ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. - A book of the New Testament, placed after the Gospels, which presents itself as a continuation of the Gospel of Luke.
OUTLINE:
I. The subject
II. The author
III. The purpose
IV. The date of composition
V. The sources
VI. The historical value, in particular of the discourses
VII. The so-called "Western" text
VIII. The decree of the Biblical Commission.I. THE SUBJECT
The title best attested in Greek manuscripts (πράξεις ἀποστολῶν, "acts or deeds of apostles") indicates that the book does not speak of all the apostles nor of the apostles in general, but of some of them. In reality, it treats especially of two: until chapter 12 Peter predominates, from chapter 13 to the end, Paul.The most obvious division of the parts seems to us to be the following:
1. Connection with the Third Gospel (1:1-2). Prologue with dedication to Theophilus and recall of Christ's Ascension (cf. Lk 1:1-4 and 24:44-53).
2. Beginnings of the Church in Jerusalem (1:12-8:3). Election of Matthias in place of Judas, descent of the Holy Spirit and first discourse of St. Peter. The healing of a lame man by Peter provokes a trial before the Sanhedrin, in which Gamaliel's good sense triumphs, securing the release of Peter and John. Within the community (where goods were freely held in common), the tragic end of Ananias and Sapphira, guilty of deceit and fraud, serves as a salutary warning. To assist the apostles in caring for widows and orphans of the Hellenists, seven deacons with Greek names are ordained. The first of these, Stephen, seals his preaching with his blood; Saul keeps the garments of the stoners.
3. Development of the Church in Judea and Samaria (8:4-11:18). The faithful, dispersed by persecution, broaden the field of evangelization: the deacon Philip preaches Christ in Samaria, where the apostles Peter and John, laying hands on the neophytes, confer the Holy Spirit, which manifests its presence through miracles; Simon Magus, who wishes to buy such power, is rejected by Peter. Meanwhile Philip converts and baptizes an Ethiopian proselyte on the road to Gaza. Saul the persecutor is miraculously converted on the road to Damascus. Peter performs conversions and miracles in Lydda and Joppa; at Caesarea he converts and baptizes the centurion Cornelius, opening the doors of the Church to pagans without requiring Jewish circumcision.
4. The Church extends to Antioch (11:19-13:3). There Barnabas and Saul indiscriminately accept Jews and pagans, and the faithful are called "Christians." Barnabas and Saul bring the collection from Antioch to the brethren in Jerusalem, where famine was added to persecution. Herod (Agrippa I, king from 37 [41] to 44) had put to death the apostle James the Greater and was holding Peter prisoner. Peter, miraculously freed, "went to another place" (12:17: Rome?). Herod dies tragically; Barnabas and Saul return to Antioch, where they are unknown, having been set apart by the laying on of hands.
5. First missionary journey of Paul (13:4-15:35). From Antioch to Seleucia, then to Cyprus, where he converts the proconsul Sergius Paulus: from this point (13:9) Saul is called Paul. At Perga Mark withdraws. Paul and Barnabas continue evangelizing in Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, which they visit again on their return, establishing elders there. From Syrian Antioch they go to Jerusalem to report on the conversion of pagans to the assembly of the Apostles, which sanctions freedom from the "Law" for converted pagans.
6. Second missionary journey of Paul (15:36-18:22). From Antioch Paul, having separated from Barnabas because of Mark, returns with Silas to visit the communities founded in Asia Minor. At Lystra he takes Timothy with him. Crossing Phrygia, the Galatian region and Mysia, they come down to Troas. At this point the narrative proceeds in the first person plural until the stage at Philippi (16:10-17). The mission continues through Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, where Paul remains 18 months and meets the proconsul Gallio (year 51 or 52). On the return journey he follows the itinerary Ephesus (Jerusalem?) - Antioch.
7. Third missionary journey of Paul (18:23-21:18). From Antioch Paul travels through the Galatian region and Phrygia, stays in Ephesus for nearly three years, then proceeds through Greece, where he remains three months. In the account of the return through Macedonia the first person plural reappears and continues through the interior via Troas, Miletus, Tyre, Ptolemais, Caesarea until the arrival in Jerusalem (20:5; 21:18).
8. Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea as a prisoner (21:19-26:32). Arrested in the Temple on the charge of profaning it, Paul defends himself before the people, secures respect as a Roman citizen from the tribune Lysias who wants to scourge him, defends himself before the Sanhedrin, and is then sent with a strong escort to Caesarea by the procurator Felix. There he remains a prisoner for two years until the arrival of the procurator Festus (year 60), from whose tribunal he appeals to Caesar (Nero).
9. Journey of Paul as a prisoner to Rome (27:1-28:31). This narrative is also in the first person plural: the Apostle as a prisoner, accompanied by the centurion Julius, on an Adramyttian ship touches Sidon, Cyprus, Myra of Lycia, then (transferred to an Alexandrian ship) Cnidus and some ports of Crete. Against Paul's advice the crew continues the voyage and the ship, battered by the storm, is wrecked, without harm to the persons, near the island of Malta. After wintering, the voyage continues with an Alexandrian ship to Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli; then, by land, on the Appian Way, to Rome, where Paul remains under custody for two years.
II. THE AUTHOR
Ancient and modern scholars agree in attributing the Acts to the same author as the Third Gospel.Clear evidence of this is provided by the similarities in vocabulary and style, medical technique, narrative method, as well as the connection between the two books' protagonists (the "we" passages). Since it is proven that Luke (q.v.), physician and disciple of Paul, is the author of the Third Gospel, the Lucan origin of the Acts is implicitly demonstrated. This conclusion, confirmed by the explicit attestations of tradition, which from the 2nd century onward is uninterrupted and unanimous, is accepted not only by Catholics but also by modern Protestants (Blass, Zahn, Plummer) and many rationalists (with Renan, Harnack).
The systematic denial of the Lucan origin of the Acts began with the Tübingen rationalist school of C. F. Baur (q.v.), who saw in it a tendentious work composed in a late period (2nd century) to demonstrate that there was no disagreement between the Petrine (Jewish-Christian) and Pauline (universalistic) currents. This system, more or less modified by the various followers of the school, was refuted even within the non-Catholic field by the conservative school of Ritschl and the ultraradical one of B. Bauer and the Dutch school (cf. A. Omodeo, in Enc. Ital., V [1930], pp. 268-71). Other systems, under the influence of Wellhausen's criticism (J. Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse der Apostelgeschichte, Berlin 1914), attempted to subdivide the sources of the book. Many hold that the work derives from the fusion of two sources of different value: one Jewish-Christian or Petrine, the other Gentile-Christian or Pauline. Of these systems, which destroy one another, often based on arbitrary hypotheses about the origin of the Church and hierarchy, E. Jacquier treats extensively (Les Actes des Ap., pp. XV-IX).
Let us touch upon the principal among the earliest testimonies of the tradition. The anti-Marcionite prologue of the 2nd century (in Lucan) attests: «Et tamen postremo scripsit idem Lucas Actus Apostolorum» (text by d. de Bruyne, in Revue Bénédic., 40 [1928], p. 197). The Muratorian Canon (2nd century), according to the best reconstruction, writes: «Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optimo Theophilo comprehendit quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur ecc.» (lines 34-39). St. Irenaeus reports many passages ascribing them to Luke, citing the discourses of Peter, Paul, and James as they are read in the Acts (Adv. Haereses, III, 12; PG 7, 892 sg.; etc.). Tertullian: «Porro cum in eodem commentario Lucae et tertia hora orationis demonstratur...» (De Ieiunio, 2, 10, cf. Act. 2, 15). Clement of Alexandria cites Acts 17, 23, «as Luke recalls in the Acts of the Apostles» (Stromata, 5, 12, 82; PG 9, 124). Origen: «Luke who wrote the Gospel and the Acts» (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, 25; PG 20, 585). Eusebius lists the Acts among the δωλοιογόμνου books, whose authenticity and canonicity were never in dispute (Hist. Eccl., III, 25; PG 20, 268).
