Acts
Actus ApostolorumIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
Book of the New Testament, placed after the Gospels, which presents itself as the continuation of the Gospel of Luke.
Haydock
St. Luke, who had published his gospel, wrote also a second volume, which, from the first ages, hath been called the Acts of the Apostles. Not that we can look upon this work, as a history of what was done by all the apostles, who were dispersed in different nations; but we have here a short view of the first establishment of the Christian Church, a small part of St. Peter's preaching and actions, set down in the first twelve chapters, and a more particular account of St. Paul's apostolical labours, in the following chapters, for about thirty years, till the year 63, and the 4th year of Nero, where these acts end. (Witham) --- St. Luke, after giving us the history of the life, actions, miracles, sufferings, and instructions of Jesus Christ, in his gospel, here give us the life and actions of the apostles, the primitive Christians, and particularly all that relates to St. Paul, by way of an appendix. And what could he give more useful or more important to the Church, whether we consider the noble examples he offers for our imitation, or the excellent lessons for our improvement in spiritual wisdom? He describes in this book the accomplishment of many things that had been predicted by Jesus Christ, the descent of the Holy Ghost, the prodigious change effected in the minds and hearts of the apostles: we behold here the model of Christian perfection, in the lives of the first Christians, and the practice of the most eminent virtues, in the conduct of the blessed apostles; the miraculous operations of the holy Spirit, in the conversion of the Gentiles, and this wonder of wonders, the foundation of the holy Catholic Church, the establishment of the spiritual kingdom of God, promised through all the inspired oracles, and the daily addition which the Lord made to his Church, of such as should be saved. (chap. 2:47.; chap. 15:5.) --- St. Luke has entitled this work, the Acts of the Apostles, that we may seek therein, says St. Chrysostom, (tom. 5. hom. xii.) not so much the miracles that the apostles performed, as their good deeds, and eminent virtues. In appearing to give us a simple history, says St. Jerome, this holy physician furnishes us with as many remedies, to cure the maladies of our souls, as he gives us words for our instruction. (Ep. 103.) --- It is thought, that his principal design was to oppose to the false acts of the apostles, that were then in circulation, a true and authentic history of the actions of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Catholic Church has ever held this work in such great esteem, that it has not only superseded every pretended history of the kind, that preceded it, but also every ascititious one that has succeeded it. (St. Augustine, de consen. Evang. lib. IV. ch. VIII.) --- It is very probable, that St. Luke wrote his acts at Rome, whilst he was near St. Paul, during the time of his confinement, for he remained with him till his deliverance. There can be no doubt that the work was written in Greek, and in a more pure and polished style, than we find in any other writing of the New Testament. St. Luke generally cites the Septuagint, apparently because he was ignorant of the Hebrew; and because, St. Paul more frequently having to preach to the Gentiles, preferred citing the sacred text in the language known in common, sooner than in Hebrew, which was understood by few. See St. Jerome, in Isai. vi. and again, tradit. Hebr. in Genes. 45. --- The Catholic Church has ever admitted this book into the canon of Scriptures; though many heretics, says St. Augustine, have rejected it. (ep. 253. and lib. de util. cred. 7.) St. Chrysostom, (hom. i. in Acta) complains, that this book, in his time, was not sufficiently attended to, which he esteems as no less useful than the gospel itself. Erasmus, in his preface to the Acts, says, that he had, in the first instance, some notion of adding this book to St. Luke's gospel, as they are both addressed to the same person, and the Acts are not inconsiderable part of the sacred history; for, as the gospel shews the seed committed to the earth, and sown in the field, the Acts represent it as taking root, shooting up, and producing its fruit. --- The Acts have not uniformly held the same place in the Testament which they hold at present. Sometimes this book was inserted immediately before the book of Revelation, as St. Augustine and others insinuate. At other times, we find it between the epistles of St. Paul and the canonical epistles. Some persons express their surprise, that St. Luke, who was the inseparable companion of St. Paul, has not given the account of St. Paul's martyrdom. St. Chrysostom (hom. i. in Acta) gives an excellent solution: "the apostles, and other apostolic men, wrote little, but did a great deal." The martyrdom of St. Paul, that took place in the public theatre of Rome itself, and before the eyes of all the Christians of this capital of the world, could not remain unknown, but the voyages and other circumstances of his life, too useful to the Church to be suffered to pass into oblivion, called for the exertions of St. Luke's eloquent pen, which, though admirably accommodated to an historic design, is not wholly free from Hebraisms, and Syriacisms. The Acts of the Apostles include the history of the infant Church, from the day of our Lord's ascension into heaven, till the deliverance of St. Paul, two years after his arrival at Rome, that is a space of thirty years, from the year 33, to the year 63 of Jesus Christ, or from the 19th year of