기 위해 역사하시는 방식은 매우 불완전하게만 알려졌을 것이다.

2. 이 책은 “참된 종교적 부흥의 성격에 대한 영감된 설명”이다. 이 책은 기독교회에서 일어난 최초의 부흥들을 기록한다. 오순절의 장면은 세상이 지금까지 알았던 하나님의 능력과 자비의 가장 놀라운 현현 가운데 하나였다. 그것은 인간을 회복하기 위한 땅 위의 일련의 엄청난 운동의 시작이었다. 그것은 참된 종교 부흥의 참된 모형이었고, 특히 우리 시대와 우리 민족을 특징지어 온 그러한 장면들이 신약의 영과 엄밀히 일치한다는 증명이다. 사도행전 전체는 복음이 사람들의 마음과 정면으로 접촉할 때 나타나는 효과를 기록한다. 복음은 모든 계층에게 선포되었다. 그것은 유대인과 이방인, 종과 자유인, 배운 자와 무지한 자, 부자와 가난한 자를 만났고, 어디서나 마음을 복음 자신에게 굴복시키는 능력을 보여 주었다. 그 능력의 나타남에 대한 어떤 기록이 보존되는 것은 합당했고, 우리는 이 책에서 그 기록을 가진다. 또한 영감된 사람이 성령의 강림에 대한 설명, 곧 “참된 종교 부흥에 대한 기록”을 제공하는 것은 특별히 합당했다. 복음이 강한 움직임을 일으킬 것이라는 점은 확실했다. 모든 경험이 보여 주듯 사람의 마음은 열광과 광신으로 기울기 쉽다. 사람들은 복음을 왜곡하여 들불 같은 소동, 무질서, 소란의 장면으로 만들려 할 수도 있었다. 복음이 강한 움직임을 일으킬 것이라는 사실은 그 저자께서 잘 알고 계셨다. 그러므로 교회가 복음의 올바른 효과에 대한 무오한 설명으로 언제나 호소할 수 있는 어떤 기록, 종교 문제에 관한 모든 움직임을 가져와 판단할 수 있는 어떤 영감된 표준이 주어지는 것은 옳았다. 그것들이 복음의 첫 승리들과 일치한다면 참된 것이고, 그렇지 않다면 거짓이다.

3. 이 책은 “종교적 부흥이 교회 안에서 기대되어야 한다”는 것을 보여 준다. 만일 그것들이 기독교의 가장 좋고 순수한 시대에 존재했다면, 지금도 기대되어야 한다. 만일 성령께서 처음에 진리의 선포를 복 주시는 수단으로 부흥을 선택하셨다면, 같은 일이 여전히 기대되어야 한다. 만일 복음이 처음에 이 방식으로 민족들 가운데 퍼져 나갔다면, 우리는 이것이 마침내 복음이 세상에 퍼지고 승리할 방식이라고 추론해야 한다.

4. 사도행전은 기독교회의 조직에 대한 기록을 담고 있다. 그 교회는 단순히 진리의 선포로, 특히 예수 그리스도의 죽음과 부활에 대한 단순한 진술로 세워졌다. “사도행전”은 설교의 가장 높은 모범들과, 성령의 영향이 동반될 것으로 기대할 수 있는, 사람들을 향한 단순하고 직접적이며 예리한 말하기 방식의 가장 순수한 표본들을 담고 있다. 이 책에는 어떤 언어에서도 찾아보기 어려운 가장 부드럽고 강력하며 웅변적인 호소들이 들어 있다. 사람이 설교를 잘하는 법을 배우고자 한다면, 아마 이 책에 담긴 설교 표본들을 기도하는 마음으로 깊이 연구하는 것보다 더 쉽게 그것을 얻을 수 있는 곳은 없을 것이다. 동시에 우리는 여기서 그리스도의 참된 교회의 성격을 본다. “사도행전”을 읽는 모든 독자는 이 교회의 단순성에 주목하지 않을 수 없다. 종교는 마음의 일, 곧 진리가 마음에 미치는 순수하고 합당한 효과로 제시된다. 그것은 화려함과 장엄함, 값비싸고 웅장한 의식에서 자유롭다. 감각에 인상을 주기 위한 장치도 없고, 눈부시게 하는 찬란함도 없으며, 하나님께 드리는 순수하고 영적인 예배에서 애정을 빼앗아 가도록 고안된 외적 예식이나 행렬도 없다. 이방 예배의 화려함과 과시에 얼마나 다른가! 슬프게도 그 뒤 기독교회의 적지 않은 부분에 스며든 헛되고 거창한 의식들과 얼마나 다른가!

5. 이 책에서 우리는 복음이 사람들로 하여금 자기를 부인하고 자비롭게 만들기에 적합하다는 사실에 대한 많은 두드러지고 인상적인 예를 가진다. 사도들은 세상을 회심시키는 큰 사업에 참여했다. 그것을 이루기 위해 그들은 기꺼이 모든 것을 버렸다. 바울은 기독교 믿음으로 회심했고, 그 때문에 출세와 명예에 대한 모든 희망을 기꺼이 포기하고, 외국 땅에서의 수고와 궁핍을 기쁘게 받아들였다. 빌 3:4-11; 고후 11:24-27과 비교하라. 초기 회심자들은 모든 물건을 서로 통용했다(행 2:44). “마술을 행하던” 사람들은 죄악의 길로 재산을 얻던 계획을 버리고 자기 책들을 공개적으로 불살랐다(행 19:19). 아나니아와 삽비라는 위선적이고 가장된 자기 부인으로 사도들을 속이려 하다가 벌을 받았다(행 5:1-10). 그리고 이 책 전체에는 복음을 온 세계에 전파하기 위한 희생과 수고의 사례들이 계속해서 나타난다. 실로 다음과 같은 큰 진리들이 초기 그리스도인들의 마음을 분명히 사로잡고 있었다. 곧 복음은 모든 민족에게 전파되어야 한다는 것, 그 일을 가로막는 것은 무엇이든 희생되어야 한다는 것, 필요한 어떤 수고와 위험도 감당되어야 한다는 것, 참된 종교의 확산을 촉진한다면 죽음 자체도 기꺼이 맞아야 한다는 것이다. 그러므로 이것이 참된 기독교였다. 이것은 지금도 그리스도의 복음의 정신이다.

6. 이 책은 서신서들에 중요한 빛을 던져 준다. 이 책은 복음서들과 신약의 다른 부분들을 잇는 연결 고리다. 그 사례들은 주석에서 언급될 것이다. 신약 성경 각 책의 진정성에 대한 가장 분명하고 만족스러운 증거 가운데 하나는 사도행전과 서신서들 사이의 의도하지 않은 일치들에서 발견된다. 이 논증은 팔리 박사가 처음으로 분명하게 진술하고 예증했다. 그것을 예증하는 그의 작은 저서 『호라에 파울리나에』(Horae Paulinae)는 기독교의 진리에 대해 지금까지 제시된 가장 논박하기 어려운 증거 가운데 하나다.

7. 이 책은 기독교의 진리에 대한 논박할 수 없는 증거를 담고 있다. 그것은 기독교의 초기 승리들에 대한 기록이다. 그리스도의 죽음 후 30년 안에 복음은 문명 세계의 모든 지역과 미개 세계의 적지 않은 부분에까지 전해졌다. 그 진행과 승리는 감추어지지 않았다. 그 큰 사건들은 “구석에서 행해진” 것이 아니었다. 복음은 가장 화려하고 강력하며 계몽된 도시들에서 선포되었다. 예루살렘, 안디옥, 고린도, 에베소, 빌립보, 로마에는 이미 교회들이 세워져 있었다. 복음은 아라비아, 소아시아, 그리스, 마케도니아, 이탈리아, 아프리카에 퍼져 있었다. 그것은 당시 존재하던 가장 강력한 제도들을 공격했다. 그것은 가장 만만치 않은 장벽들을 넘어 길을 열었다. 그것은 가장 치명적이고 악의적인 반대를 만났다. 그것은 수도 로마까지 나아갔고, 제국의 도시 안에서조차 마침내 기존 종교를 뒤엎고 이교의 폐허 위에 자리 잡을 것이 확실할 만큼 강한 기반을 확보했다.

30년 안에 기독교는 모든 피 묻은 제단을 뒤엎고, 모든 이교 신전을 닫으며, 관직과 지위와 권세를 가진 사람들을 어디서나 그 영향 아래 두고, “믿음의 깃발들이 머지않아 카이사르들의 궁전에서 휘날리게 될 것”이라는 점을 확정했다. 이 모든 일은 유대인들, 곧 어부들, 나사렛 사람들의 도구로 이루어질 것이었다. 그들에게는 부도, 군대도, 동맹도 없었다. 바울을 제외하면 그들은 많은 교육을 받은 사람들이 아니었다. 그들은 오직 성령께 가르침을 받았고, 오직 하나님의 능력으로 무장했으며, 오직 그리스도께서 그들의 대장이셨기 때문에 승리했다. 세상은 지극히 높으신 분의 사자들의 현존과 기독교의 능력을 인정했다. 그 성공은 하나님 자신이 함께하셨다는 가정 말고는 지금까지 설명된 적도 없고, 설명될 수도 없다. 만일 기독교가 참되지 않다면, 열두 사도로 말미암아 일어난 변화는 이 세상에서 목격된 가장 설명할 수 없고 신비하며 놀라운 사건이다. 그들의 성공은 하나님의 전체 계획의 진리에 대한 논증으로 세상 끝날까지 서 있을 것이다(고후 13:8 참조). 그것은 언제나 불신자를 당혹하게 할 것이다. 그리고 그것은 기독교인에게 이 종교가 전능하시고 무한히 선하신 하나님에게서 나온 종교라는 확신을 영원히 지탱해 줄 것이다.

사도행전 서문

사도행전은 신약의 역사서 가운데 다섯째이자 마지막 책을 이룬다. 이 때문에 일반적으로 네 복음서 끝에 배치되었다. 그러나 여러 사본과 역본에서는 바울의 서신들 끝에 놓여 있기도 하다. 이 책에 담긴 서술이 사도의 죽음에 거의 이르는 때까지 이어지며, 그 서신들 가운데 여러 정황이 이 책의 이야기와 관련되기 때문이다.

이 책에는 여러 이름이 붙어 왔다. 베자 사본에서는 Πραξεις των Αποστολων, 곧 Res Gestae, 사도들의 행적 또는 사역이라는 제목을 지닌다. 알렉산드리아 사본과 여러 다른 사본, 여러 고대 역본, 그리고 헬라와 라틴 교부들에게서는 Πραξεις των Ἁγιων Αποστολων, 곧 거룩한 사도들의 행적이라는 제목을 지닌다. 위 제목 가운데 어느 한 형태가 거의 모든 헬라어 신약 편집자와 번역자와 주석가들에게 채택되었다. 어떤 이들은 이 책을 다섯째 복음서로 보았고, 오이쿠메니우스는 성령의 복음이라 불렀으며, 성 크리소스톰은 Το Βιβλιον, Αποδειξις αναστασεως, 곧 그 책, 부활의 증명이라고 불렀다. 이 마지막 두 명칭은 이 책의 내용을 특히 잘 묘사한다. 그리스도께서 성령의 은사와 은혜에 관하여 주신 모든 약속이 여기서 가장 탁월한 방식으로 성취되었음이 나타난다. 또한 성령의 부어 주심으로 우리 복되신 주의 부활이 충분히 입증되었다. 이방인의 부르심도 여기서 계시되고 설명되는 또 하나의 큰 주제이다. 어떤 이가 기적 중의 기적이라 부른 이 일, 곧 선지자들과 그리스도 자신에 의해 자주 예언된 일이 여기 나타난다. 하나님의 능력과 선하심의 이 위대한 행위로 말미암아 그리스도 교회가 세워졌고, 하나님의 장막과 나라가 사람들 가운데 변함없이 확립되었다. 이 책은 실로 다섯째 복음서이다. 온 이방 세계에 평화와 구원의 기쁜 소식을 담고 있기 때문이다.

고대의 모든 증언은 이 책의 저자를 성 누가로 돌리는 데 일치한다. 이 책의 시작 부분을 보아도 그것을 다른 사람에게 돌릴 수 없음이 분명하다. 또한 성 누가는 이 책을 자기 복음서의 계속으로 의도한 듯하다. 그는 앞의 책을 데오빌로에게 바쳤고, 이 책의 서두에서 그 앞의 책을 명시적으로 언급한다. 실제로 그는 이 책에서 다른 책에서 이야기를 그친 바로 그 지점에서 서술을 이어 간다. “데오빌로여 내가 먼저 쓴 글에는 무릇 예수께서 행하시며 가르치시기를 시작하심부터 그의 택하신 사도들에게 성령으로 명하시고 올려지신 날까지의 일을 기록하였노라” 등이다. 여기서 우리는 두 책이 이 책에 기록된 마지막 사건으로부터 그리 멀지 않은 시기에 쓰였으리라고 안전하게 추정할 수 있다. 어떤 이들은 이 책이 알렉산드리아에서 기록되었다고 추정했으나, 그럴 가능성은 높아 보이지 않는다. 미하엘리스의 추정, 곧 이 책이 로마에서 기록되었다는 견해가 훨씬 더 그럴듯하다. 성 누가가 이 책 끝부분 직전에 자신이 성 바울과 함께 로마에 도착한 일을 언급하기 때문이다. 사도행전 28:16을 보라.

사도행전이 기록된 시기가 명시되어 있지는 않지만, 같은 저자는 이 책이 성 바울의 투옥 제2년 말까지 이어지므로 주후 63년 이전에는 기록될 수 없었다고 관찰한다. 또 만일 그 해 뒤에 기록되었다면, 독자들이 큰 관심을 갖는 성 바울에 관한 더 많은 세부 사항을 전했거나 적어도 그의 투옥의 결말을 언급했을 것이라고 보는 것이 합리적이다. 이 논증은 이 책의 연대와 관련하여 결정적인 듯하다.

성 누가가 성 바울을 오랫동안 수행한 일과, 그가 기록한 많은 사실을 직접 목격했다는 점은, 그의 신적 영감을 별도로 하더라도, 그를 매우 존중할 만하고 신뢰할 만한 역사가로 만든다. 그는 의사였다고 인정되므로 의학 지식도 갖추고 있었다. 미하엘리스 교수가 적절히 지적했듯이, 그 지식은 성 바울이 행한 기적적 치유를 올바르게 판단하고 그것들을 정확하고 믿을 만하게 상세히 기록할 수 있게 해 주었다. 또한 성 누가 자신은 기적적으로 병을 고치는 은사를 소유했던 것 같지 않다는 점도 주목할 만하다. 그가 몰타에서 난파당했을 때 성 바울과 함께 있었다는 데에는 의심의 여지가 없지만, 총독 보블리오의 부친을 고치는 일이나 사도행전 28:8, 사도행전 28:9에 언급된 다른 병자들을 고치는 일에는 관여하지 않았다. 이들은 모두 성 바울의 기도와 안수로, 따라서 기적으로 고침을 받았다. 또한 성 누가가 그런 방식으로 쓰임 받았다는 증거는 어디에서도 찾을 수 없다. 이것은 하나님의 지혜를 보여 주는 또 하나의 증거이다. 만일 의사가 치유의 기적을 행하도록 쓰였다면, 그 능력의 탁월함은 그의 창조주의 능력이 아니라 사람의 기술에 돌려졌을 것이다.

사도행전은 일반적으로 교회사로 여겨졌고, 따라서 기록상 첫 교회사로 보아 왔다. 그러나 미하엘리스 교수는 이 책이 포괄하는 기간에 대해서도 그리스도 교회의 일반사를 의도한 것은 아니라고 매우 적절히 주장한다. 성 바울의 회심 이후 예루살렘 교회에서 일어난 모든 일, 애굽에서의 그리스도교 전파, 바울의 아라비아 여행, 바벨론의 그리스도교 상태(베드로전서 5:13), 로마 그리스도 교회의 설립, 성 바울의 여러 항해, 그가 세 번 난파당한 일 등을 모두 지나쳐 버리기 때문이다. 더 자세한 사항은 라드너와 미하엘리스를 보라.

성 누가의 목적은 두 가지였던 것으로 보인다.

1. 오순절에 성령의 은사들이 어떤 방식으로 전달되었는지, 그리고 그 뒤 사도들이 행한 기적들이 어떻게 그리스도교의 진리를 확증했는지를 서술하는 것이다.

2. 이방인들이 그리스도의 교회에 들어갈 권리가 있음을 입증하는 기록들을 제시하는 것이다. 이 권리는 유대인들, 특히 사도행전이 기록될 당시의 유대인들이 다투던 것이었다.

