<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</SPAN></span></p>
<h2>LESSON VII</h2>
<h3>THE BOOK OF THE ACTS</h3>
<p>The teaching of the lesson may be begun with some very simple
questions. If rightly put, they will open up a fresh way of looking
at a New Testament book. The way will thus be prepared for
considering the deeper elements of the lesson. If interest can be
aroused in the book itself, the contents of the book, in the lessons
which follow, will be studied with much livelier attention.</p>
<h4>1. AUTHORSHIP</h4>
<p>Who wrote the book of The Acts? How do you know? The
former question will probably be answered without difficulty, but
the latter may reveal difference of opinion. Many of the students
will know that The Acts was written by the same man as the Gospel
of Luke. But that does not settle the question. How do you know
that Luke was written by Luke? The name does not occur in the
Gospel itself. The title, "According to Luke," was probably
added later. So, in order to determine the authorship both of
Luke and of The Acts, recourse must be had to Christian tradition.</p>
<p>Fortunately, however, tradition in this case is quite unimpeachable.</p>
<p>In the first place, although the author of The Acts is not named
in the book, yet the book is not an anonymous work. Undoubtedly
the name of the author was known from the beginning. For the
book is dedicated to an individual, Theophilus. Evidently
Theophilus knew who the author was. Information about the
author could thus be had from the start. If, therefore, Luke
did not really write The Acts, some one has removed the name
of the true author and substituted "Luke" in place of it. That
is an exceedingly unlikely supposition.</p>
<p>In the second place, it is evident quite independently of any
tradition that the book was written by an eyewitness of part of
Paul's missionary journeys. This fact appears from the so-called
"we-sections" of the book. In certain portions of the narrative
the author uses the first person instead of the third. Of this peculiarity<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</SPAN></span>
there is only one satisfactory explanation. The author
uses the first person when he is describing the experiences in which
he himself had a part. When, for example, the author says, not,
"They made a straight course to Samothrace," but "We made a
straight course," Acts 16:11, he means that he was present on
that voyage. This natural supposition is confirmed by the character
of the "we-sections." These sections are full of such a wealth
of artless detail that no one but an eyewitness could possibly have
written them.</p>
<p>The only possible way of avoiding the conclusion that a companion
of Paul wrote the book of The Acts is to maintain that
although such a man wrote the "we-sections" some one else wrote
the rest of the book. But that is unlikely in the extreme. If a later
author had been simply using as a source a diary of a companion
of Paul, he would surely either have told us he was quoting, or else
have changed the first person to the third. By leaving the third
person in he would simply have been producing nonsense. Everyone
knew who the author of the book was. The book is dedicated to
a definite man. The author evidently could not have palmed himself
off as a companion of Paul even if he would. And if he desired
to do it, he would not have chosen this remarkable way of doing
it. Of course if he had been a mere thoughtless compiler he might
have copied his source with such slavish exactness as to leave the
"we" in without noticing that in the completed work it would
produce nonsense. But he was most assuredly not a mere compiler.
If he used sources, he did not use them that way. The book
shows a remarkable unity of style. Modern research has demonstrated
that fact beyond peradventure. There is a remarkable
similarity of style between the "we-sections" and the rest of the
book. Only one hypothesis, then, does justice to the facts. The
author of the "we-sections" was also the author of the whole book.
When he comes to those parts of the narrative in which he himself
had a part, he says very naturally "we," instead of "they."</p>
<p>The book of The Acts, then, was written by a companion of
Paul. That fact stands firm, even apart from any tradition. And
that is the really important fact. If the book was written by an
eyewitness, the particular name of the eyewitness is comparatively
unimportant. But the tradition as to the name is without doubt
correct. There is not the slightest reason for calling it in question.
What the book of The Acts itself says about its author fits exactly
what Paul says about Luke.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</SPAN></span></p>
<h4>2. DATE</h4>
<p>The authorship of The Acts is certain. The date, however, is
not so clear. The book was written by Luke. But when was it
written? The latter question cannot be answered with perfect precision.
At least, however, since the book was written by Luke, it
must have been written during the lifetime of a companion of Paul.
A. D. 100, for example, would be too late, and A. D. 90 would be unlikely.
A good deal can be said for putting the date at about A. D.
63. This early date would explain the abrupt ending of the book.</p>
<p>One of the most curious things about The Acts is that the
narrative is suddenly broken off just at the most interesting
point. The trial of Paul is narrated at very great length, but we
are not told how it came out. The final decision, the climax of
the whole long narrative, is just at hand; but with regard to it
we are left altogether in suspense. Was Paul released? Was he
condemned and executed? The author does not say. His silence
requires an explanation.</p>
<p>The simplest explanation would be that Luke wrote his book
at the very point of time where the narrative is broken off. Of
course he could not tell us any more if nothing more had happened.