Tiberius, till the 9th year of Nero. This golden book paints, as it were, the face of the primeval Christian Church; it places before our eyes the singular providence of God, in founding and protecting his Church, and how the apostles, (in spite of every opposition of the armed power of the whole world, to oppress the gospel,) without any foreign assistance of learning, credit, power, or expectation of any temporal advantages, but relying solely on the power of truth, and the virtue of the holy Spirit, laboured in the propagation of the faith, without intermission, till the power of God, under the ignominy of the cross, became eventually triumphant. See Wm. Whitfield Dakins, LL.D. in his prolegomena. --- It may be divided into four parts. In the first eight chapters, St. Luke gives the origin and progress of the Christian Church among the Jews. From the 9th to the 16th, he shews how widely it was spread among the Gentiles: from the 16th to the 20th, the diverse peregrinations of St. Paul, till his last journey to Jerusalem: and from the 20th to the end, with what patience he underwent innumerable sufferings, trials, and indignities, with what magnanimity he made head against the violent surges of persecution, and his astonishing equanimity under every possible calamity. --- This account, which is not continued beyond his two years' imprisonment in Rome, contains a general sketch of the history of the Church during the epoch it describes of thirty years. The leading facts therein contained are, the choice of Matthias to be an apostles, in the room of Judas; the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; the preaching, miracles, and sufferings of the apostles at Jerusalem; the conversion of St. Paul; the call of Cornelius, the first Gentile convert; the persecution of the Christians by Herod Agrippa; the preaching of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, by the express command of the Holy Ghost; the decree made at Jerusalem, declaring that circumcision, and a conformity to other Jewish rites and ceremonies were not necessary in Gentile converts; the miraculous cures performed by the handkerchiefs and aprons which had only touched the body of St. Paul; whilst the latter part of the book is exclusively confined to the history of St. Paul, of whom, as we have already seen, St. Luke was the constant companion for several years. --- The place of its publication is doubtful. A learned prelate advances, that the probability appears to be in favour of Greece, though some contend for Alexandria, in Egypt. This latter opinion rests upon the subscriptions at the end of some Greek manuscripts, and of the copies of the Syriac version; but the best critics think, that these subscriptions, which are also affixed to other books of the New Testament, deserve but little weight; and in this case they are not supported by any ancient authority. But the sentiment of this learned prelate, does not bias the opinion we gave at the beginning, and which we find confirmed by Alban Butler, in his life of St. Luke, vol. x. p. 432. where he says, "that St. Luke attended St. Paul at Rome, whither he was sent prisoner from Jerusalem in 61. The apostle remained there two years in chains; but was permitted to live in a house which he hired, though under the custody of a constant guard; and there he preached to those who daily resorted to hear him. From ancient writings and monuments belonging to the Church of St. Mary in via lata, which is an ancient title of a Cardinal Deacon, Boronius, in his Annals ad an. 55. and Arringhi, in his Roma Subterranea, lib. iii, chap. 41. tell us, that this Church was built upon the spot where St. Paul then lodged, and where St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles."
Douay 1582/1609
THE ARGVMENT OF THE ACTES OF THE APOSTLES. 10 paragraphs
THE Gospel hauing shevved, hovv the Ievves most impiously rèiected Christ (as also Moyses and the Prophets had foretold of them:) and therefore deserued to be reiected themselues also of him: novv folovveth this booke of the Actes of the Apostles ( Hier. in Catal. vvritten by S. Luke in Rome the fourth y•r• of Nero, An. Dom. 61) and shevveth, hovv notvvithstanding their desertes, Christ of his mercy (as the Prophets also had foretold of him) offered him selfe vnto that vnvvorthy people, yea after that they had Crucified him, sending vnto them his tvvelue Apostles to moue them to penance, and so by Baptisme to make them of his Church: and vvhiles al the Tvvelue vvere so occupied about the Ievves: hovv of a persecuting Ievve he made an extraordinarie Apostle (vvho vvas S. Paul) and to auoide the scādal of the Ievves (to vvhom onely him selfe likevvise for the same cause had preached) sent him, and not any of his Twelue by and by, who were his knovven Apostles, vnto the Gentiles, vvho neuer afore had Heard of Christ, and vvere vvorshippers of many Gods, to moue them also (for, that likevvise the Prophets had foretold) to faith and penance, and so by Baptisme to make them of his Church: and hovv the incredulous Ievves euery vvhere resisted the same Apostle and his preaching to the Gentiles, persecuting him and seeking his death, and neuer ceasing vntil he fel into the handes of the Gentils: Act. 13, 46, 1•, 6. •9, 9. 28, 28. that so (as not onely he euery vvhere, but also the Prophets afore him, and Christ had foretold) the Gospel might be taken avvay from them, Mat. 21, 23. and giuen to the Gentiles: Esa. 1. euen from Hierusalem (vvhose reprobation also by name had been often foretold) the headcitie of the Iewes, Luc. 13, 33. vvhere it began, translated to Rome the headcitie of the Gentiles. Al this vvil be euident by the partes of the booke: vvhich may be these sixe.
