ART. III.—THE ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

1. Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi. (Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ. A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity.) Von DR. F. C. BAUR. Stuttgart. 1845.

2. Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung Kritisch untersucht. (The Acts of the Apostles: a Critical Examination of its Origin and Contents.) Von DR. EDUARD ZELLER. Stuttgart. 1854.

3. Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte von Neuem untersucht. (A new Investigation of the Composition and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles.) Von EDUARD LEKEBUSCH. Gotha. 1854.

THE events of the past, as recorded in history, unfold themselves to the mind, not in the native purity of their actual occurrence, but tinged with a coloring derived from the medium through which they are viewed. The objective sternly refuses to appear just as it is, and always steps forward clothed in a borrowed dress. It is hardly possible that anything should be looked at through a perfectly clear atmosphere, and the thoughts and emotions of the spectator will generally modify to some extent the scene before him. And if this is the case, to however small a degree, in a simple act of perception, the introduction of the additional elements of memory, judgment, the collection and arrangement of materials, will cause the subjective side of history to extend itself, and uncertainty will increase with the increasing number of the faculties requisite for the discovery of truth. We know that this doctrine may be carried so far as to lead to a scepticism utterly preclusive of knowledge, or to an idealism which should secure certainty only by renouncing the world of objective fact. But there is no need to push it to either of these extremes. The general trustworthiness of the human faculties being assumed, and honesty of purpose being conceded wherever the reverse cannot be proved, History becomes possible, though it remains difficult, and a hope is left that, by the exercise of reason and a nice power of

discriminating the true from the false, some reliable glimpses may be obtained into the actual progress of affairs in distant times.

If these remarks are well founded, it will follow that every narrative of past events must be more or less modified by the particular point of view of the narrator. It would not be difficult to show that this has been always the case. Indeed, it were much easier to multiply examples of historical works in which truth has been utterly distorted to serve a particular interest, than to name even one of which it can be said that in no instance have facts been made to bend to the preconceived views of the historian. To take a single example. In the most brilliant piece of historical composition of modern times, the "design" of the writer is apparent throughout. No perfectly successful attempt has been made to impugn the correctness of any statement in Macaulay's History of England; and yet it would be absurd to deny that the aim of the work is to exhibit in the strongest light the blessings of the Revolution, to excite the utmost abhorrence of King James and absolute government, and to kindle the warmest admiration for King William and free institutions, and that this aim has been most successfully attained.

These remarks have been suggested by the perusal of the learned and interesting works of Dr. Baur and Dr. Zeller on the Acts of the Apostles, in which, as is now well known even to those who are only moderately acquainted with recent German theology, an attempt is made to prove the presence of a design on the part of the Scriptural writer apart from and overruling the interests of truth. It is not our present purpose to examine this part of the question, and we must here content ourselves with saying that we are unable to receive the Tübingen view except in a very modified form. We admit, indeed, the unhistorical aspect of the earlier chapters of the Book of Acts, and cannot but acknowledge that there are traces of a disposition throughout the whole work to represent the harmonious working of the Apostolic Church as more perfect than was actually the case, as well as to ignore the historically certain fact of the opposition between the Judaic and Pauline forms of Christianity; but we would

suggest that a design of this kind might coexist with the most perfect conscientiousness on the part of the author, and even to a great extent with the correctness of the statements made. We must decline, moreover, to regard the account of the Apostolic council as a deliberate fiction, and would rather consider it as referring to an earlier visit of Paul to Jerusalem than that touched upon in the Epistle to the Galatians, with which, we admit, it cannot be identified. We dissent therefore from the Tübingen doctrine in the two important points of rejecting the notion of intentional fiction and distinguishing between the historical and unhistorical portions of the Acts. In defence of this view much might be urged, but we must for the present content ourselves with this statement of results, which we make, not from any desire to dogmatize, but as an introduction to some further questions to which we would now invite our readers' attention. These questions concern the authorship of the Acts, the materials used in its composition, the time when and the place where it was written. We cannot hope to discuss all these points fully, nor on subjects so difficult and obscure can we even promise to come to any perfectly definite conclusions. We must only endeavor to say, in the shortest compass possible, and making use of the best materials within our reach, whatever seems to us most worthy of being said about them.