He brought his narrative right up to date. Nothing more was
possible.</p>
<p>It is true, other explanations may be proposed.</p>
<p>(a) It has been suggested, for example, that The Acts closes so
abruptly because the author was saving something for another
work. As The Acts is the continuation of the Gospel of Luke,
so a third work, it is said, was planned as the continuation of The
Acts. But even so, it seems rather strange that the author should
not have given at least a hint of the outcome of that trial in order
to take the edge off our curiosity. He has done something like
that at the conclusion of his Gospel; why not also at the conclusion
of The Acts?</p>
<p>(b) But perhaps the ending is not so abrupt as it looks. The
author's purpose, it is said, was not to write a biography of Paul,
but to show how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome. When
Rome was reached, then the narrative was broken off. Biographical
details—even the most interesting details about the most interesting
character—were ruthlessly excluded. The plan of the book had
been accomplished. For this explanation there is much to be said.
But the trouble with it is that especially in the latter part of the
book the author as a matter of fact does show considerable interest in<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</SPAN></span>
biographical details. The trial and shipwreck of Paul are narrated
with a fullness which is quite out of proportion to the rest of the
history. After such a full account of the trial, it remains rather
strange that the author has said not a word about the outcome.</p>
<p>Either of these last two explanations is perfectly possible.
Possibly The Acts was written as late as A. D. 80. But the early
date at least explains the peculiar ending best of all.</p>
<h4>3. SOURCES</h4>
<p>Where did Luke get the materials for his work? Did he use
written sources as well as oral information? The question has been
discussed at very great length, but without much uniformity in
the results. If he used written sources, at least he used them skillfully,
placing upon them the imprint of his own style. The book
possesses genuine unity.</p>
<p>The really important fact about the sources of the book of The
Acts is a negative fact. Whatever the sources were, the Pauline
epistles were not among them. Compare the passages where
Paul and Luke narrate the same events—for example Gal., chs.
1, 2, with the corresponding passages in The Acts—and it becomes
evident that the two narratives are entirely independent. Luke
did not use the Pauline epistles in writing his book. That is an
exceedingly significant fact. It shows that The Acts is an independent
witness. What is more, it strengthens materially the
argument for the early date of The Acts. The Pauline epistles
at a very early time began to be collected and used generally in the
Church. In A. D. 100, for example, they would certainly have
been used by anyone who was writing an account of Paul's life.
Since, therefore, the book of The Acts does not use them, that book
must have been written earlier, and probably very much earlier.
Even in A. D. 80, it would perhaps have been strange that the
epistles should not have been used.</p>
<h4>4. PURPOSE</h4>
<p>The proper purpose of a historian is to tell the truth. And
Luke was a genuine historian. His own account of his method,
Luke 1:1-4, shows that he knew the meaning of historical research,
and the character of his books bears this out. Luke did not permit
any desire of putting Christianity in a good light, or of defending
one kind of Christianity against another, to interfere with the primary
duty of truthfulness.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>That does not mean, however, that the book of The Acts is
like some modern university dissertations—written simply and
solely in order to say some new thing, whether interesting or no.
No great historian goes to work that way. Of course Luke had an
interest in his subject matter. Of course he was convinced that
Christianity was a great thing, and was full of enthusiasm in
narrating its history. In that he was perfectly right. Christianity
really was a great thing. The best celebration of its greatness was
a narration of the facts. Christian faith is based on fact. Luke
wrote, not only in the Gospel but also in The Acts, in order that his
readers might know the certainty concerning the things wherein
they were instructed. Luke 1:4.</p>
<h4>5. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS</h4>
<p>The author of The Acts was well acquainted with the Old Testament.
He was able to catch the spirit of the primitive Palestinian
church. His books exhibit the influence of the Semitic languages.
But he was also capable of a Greek style which would have passed
muster in the schools of rhetoric. Luke 1:1-4, for example, is a
typical Greek sentence. Evidently Luke could move with ease in
the larger Greek world of his time. His references to political
and social conditions are extraordinarily exact. His narrative is
never lacking in local color. He knows the proper titles of the local
officials, and the peculiar quality of the local superstitions. His
account of the shipwreck is a mine of information about the seafaring
of antiquity. Evidently he was a keen observer, and a true
traveler of a cosmopolitan age. His narrative is characterized by
a certain delightful urbanity—an urbanity, however, which is
deepened and ennobled by profound convictions.</p>
<hr class="tb" />
<p><span class="smcap">In the Library.</span>—Warfield, "Acts, Timothy, Titus and Philemon,"
in "The Temple Bible," pp. i-xxvii. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible":
Purves, article on "Acts of the Apostles." Purves, "Christianity in
the Apostolic Age," pp. 1-8. M'Clymont, "The New Testament and
Its Writers," in "The Guild Text Books," pp. 41-46. Hastings,
"Dictionary of the Bible": Headlam, article on "Acts of the Apostles."</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.