First, hovv Christ Ascending in the sight of his Disciples, promised vnto them the Holy ghost, fortelling that of him they should receiue strength, and so begin his Church in Hierusalem: and from thence dilate it into al that Countrie, that is into al Iurie: yea and into Samaria also yea into al Nations of the Gentiles, be they neuer so far of. You shal receiue (saith he) the vertue of the Holy ghost cōming vpon you: and you shal be witnesses vnto me in Hierusalem, & in al Iurie, and Samaria, and euen to the vtmost of the earth. Chap. 1.
Secondly, the beginning of the Church in Hierusalem, accordingly. Chap. 2.
Thirdly, the propagation of it consequently into al Iurie, and also to Samaria. Chap. 8.
Fourthly, the propagation of it to the Gentiles also. Chap. 10.
Fifthly, the taking of it avvay from the obstinate Ievves, and geuing of it to the Gentiles, by the ministerie of S. Paul and S. Barnabee. Chap. 13.
Sixthly, of taking it avvay from Hierusalem it selfe, the headcitie of the Ievves, and sending it (as it vvere) to Rome the headcitie of the Gentiles, and that, Act. 25. 11. in their persecuting of Paul so far, that he appealed to Caesar, and so deliuering him after a sort vnto the Romanes: Luc. 23, 1. as they bad before deliuered to them also Christ him selfe. vvhere as S. Peters first cōming thither, vvas vpon an other occasion, as shalbe said anone. Of vvhich Romanes and Gentiles therfore, the same S. Paul being novv come to Rome (the last Chap. of the Actes) foretelleth the obstinat Ievves there, Act. 28, 28. saying: Et ipsi audient. You vvil not heare, but, they vvil heare. that so the prediction of Christ aboue rehearsed might be fulfilled: And euen to the vtmost of the earth. And there doth S. Luke end the booke, not caring to tel so much as the fulfilling of that vvhich our Lord had foretold (Act. 27, 24) to S. Paul, Thou must appeare before Caesar. because his purpose vvas no more but to shevv the nevv Hierusalem of the Christians, vvhere Christ vvould place the cheefe seate of his Church, as also in deede the Fathers and al other Catholikes haue in al ages looked thither, vvhen they vvere in any great doubt: no lesse then the Ievves to Hierusalem, as they vvere appointed in the old Testament. Deut. 17, 8.
And so this Booke doth shevv the true Church, as plainely, as the Gospel doth shevv the true Christ, vnto al that do not vvilfully shut their ovvne eies, to vvit, this to be the true Church, vvhich beginning visibly at Hierusalem, vvas taken from the Ievves, and translated to the Gentils (and namely to Rome) continuing visibly, Rom. 11, 25. and visibly to continue hereafter also, Vntil the fulnes of the Gentiles shal be come in: that then also Al Israël may be saued. and then is come the end of the vvorld. Mat. 24, •4. For so did Christ most plainely foretel vs: This Gospel of the Kingdom shalbe preached in the vvhole world, for a testimonie to al Nations. and then shal come the consummation. For the conuersion of vvhich Nations and accomplishing the fulnes of al Gentiles, the foresaid Church Catholike, being mindful of her office. to be Christes witnes euen to the vtmost of the earth, doth at this present (as alvvaies) send preachers to conuert and make them also Christians: Tertul. de pr•••e. vvhereas the protestants and al other Heretikes do nothing els but subuert such as before vvere Christians.