That the Book of Acts is the work of one author, and not a mere collection of fragments put together by one compiler, is an essential part of that view which regards it as designed to exhibit the relations of parties in the primitive Church in the most favorable light, and to produce upon the reader's mind the most pleasing impression possible. Apart from this consideration, however, it appears to us that the unity of authorship has been clearly established, while we cannot but think that the attempts which have been made to distinguish the character and subject, and point out the limits of various documents supposed to be worked into the narrative, rest on very insufficient evidence. That the author availed. himself of pre-existing materials we do not doubt, for this is not only intrinsically probable, but is supported by the writer's own testimony to his mode of proceeding in the

composition of his Gospel; nor do we deny that certain general indications of the presence of such materials may be discovered. But that a Biography of Peter was used, that a Biography of Barnabas was used, that a distinct report of a missionary journey (in Acts xiii., xiv.) and a Life of Stephen were used, cannot, we think, be satisfactorily proved. It is possible, indeed, that there were such documents, and if so, they were no doubt consulted. But their existence is mere matter of conjecture, and, without some more positive evidence than can be adduced for it, is not to be taken for granted. Arguments, indeed, may be found in abundance for believing in the presence of these or similar documents. Some of the arguments, however, which have been actually urged, are extremely feeble; and there are none, it seems to us, of sufficient weight to withstand the mass of evidence which can be arrayed in defence of a different theory. And as we rely upon this evidence for the refutation of the documentary hypothesis, rather than upon its own inherent weakness, it is of less consequence that we cannot here examine it minutely. That the Book of Acts is the work of one author, may be considered, we believe, an established result of modern criticism. Here extreme theologians on either side may join hands, and the most orthodox defenders of verbal inspiration may afford to acknowledge the services of their heterodox brethren in rescuing the integrity of a canonical book from those who would rashly mutilate the Scriptures and multiply unnecessarily the organs of divine truth.

It has been just remarked, that the Tübingen doctrine in regard to the "design" of the Acts implies unity of authorship. And this is the case no less with the modified form of that doctrine which we have adopted. For if there is traceable through the entire work a tendency to represent facts in a peculiar light, and to permit a particular view of things to predominate over any other interest, this of itself precludes any such servile use of materials as the theory we have alluded to supposes. This argument, however, we can afford to set aside. There are other indications which satisfy us that the work is the independent composition of one mind, and that, so far as written materials have been employed, they have been

so worked into the body of the history as to have become quite undistinguishable. In the first place, then, we may observe, it is generally admitted that the book sets out with the statement of a plan, and that it ends only when this plan has been accomplished. The announcement of the plan is certainly not made by the author in his own person, but no one can doubt that he contemplated the command of the risen Christ to his Apostles, directing them to be his witnesses, "both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth," as prescribing also a rule for his own guidance. This accordingly is the plan which he follows. He begins from Jerusalem and ends with Rome. It shows how the Word was first preached in the land of its birth, proceeding outwards from the ancient seat of the true religion until it reached the capital of the heathen world, the seat of all falsehood and vice, which might fairly be regarded as at the very limit of the earth.

If the announcement and fulfilment of such a plan be not imcompatible with the simple selection and, arrangement of materials, there are not wanting throughout the work various references to preceding and following passages which go far to show that the writer of the parts where they occur must have been acquainted with the remainder of the book. When . we read, for example, in Acts xi. 16, the words, 'Iwávvns μèv ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι, ὑμεῖς δὲ βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, quoted from i. 5, and indeed with an express reference to their former occurrence in the words Εμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου, ὡς ἔλεγεν, can we have the least hesitation in affirming that the writer of the later passage was acquainted with the earlier one? There is also a plain reference in xi. 19 to viii. 4, so that we thus obtain three passages, in different parts of the book, claiming to proceed from the same author. It may be said, perhaps, that the words Oi pèv ovv diaσtapévres, in xi. 19, are the beginning of a new section, and consequently the intervening section may belong to a different document. But the account of the preaching of Philip in Samaria, of the visit of Peter and John to the same city, of the conver

*Acts i. 8.