그러므로 그가 사도행전 8:1-25에서 사마리아 사람들의 회심을, 사도행전 10:1-11:18에서 고넬료의 이야기와 레위 율법에 관한 예루살렘 공회의 결정을 기록한 이유를 알 수 있다. 같은 이유로 그는 성 바울의 회심과 이방인들에게 전한 설교를 다른 어떤 주제보다 더 자세히 서술한다. 성 누가는 이처럼 제한된 방식으로 자신의 역사를 편찬했으므로, 미하엘리스는 이 사도가 자신이 직접 보았거나 목격자들에게서 들은 사실들만 기록하려 했다고 본다. Introduct. vol. v. p. 326 등을 보라.

사도행전은 모든 장소와 시대의 그리스도 교회가 한결같이 보편적으로 받아들인 책이다. 거의 모든 그리스도교 저술가가 이 책을 언급하고 인용했으며, 그 진정성과 중요성은 보편적으로 인정되었다. 6세기 로마 교회의 부제였던 아라토르는 이 책을 운문으로 바꾸었다. 고대에는 대부분의 민족에게서 개인사와 중요한 사건들이 흔히 이런 방식으로 보존되었다. 운문이라는 매개를 통하면 사실들이 더 쉽게 기억에 맡겨질 수 있었기 때문이다.

성 누가의 서술은 진실성과 진정성의 모든 증거를 지니고 있다. 그것은 꾸며 낸 역사가 아니다. 각 화자의 말투와 방식은 서로 다르며, 같은 화자도 자신이 말하는 청중에 따라 그 방식이 달라진다. 스데반, 베드로, 고넬료, 더둘로, 바울의 연설은 모두 다르고, 해당 인물들의 성격과 그들이 말하던 당시의 상황에서 자연스럽게 기대할 수 있는 내용이다. 성 바울의 연설들 역시 그때의 계기와 그 앞에 있던 사람들에게 맞추어져 있다. 그의 청중이 이방인이었을 때, 그는 같은 목적을 굳게 붙들고 있었지만, 유대인 청중 앞에서 사용한 방식과는 얼마나 달랐는가! 이 저작의 진정성을 강하게 입증하는 이러한 독특한 특징들 가운데 몇 가지는 주석에서 지적될 것이다. 이 문제에 관한 좋은 관찰들은 위에 언급한 미하엘리스의 Introduction을 보라.

성 누가는 자신이 기록한 사건들에 날짜를 붙이지 않았으므로, 사도행전의 연대를 조정하는 일은 그리 쉽지 않다. 그러나 몇몇 곳에서 그는 정치적 사실들을 언급하고, 그 정확한 시기는 잘 알려져 있으므로, 그의 서술 가운데 여러 사건의 연대는 상당한 정확성을 가지고 정할 수 있다. 예를 들어 사도행전 11:29, 사도행전 11:30에 언급된 기근은 글라우디오 황제 제4년에 일어난 것으로 잘 알려져 있으며, 이는 그리스도교 시대 44년에 해당한다. 이런 성격의 사실들에서 상당한 정확성을 지닌 연대를 끌어낼 수 있다. 그러한 모든 연대는 이 주석의 앞부분에서와 같이 각 난의 맨 위에 신중하게 표시되어 있으며, 연대표는 가능한 한 가장 좋은 방식으로 조정되어 있다. 어떤 경우에는 추정과 개연성만이 이 어두운 대목을 비출 수 있는 유일한 빛이다. 책의 시작과 끝의 연대는 상당히 확실하다. 이 저작은 분명 사도행전 1:1, 곧 그리스도교 시대 29년에 시작하며, 사도행전 28:30, 아마도 63년에 끝나기 때문이다.

사도행전에서 우리는 그리스도의 교회가 어떻게 형성되고 정착되었는지를 본다. 사도들은 그리스도의 고난, 죽음, 부활, 승천에 관한 하나님의 진리를 단순히 선포한다. 그리고 하나님께서는 성령의 증명으로 그들의 증언에 함께하신다. 그 결과는 무엇이었는가? 수천 명이 그 진리를 인정하고 그리스도교를 받아들이며, 생명의 가장 임박한 위험 속에서도 그것을 공개적으로 고백한다. 그 변화는 단지 한 종교적 견해나 예배 방식에서 다른 것으로 바뀌는 변화가 아니다. 그것은 성향, 정욕, 전망, 도덕적 행실의 변화이다. 이전의 모든 것은 땅에 속하거나, 짐승적이거나, 마귀적이거나, 또는 이 모두를 함께 지닌 것이었다. 그러나 이제 모든 것은 거룩하고 영적이며 신적인 것이 되었다. 하늘의 영향력이 확장되고, 민족들이 하나님께 태어난다. 이 모든 일이 어떻게 일어났는가? 힘으로도 아니고 능력으로도 아니었다. 칼로도 아니고 세속 권위로도 아니었다. 세상적 동기와 전망을 통해서도 아니었고, 경건한 속임수나 교활한 술책으로도 아니었으며, 설득력 있는 웅변의 힘으로도 아니었다. 한마디로, 진리 자체의 유일한 영향력, 곧 성령의 능력으로 마음에 증언된 진리의 영향력 외에는 아무것도 아니었다. 스스로 그리스도교적이라고 고백하는 어떤 교회를 세우거나 지탱하기 위해 종교적 속임수와 세속적 영향력이 사용된 곳이라면, 우리는 거기서 그 교회가 전적으로 적그리스도적이라는 가장 충분한 증거를 본다고 확신할 수 있다. 또한 그러한 교회가 세속 권력을 소유하고 박해, 곧 재산과 자유와 생명을 빼앗는 박해로 자신을 지탱하려 했다면, 그 교회는 자신이 적그리스도적일 뿐 아니라 마귀적임도 드러낸다. 그리스도의 종교는 인간의 술책이나 권력을 전혀 필요로 하지 않는다. 그것은 하나님의 종교이며, 하나님의 능력으로 전파되어야 한다. 사도행전은 이것을 충분히 보여 준다. 그리고 우리는 이 책에서 모든 그리스도 교회가 따라 세워져야 할 참된 모형을 발견한다. 어떤 교회든 이 모형을 따랐음을 보일 수 있는 만큼, 그만큼 그 교회는 거룩하고 사도적이다. 그리고 그리스도교를 고백하는 모든 교회나 회중이 사도행전에 제시된 교리와 권징에 따라 세워지고 규정될 때, 그 전체 몸은 정당하게 거룩하고 사도적이며 보편적인 교회라 불릴 수 있을 것이다.

사도행전에 제시된 원시 그리스도교 예배의 단순성은 특별히 주목하고 찬탄할 만하다. 여기에는 값비싼 의식이 없다. 감각에만 영향을 주고 동물적 체계 안에 감동을 일으키도록 계산된 장치도 없다. 그것이 어리석게도 말해져 왔듯이 “경건의 영을 돕기” 위한 장치도 없다. 이 경건의 영이 불붙는 대상은 마음이며, 그 하늘의 불을 전달하고 보존하는 행위자는 오직 하나님의 영이다. 또한 그 마음을 아시고 살피시는 하나님은 그 경배의 대상이며, 그것이 죄를 용서하고 거룩하게 하며 행복하게 만드는 은혜를 기대하는 유일한 근원이다. 어떤 다른 불도 이 제단에 가져올 수 없다. 그리스도인들의 하나님은 오직 영과 진리 안에서만 예배받으실 수 있기 때문이다. 계시된 진리는 예배를 인도하고, 주어진 성령은 그 진리를 적용하여 모든 기능과 능력에 생명과 활력을 준다. 이처럼 하나님은 자신의 방식으로, 자신의 능력을 통해 예배를 받으셨다. 이렇게 행해진 모든 종교 행위는 그분께 받아들여졌다. 그의 따르는 자들의 찬양은 보좌 앞에 향처럼 올라갔고, 그들의 기도는 들려 응답되었다. 그들에게 한 하나님만 계셨듯이, 하나님과 사람 사이의 중보자도 오직 한 분, 주 예수 그리스도뿐이었다. 그들은 그를 하나님의 영원한 사랑의 선물로 받아들였고, 그의 피 안에서 구속을 구하여 얻었으며, 거룩하고 유익한 삶으로 그들을 어둠에서 그의 놀라운 빛으로 부르신 분의 덕을 나타냈다. 그때에는 하나님과 사람에 대한 사랑, 곧 율법의 완성이며 신적 증언들에 대한 순종의 생명과 영혼이고 자비와 인애의 끊임없는 샘인 그 사랑으로 뒷받침되지 않는 믿음의 고백은 아무 가치도 없는 것으로 여겨졌기 때문이다. 이것이 이 복된 책에 제시되고 예시된 예수 그리스도의 종교이다.

“서로 다른 분파들이여, 모두 말하기를,

보라! 그리스도께서 여기 계시고, 그리스도께서 저기 계신다 하니,

너희의 더 강한 증거를 신적으로 제시하고,

그리스도인들이 어디에 사는지 내게 보여 다오.”

성 누가의 서문은 그리스도의 고난부터 승천까지의 역사를 반복해서 담고 있다. 사도행전 1:1-9. 승천의 주목할 만한 정황, 사도행전 1:10, 사도행전 1:11. 제자들이 예루살렘으로 돌아와 그곳에서 한 일, 사도행전 1:12-14. 가룟 유다의 죽음에 관한 베드로의 말, 사도행전 1:15-20, 그리고 그를 대신할 다른 사도를 택해야 할 필요성, 사도행전 1:21, 사도행전 1:22. 바나바와 맛디아가 기도로 세워지고, 사도들이 표를 던진 뒤, 맛디아가 유다를 이어 택함을 받는다. 사도행전 1:23-26.

INTRODUCTION TO ACTS

This book, in some copies, is called, "The Acts of the holy Apostles". It contains an history of the ministry and miracles of the apostles of Christ, and is a sort of a journal of their actions, from whence it takes its name. It begins at the ascension of Christ, and reaches to the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul at Rome; and is a history of upwards of thirty years: it gives an account of the first Gospel church at Jerusalem, and of the progress of the Gospel there, and in Judea, by the means of all the apostles, and particularly Peter, the minister of the circumcision, and who also first opened the door of faith to the Gentiles: it shows how the Gospel went forth from Jerusalem, and was spread in the Gentile world, especially by the Apostle Paul, whose companion Luke was, that was the writer of this book; for that it was written by him is very evident from the beginning of it, it being dedicated to the same person his Gospel is, and of which he makes mention; and in the Complutensian edition the book is called, "The Acts of the Apostles of Saint Luke the Evangelist"; and so the title of it in the Syriac version is, "the Book of the Acts: that is, the history of the blessed apostles, which my Lord Luke the Evangelist collected for the saints". It was by him written in the Greek language; and we are told (a), that there was a version of it into the Hebrew language, and which was laid up in the library of the Jews at Tiberias; and is cited by R. Azarias (b) under the name of twlweph, "the Acts": of the authority of this book there has been no doubt, among the ancients, only Cerinthus the heretic endeavoured to discredit it; and it was not received by another sort of heretics called Severiani, from Severus, a disciple of Tatian (c). It is a most excellent and useful work, showing the first planting of Christianity, and of Christian churches, both among the Jews and Gentiles; the spread and progress of the Gospel in several parts of the world; what sufferings the apostles endured for the sake of it; and with what patience and courage they bore them; and what success attended them; and is a standing proof and confirmation of the Christian religion.

(a) Epiphan. Contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haeres. 30. (b) Meor Enayim, p. 167. (c) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 29.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The Acts of the Apostles

BY

THE VERY REV. E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

I. The Author.—The opening words of the Acts, addressed, like the Gospel of St. Luke, to Theophilus, and referring to a former book, as containing a history of the life and teaching of the Lord Jesus, such as we find in that Gospel, are, at least, primâ facie evidence of identity of authorship. The internal evidence of style, [1] yet more, perhaps, that of character and tendency as shown in the contents of the book, confirm this conclusion. A tradition, going back to the second century, falls in with what has thus been inferred from the book itself. The words of Stephen, “Lay not this sin to their charge,” are quoted in the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (A.D. 177), given by Eusebius (Hist. v. 2). Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria quote from it, the latter citing St. Paul’s speech at Athens (Strom. v. 2); as also does Tertullian (De Jejun. c. 10). The Muratorian Fragment (see Vol. I., p. 13) dwells on its being largely the work of an eye-witness, as seen in its omission of the martyrdom of St. Peter, and St. Paul’s journey to Spain. Eusebius (Hist. iii. 4) ascribes both books to him, in the same terms; and Jerome (De Vir. Illust. c. 8) almost repeats the words of the Fragment: “Luke wrote his Gospel from what he had heard, but the Acts of the Apostles from what he saw.” It will be enough, therefore, as far as the authorship of this book is concerned, to refer for all that is known or conjectured as to the writer to the Introduction to St. Luke. There also will be found all that it is necessary to say as to Theophilus as representing the first readers of the Acts.

[1] Not fewer than fifty words are common to the two hooks, and are not found elsewhere in the New Testament. Many of these are noticed in the Notes.

II. The Title.—It does not follow that the present title was prefixed to the book by the writer himself. For him, probably, it would only present itself as the “second treatise,” or “book,” which came as a natural sequel to the first. It was not strange, however, especially when the books of the New Testament came to be collected together in a volume, and the “former treatise” took its place side by side with the other Gospels, and was thus parted from its companion, that a distinct title should be given to it. In the title itself the Greek MSS. present considerable variations—“Acts of the Apostles,” “Acts of all the Apostles,” “Acts of the Holy Apostles,” sometimes with the addition of the author’s name, “Written by Luke the Evangelist,” “Written by the Holy and Illustrious Luke, Apostle and Evangelist.” The word “Acts” seems to have been in common use in the first and second centuries after Christ for what we should call “Memoirs” or “Biographies,” and appears conspicuously in the apocryphal literature of the New Testament, as in the Acts of Pilate, the Acts of Peter and Paul, of Philip, of Matthew, of Bartholomew.

III. The Scope of the Book.—It is obvious that the title, whether by the author or by a transcriber, does but imperfectly describe its real nature. It is in no sense a history of the Apostles as a body. The names of the Eleven meet us but once (Acts 1:13). They are mentioned collectively in Acts 2:37; Acts 2:42-43; Acts 4:33-37; Acts 5:2; Acts 5:12; Acts 5:18; Acts 5:29; Acts 6:6; Acts 8:1; Acts 8:14; Acts 8:18; Acts 9:27; Acts 11:1; Acts 15:2; Acts 15:4; Acts 15:6; Acts 15:22-23; Acts 15:33. St. John appears only in Acts 3:1; Acts 4:13; Acts 8:14. Nothing is told us of the individual work of any other. Looking to the contents of the book, it would be better described, if we were to retain the present form at all, as the “Acts of Peter and of Paul,” the former Apostle occupying a prominent place in Acts 1-5, 10-12, 15, the latter being the central figure in Acts 7:58; Acts 7:9; Acts 11:25-30; Acts 13-27. From another point of view a yet more appropriate title would be (using the term in its familiar literary sense) that of the Origines Ecclesiœ—the history of the growth and development of the Church of Christ, and of the mission work of that Church among the Gentiles. The starting-point and the close of the book are in this respect significant. It begins at Jerusalem; it ends at Rome. When it opens, circumcision is required, as well as baptism, of every disciple; the Church of Christ is outwardly but a Jewish sect of some hundred and twenty persons (Acts 1:15). When it ends, every barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, and the Church has become catholic and all-embracing. To trace the stages of that expansion both locally and as affecting the teaching of the Church is the dominant purpose of the book. The “acts” of those who were not concerned in it at all, or played but a subordinate part in it, are, we may venture to say, deliberately passed over. Some principle of selection is clearly involved in the structure of such a book as that now before us, and even without going beyond the four corners of the book itself, we may safely affirm that the main purpose of the writer was to inform a Gentile convert of Rome how the gospel had been brought to him, and how it had gained the width and freedom with which it was actually presented.