And this being the Summe and scope of this Booke, thus to giue vs historically a iust sight of the fulfilling of the Prophets & Christes prediction about the Church: it is not to be marueiled at, vvhy it telleth not of S. Peter cōming to Rome: considering that his first cōming thither, vvas not, as S. Paules vvas, by the Ievves deliuerie of him, working so to their ovvne reprobatiō, but vpō another occasion, to vvit, to confound Simon Magus. Eus. Hist. li. 2. c. 12. 13. For vvho also seeth not, that it maketh no mention of his préaching to any Gentiles at al, those fevv onely Act. 10 excepted, vvho vvere the first, and therefore (lest the Gentiles should seeme lesse cared for of God, then the Ievves) Peter being the Head of al, vvas elected of God, Act. 15. 7. to incorporate them into the church, as before he had done the Ievves. God (saith he) among vs chose, that by my mouth the Gentiles should heare the vvord of the Gospel, and beleeue. and S. Iames therevpon: Simon hath told how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. Act. 15, 14. But othervvise (I say) here is no mention of Peters preaching to any Gentiles: no nor of the other eleuen Apostles. Vvil any man therfore inferre, that neither Peter, nor the other Eleuen preached to any Nation or citie of the Gentiles? No. the meaning of the Holy ghost vvas not to vvrite al the Actes of al the Apostles, no nor the preaching of Peter and his, to the Gentiles, but onely to the Ievves: thereby to set out vnto the vvorld, the great mercy of Christ tovvard those vnvvorthy Ievves, and consequently their most vvorthy reprobation for cōtemning such grace and mercy. as also on the other side to shevv, hovv readily the Gentiles in so many Nations, Rom. 15, 19. vvere conuerted by one Apostle onely, vvho From Hierusalem euen to Illy•icum, replenished the Gospel of Christ. And this parting of the vvorke so made by S. Peter vvith the rest, Gal. 2, 9. doth S. Paul him selfe touche: That vve vnto the Gentiles, and they vnto the Circuncision. Neuerthelesse before his cōming to Rome, not onely vvas the Church come to Rome (as it is euident Act. the last chap.) there plāted by S. Peter and others (as likevvise by S. Peter it vvas planted in the first Gentils, before that S. Paul began the taking of it avvay from the multitude of the Ievves, and the translating of it to the multitude of the Gentils) but also so not able vvas the same Church of Rome, that S. Paul vvriting his Epistle to the Romanes, Rom. 1, 8. before he came thither, saith: Your faith is renovvmed in the vvhole vvorld. and therefore they vvith the rest of the Gentiles, be that Nation vvhereof Christ told the Ievves, Mat. 21, 43. saying: The Kingdom of God shal be taken avvay from you, & shal be giuē to a Nation yelding the fruites thereof.
As before vve noted the Gospels, as they are read both at Mattins and Masse, through out the yere, in their conuenient time and place: so the bookes folovving (as also the bookes of the old Testament) are read in the said Seruice of the Church, for Epistles and Lessons, in their time & place, as hereafter shal be noted in euery of them. See the very same order and custome of the primitiue Church, in S. Ambrose ep. 33. S. Augustine Serm. de Tempore 139, 140, 141, 144. S. Leo Ser. 2 & 4 de Quadrag. & Ser. 13 & 19 de Pass. Domini. S. Gregorie in his 40 homilies vpon the Gospels.
Cornely
CAPUT IV. DE APOSTOLORUM ACTIBUS. 8 11. — De Actinin Apostolorum authentin 46 paragraphs
83. — Quintus N. T. liber historicus IIpzEei &xoctóAov. (Acta. vel Actus Apostolorum) nominatur, et in prooemio Theophilo illi inseribitur, cui auctor iam « primum tractatum de omuibus, quae coepit lcsus facere et docere usque in diem, quo assumtus est. » se dedicasse asserit.