Already from the 1st century and the beginning of the 2nd, there abound implicit testimonies in the Didache, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, and St. Justin (E. Jacquier, op. cit., pp. cci-cxiv).
The unity of the book, written by a single author, is evident from the fact that throughout all its parts the same characteristic vocabulary and phrases are used, and the same method of composition is observed. The stylistic differences noted in certain passages, especially in the early chapters where Semitisms abound, are easily explained by the different oral or written sources consulted.
The sections written in the first person plural («we») bear the original imprint of a diary: the author, without naming himself, thus indicates to the reader the episodes of which he was an eyewitness. Identical stylistic characteristics are noted both in the «we» sections and in the rest of the work. From these sections it emerges that the author was a companion of St. Paul, distinct from Silas and Timothy, who accompanied the Apostle to Rome and was with him during his first Roman imprisonment. This disciple, whom Paul mentions as present in Rome in his prison epistles, can only be «the beloved physician Luke» (Col. 4, 14; Philem. 24), unnamed in the Acts yet present, belonging to the educated class, and a faithful collaborator of Paul.
III. The Purpose
The work begins with the prophetic words of Jesus: «You shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth» (1, 8). The author intends to prove that the Apostles were indeed witnesses of Jesus first in Jerusalem, then in Samaria and the rest of Judea, and thereafter in other regions, even to the capital of the empire, always under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit.Beyond this primary purpose, which is evident from the way the material is presented in the Acts, St. Luke had other secondary aims: to confirm Theophilus and the readers in the faith (cf. Lk. 1, 4), to demonstrate Paul’s innocence before the accusations of the Jews, and also to highlight the doctrinal agreement between the two great Apostles Peter and Paul (cf. 9, 27; 14, 4-14; 21, 18).
IV. The Date of Composition
The final chronological indication, contained in the truncated ending of the book, allows us to glimpse the date when the work was published: «Paul dwelt for two whole years in his own hired house» (28, 30-31). Having concluded that two-year period of his first Roman imprisonment with Paul’s release (year 63), Luke entrusted his work in two volumes (the Gospel and the Acts) to the faithful, composed during his stay in Rome.If the Acts had been written later, for example after Paul’s martyrdom (year 67), the author, who sought to prove that the Apostles were witnesses of Christ, would have had to mention this supreme testimony of the Apostle. After Paul’s last journey to the East (II Tim. 4, 13, 20), the words he spoke to the Ephesian presbyters upon his return from the third missionary journey would not have gone unexplained: «I know that you all will see my face no more» (20, 25). Nor is there the slightest hint of the destruction of Jerusalem (year 70) or the outbreak of the Jewish War (year 66); nor is there any trace of Nero’s persecution that broke out in the summer of 64. Indeed, throughout the work there is a certain optimism regarding the emperor and his magistrates.
All these data converge to fix the date of the book in 63. St. Luke must have left it to the Romans as a reminder of Paul, who was about to bear witness to Christ «even to the uttermost part of the earth» (to Spain?).
The thesis of certain scholars (with Zahn) that when Luke wrote the prologue to the Acts, calling his Gospel πρῶτον λόγον («primum servorum», not πρῶτερον: priorem, first of two), he still had at his disposal so much material as to compose a third book, seems therefore unsustainable. This argument is fundamentally flawed because in Hellenistic Greek the superlative πρῶτος is used with the sense of the comparative πρῶτος.