IV. Its Relation to the Gospel of St. Luke.—The view thus taken is strengthened by the fact that it presents the Acts of the Apostles as the natural sequel to the Gospel which we have seen sufficient reason to assign to the same writer. For there also, as it has been shown (Vol. I., p. 241), we trace the same principle of selection. It is more than any of the other three a Gospel for the Gentiles, bringing out the universality of the kingdom of God, recording parables and incidents which others had not recorded, because they bore witness that the love of God flowed out beyond the limits of the chosen people on robbers and harlots, on Samaritans and Gentiles. It remained for one who had led his catechumen convert to think thus of the Christ during His ministry on earth, to show that the unseen guidance given by the Christ in Heaven, through the working of the Holy Spirit, was leading it on in the same direction, that, though there had been expansion and development, there had been no interruption of continuity. I have ventured to say (Vol. I., p. 242) that the Gospel of St. Luke might be described as emphatically “the Gospel of the Saintly Life.” The natural sequel to such a Gospel was a record of the work of the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier. Looking to the prominence given to the work of the Spirit, from the Day of Pentecost onwards, as guiding both the Church collectively and its individual members, it would hardly be over-bold to say that the book might well be called “the Gospel of the Holy Spirit.” At every stage His action is emphatically recognised. Jesus, after His resurrection, had, “through the Holy Ghost, given commandment to the Apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:2). They are to be “baptised with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 1:5), are to “receive power after the Holy Ghost is come upon them” (Acts 1:8). The Holy Ghost had spoken through the mouth of David (Acts 1:16). Then comes the great wonder of the Day of Pentecost, when all the disciples were “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:4), and spake with tongues, and the prophecy, “I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17), is quoted as on the verge of fulfilment. Jesus has “received from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:33). Once again all were “filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake the word with boldness” (Acts 4:31). The sin of Ananias is a “lie unto the Holy Ghost” (Acts 5:3). He and his wife have “tempted the Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 5:9). The “Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him,” is a witness that the Christ is exalted at the right hand of God (Acts 5:32). The seven who are chosen in Acts 6 are “full of the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3). Stephen is pre-eminently “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 6:5). His leading charge against priests and scribes is that they “do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:51). His vision of the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God is closely connected with his being at the moment “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 7:55). Peter and John go down to Samaria that those who had been baptised by Philip “might receive the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:15-17): and the sin of Simon the sorcerer is that he thinks that that gift of God can be purchased with money (Acts 8:18-20). It is the Spirit that impels Philip to join himself to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:29), and carries him away after his baptism (Acts 8:39). Ananias is to lay his hands on Saul of Tarsus, that he “may be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:17). The churches of Judæa and Galilee and Samaria in their interval of rest are “walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 9:31). The admission of the Gentiles is attested when “the gift of the Holy Ghost” is poured out on Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10:44-47), and Peter dwells on that attestation in his address to the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 11:15-17; Acts 15:8). Barnabas, when he is sent to carry on that work among the Gentiles at Antioch, is described, as Stephen had been, as “full of the Holy Ghost and of faith” (Acts 11:24). It is the Holy Ghost who “separates Barnabas and Saul for the work of the ministry,” and they are sent forth by Him (Acts 13:2-4). Saul, roused to indignation by the subtlety of Elymas, is “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 13:9). It is He who guides the decision of the council assembled at Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), and directs the footsteps of Paul and his companions in their mission journey (Acts 16:6-7). The twelve disciples at Ephesus, baptised before with the baptism of John, “receive the Holy Ghost” when Paul lays his hands on them (Acts 19:6). He it was who witnessed in every city that bonds and imprisonment awaited the Apostle in Jerusalem (Acts 20:23; Acts 21:11). It was the Holy Ghost who had made the elders of Ephesus overseers of the Church of God (Acts 20:28). Well-nigh the last words of the book are those which “the Holy Ghost had spoken by Esaias,” and which St. Paul, in the power of the same Spirit, applies to the Jews of his own time (Acts 28:25).

V. Its Relation to the Controversies of the Time.—I have thought it right to go through this somewhat full induction because it presents an aspect of the book which has hardly been adequately recognised in the critical inquiries to which it has been subjected. But subject to this, as the dominant idea of the Acts of the Apostles, I see nothing to hinder us from recognizing other tendencies and motives, partly as inferred from the book itself, partly as in themselves probable, looking to the circumstances under which it must have been written. An educated convert like Theophilus could hardly have been ignorant of the controversy between St. Paul and the Judaisers, which is so prominent in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He would know that the Judaising teachers in the Galatian Church had spoken of the Apostle as a time-server seeking to please men (Galatians 1:10); as having no authority but that which he derived from the Church of Jerusalem (Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:17; Galatians 1:22); that they used the name of James in support of their exaggerated rigour, and worked upon the mind even of Peter, so as to lead him to, at least, a temporary inconsistency (Galatians 2:11-13); that others of the same school had appeared at Corinth, boasting of their “letters of commendation” (2Corinthians 3:1); taunting the Apostle with his “bodily presence weak, and speech contemptible” (2Corinthians 10:10); speaking of him as a “fool” and madman (2Corinthians 11:16); arrogating to themselves something like an ultra-apostolic authority (2Corinthians 11:4); boasting that they were Hebrews and ministers of Christ (2Corinthians 11:22). The language of Romans 14 shows that disputes analogous in their nature had sprung up at Rome even before St. Paul’s arrival; differences as to days and meats (Romans 14:2-6); connected with the very question of eating “things sacrificed to idols,” which had given occasion to one of the canons of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29) proposed by James, the bishop of that Church, and which had been discussed fully in the Epistle which St. Paul addressed to the Church of Corinth, at a time when its numbers were largely made up of Roman Christians (1 Corinthians 8-10). These facts were patent to any one who had any knowledge of St. Paul’s work. If Theophilus were, as is probable, an Italian, probably even a Roman, convert (see Introduction to St. Luke’s Gospel, Vol. I., p. 241), they would be forced upon his notice.

There are, however, other materials for estimating the attitude of the Judaising party towards St. Paul, and the language they habitually used in reference to him. I do not assume that the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Recognitions, and Epistles are of an earlier date than the second century, but it is a legitimate inference that they represent the traditions of the party from which they emanated, and they help us to fill up the outline which has been already sketched. In them, accordingly, we find James, the bishop of Jerusalem, as the centre of all church authority, the “lord and bishop of the holy Church” (Epist. of Peter, c. 1), the “archbishop” (Recogn. c. i. 73). Peter complains that “some among the Gentiles have rejected his preaching, which is according to the Law, and have followed the lawless and insane preaching of the man who is his enemy” (ibid. c. 2. Comp. Galatians 4:16). He complains that he has been misrepresented as agreeing with that “enemy” (ibid.). James declares that circumcision is an essential condition of discipleship (ibid. c. 4). Under cover of the legendary disputes between Peter and Simon the Sorcerer, the personal discipleship of the former is contrasted with that of one who has only heard the doctrine of Jesus through a vision or a dream (Hom. Clem. xvii., c. 14. Comp. Acts 9:3; Acts 9:17; Acts 18:9; Acts 22:18; Acts 23:11; 2Corinthians 12:1), and it is suggested that one who trusts in those visions and revelations may have been deceived by a demon (ibid. xvii., c. 16). Barnabas is named with praise (ibid. i., c. 9), but the name of Paul is systematically ignored. The opposition to Peter at Antioch, of which we read in Galatians 2:1-14, is represented as the work of the sorcerer (Recogn. x., c. 54). Almost the only direct reference to the Apostle of the Gentiles is an allusion to the “enemy” who had received a commission from Caiaphas to go to Damascus and make havoc of the faithful (Recogn. i., c. 71), and the fact that the “enemy” afterwards preached the faith which he had once destroyed is kept out of sight. With the strange confusion of chronology characteristic of this apocryphal literature, the “enemy” is represented as entering the Temple, disputing with James, attacking him with violence and throwing him down the Temple stairs, so that he lay there as dead (Recogn. i., c. 70).

Representations such as these might be met in two different ways. St. Paul, in the manly indignation of his spirit against such misrepresentations, met them, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, by asserting his entire independence of the Church at Jerusalem (Galatians 1:1-12), by showing that they had learnt from him, not he from them, the fulness and freedom of the gospel which he preached (Galatians 2:2); that the chief leaders of that Church had given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship in their work among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9); that he had not given way by subjection, no, not for an hour, to the Judaising Pharisee section of the Church (Galatians 2:4-5); that he had not shrunk from rebuking, with the general approval of the Church at Antioch, the inconsistency of Peter and of Barnabas (Galatians 2:11-14). He meets them also, as in 2Corinthians 11:13-27, by challenging a comparison between his own life and that of his antagonists. St. Luke thought it wise, in writing to a Gentile convert, to lay stress on the fact that the history of the Church of Jerusalem, truly stated, was against the policy and the claims of the Judaisers, that the Apostle of the Gentiles in his turn had shown every disposition to conciliate the feelings of the Jews. With this view, he records the fact that charges like those which were brought against St. Paul had been brought also against the martyr Stephen (Acts 6:14); that the Apostle had been admitted into the Church of Christ by a disciple devout according to the Law (Acts 9:10; Acts 22:12); that he had been received, after the first natural suspicion had been removed by the testimony of Barnabas, by the Apostles at Jerusalem (Acts 9:27); that it had been given to Peter to be, perhaps, the first to act on the essential principle of St. Paul’s gospel, and to throw open the doors of the Church to the uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 10; Acts 11:1-13); that he and the Church of Jerusalem had sent Barnabas to carry on that work at Antioch (Acts 11:22); that St. Paul had always addressed himself to the Jews whenever there were any to listen to his preaching (Acts 13:5; Acts 13:14; Acts 14:1; Acts 17:2; Acts 17:17; Acts 18:4; Acts 19:8); that he had lost no opportunity of renewing his friendly intercourse with the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2; Acts 18:22; Acts 21:15); and that James, the bishop of that Church, had throughout received him as a beloved brother (Acts 15:4; Acts 15:25-26); that he had shown his willingness to conciliate the Jewish section of the Church by circumcising Timotheus (Acts 16:3), and by his taking on himself the vow of a Nazarite (Acts 18:18; Acts 21:26); and, lastly, that the Council of Jerusalem had solemnly formulated a concordat by which the freedom of the Gentiles was secured (Acts 15:23-29).

A principle of selection such as this is naturally open to the charge that has been pressed by unfriendly critics, that it tends to lead the writer to exaggerate the harmony between the two parties whom it seeks to reconcile; and stress has been laid on the omission of the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:14), as showing that with this view he slurred over what was an important fact in the history which he undertakes to write. It may fairly be urged, however, on the other side, that there is absolutely no evidence that he was acquainted with that fact. As far as we can gather from his narrative, he was not at Antioch at the time. It was an incident on which St. Paul would naturally be reticent, unless forced to allude to it, as in writing to the Galatians, in vindicating his own independence. And even if he did know it, was this passing, momentary difference of sufficient importance to find a place in a brief compendium of the history of St. Paul’s work? Would the writer of a school history of England during the last fifty years feel bound, in tracing the action of the Conservative or Liberal party as a whole, to notice a single passage at arms, in which sharp words were spoken, in debate in cabinet or Parliament, between two of its leaders? Would a writer of English Church History during the same period think it an indispensable duty to record such a difference as that which showed itself between Bishop Thirlwall and Bishop Selwyn in the Pan-Anglican Conference of 1867? That he did not shrink from recording a personal dispute when important consequences were involved is shown by his treatment of the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:37-40).

VI. Its Evidential Value.—(1) In relation to the Gospels. Had the Acts of the Apostles presented itself as an entirely independent book, its evidence as to the main facts of the Gospel history would obviously have been of the highest value. It assumes those facts throughout as well known. The main work of the Apostles is to bear witness of the resurrection (Acts 4:33). Jesus of Nazareth had been “approved of God by miracles, and wonders, and signs” (Acts 2:22). Against Him “Herod and Pontius Pilate had been gathered together” (Acts 4:27). God had “anointed Him with the Holy Ghost and with power;” and He “went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached” (Acts 10:37-38). It is obvious, however, that it does not present itself as independent. It looks back to a former book, and that former book is the Gospel according to St. Luke. “It was natural,” it has been said, “that the writer should thus take for granted what he had thus himself recorded. You cannot, in such a case, cite the second volume to bear witness to the veracity of the first.” Admitting this, however—as in all fairness it must be admitted—the Acts present evidence, as has been already pointed out (Vol. I., p. xxxi.), of another kind. If they are shown, by the numerous coincidences which they present with the writings of St. Paul (see infra), by their occasional use of the first personal pronoun (Acts 16:10-15; Acts 20:5; Acts 21:17; Acts 27:1; Acts 28:16), by their stopping at St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, instead of going on to the close of his work and life, to be, on any fair estimate of circumstantial evidence, the work of a contemporary, and to have been written before St. Paul’s death, in A.D. 65 or 66, then it follows that the Gospel from the pen of the same author must have been of even earlier date. The reference to the “many” who had “taken in hand” to set forth a narrative of the gospel (Luke 1:1) connects itself with the quotation from “the words of the Lord Jesus” in Acts 20:35, as showing that there was not only a widely diffused oral tradition of the facts of the Gospel history (such as that implied in 1Corinthians 11:23-25; 1Corinthians 15:3-7), but that there was also a fairly copious Gospel literature, presenting materials for future editors and compilers. But we may go yet further. It has often been urged, as against the early date of the Gospels in their present form, that they have left so few traces of themselves in the early history and the early writings of the Church. It has been already shown (Vol. I., pp. 27-31) that, as far as the Epistles of the New Testament are concerned, those traces are far from few; but it may be admitted that they do not refer, as we might, perhaps, have expected them to refer, to any individual miracles, or parables, or discourses of our Lord. The same holds good of the Apostolic fathers; and it is not till we come to Justin Martyr that we get any such frequency of citation as to make it certain that he had one of our first three Gospels, or another resembling them, in his hands. (See Vol. I., p. xxvii.) Well, be it so; but here we have a work with the same absence of citation, the same vague generalisation in its reference to the outlines only of the Gospel history; and of this book, whatever view may be taken of its date, it is absolutely certain that the writer knew that history in all its fulness. Had the Acts come down to us without the Gospel of St. Luke, its reticence, and vagueness also, might have been urged as against the credibility of the narratives of the Gospels that bear the names of St. Matthew and St. Mark. As it is, it shows that that reticence and vagueness may be compatible with a full and intimate knowledge of the facts so narrated.

(2) In relation to the Epistles of St. Paul. Here, as Paley has well put the argument in the opening of his Horœ Paulinœ, the case is different. We have a book purporting to be by a contemporary of St. Paul’s. We have thirteen or fourteen documents purporting to be Epistles from him. There is not the shadow of a trace in the Epistles that the writer had read the Acts, or even knew of the existence of the book. There is not the shadow of a trace in the Acts of the Apostles that the writer had read the Epistles, or even knew of their existence. He not only does not compile from them nor allude to them, but he does not even record, as might have been expected, the fact that they had been written. He omits facts which we find in them, and which would have been important as materials for his history. Whatever coincidences the two may present are conspicuously undesigned. So far as they do agree and throw light upon each other, they supply a reciprocal testimony each to the trustworthiness of the other.

The coincidences which thus present themselves are dealt with in the Notes in this Commentary on the Acts and the Epistles, and to state them with any fulness here would be to re-write the Horœ Paulinœ with numerous additions. It will, however, it is believed, be of some advantage to the student to have at least the more important of these coincidences brought under his notice in such a form as to admit of examination without turning to other books, and the following table has accordingly been drawn up with that view. It has been thought expedient to present them as they occur in the Epistles of St. Paul, and to take those Epistles in their chronological order.

1Thessalonians 2:2; 1Thessalonians 3:4

St. Paul’s sufferings at Philippi

Acts 16:22-23.

1Thessalonians 3:4

St. Paul’s sufferings at Thessalonica

Acts 17:5.

1Thessalonians 2:18; 1Thessalonians 3:1; 1Thessalonians 3:6-7

St. Paul left at Athens alone

Acts 17:16.

1Thessalonians 2:14

Sufferings of the Thessalonians from their own countrymen

Acts 17:5.

1Thessalonians 1:9

Thessalonian converts turning from idols

Acts 17:4.

1Thessalonians 2:9-10; 1Thessalonians 4:11

St. Paul’s precept and practice in working

Acts 18:3.

1Corinthians 2:1; 1Corinthians 4:19; 1Corinthians 16:5

St. Paul’s two visits to Corinth

Acts 18:1; Acts 20:2.

1Corinthians 15:32

Fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus

Acts 19:29-30.

1Corinthians 16:19

“Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord”

Acts 18:18; Acts 18:20.

1Corinthians 16:9

The “effectual door” opened at Ephesus

Acts 19:20; Acts 19:26.

The many adversaries

Acts 19:9; Acts 19:28.

1Corinthians 4:17-19

Timotheus sent to Corinth from Ephesus

Acts 19:21-22.