Titulum ab ipso auctore operi esse praefixum, S. CArysostomus pro certo supponit !, atque revera, quamvis moderni interpretes plerique contrariam sententiam teneant, rem ita se habere nulla est iusta dubitandi ratio. Antiquissimum enim illum esse non tantum omnes graeci codices confirmant, qui alium non cognoscunt, sed vetustissimae quoque versiones, inter quas nonnullae ipsam graecam vocem IIgzEei retinuerunt?. Quamprimum deinde liber noster ab ecclesiasticis scriptoribus sive in Occidente sive in Oriente diserte laudatur, idem titulus solus apparet; imo ad quam antiquitatem ascendat, luculentissime ex eo apparet, quod iam ante medium saec. 9. apocryphorum fabricatores eo sint abusi?. Operis praeterea argumento tam apte respondet , ut auctor, quum operi historico titulus ex more esset praefigendus, aptiorem sane invenire non potuerit; de Apostolorum enim rebus gestis integer liber tractat. Nec omnium quidem Apostolorum nec aliquorum omnes res gestas (radi, verissimum utique est; omnium enim nomina ab initio tantum ponuntur, atque illa, quae, sive ante Spiritus S. adventum sive paullo post, ab omnibus sunt gesta, paucissimis absolvuntur; statim autem ad paucorum tantum Petri maxime, res transitur, imo inde a c. 13. antiqui Apostoli fere omnino disparent, atque solus nominatur Paulus. Attamen genuinus titulus completam Apostolorum omnium aut nonnullorum historiam nequaquam promittit; ad optimorum enim codicum fidem legendum non est ai wpdew tàv àmoctoAov, sed omissis articulis moXseus a50610Àt6vy 5 ; quo autem sensu verba haec sint sumenda prooemium definit, quod librum nostrum secundam partem Evangelii Theophilo dicati esse docet. Quemadmodum igitur in priore illa parte ne publicae quidem vitae dominicae historiam completam dare voluit Evangelista, sed illa sola facta et dicta Domini retulit, quibus ad Theophili fidem confirmandam indigere sibi videbatur : ita in altera hac parte nonnullas res gestas aliquorum Apostolorum, quas eidem fini promovendo aptas iudicavit, narrandas sibi elegit.
lam ex eisdem verbis etiam elucet, eundem esse Actuum et tertii Evangelii auctorem, neque unquam hac de re dubitatum est, donec nostra aetate aliqui ex « criticis », qui solis internis rationibus originem librorum definire volunt, Actus a variis scriptoribus compositos esse assererent eosque auctori terlii Evangelii abiudicarent*. At tanta per totum librum est linguae stylique unitas ac tam arcta singularum partium rerumque omnium connexio seriesque, ut eum integrum uni auctori deberi luce sit clarius. Tanta quoque inter Evangelium et Actus est linguae stylique affinitas ct similitudo, ut longe plurimi « eritici » utrumque opus eidem auctori attribuant?. Accuratiore igitur huius quaestionis tractatione praetermissa ?, Actus aetate apostolica conseriptos esse atque S. Lucae auctori iure attribui historicis testimoniis ostendemus.
n'a jamais été sérieusement contestée. Les préfaces qui sont en tete des deux cerils. la (dédicace de l'un et de l'autre à Théophilc, la parfaite ressemblance du style et des idécs fournissent à cet égard d'abondantes demonstrations ». Diu antica codem modo iam Credner (Einl. Halle 1836. p. 361 : « Die Apostelgeschichte bezeichnet sieh selbst àls cine Fortsctzung des dritlen. Evangeliums, und. die gleichmássige Destimmung beider Schriften, die gleichmássige Eigenthümlichkeit in Sprache und Ausdruck, der gleichmássige Fortbau auf Paulinischem Grunde und Boden, das glciehimassige Streben nach Genauigkeit bci offenbarem Manzcel an kritische Takt? bewcisen unwiderlegbar, dass der Verfasser des dritten Evangcliums, der Arzt Lukas, vom Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte in keiner Weise geschieden werden darf v.
85. — Inde ab apostolica aetate Actus Apostolorum a Christianis pro libro divinitus conscripto esse receptos Euseb auctoritate constat. Qui diligentissimus antiquitatis investigator, quum illos inter 7X ópoXoyos- Usvz. referat, clarissime docet non tantum in vetustis Ecclesiae monumentis nihil se invenisse, quod de eorum authentia dubium qualecumque posset provocare, sed e contrario omnium antiquarum ecclesiarum testimonia eis favere!.
Fatendum quidem est, ex PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM operibus, quae superstita ad nos pervenerunt, eadem cum cerlitudine, qua Evangcliorum, Actuum authentiam et divinam inspirationem non demonstrari ; attamen non desunt omnino, quac illis librum nostrum cognitum et pro auctoritate fuisse ostendant. Quin S. C/emens Rom., si Corinthios, quod « libentius darent, quam acciperent », verbo doininico laudavit, illud ex Actibus hauserit, nemo prudens addubitabit; «qui enim illa verba a Clemente ex apocrypho desumta esse cum Zeller contendere voluerit, is prius, ni fallimur, demonstrare debebit, Clementem apocrypho libro esse usum in illoque verba laudata revera esse contenta?. Item S. Barnabas et Doctrinae. Apostolorum auctor, quum Christianos quidquam proprium habere vetarent in omnibusque cum proximo communicare iuberent, illam omnino primorum fidelium hierosolymitanorum vitam prae oculis habuerunt, quae in Actibus describitur?. S. 79natz? Mart.