V. The Sources
If Luke is the author of the Acts, he had excellent sources at his disposal. He knew many facts at first hand from following the Apostle. These are the ones contained in the «we» sections. If, as is probable, Luke was a member of the Antiochene Church, he could also have known personally the history of this community as recounted in his book: the «Western» text has a «we» section even at Antioch (11, 28, Codex Bezae D). From St. Paul he could have learned the salient features of his biography; much information he could have gathered from the companions of Paul’s travels (Silas, Timothy, Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus, etc.). For news about the Church of Jerusalem and the activity of St. Peter and the Twelve, he would have drawn from Mark, with whom he was in Rome, from James the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and from Philip the deacon, with whom he was in Caesarea (21, 8-10).Luke, described as «juris studiosus» in the Muratorian Fragment, must also have taken an interest in the archival documents containing the records of Paul’s trials. It is not improbable that he used a written source for the first part of the Acts. Some believe they can identify the author of this source as Mark. The literary similarity between this part and the Gospel of Mark is telling, since Mark wrote down the preaching of Peter (L. Dieu, Marc souree des Actes I-XV, in Revue Biblique, 29 [1920], pp. 555-569 and 30 [1921], pp. 86-96).
The hypothesis of Krenkel, Wendt, and others, who propose a late date for the Acts on the grounds that the author depended on the writings of Flavius Josephus composed toward the end of the 1st century, must be rejected. The coincidences regarding the tomb of David, the Beautiful Gate, and the famine in the time of Claudius are easily explained: both writers had access to good sources; nor are there lacking divergences, as in the case of Theudas and Judas (5, 36 and Ant. Jud., XX, 5, 1 sg.).
VI. The Historical Value
Once it is established that Luke is the author of the Acts and that he had excellent sources at his disposal, it follows that his historical work is worthy of credence. In confirmation, one may note its agreement with pagan, Jewish, and Christian sources.The author knows that in Cyprus there is a proconsul (ἀνθυπάτων) named Sergius Paulus (13, 7), that Philippi «is the leading city of that district of Macedonia and a Roman colony, governed by praetors» (16, 22), while Thessalonica is ruled by politarchs (17, 16), Ephesus by asiarchs as well as a proconsul and a grammateus (19), and Malta by a πρῶτος (28, 7): institutions attested by secular historians and inscriptions.
published: Paul dwelt for two whole years in his own hired house
Archaeological discoveries. The episode in chapter 19 (the silversmiths and the Ephesian Artemis) is illustrated by inscriptions and documents of the time, which present Artemis as “fallen from heaven,” Ephesus as a “neocóros” city, and the temple’s minister (E. Ceroni, Grande Artemide degli Efesini, in Scuola Cattolica, 60 [1932, 11], pp. 121–42, 203–26).
Jewish sources confirm the accounts regarding Herod Antipas, the two Agrippas, Bernice, and Drusilla. The author shows himself well informed about Jewish priests (Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias), the hierarchy of the Sanhedrin and its functions, the Jewish sects, and the Roman political-military regime in Palestine: he knows that the Roman procurators (Felix and Festus) normally reside in Caesarea, where there is a garrison with centurions and cohorts.
Christian sources, especially the Pauline Epistles, emphasize the historical character of our book. The Acts and the Epistles agree in presenting Paul as a Pharisee, son of Pharisees (26:5; cf. Phil 3:4), as a persecutor miraculously transformed into an apostle of Christ, who escaped from Damascus in a basket (2 Cor 11:32–33), persecuted in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra (2 Tim 3:10). In the Acts and the Epistles, Paul’s doctrine concerning Judaism coincides, both in principle—that faith, not the Mosaic law, justifies—and in practice—that it allowed Jewish-Christians to observe legal rites.
The verification of these and many other historical and doctrinal traits in the Acts provides full demonstration of the historical truthfulness of the book, both in its general outline and in its details.
The genuineness of the speeches (no fewer than 27), delivered in direct form and constituting the fourth part of the Acts (255 verses out of 1003), has been questioned. We are evidently dealing with saints: even the longest can be delivered in a few minutes. Independent critics consider them invented in accordance with the literary taste of Greek-Roman historians; but it is certain that the Acts reproduce at least the thought of those who speak in them with exactitude.