1Corinthians 16:10-11

St. Paul’s doubt as to arrival of Timotheus

Acts 19:22.

1Corinthians 1:12; 1Corinthians 3:6

Work of Apollos at Corinth

Acts 18:27-28.

1Corinthians 4:11-12

St. Paul’s working for his bread at Ephesus

Acts 20:34

1Corinthians 9:20

St. Paul’s becoming to Jews as a Jew

Acts 16:3; Acts 18:18; Acts 21:23-26.

1Corinthians 1:14-17

Baptism of Crispus and Gains

Acts 18:8.

1Corinthians 16:1

Collection for the saints in Galatia

Acts 18:23.

1Corinthians 5:7-8

Allusion to the Passover

1Corinthians 16:8

“Tarrying at Ephesus till Pentecost”

Acts 19:22; Acts 20:3.

1Corinthians 1:1

Sosthenes with St. Paul

Acts 18:12-17.

1Corinthians 16:6

St. Paul’s wintering at Corinth

Acts 20:3; Acts 20:6.

1Corinthians 16:5

St. Paul’sjourney through Macedonia

Acts 20:1.

2Corinthians 1:16; 2Corinthians 2:13

St. Paul’s journey through Macedonia

Acts 20:1.

2Corinthians 11:32-33

St. Paul’s escape from Damascus

Acts 9:23-25.

2Corinthians 1:8

The trouble that came on him in Asia

Acts 19:29-30.

2Corinthians 11:9

Supplies from the brethren from Macedonia

Acts 18:1; Acts 18:5.

2Corinthians 1:19

Silvanus and Timotheus as St. Paul’s fellow workers at Corinth

Acts 18:5.

2Corinthians 11:25

“Once was I stoned”

Acts 14:19.

2Corinthians 3:1

Letters of commendation

Acts 18:27.

2Corinthians 10:14-16

Corinth as then the limit of St. Paul’s labours

Acts 18:18.

Galatians 1:17-18

His visit to St. Peter and James the Lord’s brother, after his conversion

Acts 9:28.

Galatians 2:1

The journey with Barnabas to Jerusalem

Acts 15:2.

Galatians 2:13

Barnabas with St. Paul at Antioch

Acts 15:35-37.

Galatians 5:11

Persecutions from the Jews

Acts 13:49; Acts 14:1-19; Acts 17:4-13; Acts 18:12.

Galatians 1:18

The shortness of the first visit to Jerusalem

Acts 22:18.

Galatians 2:9

The authority of James, the brother of the Lord

Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18.

Romans 15:25-26

St. Paul’s journey to Jerusalem

Acts 20:6; Acts 24:17.

Romans 16:21-23

Salutations from Sosipater, Timotheus, and Gains

Acts 20:4.

Romans 16:3

Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth and Rome

Acts 18:2.

Romans 16:27

Phœbe of Cenchreæ

Acts 18:18.

Romans 1:13; Romans 15:23

St. Paul’s desire to visit Rome

Acts 19:21.

Romans 15:19

The gospel preached in Illyricum

Acts 20:2.

Romans 15:30

Apprehension of coming danger

Acts 20:22-23.

Philippians 2:19

Timotheus known to the Philippians

Acts 16:4; Acts 17:14.

Philippians 1:29-30; Philippians 2:1-2

St. Paul’s sufferings at Philippi

Acts 16:22.

Philippians 4:2-3

Euodia, Syntyche, and the other women at Philippi

Acts 16:13.

Ephesians 6:21

Tychicus as known to the Ephesians

Acts 20:4.

Ephesians 6:19-20

St. Paul as an ambassador in a chain

Acts 28:16-20.

Colossians 4:10

Mark as sister’s son (better, cousin) to Barnabas

Acts 15:37-40; Acts 12:12.

Aristarchus, St. Paul’s fellow-prisoner

Acts 19:29; Acts 27:2.

1Timothy 5:9

Provision for the maintenance of widows

Acts 6:1.

1Timothy 1:13-16

The persecutor converted

Acts 8:3; Acts 9:1-10.

1Timothy 1:6-7; 1Timothy 4:1-4

State of the Church at Ephesus

Acts 20:29-30.

Titus 3:13

Apollos in Crete

Acts 18:24.

2Timothy 1:16

Onesiphorus and St. Paul’s chain

Acts 28:20.

2Timothy 4:20

Trophimus left at Miletus

Acts 20:4.

2Timothy 1:4-5

The mother of Timotheus

Acts 16:1.

2Timothy 3:15

His education in the Holy Scriptures

Acts 16:2.

2Timothy 3:10-11

Persecutions at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra

Acts 13, 14

2Timothy 4:11

Mark profitable in ministering

Acts 13:5.

2Timothy 4:14

Alexander the coppersmith

Acts 19:33.

It ought to be stated that the comparison of the Acts and the Pauline Epistles brings to light also some real or apparent difficulties. Of these the most conspicuous are:—

(1)The omission in Acts 9:19-23 of the journey to Arabia mentioned in Galatians 1:17.

(2)The omission in Galatians 2:1-10 of any notice of the journey to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30, or of the decrees of the council of Apostles and elders in Acts 15

(3)The omission in the Acts of any record of the dispute between St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch (Galatians 2:11).

These are examined in detail in the Notes on the several passages connected with them.

This method of inquiry may be extended, with similar results, to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to the two Epistles of St. Peter. It is in the account of Apollos, in Acts 18:24-28, that we get what many critics since Luther’s time have looked upon as the only satisfactory explanation of the phenomena presented by the first of these Epistles. Assuming the authorship of Apollos as at least a probable hypothesis, the spiritual condition described in Hebrews 5:11; Hebrews 6:2, as that of some of those who had been under the teaching of the writer, may be compared with that of the twelve disciples at Ephesus who knew only the baptism of John (Acts 19:1-7). In the reference to the “saints of Italy” in Hebrews 13:24—apparently as distinct from Roman Christians—we may, perhaps, see a reference to the Church of Puteoli, the only Italian town, besides Rome, mentioned in the Acts as containing “brethren” (Acts 28:14).

I note, further, a few coincidences of some interest between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Peter:—

1Peter 1:11

The tone in which prophecy is spoken of, as compared with

Acts 2:16-17; Acts 2:30-31.

1Peter 1:17

God no respecter of persons

Acts 10:34.

1Peter 1:22

Purity by faith and obedience

Acts 15:9.

1Peter 2:7

The stone which the builders rejected

Acts 4:11.

1Peter 4:16

The name of Christian

Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28.

1Peter 5:12

Mention of Silvanus as accounting for St. Peter’s knowledge of St. Paul’s Epistles (2Peter 3:15)

Acts 15:32; Acts 15:40.

1Peter 5:13

“Marcus my son”

Acts 12:12.

(3) In relation to External History.—It is obvious that the Acts of the Apostles take a wider range, both in space and time, than any other narrative book of the New Testament. They cover a period of more than thirty years. The scene is shifted from Jerusalem to Samaria, Cæsarea, Damascus, Antioch, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece, and finally ends in Italy. The writer is constantly brought across some of the events of contemporary history, and the scenes which earlier or later travellers have described. Does he show himself in these respects an accurate observer, faithful in his reports, correct in his language? Does he fall into the blunders which would be natural in a man writing a fictitious narrative a century or so after the events which he professes to relate? For a full answer to these questions the reader is referred to the Notes that follow; but it may be well to indicate briefly some of the more important of these points of contact with the contemporary history of the outer world.

Acts 5:37.

Judas of Galilee.

Acts 6:9.

The synagogue of the Libertines.

Acts 8:9.

Simon the sorcerer.

Acts 8:27.

Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.

Acts 9:36.

Dorcas.

Acts 10:1.

The centurion of the Italian band.

Acts 11:26.

The name of Christian at Antioch.

Acts 11:28.

The famine under Claudius.

Acts 12:23.

Death of Herod Agrippa I.

Acts 13:7.

Sergius Paulus of Cyprus.

Acts 14:11.

Paul and Barnabas taken for Zeus and Hermes.

Acts 16:12.

Philippi a colonia.

Acts 16:14.

The purple-seller of Thyatira.

Acts 16:16.

The damsel with a Python spirit.

Acts 16:22.

The strategi of Philippi.

Acts 16:37.

St. Paul’s Roman citizenship,

Acts 17:6.

The politarchs of Thessalonica.

Acts 17:19.

The court of the Areopagus.

Acts 17:21.

Character of the Athenians.

Acts 17:28.

Quotation from Aratus.

Acts 18:2.

Jews banished from Rome by Claudius.

Acts 18:12.

Gallio pro-consul of Achaia.

Acts 19:9.

The school of Tyrannus.

Acts 19:24.

The silver shrines of Artemis.

Acts 19:27-29.

The temple and theatre at Ephesus.

Acts 19:31-35.

The Asiarchs and town-clerk of Ephesus.

Acts 19:38-39.

The pro-consuls and the lawful assembly.

Acts 21:38.

The Egyptian rebel.

Acts 22:28.

St. Paul’s Roman citizenship.

Acts 23:2.

The high priest Ananias.

Acts 23:24.

Felix the governor.

Acts 24:24.

Drusilla.

Acts 24:27.

Porcius Festus.

Acts 25:13.

Agrippa and Bernice.

Acts 25:11.

Appeal to Cæsar.

Acts 27

The details of the narrative throughout.

Acts 28:7.

The “chief man” of Melita.

Acts 28:15.

Appii Forum and the Three Taverns.

Under this head also it is right to notice that which appears to make against, rather than for, the credibility of the narrative, and I accordingly name the chronological difficulty connected with the name of Theudas in Gamaliel’s speech (Acts 5:36).

(4) Internal Evidence of Credibility.—The internal consistency of any book is not necessarily evidence of more than the skill of the writer. Every writer of fiction aims more or less at producing the impression of verisimilitude by touches that have the effect of coincidences between one part of the narrative and another; and the art that conceals art will produce, according to the skill of the author, the impression that the coincidences are undesigned. On the other hand, we feel, as we read some stories, that they contain, in the naturalness of their style, the absence of any sensational dove-tailing of incidents, primâ facie testimony to their own veracity. And it is submitted to the reader whether instances such as the following may not fairly claim consideration, as coming under the latter category rather than the former.

(1)Hostility of the high priests, as Sadducees, to the preaching of the resurrection (Acts 4:1-2; Acts 5:17).

(2)Barnabas of Cyprus going twice to his own country (Acts 4:36; Acts 13:4; Acts 15:39).

(3)The complaints of the Hellenistae (Grecians), leading to the election of seven men with Greek names (Acts 6:1-5).

(4)The Cilicians disputing with Stephen (Acts 6:9). The young man named Saul (Acts 7:58); afterwards described as of Tarsus (Acts 9:11).

(5)Philip’s arrival at Cæsarea (Acts 8:40). No further mention of him till we find him again at Cæsarea (Acts 21:8).

(6)Mark’s return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13) explained by his mother’s being there (Acts 12:12) and the pressure of the famine (Acts 11:28).

(7)Agabus prophesying the famine (Acts 11:28); again appearing in the character of a prophet sixteen years later (Acts 21:10).

(8)The speech of Lycaonia as accounting for the surprise of Paul and Barnabas at the preparations for sacrifice (Acts 14:11-14).

(9)Conversion of Samaritans (Acts 8:14). Incidental mention of the brethren in Samaria (Acts 15:3).

(10)Men of Cyprus and Cyrene found the Church at Antioch (Acts 11:20). Barnabas of Cyprus sent to carry on the work (Acts 11:22). Lucius of Cyrene among the prophets of the Church (Acts 13:1).

(11)Philippi a colonia (Acts 16:12). Philippians speak of themselves as Romans (Acts 16:21).

(12)Trophimus the Ephesian (Acts 21:29) recognised by Jews of Asia, i.e., from Ephesus and its neighbourhood.

The list might, it is believed, be easily enlarged, but these will be sufficient to put the student on the track of a method which he can apply almost indefinitely in other instances for himself.[2]

[2] It lies on the surface that I am largely indebted in this part of my work to Paley’s Horœ Paulinœ. I wish also to acknowledge my obligation to Mr. Birks’s Horœ Apostolicœ.

VII. Sources of the History.—It will be assumed here that the use of the first person in parts of the history implies that the writer was then the companion of the Apostle whose labours he records. We have seen, in the Introduction to St. Luke, how far the facts that are thus implied brought the writer into contact with persons who could give him trustworthy information as to what he relates in his Gospel; it remains to be seen how far they point to the probable sources of his knowledge as to the events recorded in the Acts.

Acts 1-5. Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21:8-10), or Mnason of Cyprus (Acts 21:16), or others—and, in particular, the “women” of Luke 8:2—at Jerusalem.

Acts 6, 7. Philip or St. Paul.

Acts 8. Philip.

Acts 9. St. Paul.

Acts 10-11. 18. Philip.

Acts 11:19-30. St. Paul, or, probably, personal knowledge gained at Antioch.

Acts 12:1-19. John surnamed Mark (Colossians 4:10-14).

Acts 13:1-13. St. Paul, or Mark, or Mnason of Cyprus.

Acts 13:14-52; Acts 14. St. Paul; or, possibly, knowledge gained by Luke in person on his journey to Troas, or afterwards from Timotheus.

Acts 15, Acts 16:1-7. St. Paul, or, probably, personal knowledge, as staying at Antioch, and, possibly, going up to Jerusalem.

Acts 16:8-40. Personal knowledge.

Acts 17, 18. Probable communications from the brethren who came from Philippi to Thessalonica (Philippians 4:16), and again to Corinth (2Corinthians 11:9). General intercourse between the Romans of Philippi and the Roman Jews at Corinth.

Acts 19. St. Paul; or possibly Aristarchus and Gaius of Macedonia, or Tyrannus.

Acts 20-28. Personal knowledge.

Looking to the manner in which the Gospel begins with what has the character of a distinct document, so strongly marked by Hebraisms that it could scarcely have been written by a Greek writer, it is probable that the first five chapters of the Acts may, in like manner, have been incorporated from an earlier document, recording, like the later history of Hegesippus, the history of the Church of Jerusalem with a special fulness. It will, at any rate, be clear that at every step in the narrative we are able, in the Acts, as in the Gospel of the same writer, to point with a very high degree of probability to those who here also were “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word” (Luke 1:2).

VIII. Its Bearing on the Mission - work, Organisation, and Worship of the Church.—(1) Mission-work. It will not, it is believed, be unprofitable to look at the records of the Acts of the Apostles as presenting the type and pattern for all future labours in the work of evangelising the world. It is obvious that the preaching of the Apostles is something very different from that of those who offer to men’s acceptance simply a lofty ideal of virtue or high-toned ethical precepts. The central fact of all their teaching is the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:32-33; Acts 4:10; Acts 10:40-41; Acts 13:32-37; Acts 17:31; Acts 26:23). Upon that proclamation of a fact in the past they build their assurance that He will come again as the Judge of the living and the dead (Acts 3:21; Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31); that in the meantime He calls men to repent and believe in Him (Acts 2:38; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 14:15; Acts 17:30-31); and that thus they may receive remission of their sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:15; Acts 10:45; Acts 19:2). They are naturally brought into contact, as they preach this gospel, with men of very different habits of thought, varying in their training, their knowledge, and their culture; and they adapt themselves, as far as lies in their power, to all these variations in their hearers. With the Jews of Jerusalem, Antioch in Pisidia, Corinth, and Rome, they draw their arguments almost exclusively from the correspondence between the acts and death and resurrection of Jesus with what had been written in the Law and Prophets as pointing to the coming Christ (Acts 2:14-36; Acts 3:19-26; Acts 7:2-53; Acts 13:17-41; Acts 28:23). With peasants, such as those at Lystra, they lay their foundation on what we should call the broad lines of a simple natural theology, and appeal to the goodness of God as manifested in the order of nature, in rain from heaven and fruitful seasons (Acts 14:15-17). With the Stoics and Epicureans of Athens, St. Paul (he alone, it may be, of the glorious company of the Apostles was fitted for that work) rises to the level of the occasion, and meets the thinkers on their own grounds, appeals to the witness of their own poets, and sets before them what we have ventured to call the outlines of a philosophy at once of worship and of human history (Acts 17:22-31).