a. « Prudens iudicium » (kritischen Takt) nempe in Luca desiderari censet. Credner (1. c. p. 269), quia in Actibus dies quidem indicentur, sed menses et anni non definiantur, atque maxime quia ubique res extraordinariae et miraculosae narrentur, ita ut christiana religio non propagetur nisi praecedentibus miraculis (« Fast überall gehen der weitern Verbreitung der christlichen Lehre Wunder voraus »). Num forte fastos consulares aut eponymos alhenienses elc citare debuit S. Lucas, ut iudicium suum criticum demonstraret? At, ni fallimur, ecclesiae, quibus suos Actus destinavit, chronologiam triginta illorum annorum, quos liber complectitur, lam accurate tenuerunt, ut accuratiore illa annorum definitione non indigerent. Quae aulem de 3niraculis narratis obiicit Credner, in obiiciente quidem impietatem, sed minime in Luca defeclum iudicii demonstrant. Cfr Fr. Blass Acta Apost. Goetlingen 1895. p. 8 sqq.
quoque , S. Polycarpi , auctoris epistolae ad Drognetum verba quaedam tam prope ad ea, quae in Aclibus leguntur, accedunt, ut casui fortuito similitudinem attribuere non liceat*. Etsi autem allegationes proprie dictae in apostolicorum Patrum scriptis non inveniantur, allusiones tamen hae, quae facile augeri possunt, quanto in honore habuerint Actus satis videntur ostendere.
A Patribus apostolieis ad PATuEs MEbII sAEC. 2. progredientes solum testem habemus S. [ustinum. M., qui, quum in maiore sua Apologia Apostolos Dominum in coelum ascendere vidisse et postquam virtutem e coelis missam accepissent ad omne hominum genus profectos esse tradat, sine ullo dubio ad Actus alludit, in quibus solis haec referuntur. Item si in Cohortatione ad Graec. Moysen « ona Aegyptiorum diseiplina eruditum » appellat, haec ex solis Actibus haurire potuit. Atque iterum, si Christum pessébifem praedictum esse refert, ea repetit, quae S. Paulus Actibus testibus coram Festo dixerat?. At deficientibus orthodoxorum Patrum directis testimoniis haeretici et ethnici eiusdem aefatis indirectum saltem Actibus nostris reddunt. Vehementer iam Tertullianusin Marcionem invehitur, quod Actus reiccisset, idque ob dogmaticas causas factum esse demonstrat *. Ebionitas, qui Pauli Apostoli praedicationem respuerunt, nostrum quoque librum recipere noluisse perspicuum est; at canonicos nostros Actus aliis, « in quibus plurima impietatis eorum inerant vestigia », supplevisse testatur S. Epiphanius*, id quod certissime non fecissent , nisi corum iam tempore in tota Ecclesia Actus Scripturis essent adnumerati. Eodem modo Severranos, quorum parens est Tatianus, « Paulum Apostoluin maledictis persequentes non tantum eius epistolas repudiasse, sed ne Apostolorum quidem Actus recepisse » iradit Eusebius?. Man:chaeos S. Augustinus haud raro carpit, quod Actus non receperint, in quibus adventus Spiritus S. praedicetur, at sectae illius auctor non commemorctur?. Valentini demum discipulum Theodotum ad suam haeresin stabiliendam abusum esse Aclibus auctor est S. Epiphanius ?, Quibus haereticis addamus testimonia apocryphi Testamenti Beniamint , quod non semel ad Actus alludere omncs concedunt!!, atque ethnici Lucianz, qui, quum Christianis ob altare Deo incognito Athenis erectum illuderct, satis ostendit, eius tempore Actuum librum inter Christianos esse admissum.
85. — Immediate post S. Iustini M. aetatem abundant directa omnium Ecclesiarum testimonia, quibus Actuum authentia et divina auctoritas probatur. S. CÀrysostomus quidem in exordio homiliarum suarum in Actus se suspicari fatetur, multis auditoribus vel ipsam huius libri exsistentiam esse ignotam '!. At verba haec oratorio potius modo prolata nimis non sunt premenda; ex eodem enim Chrysostomo habemus, « patres statuisse, ut Actuum liber in festo pentecostes legeretur »?. Quare ex prioribus verbis nibil sequitur, nisi in ecclesia constantinopolitana, in qua homilias suas in Actus habuit, eundem usum, qui Antiochiae, non viguisse , ideoque Constantinopolitanis minus quam Antiochenis librum Aetuum fuisse eognitum. Ab altera enim 9. saeculi parte in omnibus eeclesiis non tantum erat receptus, sed etiam unanimi consensu Lucas eius auclor appellatur.