Luke attached great importance especially to the speeches that set forth Christian catechesis. In the prologue to his Gospel (1:1–4) he states that he writes “so that you may recognize the certainty concerning the discourses by which you were instructed,” and assures the reader of the reliability of his sources, naming among his informants eyewitnesses and “ministers of the word.” He therefore drew on the secure sources at his disposal (witnesses, archives) for the content of the missionary or apologetic discourses of Peter, Stephen, and Paul. Where written sources could be consulted, especially for the first part of the Acts (L. Cerfaux, La composition de la première partie du livre des Actes, in Ephem. theol. lovan., 13 [1936], pp. 667–691). The Jewish informants consulted by St. Luke were accustomed to preserve their teachers’ words in memory.
A notable confirmation of the historical truthfulness of the speeches is found in the fact that in the speeches of St. Peter one can detect several imprints of Petrine style, as it appears in his Epistles; and similarly, in the speeches of St. Paul, several imprints of Pauline style (P. De Ambroggi, I discorsi di S. Pietro negli A.: Realtà storica o finzione letteraria?, in Scuola Cattolica, 55 [1928, 1], pp. 81–97, 161–86, 243–64).
VII. THE SO-CALLED “WESTERN” TEXT OF THE ACTS
Among the families of manuscripts and citations that have transmitted the text, in the writings of Luke there stands out the one called “Western,” because it is represented predominantly by witnesses from the West. It is found in the Greek-Latin codex of Beza (siglum D) of the 6th century, in the ancient Latin versions, usually in the citations of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. The qualification “Western,” however, is not exact, because this family is also partly connected with the ancient Syriac versions. It presents strange variants in comparison with the text of other families, especially that represented by the 4th-century codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.In addition to the “we” section at Antioch (11:28), there are various additions: for example, “seven steps” outside the gate of St. Peter’s prison (12:7). Above all, the form of the decree of the Apostolic Council is very different (15:20, 29). Other notable variants: 16:11, 35; 18:19, 27; etc.
To explain these differences, some critics (with Blass and Zahn) believe that Luke composed two editions of his work, one longer and less polished in Rome (of Western type), the other shorter and more elegant dedicated to Theophilus (of Eastern or Antiochene type). Against this hypothesis it suffices to observe that the double redaction of the Apostolic decree (15:20, 29) cannot derive from the same author. The “Western” form (D), in which the eating of strangled animals is not forbidden and the golden rule of charity is prescribed, reveals itself to be composed when the Judaizing controversy was already past. Therefore this form, at this point, cannot have been redacted by Luke. Many variants of this family are explanatory additions: some might derive from an ancient witness and reproduce a good tradition. But they cannot be traced back to the same author of the Acts. Probably the intentional corrections are due to a redactor not Western, but Eastern (perhaps Egyptian, thinks M.-J. Lagrange), who revised Luke’s text toward the end of the 1st century or at the beginning of the 2nd.
VIII. THE DECREE OF THE BIBLICAL COMMISSION
As a conclusion to the objective results of literary criticism regarding the Acts, we summarize the directives contained in six responses issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission on June 12, 1913.1. Luke the Evangelist is the author of the book entitled Acts of the Apostles. Proofs: the unanimous tradition dating back to the early Church, internal criteria, the similarity between the Third Gospel and the Acts, especially the connection between the two prologues.
2. There is only one author of the Acts. Proofs: the language, style, manner of narration, unity of purpose and doctrine in all parts.
3. The unity of authorship is not contradicted but confirmed by the sections written in the first-person plural.
4. The date of composition is not much later than the two-year period of St. Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. One cannot infer from the truncated ending of the book that the author intended or actually wrote another lost volume.
5. The historical value is confirmed by the fact that Luke had at his disposal and consulted excellent sources, such as the founders of the Palestinian Church and St. Paul; further confirmation is given by the agreement with the letters of St. Paul and with historical documents.
6. The historical value remains, despite the fact that the book contains accounts of supernatural events, speeches that seem adapted to circumstances, apparent discrepancies with some historical document, biblical or profane, or with other assertions of the same book or of other sacred books (AAS, 5 [1913], p. 291; L. Méchineau, Gli A. degli Apostoli e le epistole pastorali, Rome 1914; L. Pirot, Les Actes des Ap. et la Commission Biblique, Paris 1919).