And it may be noted how carefully in all these cases the preachers abstain from the weapons of terror and of ridicule which men have sometimes used in dealing with the heathen whom they were seeking to convert. There are no statements that the world outside the range of the gospel was sentenced to hopeless condemnation—that the forefathers of those to whom they preached were for ever in the dark prison of Gehenna. They recognised, on the contrary, that in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him. (See Note on Acts 10:35). They speak of the times of ignorance which God “winked at” (Acts 17:30). They are no “blasphemers” even of the worship which they are seeking to supplant (Acts 19:37). They present the gospel to men’s minds as realising at once the conscious prophecies of Israel and the unconscious prophecies of heathenism. They come, it is true, with some weapons in which modern missionaries are wanting. They claim to work signs and wonders as attestations of their divine mission (Acts 3:6-7; Acts 5:15; Acts 6:8; Acts 8:13; Acts 9:34-40; Acts 14:10; Acts 19:12; Acts 28:5-8); but they lay far less stress on these than on the “demonstration of the Spirit”—the prophecy that reveals the secrets of the heart, the conscious experience of the power of that Spirit to give a new peace and a new purity to souls that had been alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 11:17-18; Romans 8:23-26; 1Corinthians 2:4).

(2) Organisation and Worship. And, it may be noted further, they do not rest satisfied with the conversion of individuals as such, nor with leaving with each believer a book or a rule of life for his own personal guidance. Everywhere they seek to organise a society: the “brethren,” the “disciples,” the “saints,” are formed into a church—i.e., an ecclesia, or congregation; and that society receives a distinct and definite constitution. Elders, otherwise known as bishops (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5; Titus 1:7), are appointed in every city (Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17), to teach, and preside in worship, and administer the discipline and laws of the congregation. There are ministers or deacons under them, who assist in baptising, in the subordinate offices of worship, in the relief of the sick and poor, and, if they have special gifts, in preaching the gospel to Jews and heathen, and teaching converts also (Acts 6:3-6; Philippians 1:1; 1Timothy 3:8). The Apostles appoint both elders and deacons, with the consent—and therefore the implied right of veto—of the congregation, and exercise over them an authority analogous to that of the later bishops (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17). There is an organisation of the charity of the Church on the basis of systematic almsgiving; and the Apostles, and, in their absence, the bishop-elders of the Church, act, where necessary, with the help of others as representing the laity of the Church, as treasurers and almoners (Acts 4:37; Acts 5:2). The disciples meet to break bread, as their Lord had commanded, on the evening of every day; afterwards, as the Church included men of various classes and employments, on that of the first day of the week—probably, i.e., on Saturday evening (Acts 2:46; Acts 20:7); and the history of the institution of what came to be known as the Supper of the Lord formed the centre of the celebration of that feast (1Corinthians 11:23-26). The feast itself was preceded by a solemn blessing, and closed with a solemn thanksgiving. Psalms, hymns, and unpremeditated bursts of praise, chanted in the power of the Spirit, such as those of the gift of tongues, were the chief elements of the service (Acts 4:24-30; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). The right of utterance was not denied to any man (women even seem at first to have been admitted to the same right; Acts 21:9; 1Corinthians 11:5) who possessed the necessary gifts (1Corinthians 14:26-33) and was ready to submit them to the control of the presiding elder or Apostle. There were in the unwritten traditions of the Church; in its oral teaching as to our Lord’s life and teaching (1Corinthians 11:23; 1Corinthians 15:1-8); as in its rules of discipline and worship (2Thessalonians 2:15; 2Thessalonians 3:6); in the “faithful sayings” which were received as axioms of its faith (1Timothy 1:15; 1Timothy 4:9; 2Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8), the germs at once of the creeds, the canons, the liturgies, the systematic theology of the future. It is, lastly, instructive and suggestive to note that throughout the history there is no record of any effort to set apart a separate place of worship for the members of the new society. They meet in private houses (Acts 2:46; Acts 20:8; Romans 16:5; Romans 16:15; Romans 16:23; 1Corinthians 16:19), or in a hired class-room (Acts 19:9), as opportunities present themselves. There would apparently have been no difficulty in their claiming the privilege which Roman rulers conceded freely to other Jews and proselytes, of erecting a synagogue of their own; but they left this to come in due course afterwards. Their own work was of a different and higher kind. They were anxious rather to found and edify the society which, as built of “living stones,” was to be the temple of the living God, than, in the modern sense of the term, to be the builders of churches.

IX. Its Bearing on the Church History of the Future.—Nor is the record which we owe to St. Luke less instructive considered as the first volume of the history of Christendom. Fairly considered, while it brings before us the picture of primitive Christianity as a pattern to be followed in its essential features, it is as far as possible from presenting it as a golden age of unalloyed and unapproachable perfection. It tells us of men who were of like passions with ourselves, not free from the bitterness of personal quarrels (Acts 15:39), or from controversies in which party was arrayed against party on a question on which each held that it was contending for a vital truth (Acts 15:1-5). It records, as if with an unconscious prevision of future? controversies, how that dispute ended in an amicable compromise, each party making concessions, within certain well-defined limits, to its opponents, neither insisting on what an inexorable logic might have looked on as the necessary conclusion from its premises (Acts 15:23-30). The writer tends, partly by his natural instincts, partly of deliberate purpose, to dwell on the points of agreement between men rather than on their points of difference; to bring out the good which was to be found in men of different degrees of culture and very varied training. Peter, James, Apollos, Paul, are not for him what they were for so many others—leaders of parties, rivals for allegiance. He is able to recognise in each and all men who are ministers of Christ, fitted for the work of that ministry by the gift of the Holy Ghost. And in striking contrast to the martyrologists and other annalists of the Church who followed him, he avoids what we may call the sensational element of history; does not dwell (with the one marked exception of St. Stephen) on the deaths and sufferings of the disciples; understates the work, the hardships, and the perils of the Apostle who is the chief figure in his history; aims rather at presenting the results of the actual contest between the new and the old societies, now favourable and now quite otherwise, than at representing the two as in irreconcilable enmity. There is, so to speak, a hopefulness and healthiness of tone, which contrasts favourably with that of later writers after the sword of systematic persecution had been unsheathed, or even in some measure with that of the later writings of the New Testament, such as the Epistles of St. Peter and the Apocalypse, and which may fairly be allowed some weight as evidence for the early date of its composition.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF APOSTOLIC HISTORY.

It will, it is believed, be helpful to the reader to have before him something like a general survey of the history of the Apostolic Age, indicating, at least approximately, the probable succession of events, and the relation which they bore to what then occupied the minds of men as the prominent facts in the history of the world in which they lived; and with this view the following Table has been compiled. Where the dates are uncertain, and have therefore been variously placed, the doubt is indicated by a note of interrogation (?).

A.D.

EMPERORS.

APOSTOLIC HISTORY.

CIVIL RULERS.

HIGH PRIESTS.

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS.

A.D.

28

Tiberius, from A.D. 14.

The Day of Pentecost, May (?). (Other dates, varying from A. D. 30-33, have been assigned for this.)

Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judæa from A.D. 26.

Caiaphas from A.D. 25, son-in-law of Annas, or Ananus.

28

29

29

30

30

31

Death of Sejanus.

31

32

The growth of the Church as described in Acts 2-5. may be referred to this period, but there are no data for going further into detail.

Tiberius at Capreæ. New Sibylline books brought under notice of Senate.

32

33

Drusus, son of Germanicus, starved to death

33

34

Vitellius, Prefect of Syria.

Phœnix reported to have been seen in Egypt.

34

35

Vitellius in Mesopotamia.

35

36

Martyrdom of Stephen (?).

Philo at Alexandria.

36

37

Caligula.

Peter and John in Samaria. Conversion of Saul.

Herod Agrippa I.

Jonathan, son of Ananus.

Aretas in possession of Damascus.

37

38

Conversion of Cornelius. Saul at Damascus.

Theophilus, son of Ananus.

Philo’s mission to Rome.

38

39

Saul at Damascus.

Herod Antipas goes to Rome, and is banished to Gaul. Birth of Lucan.

39

40

Paul at Jerusalem and Tarsus.

Petronius, Prefect of Syria.

Caligula orders his statue to be set up in the Temple of Jerusalem. Philo at Rome.

40

41

Claudius.

Barnabas sent to Antioch. See of Rome founded by St. Peter (??).

Simon Cantheras.

Birth of Titus.

41

42

Paul at Antioch. Disciples called Christians.

Matthias, son of Ananus.

Herod Agrippa made King of Judæa by Claudius.

42

43

Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (??).

Elionæus, son of Cantharas.

Claudius conquers Britain.

43

44

Death of James the son of Zebedee. Peter imprisoned.

Cuspius Fadus, Procurator of Judæa.

Death of Herod Agrippa at Cæsarea. Plautius in Britain.

44

45

Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus. Epistle of St. James (?).

Joseph, son of Canis.

Apollonius of Tyana in India and Persia.

45

46

Paul and Barnabas in Pisidia and Lycaonia.

Tiberius Alexander, Procurator of Judæa.

40

47

Paul and Barnabas return to Antioch.

Ventidius Cumanus, Procurator of Judæa.

Ananias, son of Nebedius.

Ludi sœculares at Rome. Plautius returns from Britain.

47

48

Death of Messalina. Claudius under the influence of Narcissus and Pallas.

48

49

Paul’s dispute with Peter (??).

Herod Agrippa II., King of Chalcis.

Herod. Agrippa II. made King of Chalcis. Seneca appointed as Nero’s tutor. Jews banished from Rome.

49

50

Council at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas return with Silas to Antioch.

Caractacus captive in Rome. Foundation of Cologne by Agrippina.

50

51

Paul and Silas start on another mission. Paul’s dispute with Peter (?).

Felix, Procurator of Judæa.

Burrus made Prefect of the Praetorian Guards. Astrologers expelled from Italy.

51

52

Paul at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berœa, Athens, Corinth.

Herod. Agrippa II., King of Batanæa and Trachonitis.

Herod Agrippa II. made King of Batanæa and Trachonitis.

52

53

Paul at Corinth. First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians·

Marriage of Nero with Octavia.

53

54

Nero.

Paul’s journey to Ephesus, Cæsarea, Jerusalem, Antioch. Apollos at Ephesus. Dispute with Peter (?).

:

Narcissus put to death by Nero.

54

55

Apollos at Corinth. Paul in Asia.

55

56

Tumult at Ephesus (May). First Epistle to the Corinthians. Paul in Macedonia. Epistle to the Galatians. Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

Tumult in Judæa, headed by the Egyptian of Acts 21:38, Birth of Trajan.

56

57

Paul at Corinth. Epistle to the Romans. Journey to Jerusalem (April, May). Trial before Felix.

Trial of Pomponia Graecina.

57

58

59

Paul at Cæsarea.

Paul at Cæsarea.

Ishmael, son of Phabi.

Poppæa Sabina, Nero’s mistress. Agrippina, Nero’s mother, put to death.

58

59

60

Paul at Cæsarea. Appeal to Cæsar. Voyage to Italy.

Porcius Festus, Procurator of Judæa.

60

61

Paul at Melita. Arrives at Rome (April), Lives in his own house.

Joseph Cabi.

Revolt in Britain, under Boadicea, Queen of the Iceoni. Apollonius of Tyana at the Olympic Games.

61

62

Paul at Borne. Epistle to the Philipplans.

Albinus, Procurator of Judæa.

Ananas.

Burrus dies, and is succeeded by Tigellinus. Persius dies. Josephus at Rome.

62

63

Paul at Rome. Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. Release. First Epistie of St. Poter.

Jesus, son of Damnæus.

Earthquakes in Asia Minor.

63

64

Paul in Spain (?), Asia (?), Nicopolis (?). First and Second Epistles to Timothy. The Gospel according to St. Luke and Acts of the Apostles (?). Epistle to Titus. Second Epistle of St. Peter.—Jude.

Gessius Florus, Procurator of Judæa.

Great fire at Rome. Persecution of Christians.

64

65

Death of Paul and Peter (?) at Rome. Linus Bishop of Rome (?).

Seneca and Lucan put to death by Nero. Death of Poppæa,

65

66

Epistle to the Hbrews (?). The Gospel according to St. Matthew (?).

Nero in Greece. Apollonius of Tyana ordered to leave Rome. Martial at Rome.

66

67

Death of Peter and Paul (?).The Gospel according to St. Mark. Epistle of St. James (??).

Josephus gains favour with Vespasian after the capture of Jotapata.

67

68

Galba.

St. John in Patmos (?). The Apocalypse (?).

Vespasian takes Jericho.

68

69

Otho. Vitellius. Vespasian.

Death of James, the Bishop of Jerusalem (?).

69

70

Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem; Ignatius of Antioch (?).

The Capitol rebuilt by Vespasian. Jerusalem taken by Titus (Aug. 31). Josephus released.

70

71

Temple of Janus closed. Destruction of the Onias Temple in Egypt. Triumph of Titus and Vespasian.

71

72

72

73

73

74

Berenice at Rome with Vespasian and Titus. Philosophers banished from Rome.

74

75

76

Temple of Peace at Rome dedicated by Vespasian.

Coliseum begun. Birth of Hadrian.

75

76

77

77

78

Cletus Bishop of Rome (?).

Britain conquered by Agrícola.

78

79

Titus.

Pompeii and Herculaneum destroyed. Death of Pliny the Elder.

79

80

Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (??)

Coliseum finished. Pestilence and fire at Rome. Baths of Titus built.

80

81

Domitian,

81

82

82

83

Domitian banishes all philosophers from Rome.

83

84

Agricola in Caledonia.

84

85

85

80

Antoninus Pius born.

86

87

87

88

Quintilian at Rome from A.D. 68

88

89

89

90

Philosophers again banished from Rome, Epictetus among them.

90

91

Clement Bishop of Rome.

91

92

92

93

St. John thrown into boiling oil before the Latin Gate (??).

Death of Agricola and Josephus.

93

94

Juvenal banished.

94

95

Epistle of Clement (?). The Apocalypse (??). Flavius Clemens put to death. Domitilla banished.

Grandsons of the brethren of the Lord brought before Domitian.

95

96

Nerva.

The three Epistles of St. John (?).

96

97

The Gospel according to St. John (?).

Death of Apollonius of Tyana.

97

98

Trajan.

Cerdon Bishop of Alexandria; Ignatius of Antioch; Simon of Jerusalem.

Pliny and Plutarch in favour with Trajan.

98

99

Death of St. John (?).

99

100

Death of St. John (?).

Pliny’s Panegyric on Trajan. Martial retires to Spain.

100

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO THE ACTS.

EXCURSUS ON THE LATER YEARS OF ST. PAUL’S LIFE.

THE date of St. Paul’s arrival at Rome may be fixed, with little risk of error, in the spring of A.D. 61. Festus had gone to the province of Judæa, according to the computation of the best chronologists, in the autumn of A.D. 60. He had lost no time in despatching the arrears of business which Felix had left behind him, had inquired at once into the Apostle’s case, and, on his appealing to the Emperor, had sent him off. Then came the voyage, the shipwreck, the three winter months at Melita, and, early in the spring, the voyage to Puteoli, and the land journey to Rome. It was the seventh year of Nero’s reign, the twenty-fourth of his life. The emperor had already begun to show the baseness and cruelty of his nature. The murder of his mother, Agrippina, by his orders, had been perpetrated in the previous year. False rumours had been circulated as to the manner of her death, but the letter which Nero sent to the Senate, giving his account of it, and which Seneca was suspected of having helped to write, heaped up charges of crimes, old and new, on the memory of the wretched woman, so that it seemed to men almost as an apology for matricide (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 4-12).[5] Even Burrus, hoping still to retain some hold on him, had congratulated him on his deliverance from a great and standing danger (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 10). Poppæa, after her fashion, half a proselyte to Judaism (Jos. Life, c. 3), was living with the emperor, as his mistress, in his palace on the Palatine Hill. The supreme passion of his life was an insane desire for popular applause. To gain this, descending step by step to lower and lower depths, he drove his chariots in an enclosed circus on the site now occupied by the Vatican. He played on the lyre, and sung his odes at supper. He instituted games known as Juvenalia on attaining to the dignity of a beard, and men of the highest rank were compelled to bear their part in representing, in dramas or in tableaux, the foulest and most prurient of the myths of Greece. The emperor and his lyre were conspicuous everywhere (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 14). A body-guard of the equestrian order was formed (probably the Augustan band of Acts 27:1), who acted as his claqueurs, and led the applause of the multitude. Centurions and tribunes had to attend officially at spectacles which seemed to them to dishonour the Roman name. Even Burrus, “consenting thus far to avoid worse deeds,” stood by, praising with his lips and groaning in his soul (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 15). By way of showing the extent and variety of his culture, he gave his leisure also to painting and to poetry. He would cap verses or display his skill as an impro-visatore among his companions. As if he had not altogether forgotten the teaching of Seneca, he would summon philosophers after a banquet and listen to them as they discussed their theories as to the chief good and true law of duty (ibid. c. 16).