Circa an. 170. in ecclesia romana auctor freginient Muratoriani « Lucam optimo Theophilo omnium Apostolorum acta uno libro comprehendisse » asserit?. Circa idem tempus in ecclesia gallicana. Vzennenses et Lugdunenses fideles testantur « secundum exemplum Stephani , perfectissimi martyris, suos quoque martyres Deum pro suis persecutoribus esse precatos : Domine , ne statuas illis hoc peccatum ». Atqui Lugdunensium episcopus , qui in eadem persecutione martyrium obiit, fuit S. Photinus, senex nonagenarius et S. Polycarpi olim discipulus et amieus, ita ut testimonium hoc lugdunensis ecclesiae nos ad immediatos Apostolorum discipulos reducat *. Ceterum alterum eiusdem ecclesiae testem insignem habemus S. [reiaeum, cui tam persuasum est Lucam auctorem esse Actuum, ut ex prima persona, qua interdum auctor utitur, demonstraverit, Lucam individuum socium et comitem Pauli fuisse ?. Ecclesiae africanae fidei nos docet Tertillianus , qui non tanfum frequenter. Actuum testimoniis utitur, sed diserte etiam Lucam eorum auctorem nominat, imo fuse eorum authentiam contra haereticos adstruit. « Quam Scripturam, inquit, qui non recipiunt, nec Spiritus Saneti esse possunt, qui necdum Spiritum possint agnoscere disceutibus missum, sed nec Ecclesiam defendere, qui quando et quibus ineunabulis institutum est hoc corpus, probare non habent » etc *.
Quemadmodum in tolo Occidente, ità in toto Oriente de Actuum au. llientia et Luca eorum auctore exeunte saec, 2. unanimis est consensus. Asiaticarum ecclesiarum fidem iain ex. Viennensium et Lugdunensium epistola cognovimus, quippe quae « ad fratres per Asiam et Phrygiam degentes » sit scripta, et ex Photini et Irenaei testimoniis, qui fideni suam in Asia imbiberant apud S. Polycarpum. Alexandrinae autem ecclesiae. testimonium referunt. C/eiiens. Alex. et. Origenes, qui addito Lueae nomine satis frequenter librum nostrum allegant ?.
lam. unde unanimis hie. eousensus, ut omnes per orbem. ecclesia: exeunte saec. 9. Lucae auctori Actus attribuant? Si coniecturis dumtaxat auctorem , qui nusquam sese nominat, cognoscere voluissent, procul dubio, quemadmodum hodie rationalistae, ita antiqui quoque Patres alii Timotheo, alii Silvano, aut Tito, aut alteri Pauli socio librum attribuissent, nec in unum nomen onmes conspirassent, Ex certa. igitur et apostolica traditione libri auctorem et divinam inspirationem cognoverunt, alque ideo etiam eorum successores, quorum testimonia afferre supersedemus, eadem cum unanimitate Actus canoni librorum sacrorum inseruerunt et Lucam eorum auctorem esse tradiderunt 5.
86. — Argumentis historicis alia interna, quibus Lucas Actuum auctor esse demonstretur, addere quidem possumus; illis autem hoc loco immorari opus non esse arbitramur. Etenim quia Actus cum tertio Evangelio unum opus constituunt!, omnia testimonia et argumenta illa, quibus supra (35. 36 p. 122 sqq.) tertii Evangelii authentiam vindicavimus, etiam Actuum authentiam comprobant; illis autem, quae infra de libri nostri indole et fine dicemus, intimum duorum librorum nexum magis confirmabimus. Quare ca sola brevi examini subiiciemus, quibus alii Lucam non esse libri nostri auctorem demonstrare conati sunt, alii ulterius progressi Aclus ne a. socio quidem Pauli compositos essc audacissimi asseruerunt.