[5] May we see a passing reference to Nero’s guilt in the mention of “murderers of mothers” in 1 Timothy 1?

With this form of life, entering into various relations with those who were, in greater or less measure, sharers in it, St. Paul was now brought into contact. Strange as it may sound, it presented, in some degree, a more favourable opening for his work than if he had found Rome under a wise and vigorous rule, like Trajan or Aurelius. Poppæa was, as has been said, a proselyte to Judaism, a patroness of Jews. Aliturius, a Jew (a Jew taking his part in the mimes of Nero!), was high in the emperor’s favour as an actor. When Josephus came, in the second year of St. Paul’s stay in Rome, he found that he had a friend at Court. He obtained the liberation of some priests whom Felix had sent as prisoners to Rome, and returned laden with gifts which Poppæa had presented him (Jos. Life, c. 3). The names in Romans 16 coinciding, as they do largely, with those in the Columbaria of the imperial household on the Appian Way, confirm the natural inference from Philippians 4:22 as to the presence of Christians, some Gentiles and some of the Circumcision, among the freed-men of the palace.[6] And St. Paul, we must remember, was in Rome as a Jew, and the favour thus shown to other Jews would naturally be extended to him also. And we have seen that there was no lack of friends: Aquila and Priscilla, and Rufus and his mother, probably the wife of Simon of Cyrcne (see Note on Mark 15:21), and the slaves and freed-men of Narcissus,[7] and Tryphena, and Tryphosa, and probably Phœbe also. And with these, we may believe on good grounds, there were others. Only four years before (A.D. 57) the conqueror of Britain. Aulus Plautius, brought his wife before a family tribunal as accused of holding “a foreign superstition.” She was acquitted by her husband’s judgment, but her habits before and after the trial, for forty years (she died A.D. 83), were those of an outward unworldly life and of continual sorrow (Tacit. Ann. xiii. 32). The “foreign superstition “may have been only Judaism or some Oriental cultus, like that of Isis and Serapis, but the vague way in which it is described suggests the idea of a new religion rather than of one with which men were already familiar, and it does not seem an over-bold inference to rest in the conclusion that she was a Christian.

[6] A list of names may be given as common to both lists, or found in other like records :—Amplias, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Narcissus, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas, Philologus, and Nereus (Lightfoot, Philipp, pp. 169-176.) To these may be added Tyehicus, Trophimus, Onesimus, Dorcas among New Testament names. (Comp. Notes on Acts 9:36; Acts 20:4.)

[7] Narcissus, the freed-man and favourite of Claudius, had been put to death by Nero (A.D. 54), but the household may have continued to be kept by some member of the family. An interesting inscription records the name of Dikœosyne (=Righteousness) the wife of T. Claudius Narcissus, who is described as pientissima et frugalissima (“most devout, and simple in her life”). The name is not, so far as I know, found elsewhere. Was it taken by one who had learnt from the preachers of the gospel what true righteousness consisted in? (Muratori, Inscriptt. 1325; Orelli, 720.) The appearance of new names in the epitaphs of the Roman catacombs, expressing new thoughts and hopes, is singularly suggestive. Elpis (=Hope), Euphrosyne (=Joy), Redempta, Simplicitas, Eusebius (=Devout), Kyriakos (=the Lord’s), may be noted as examples.

And connected with Pomponia there were probably two other converts. The names of Claudia and Pudens are coupled together in the salutation of 2Timothy 4:21. They are coupled together as husband and wife in the epigrams of Martial. And the Pudens of Martial bears the name of Aulus, and he is married to Claudia, and Claudia is descended from the blue-eyed and fair-haired Britons (Epig. xi. 53). Martial, usually so scurrilous in his jests, treats them both with a marked respect. He writes an epithalamium on their union, and, instead of licentious innuendoes, utters his wishes thus:—

“O Concord, bless their couch for evermore,

Be with them in thy snow-white purity,

Let Venus grant, from out her choicest store,

All gifts that suit their married unity;

When he is old may she be fond and true,

And she in age the charms of youth renew.”

—Epig. iv. 13.

A child is born to them, and he is again ready with his salutations to the father—

“Grant, O ye gods, that she may ever prove

The bliss of mother over girl and boy;

Still gladdened by her pious husband’s love,

And in her children And perpetual joy.”

—Epig. xi. 53.

He jestingly remonstrates with Pudens for objecting to the coarseness of his epigrams—

“You urge me, Pudens, to take pen in hand,

And prune and purge these epigrams of mine;

How much thou lov’st them now I understand,

When thou would’st have each quip a faultless line.”

—Epig. vii. 11.

He has been ill while Pudens was absent in the north, and has sighed for his presence—

“Yea, all but snatched where flow the gloomy streams,

I saw the clouds that shroud the Elysian plain;

Still for thy face I groaned in weary dreams,

And cold lips ‘Pudens, Pudens’ cried in vain.”

—Epig. vi. 58.

The juxtaposition of the two names, and the character thus assigned to those who bore them, justify us, I believe, here also, in spite of some difficulties that have been raised on chronological or other grounds, in identifying them with those whom St. Paul mentions.

The chronological difficulty lies in the fact that Martial, born in Spain, circ. A.D. 40, did not come to Rome till A.D. 66, nor collect his epigrams till A.D. 86. It is clear, however, that the former date, the very year after St. Paul’s death, is certainly not incompatible with his knowing St. Paul’s Claudia and Pudens, and the collected poems may well have ranged over the whole period of his stay in Rome. It is perfectly inconceivable that such a man could have lived in Rome for twenty years without writing epigrams. It may be added that the identification does not assume that Pudens and Claudia were married when St. Paul wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy (A.D. 66), but only that both were then disciples of Christ. If Martial came to Rome in A.D. 66 he might, therefore, have known the young officer before his marriage, and written his congratulatory lines shortly afterwards. The insertion of the name of Linus between Pudens and Claudia is, as far as it goes, against the hypothesis that they were at that period husband and wife.

Another objection has been taken to the identification, on the moral ground that, in some of his epigrams, Martial insinuates that his Pudens shared in the foul immorality of his time. It is not expedient to examine such a question in detail, but it will be found that the incidents to which he alludes (there is literally nothing more than the fact that a young slave of Pudens had cut his hair as a votive offering[8]) admit, in themselves, of a perfectly innocent interpretation, and that the innuendoes are but the scurril jests of a tainted mind coming into contact with a purity which it cannot comprehend.[9] They deserve no more attention than the analogous charges which were whispered against St. Paul (see Note on 2Corinthians 7:2), or those which were brought against Athanasius and Hooker. Such charges are often, indeed, brought against the pure in proportion to their purity.

[8] The cutting of the hair may, indeed, even have been, after St. Paul’s example (Acts 18:18), the completion of a Nazarite vow.

[9] It is right, perhaps, to state that Dean Merivale (St. Paul at Rome, p. 149) looks on the supposed Christianity of Pomponia as a “hypothesis of the flimsiest character,” and rejects the conclusions drawn as to Claudia and Pudens on the strength of objections to which I seem to myself to have given a sufficient answer.

Further coincidences connect themselves with an inscription discovered in Chichester in A.D. 1723, which runs thus:—

To Neptune and Minerva

This Temple

For the welfare of the Divine (i.e., the Imperial) House,

By the authority of

Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus

Legate of Augustus (i.e., the Emperor) in Britain,

The Guild of Smiths and those in it

Who minister in sacred things, have

At their own cost dedicated,

The site being given by

Pudens the son of Pudentinus.

Cogidubnus, we learn from Tacitus (Agricola, c. xiv.), was king of the Regni, a tribe occupying the modern Sussex, and was the faithful ally of Rome under Claudius, when Aulus Plautius, the husband of Pomponia. was governor of Britain (A.D. 43-52).[10] His daughter, if he had one, would naturally bear the name of Claudia. We find him connected with a Pudens; and it is, to say the least, a highly probable inference that the attachment of the latter to his British bride began during a service in the North prior to that of which Martial speaks, and that she came to Rome under the protection of Pomponia, and, embracing the same faith, was married to her lover.

[10] A note is, perhaps, necessary as to the dates thus given. If this, it has been urged, gives the limits of the date of the inscription, then Martial was a boy of ten when Pudens was old enough to be an officer in Britain, and was therefore not likely to have been on the terms of intimacy with him which the epigrams indicate. The date of the inscription, however, may have been considerably later. Cogidubnus was the ally of Rome for many years after the conquest of Caractacus by Ostorius Scapula (Tacit. Ann. xii. 11), and even as Tacitus says “within his own memory.” The temple to which the inscription refers may easily therefore have been erected, say, circ. A.D. 60-64.

It may be well to mention another, though less probable, coujecture, that Claudia was the daughter of Caractacus, who had been brought to Rome, with his wife and children, under Claudius, and that Linus was identical with the Llin who appears in Welsh hagiography as the son of Caractacus (Lewin, St. Paul, ii. 397).

St. Paul’s acquaintance with Pudens may have begun through Pomponia; but it is also probable that, through the courteous kindness of the centurion Julius, himself of the Augustan band (see Note on Acts 27:1), he was commended to the favourable notice of Burrus, the Prefect of the Prætorian camp; and that thus, and through the frequent change of soldiers who kept guard over him, his bonds in Christ would become known (as he says) through the whole Praetorian barracks[11] (Philippians 1:13), and that this may have either originated or strengthened their friendship.

[11] The Greek word is Prœtorium, on which see Note on Matthew 27:27.

Did the Apostle become acquainted with the great philosophic thinker Seneca, the friend of Burrus, who, though his influence was waning, still endeavoured to reach the mind of Nero by writing ethical treatises for his benefit? We cannot return a decisive answer to that question. Letters were extant in the fourth century, and are mentioned by Jerome as very widely read (Vir. Illust. xii.), purporting to be a correspondence between Seneca and St. Paul; and though these are certainly apocryphal, the fact of the forgery may well have rested on some tradition of intercourse between the two. The numerous parallelisms of thought and language between the two writers (comp. Lightfoot’s Philippians: “Excursus on St. Paul and Seneca”) may be accidental, but they at least suggest the probability of some communication, direct or indirect. One who saw as clearly as St. Paul did the weak and the strong points of Stoicism, and was necessarily known to Seneca’s friend, was not likely to remain altogether outside the range of his acquaintance. If we adopt the suggestion already made (see Introduction to St. Luke’s Gospel), that there was some previous connection between the Lucas or Lucanus who was St. Paul’s companion and the poet who was Seneca’s nephew, the probability becomes yet stronger; nor can we quite exclude the probability that Gallio, Seneca’s brother, who was now at Rome, and in high favour with the emperor, may have renewed his acquaintance with the Apostle. (See Note on Acts 18:17.) The traditional identification of Clement of Rome with the Clement of Philippians 4:3, presents some serious chronological difficulties which have led Dr. Lightfoot (Philipp., Exo. on 4:3) to reject it. Apart from this, however, it is in the nature of things probable that those who were appointed to take the oversight of the Church of Rome after the death of the Apostles would be men who had known St. Paul; and we may, therefore, think, with no undue boldness of conjecture, of his knowing Linus, who, indeed, is named in 2Timothy 4:21, and who became bishop in A.D. 66, and Cletus, or Anacletus (A.D. 79), and possibly Clement also (A.D. 91).[12] The full name of this last, Titus Flavius Clemens, indicates that he was probably the first convert of the Flavian imperial house, which in Vespasian and Titus had been brought into close contact with Judaism, and which under Domitian furnished, in Flavius Clemens the Consul and his sister Flavia Doraitilla, two illustrious sufferers for the new faith.

[12] The succession and dates are given, it must be remembered, as only approximately correct. The origines of the Church of Rome are singularly obscure and uncertain.

Leaving these interesting, even if they are also precarious, inferences, we pass to the more solid ground of the statements in St. Paul’s own writings.

A year or more passed, during which he was waiting for his appeal to be heard, and which we cannot fill up with any accurate precision. Timotheus, his true son in the faith, joined him soon after his arrival, or possibly was even one of his companions in the voyage (Philippians 1:1). Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, came to him; Luke, the beloved physician, and Aristarchus remained with him. Linus, whose name appears in the list of Roman bishops as St. Peter’s successor, and who was probably even then exercising some pastoral functions, is named as in the same circle of friends with Claudia and Pudens (2Timothy 4:21); and Eubulus may well have been another presbyter. A Jew named Jesus, and bearing (probably, as in other cases, as a recognition of character) the surname of Justus, and Demas, were among his fellow-workers (Colossians 4:10-14). Onesiphorus, probably an Ephesian freed-man (the name, like that of Onesimus, indicates his class), found out his lodging, was not ashamed of his chain, and ministered to him diligently there, as he had done, or did afterwards, at Ephesus (2Timothy 1:16). Onesimus, the runaway slave of Philemon of Colossæ, at one time joined apparently with St. Paul in a partnership, as Aquila and Priscilla had been (Philemon 1:17; Acts 18:3), had come to him, had been converted by him, had ministered to him with the loyalty and affection of a son (Philemon 1:10-12). Either with him or about this time came Epaphras, as a messenger from the churches of the valley of the Lycus—Colossae, Laodicea, and Hiera-polis (Colossians 4:12). Tychicus (see Note on Acts 20:4), the Ephesian, who had gone with him to Jerusalem, or at least to Ephesus, had also found his way to him (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7). Nor was the Apostle without communications from the Macedonian churches who were so dearly loved by him. Possibly in the “true yoke-fellow” of Philippians 4:3 we may trace a temporary return of St. Luke to the church with which he had been so closely connected.[13] If so, his stay was short, and he returned afterwards to Rome, where we find him when the Apostle writes to the Colossians (Colossians 4:14). In the meantime Epaphroditus (the name is that from which Epaphras is contracted, but the difference in the two forms indicates almost certainly difference of persons) had come bearing gifts, probably in money. which were sent by the Philippian converts to their beloved teacher (Philippians 4:10-17), as they had sent to him some ten years before, when he was at Thessalonica, and afterwards, probably, at Corinth also (2Corinthians 11:9). Epaphroditus, while at Rome, had been sick nigh unto death[14] (Philippians 2:27), and there had been time for a messenger to go from Rome to Philippi reporting his sickness, and bring back tidings of the anxiety of the Church there (Philippians 2:25-28). It was not in St. Paul’s nature to neglect the opportunities which thus presented themselves for reopening communication with the churches from which he had now for some two or three years been parted. The first of these letters of the Imprisonment was in all probability the EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.[15] When he wrote it he was exulting in the spread of the gospel. It was becoming known at once in the Praetorian camp, and among the slaves and freed-men of the Palace of the Caesars (Philippians 1:13; Philippians 4:22). His personal defence was becoming identified with the apologia of the gospel (Philippians 1:17) There were, indeed, darker shades in the picture. There were some—probably of the party of the Circumcision, or, as he calls them, as if they were unworthy of the old time-honoured word, of the “concision” (Philippians 3:2), “dogs,” tainted, as the word implies (comp. Deuteronomy 23:18; Revelation 22:15), by sharing, as did Aliturius and the other Jews who hung about Poppæa, in the shameless license of the time—who preached Christ, i.e., made his name known, in the-spirit of contentious rivalry, and sought to add affliction to the Apostle’s bonds. He was hoping, however, to be released shortly, and to revisit his Philippian friends. In the meantime he would send Timotheus, as soon as-he saw his way clearly to the probable course of events. He would, at all events, not delay to send Epaphroditus with a letter (Philippians 2:19-30). Probably about a year passed between this and the next letters, the EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, TO THE COLOSSIANS, and TO PHILEMON. The three were manifestly written at the same time. Tychicus is the bearer both of the letter to the Ephesians, itself probably an encyclical letter to the churches of Asia, and of that to the Colossians. Epaphras, in his turn, is connected with the Epistle to the Colossians and that to Philemon (Colossians 1:7; Colossians 4:12), and Timothy also is with St. Paul when he writes these last (Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1). In the interval that had passed since the letter to the Philippians was despatched, Burrus had fallen a victim to the emperor’s suspicions, and had been succeeded by the infamous Tigellinus (Tacit. Ann. xiv. 51, 57). The influence of Seneca was waning, and that of Poppæa was more and more in the ascendant (ibid. xiv. 52). Octavia was formally repudiated, banished to the island of Pandataria (now Santa Maria), and finally murdered (ibid. xiv. 63), while the Senate welcomed the birth of Poppæa’s child as though it were a gift from heaven (ibid. xv. 23). It does not appear, however, that these changes affected St. Paul’s condition for the worse. Though he was still the prisoner of the Lord (Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 4:1), an “ambassador in bonds” (Ephesians 6:20), he was not less hopeful than before as to his release, when he sent Tychicus and his companions with their Epistles. He formed the plan of visiting the churches of Colossæ and Laodicea. He wrote to Philemon, as if looking forward to resuming his partnership with him, to prepare him a lodging at the first-named city (Philemon 1:22).

[13] The “yoke-fellow” has also been identified with Lydia, but see Note on Philippians 4:3.

[14] It is not without interest to note the fact that Rome was visited about this time by a violent epidemic, a catarrh with inflammation of the tonsils. Nero was one of the sufferers; he lost his voice, and sacrifices were offered in the temples for his recovery (Philostr. Life of Apollonius, iv. 44).

[15] I follow Dr. Lightfoot in this order of the Epistles of the first imprisonment. Some writers, however, place the Epistle to the Philippians as the last of the four.

If we accept the PASTORAL EPISTLES as genuine, we are led partly by their style, partly by the difficulty of fitting them into any earlier period of St. Paul’s life, partly by the traces they present of a later stage of development both of truth and error, to assign them to a date subsequent to the two years of the imprisonment of Acts 28:30. This leads, in its turn, to the conclusion that he was released from that imprisonment, and started on a fresh journey. How his release was brought about we do not know. His appeal may have come on for hearing, after the long two years’ delay, and, in the absence of any “respondents appearing, personally or by counsel, against it, have been allowed. This seems, at any rate, more probable than the picture drawn by some writers (Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, c. xxvii.; Lewin, ii., p. 380) of a formal trial before the emperor, with priests from the Sanhedrin, and Alexander the coppersmith as prosecutor, Jews from Asia as witnesses, and an advocate like Tertullus to conduct the case against him. A curious synchronism, however, suggests the thought that there may have been wheels within wheels, working to bring about this result. Josephus, the Jewish historian, then in his twenty-seventh year, came to Rome about the close of the second year of St. Paul’s confinement. He was shipwrecked, on his voyage, picked up by a ship of Cyrene, landed at Puteoli, and made his way to Rome. His main object in coming was, he says, to obtain the release of certain priests who had been sent to Home by Felix as prisoners, and he accomplished his purpose through the influence of Poppæa, to whom he was introduced by Aliturius, the Jewish actor, already mentioned (Jos. Life, c. 3). May we not think it probable that St. Paul reaped the benefit of a general order for the release of Jewish prisoners sent by the Procurator of Palestine obtained through this instrumentality? The reticence of Josephus in regard to the Christian Church, the Gamaliel-like tone in which he speaks (not to dwell on passages of doubtful genuineness) of John the Baptist and of James the Bishop of Jerusalem (Ant. xviii. 5, § 2; xx. 9, § 1), his avowed Pharisaism, the tone in which he speaks of Ananias of Damascus (see Note on Acts 9:10), all make it probable that he would, at least, not be unwilling that the Apostle, “a Pharisee and son of a Pharisee,” should share in the freedom which he had obtained for others.

As regards the details of this last journey we are again dependent upon inferences more or less precarious. It is clear that, if he left Rome at all, it must have been before the great fire and the persecution of the Christians which followed on it, and from which a prisoner in St. Paul’s position could scarcely have escaped—probably, therefore, about the close of A.D. 63 or the beginning of 64. A vague phrase of Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor. c. 5), stating that he travelled to the “furthest limits of the West,” has given rise to wild conjectures. On the one hand, looking to the connection with natives of Britain already traced, and to the fact that the epithet ultimi was commonly applied to them, it has been contended that he preached the gospel in this island. A more probable hypothesis is that he started, on his release, to carry into effect his long-intended journey to Spain, to which the epithet “limit of the West” would be nearly as applicable. There, especially at Corduba (now Cordova), he would find many Jews, and Luke, as we have seen (Introduction to St. Luke’s Gospel), had probably earlier points of contact with it. Of such a journey to Spain we find traces in the Muratorian Fragment (see Vol. I., p. xiii.), which speaks of St. Paul as ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis, and the language of Jerome, who echoes Clement’s phrase, stating that he had been set free that he might preach the gospel in Occidentis quoque partibus (Cat. Script. Illusi. “Paulus”), and of Chrysostom (on 2 Timothy 4), who says that “after being in Rome he went on for Spain,” shows that the tradition was widely accepted. In our own time it has been received even by some critics who do not admit the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles (Ewald, Geschichte Israel, vi. 621, 631; Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 106). We have seen reason to fix the liberation of St. Paul in A.D. 63 or 64, i.e., in the tenth or eleventh year of the reign of Nero. The date of his death is fixed by Jerome in the emperor’s fourteenth year, i.e., in A.D. 66 or 67. We have, therefore, a period of between two or three years towards which we have only the scanty materials furnished—assuming their genuineness—by the Pastoral Epistles. To these, accordingly we turn. They indicate, as might have been expected, that St. Paul was eager to revisit the Greek and Asiatic churches from which he had so long been separated. Timotheus and Luke, who were with him towards the close of his first imprisonment, were probably his companions in travel. They came—if from Corduba, probably by sea from Gades, and through the Straits of Gibraltar, probably taking Crete on the way (Titus 1:5)—to Ephesus. The state of things there was altered greatly for the worse. The grievous wolves, some of them in sheep’s clothing, had done their worst. Hymenæus, and Philetus, and Alexander were conspicuous as the teachers of heresies that led practically to a denial of the Christian’s hope, and the Apostle felt that he had no alternative but to pronounce the sentence which cut them off from Christian fellowship and exposed them to the supernatural chastisements in which lay the only hope of their reformation (1Timothy 1:20; 2Timothy 2:17-18). Alexander the coppersmith, probably altogether distinct from the heretic of the same name, succeeded in stirring up the passions of men against him (2Timothy 4:14), and “wrought him much evil.” Everywhere in Asia (the proconsular province of that name) he met averted glances, even, where, as in the case of Phygellus and Hermogenes, he might have expected better things (2Timothy 1:15). In Onesiphorus, who had ministered so faithfully to him at Rome, alone, or all but alone, had he found the loyal and loving care which had once been general, and he had to think of him as having passed away, with the prayer that “he might find mercy with the Lord in that day” (2Timothy 1:16-17; 2Timothy 4:19), The inspired utterances of the prophets foretold dark and evil times, times at once of apostasy, and heresy, and persecution (1Timothy 4:1-4). The churches had lost their first love and their first purity. Their very organisation of charity was becoming the source of great evils, leading some to shift on others the burden of the duties which of right devolved on them, and encouraging a systematic pauperised idleness in others (1Timothy 5:3-8). The women of the Christian Church, even its deaconesses, widows, virgins, were sinking to the old level of their heathen lives in dress and scandals, in idleness and frivolity (1Timothy 5:11-13; 2Timothy 3:6). It seemed necessary to the Apostle to meet these dangers by asking his true son in the faith—half-shrinking, it would seem, from so grave a responsibility—to remain at Ephesus clothed with a larger measure of authority than before, while he continued his journey and went to Macedonia (1Timothy 1:3). If we were to receive the note attached in the Authorised version to the FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, he passed on from Macedonia to Laodicea, but these foot-notes are of too late a date and too uncertain an authority to be relied on. We must treat them, then, as though they were non-existent, and proceed with our inferences from St. Paul’s own words. What his actual movements and plans were we are informed in the EPISTLE TO TITUS. There we learn that either before or after he went to Asia—more probably the former—he had visited Crete. There also the same evils were showing themselves as at Ephesus. Jewish fables and lives “abominable” and “reprobate” were bringing scandal on the name of Christians, and they were aggravated by the proverbial untruthfulness and sensuality of the national character (Titus 1:5; Titus 1:12; Titus 1:16). Apollos, it is true, was there, and with him Zenas, a “lawyer,” in the Gospel sense of the term (see Note on Matthew 22:35), a Christian teacher, i.e., like Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures, a trained interpreter of the Law of Moses in a Christian sense (Titus 3:13); but their influence was confined within the narrow circle of their own immediate followers, and those of whom St. Paul speaks as “ours” (Titus 3:14) needed more direct superintendence. For this purpose, Titus (possibly the Justus of Corinth; see Note on Acts 18:7), who had once before brought a like special mission to a successful issue (2Corinthians 7:13-14; 2Corinthians 8:6; 2Corinthians 8:23), was despatched with a delegated authority which made him what we might fairly call a “vicar apostolic” rather than a bishop. When St. Paul wrote to him he was himself apparently travelling, or intending to travel, in Macedonia, revisiting, we may believe, in accordance with the promise of Philippians 2:24, the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica and Berœa, and was intending to winter at Nicopolis. It is a natural inference from this, and from the urgency with which he entreats Titus to come to him quickly (Titus 3:12), that the Epistle was written in the autumn. The name of Nicopolis ( = “the city of victory”), to which, we may believe, he now directed his course, was borne by three cities, one on the borders of Thrace and Macedonia, one in Cilicia, and a third, more conspicuous than the others, on the Bay of Actium, which had been built by Augustus to commemorate his great victory there over the combined fleets of Antonius and Cleopatra.

In a previous journey through Macedonia to the Illyrian frontier, probably that of Acts 20:2 (comp. Romans 15:19), he had already laid the foundations of a church in that region of Greece, and may well have been anxious to revisit it.

In the meantime a great change had come over the policy of the imperial court at Rome. Poppæa, with her tendency to protect the Jews, and probably the Christians of “Cæsar’s household,” who at first passed for a sect of Jews, had died under the brutality of the emperor (A.D. 65),[16] and the influence of Tigellinus, base, brutal, and cruel, was altogether dominant. The great fire of A.D. 64 had broken out at the foot of the Cœlian and Palatine Hills, after an entertainment which he had given in the gardens of Agrippa, with surroundings of shameless foulness, in honour of the emperor (Tacit. Ann. xv. 37-40); and when, after being partially subdued, it renewed its devastations in the Æmilian district of the city, where Tigellinus had large estates, he shared with Nero the odium of having either originated it, or at least looked on it with an Epicurean indifference, if not, as the emperor was reported to have done, with a kind of æsthetic complacency. That suspicion had to be stamped out. The Christians of Rome, those especially whose presence in the palace reproved the vices of Tigellinus and his master, were sacrificed as victims to the popular indignation, and the tide of suspicion was turned only too successfully on the strange people who lived in the world but not of it, and talked much of a King who was to come in flaming fire and devour his adversaries (2Thessalonians 1:8). The language of Juvenal implies that the better Romans knew that the martyrs whose lurid flames were as torches in the gardens of Nero on those fearful nights were sacrificed to the jealousy and vindictive hatred of the favourite—

[16] It is not without interest to note the fact that the body of Poppæa was embalmed, as if in deference to her known tendencies, after the Jewish manner, and not burnt, after the custom of Rome (Tacit. Ann. xvi. 6).

“Dar’st thou to speak of Tigellinus’ guilt?

Thou too shalt flare as they did, whom we saw,

Standing and burning, throat impaled, in smoke,

And make wide furrows in the thirsty sand.”

—Sat. i. 155.

That of Martial shows that they suffered as Christians, and might have purchased safety by apostasy, He refers to the well-known story of Mucius Scævola thrusting his hand into the fire, which apparently had been dramatised under Nero, and received with much. applause—

“You saw, enacted on the stage of sand,

How Mucius thrust into the flames his hand;

Think ye that act true hero’s deed to be?

Dull as Abderas[17] dotards then are ye;

[17] The town was proverbial for the stupidity of its people. The men of Abdera were as the men of Gotham of our nursery rhyme.

Is it not more, when robe of flame is nigh,

To say, ‘I will not sacrifice,’ and die,

Than with the order ‘Burn thy hand,’ comply?”

—Epig. x. 25.

The populace, excited, as the Athenians had been by the mutilation of the Hermæ busts, as that of England was by the Fire of London in 1666, rushed upon the members of the “sect everywhere spoken against” with a ferocious eagerness, and beheld their sufferings at first without a shudder. Only in a few, like Juvenal and Tacitus, did a touch of pity mingle with their aversion. All the old calumnies were revived, and the presence of the Christians at Rome was looked on as a reproach to be got rid of with all convenient speed.

Fanaticism is naturally contagious, and though there was no formal organised persecution throughout the empire,[18] old enmities revived, and the opportunities for acting on them were utilised. The Epistles of St. Peter, written about this time, bear witness to the “fiery trial” that was coming upon all the provinces of Asia Minor (1Peter 4:12), to the fact that men spoke against the disciples of Christ as criminals at large, that the very name of Christian exposed them to persecution (1Peter 4:16). The fact that a medal had been struck at Laodicea, in which the very name of “God” was assigned to Nero, would naturally rouse the horror of all believers, and make them think that the Antichrist had indeed come—the “man of lawlessness” who exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.[19] It only needed that he should follow in the footsteps of Caligula to verify the whole predicted description of one who “sitteth in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God” (2Thessalonians 2:4). Was not the day of the Lord at hand? Was not a more terrible conflagration than had already been witnessed about to destroy the city on the seven hills, the new “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots . . . drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”? (Revelation 17:5-6.)

[18] The inscription found in Spain and recording the success of Nero in extirpating the new superstition which had spread over the empire (“NERONI CL. CÆS. AUG. PONT. MAX. OB PROVING. LATRONIBUS ET HIS QUI NOVAM GENER. HUM. SUPERSTITION. INCULCAB. PURGATAM”), is now commonly regarded as spurious (Gruter, Inscriptt, p. 238, No. 9).

[19] For the medal, see Note in Brotier’s Tacitus (Ann. xv. 74). Even in the Roman senate, however, the title Divus, reserved for other emperors as a posthumous apotheosis, had been applied to Nero while he lived (ibid.).

It was under these conditions that the warrant was issued, as we must believe, by Tigellinus, for the arrest of St. Paul. It lies in the nature of the case that the charge could not have been the original accusation brought against him by Tertullus (Acts 24:1-8), for that was simply a question of Jewish law, a charge of having profaned the Jewish Temple. But Tigellinus must have known that for two years he had been the central figure among the Christians of Rome—that he was on terms of friendship with officers of the Augustan band and of the Prætorian Guard. True, he had left the city before the fire; but what if he had planned it, or even suggested the idea, and left others to work it out?

It is a reasonable, though not certain, inference, from the facts of the case, that the officers who were in charge of the warrant arrested their prisoner at Nicopolis; and if so, the notes of travel in the SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY must be referred, as above, to the hasty journey which had led him to that city, and in which he had revisited Corinth, Miletus, and Troas (2Timothy 4:13; 2Timothy 4:20). When he wrote that Epistle, he was, beyond all doubt, at Rome. And he was there not now, as before, in a hired apartment, and with the comparative freedom of a libera custodia (see Note on Acts 28:16), but in bonds, as a malefactor and a criminal (2Timothy 2:9). The Roman tradition that he was confined in the lower dungeon of the Mamertine prison, dark and damp, with no opening but a hole through which the prisoners were let down, has in it nothing in itself improbable.[20] The persecution that had been raging since his departure had naturally thinned the ranks, and tried the fidelity, of his friends. Aquila and Priscilla had once again been forced to leave Rome, and were now at Ephesus (2Timothy 4:9). Demas had forsaken him (2Timothy 4:10). Tychicus, still acting as the courier of the Apostolic Church, was the bearer of the Epistle to Timotheus (2Timothy 4:12). Crescens had gone to Gaul or to Galatia. Titus, who, we may infer, left Crete, and joined him at Nicopolis, had gone thence, without coming to Italy, to Dalmatia (2Timothy 4:10). One friend only, Luke, the beloved physician, probably finding some protection even now in his connection with Seneca and Gallio, was found willing to continue with him (2Timothy 4:11). It was probably before Tigellinus, rather than Nero himself, that the Apostle, in the utter loneliness of which he speaks so plaintively, made his first defence against the charge of treason.[21] Possibly the judge was, for a time, moved by his dauntless innocence; possibly, as when, about the same time, the celebrated impostor, Apollonius, of Tyana, stood before the same judge (Philostr. Vit. Apollon, iv. 42-44), he shrank from condemning one who was believed to possess supernatural powers. St. Paul’s entreaty that Timothy would bring the books and parchments which he had left at Troas (2Timothy 4:13) may imply a delay during which he was waiting for documentary evidence (possibly the “parchments” of 2Timothy 4:13), to prove his citizenship. The “cloak” may well have been wanted if he had to spend the winter months in the Mamertine prison. It was after that first hearing (2Timothy 4:16), filled with the conviction that the end was near, that the Apostle penned the last words which tell us of his hope and joy at seeing the crown of righteousness at last within his reach (2Timothy 4:8).

[20] Recent excavations by Mr. J. H. Parker have shown that what is now known as the Mamertine prison was probably only part of a much larger building used as a state prison (Macduff’s Footsteps of St. Paul, p. 76).

[21] It is hardly probable that St. Paul should have referred in these words to a trial during his former stay at Rome. The whole tone is that of a man writing of what had passed recently. Timotheus would naturally, having been with St. Paul at Rome (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1), know the whole history of the first imprisonment.

The confinement of St. Paul probably lasted for several months after this first hearing of his case. Before long, according to traditions which were current in their simplest form in the time of Clement of Rome, and were recognised in their fuller details by Eusebius (Hist. ii. 25) in the fourth century, he was joined by the great Apostle of the Circumcision, and the two who, as far as we know, had not met since the memorable dispute at Antioch (Galatians 2:14), were brought together at last once more in the Mamertine prison. The later Roman fiction of a pontificate of twenty-five years,[22] the earlier myths in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions of a conflict with Simon Magus in the streets of Rome (see Notes on Acts 8:24), may be dismissed as belonging altogether to the region of the fabulous; but there is nothing improbable in the supposition, either that he had come from the literal to the spiritual Babylon (1Peter 5:13) to look after the welfare of the suffering Christians there,[23] or that the wide-spread net of Tigellinus, which had taken in its meshes St. Paul at Nicopolis and Apollonius at Rome, had caught him also. The story perpetuated by the Domine, Quo Vadis? chapel on the Appian Way, that he had endeavoured to effect his escape, and after he had passed the Capuan Gate (now the Porta San Sebastiano) had seen the well-remembered form of the Master he had loved, and on asking the question, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” received the answer, “I go to be crucified again,” and then returned to the city to face the doom which he was seeking to avoid, has in it, I venture to think, the likelihood which is involved in the fact that it was altogether unlikely that such a story should have been invented at a later age, when the name of the Prince of the Apostles had been identified with the notion of the primary, if not the infallibility, of his successors. It is at all events, somewhat over-sceptical, in spite of much uncertainty as to dates and details, to reject the tradition that the two Apostles were at last tried and condemned together. For the last time the free-born citizen of Rome was allowed the privileges of his citizenship, and escaped the degradation of the servile punishment of crucifixion. The Galilean Apostle, on the other hand, who had seen the Crucified One, chose, according to a current tradition, to be placed upon the cross head-downwards, unwilling to present himself to the eyes of the disciples as suffering as their Lord had suffered (Euseb. Hist. iii. 1). As the story runs, the two Apostles were led out together by the Ostian Gate (now the Porta San Paolo), and a small chapel about a mile from the city indicates the spot where they took their last farewell. St. Peter was led, according to one tradition, to the hill of the Janiculum, on the left bank of the Tiber, and a chapel attached to the church of San Pietro in Montorio, was built over the spot where the cross was believed to have been fixed; while his brother Apostle was taken further on the Ostian road to the spot now known as the Tre Fontane, from the legend that as the head was struck off by the sword of the executioner it bounded three times from the ground, and that a spring of water sprang up at each spot where it had touched the earth. Both bodies were placed, according to the Roman tradition of the time of Gregory the Great, in the catacombs on the Appian Way, under the modern church of San Sebastiano. Thence that of St. Peter was removed, possibly by the Jewish Christians of Rome, to the site in the Vatican, where the stately temple of Michael Angelo has replaced the old Basilica, the marbles and mosaics of which still remain in the Confession[24] under the central dome, while that of St. Paul was interred by the pious care of a Gentile convert, Lucina on the Ostian road, and the Basilica of San Paolo-fuori-le-Mura, built by Theodosius and Valentinian in A.D. 388 on the site of a smaller church erected by Constantine, claims for its Confession the glory of containing his sarcophagus. In the full-blown development of the rival traditions of Roman churches, that of St. John Lateran boasted of possessing the heads of both Apostles, while each of the Churches of St. Paul outside the walls and St. Peter in the Vatican, admitting the claims of its rival, exulted in the thought that it could claim half of the body of each of them.

[22] The long pontificate of Pius IX. has given a fresh prominence to the traditional “years of St. Peter,” and an inscription over the chair of the Apostle in St. Peter’s records that it was given to the deceased pontiff, alone among all his successors.to equal those years. The date given in Roman Catholic chronologies to the foundation of the Church of Rome by Peter is A.D. 41.

[23] This view derives a certain support from the Roman tradition that St. Peter dwelt in the house of Pudens, the centurion, and baptised his two daughters, Praxechs and Pudentiana. The absence of any mention of Claudia shows that the tradition was independent of 2Timothy 4:21, and of any inference from the Epigrams of Martial. Churches dedicated to the two sisters stand near together on the Viminal Hill, and the traditional house of Pudens is below that which bears the name of the latter.

[24] The “Confession” is the technical term commonly applied in Italy to the crypt-like shrine which contains the relics of the saint to whom the church is dedicated.

I have thought it best to lay before the reader as clear and connected a narrative as the imperfect data allowed, without entering on the difficult and perplexing questions which have been raised as to the year of the martyrdom of the two Apostles. It is right, however, to state that a very considerable divergency of views prevails on this point, in part connected with the question of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, and that the year has been variously fixed between the limits of A.D. 64 on the one hand, and A.D. 68 on the other. The above has been based on the assumption of the later rather than the earlier date being, at least, approximately true. The Western Church has for many centuries dedicated the 29th and 30th of June (two days being appointed so that due honour might be rendered to each) to the commemoration of the martyrdom of the two Apostles. The calendar of the Reformed Church of England follows that of Koine in assigning June 29th to St. Peter, but contents itself with commemorating the Conversion of St. Paul on January 25th without assigning any day as the anniversary of his death.

What picture, we ask, are we to draw of the man who plays so prominent a part in the history of the Apostolic Church? What was he like? What impression did he make on men at first sight? What when they had learnt to know him? The nearest approximation to an authentic portrait is the medal (an engraving from which may be seen in Lewin’s St. Paud, ii. p. 411) found in the cemetery of Domitilla, one of the Flavian family, and assigned by archæologists to the close of the first or beginning of the second century. Closely cut hair (comp. Acts 18:18), slightly projecting eyes, a high forehead, a nose and mouth that indicate intellectual vigour, moustache, and a beard full rather than long,—this was what the artist gave in his attempt to reproduce a face which he may have seen himself or heard described by others. In stature, it is obvious, he was below the middle height (2Corinthians 10:10). The suffering which he describes as the thorn in the flesh, showed itself in weak eyes, probably in the nervous trembling of one who is constantly liable to severe attacks of pain. (See Notes on 2Corinthians 12:7.) He went about as one who had the sentence of death on him (2Corinthians 1:9). With this, however, there was great vigour of body. He could travel on foot some thirty miles a day (Acts 17:1), or ride on horseback (Acts 23:24), or swim rivers, or keep himself floating for many hours at sea (Acts 27:43). The indomitable energy of the man sustained him under hardships and privations of all kinds. He spoke, not with the rhetorical cadences in which Greek rhetoricians delighted, but with words that went home like an arrow to their mark, and pierced men’s hearts (2Corinthians 11:25). The voice was, perhaps, untuneable, but the words were full of life (1Corinthians 14:25; 2Corinthians 10:10). As men saw him in his artisan’s dress, living the life of the poor, they might have taken him for what he appeared to be; but when they came to know him they found a culture that surprised them, and a marvellous readiness to adapt himself to different natures. He became “all things to all men;” won the respect of proconsuls, chiliarchs, centurions, of the wild emotional Galatians, of the runaway slave Onesimus. He would listen to any tale of sorrow, and yet a keen sense of humour mingled with his earnestness and tenderness. He did not disdain to mingle an occasional pun (Philippians 4:2; Philippians 4:18; Philemon 1:10-11) with serious counsel, nor to paint the weaknesses of silly women and charlatans with a pen that almost reminds us of the caustic sarcasm of Juvenal (1Timothy 5:11-13; 2Timothy 3:6-7). And yet when the hour of prayer came, sometimes when he was alone, sometimes when in company with others, he would be absorbed as in ecstatic adoration (1Corinthians 14:18). Strange mysterious utterances of praise, doxologiee, alleluiahs, and the like, in half-musical intonations, would pour forth from his lips. He would seem as one caught up to the third heaven, to the paradise of God (2Corinthians 12:1-4), and then, again, would speak, as a prophet of the Lord, with thoughts that breathed and words that burnt. And in his prayers there was an almost terrible earnestness. Groans mingled with words, and name after name of churches and beloved disciples passed from his lips, as he laid his intercessions for them before his Father in heaven (Romans 1:9; Romans 8:26; 1Thessalonians 3:10). Such are the outlines of the man as he was—very unlike to Raphael’s idealised representation of him,—which are given to us indirectly through his own writings, and each reader must fill up those outlines according to his power. The attempt has been made, not without success, by many word-painters and masters of style. Without disparaging other representations of this kind, I venture to lay before the reader two such portraits.

“I dreamed that, with a passionate complaint,

I wished me born amid God’s deeds of might,

And envied those who saw the presence bright

Of gifted prophet and strong-hearted saint

Whom my heart loves and fancy strives to paint:

I turned, when straight a stranger met my sight,

Came as my guest, and did a while unite

His lot with mine, and lived without restraint;

Courteous he was and grave;—so meek in mien,

It seemed untrue, or told a purpose weak;

Yet in the mood, he could with aptness speak,

Or with stern force, or show of feelings keen,

Marking deep craft, methought, or hidden pride:—

Then came a voice—‘St. Paul is at thy side!’ ”

—J. H. Newman, Lyra Apostolica.

The other is by a less known author:—

“The third who journeyed with them, weak and worn,

Blear-eyed, dim-visioned, bent and bowed with pain,

We looked upon with wonder.—Not for him

The praise of form heroic, supple limbs,

The glory of the sculptor as he moulds

The locks of Zeus, o’erspreading lofty brows,

Apollo, the far-darter, in the pride

Of manhood’s noblest beauty, or the grace

Of sandalled Hermes, messenger of gods:

Not thus he came, but clad in raiment worn,

Of roughest texture, bearing many stains

Of age and travel. In his hand he bore

A staff on which he leant, as one whose limbs

Have lost before their time the strength of youth;

And underneath his arm a strange old book,

Whose mystic letters seemed for him the words

Of wisdom and of truth. And oft he read

In solemn cadence words that thrilled his soul,

And, lighting that worn face with new-born joy,

Bade him go on rejoicing.

So they came;

So entered he our town; but, ere the sun

Had lit the eastern clouds, a fever’s chill

Fell on him; parched thirst and darting throbs

Of keenest anguish racked those weary limbs;

His brow seemed circled with a crown of pain;

And oft, pale, breathless, as if life had flea,

He looked like one in ecstasy, who sees

What others see not; to whose ears a voice

Which others hear not, floats from sea or sky:

And broken sounds would murmur from his lips,

Of glory wondrous, sounds ineffable,

The cry of ‘Abba, Father,’ and the notes

Of some strange solemn chant of other lands.

So, stricken, prostrate, pale, the traveller lay,

So stript of all the comeliness of form,

Men might have spurned and loathed him, passing on

To lead their brighter life.—And yet we stayed;

We spurned him not, nor loathed; through all the shrouds.

Of poverty and sickness we could see

The hero-soul, the presence as of One

Whom then we knew not. When the pain was sharp.

And furrowed brows betrayed the strife within.

Then was he gentlest. Even to our slaves

He spoke as brothers, winning all their hearts

By that unwonted kindness.”

To these ideal portraits we may add such fragmentary notices as are found in ancient writers, and which, from their general consistency, may claim something like the character of a tradition. Thus in the Philopatris, ascribed to Lucian (possibly of the second century, but the book is probably spurious and belonging to the fourth), he is described as “bald, and with an. aquiline nose;” and in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. i. 7), as “little in stature, bald, crook-legged, vigorous, with knitted brows, slightly aquilinenose, full of grace, appearing now as a man and now as having the face of an angel.” Malala, or John of Antioch (in the sixth century), describes him (Chronograph, c. x.) as “short, bald, with partly grey hair and beard, a prominent nose, greyish eyes, knitted brows, pale and yet fresh complexion, a well-shaped beard, with a touch of humour, sagacious, self-restrained, pleasant to converse with, gentle, yet filled by the Holy Spirit with an eager enthusiasm. Nicephorus (in the fifteenth century) reproduces the same general type; but the late date makes it impossible for us to look to his account as more than a second-hand portrait. Such as it is, he too speaks of short stature, somewhat bent and stooping; pale and yet comely; bald, and with bright grey eyes; with long and aquiline nose, and a thick beard more or less grizzled (Hist. ii. 37).[25]

[25] The two last quotations are taken from Lewin’s St. Paul. II p. 412.

Such in outward form, such in manner and character, was the man to whom the Church of Christ owes so much. We are reminded as we read his own account of himself, what others said of him in his lifetime, the traditions that survived after his death, of such a one as Socrates, with his Silenus face, his ecstatic trances, his playful irony and humour, his earnest thought, his deep enthusiasm, his warm affection for the young, his indifference to wealth and ease. There were, of course, distinctive features, rising in part out of differences of race and culture—the difference between the Aryan and the Semitic types of character—in part out of the higher truths which had been revealed to the Apostle and not to the sage; but there is enough in the general features of the life and character of each to help us to understand the words which tell us that “Wisdom in all ages entering into holy souls maketh them friends of God and prophets.”

ΠΡΆΞΕΙς ΤῶΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ

B, Lachm. Tisch. have πράξεις ἀποστόλων. So also Born. Later enlargements of the title in codd.: Λουκᾷ εὐαγγελιστοῦ πράξεις ἀποστόλων, al. αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων. Peculiar to D; πρᾶξις ἀποστόλων. א has merely πράξεις, but at the close πράξεις ἀποστόλων.

The codex D is particularly rich in additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: “Hic liber (the Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum Syrarum, Bedae et scribae codicis D omnem modum excedunt.” Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Bornemann, “monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem.”

CHAPTER 1

Acts 1:4. συναλιζόμενος-g0-] min. Euseb. Epiph. have συναυλιζόμενος. Recommended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has συναλισκόμενος μετʼ αὐτῶν. Both are ineptly explanatory alterations.

Acts 1:5. The order: ἐν πνεύμ. βαπτ. ἁγίῳ, adopted by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B א* against A C E min. VSS. Or. al.

Acts 1:6. ἐτηρώτων] Lachm. Tisch. read ἠρώτων, according to A B C* א, the weight of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails.

Acts 1:8. μοι] Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read μου, decisively attested by A B C D א Or.

Instead of πάσῃ, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read ἐν πάσῃ. But ἐν is wanting in A C* D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding.

Acts 1:10. ἐσθῆτι λευκῇ] A B C א min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. is the usual expression. Comp. on Luke 24:4.

Acts 1:13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order Ἰωάννης κ. Ἰάκωβος, which is supported by A B C D א min. VSS., also Vulg. and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke 6:14.

Acts 1:14. After προσευκῃ Elz. has καὶ τῇ δεήσει, which, on decisive, testimony, has been omitted by modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition.

Acts 1:15. μαθητῶν] A B C* א min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have ἀδελφῶν: recommended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch.; the Rec. is an interpretation of ἀδελφ., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense of μαθητ.

Acts 1:16. ταύτην is wanting in A B C* א min. and several VSS. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express passage of Scripture immediately follows.

Ver 17. σύν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ἐν according to decisive testimony; σύν is an interpretation.

Acts 1:19. Ἀκελδαμά] There are different modes of writing this word in the critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read Ἀκελδαμάχ according to A B; Born. Ἁκελδαιμάχ according to D; א has Ἀχελθαμάχ.

Acts 1:20. λάβοι] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. read λαβέτω according to A B C D א Eus. Chrys; λάβοι was introduced from the LXX.

Acts 1:24. ὅν ἐξελ. ἐκ τούτ. τῶν δύο ἕνα] Elz. has ἐκ τούτ. τῶν δύο ἕνα ὅν ἐξελ., in opposition to greatly preponderating testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity.

Acts 1:25. τὸν κλῆρον] A B C* D (τόπ. τόν) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read τὸν τόπον. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (τόπον τόν). Rightly; the Rec. is a gloss according to Acts 1:17.

ἀφʼ ἧς] Elz. Scholz read ἐξ ἧς. The former has preponderating testimony.

Acts 1:26. αὐτῶν] A B C D** א. Min. VSS. have αὐτοῖς. So Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the genitive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.).