1.) Ad nostram usque aetatem interpretes ad unum omnes cum antiqua, traditione Actus Lucae auctori attribuentes illis quoque in partibus, in quibus prima persona pluralis adhibetur ?, eum de se ipso, Pauli comite individuo, loqui arbitrati sunt. Ut autem aliquid novi dicerent, rationalistae nonnulli illas partes Lucae abiudicare voluerunt, atque alii quidem auctorem libri partes illas ex epistola quadam vel opere Timothei aut Silvani aut Titi ila recepisse statuerunt, ut ne verbulum quidem mutare sit ausus, alii autem integrum librum una cum illis partibus Timotheo aut Silvano aut Tito attribuerunt ?, Argumenta autem, quibus nixi Lucae partes illas abiudicant, haee sunt. Ev illis enim pericopis elucere opinantur scriptorem , antequam Paulus primas suas epistolas ad. Thessalonicenses et. Corinthios dederit, unum. ex praecipuis Apostoli sociis fuisse; nihilominus in epistolis illis Lucae non lil imenlio, Timotheus autem. el Silas nominantur; atque in epistolis quoque a Paulo. captivo ad. Coloss. et Philem. seriptis ultiino. paene loeo. post alios cooperatores nominatur Lucas, id quod certe factum non esset, si ex intimis Apostoli amicis fuisset. Deinuin si Lucas per. multos annos Philippis labo- "asseb (d quod. supponendum est, si. partes illae, in quibus prima persona adhibetur. à Luca sunt. conscriptae), Panlus in. sua epistola ad Philippenses procul dubio eum nominassel; iam vero in illa epistola Lucain iterum omittit, sed Timotheum nominat *.
Mirum profecto est, quod homines eruditi levissimis hisce ratiuneulis nixi autiquam traditionem reiicere sint ausi. Qui vel semel tertium Evangelium et Actus atteutus perlegerit, facile eorum auctorem deprehendet esse. scriptorein peritum et sollertem, qui fontibus suis, si scriptos habuisse admiltatur, sine iudicio non sit usus; quare non tantum arbitraria sed absurdà quoque est eoruin sententia, qui illum partes istas ex altero opere, quin ad. pronomen adhibitum attenderet, transsuinzisse statuunt ?. Quid , quod nec Timotheus nee Silvanus scriptor illarum partium esse potest? Elenim a Timotheo disertis verbis sese distinguit; postquam enim Tiinotheum cum aliis sex sociis Paulum comitatum esse retulit, in hune modum pergit : « Ai, quum praecessissent, sustinuerunt 29s "T'roade » (Act. 20, 5. 6. , l'imotheus ergo illo pronomiue zs non comprehenditur. Nec minus evidens est, Silvanum illo non compreliendi ; illis enim in versibus, in quibus de Paulo et Silvano solis sermo est, usus illius pronominis cessat (Act. 16, 17 sqq. . Quo autem cum iure Titus illarum partium auctor statuatur, tim parum apparet, ut ne uni quidem sententiam hane persuadere potuerit eius inventor. lam argumenta supra allata prorsus esse futilia, nemo non videt. Eo tempore, quo Paulus Thessalonicensibus et Corinthiis scripsit, Lucas, qui Philippis remanserat, cum eo non eral ; cius izitur mentionem facere non poluit. Ad Golossenses autem et Philemoneim seribens eorum, qui illis magis erant cozniti, salutationes, uti facile concipitur, prinio in loco posuit; quare ininerito ex ordine salulationum ad dignilaleur salutantiunm concluditur. Demum quomodo probare volunt adversarii, ueani ema Paulo Buizse, quando epistola ad Philippeuses seripla est, quum uon desi, quae contrarium suadeant 7?
Lors sapra S3. n. 6 pe 316 sq. Cl. etian SN. Chrys; in Ascenss Doin. et prine; Vet. hoi, 3. 4M. 32, 280), qui salis fuse id demonstrat; Phot. Amphil. Quaest. 123 4M. pub. 216).
3o Nehleiermaeher Kil. ius N. V. Berlin 1551. p. 317 squ. unus ex prinuis fuit, «qui partes illas a. "liuiothieo conseriptas Lueaia. non niutatas in librum suiun recepisse stalint, sequaeesque. habuit inter lies De Wette uEinl. Ed. 6. $ 115. b.) Bleek (stud. u. hrit. 1836. p. 1026 sqq. et Einl. Ed. 3. p. 3395. sqq); Pavidson (Introd. II. p. 273 sq.). Deinde Mayerhoff (Einl. in dic petrin. Sehriften. Hamburg 1835. p. 1 2501 Timotheum integri libri fecit auctorem. Sehianbeek autem (Ucber die Quellen dec Schriften des Lukas. I. Die Quellen der Apostelzeseh. Darmstadt 1817. p. C68 sqq. partes illas Silvano attribuit, atque demum Krenkel il'aulus der Apostel der Heiden. Leipz. 1869. p. 2L4 sq.) Titum earum auctorem esse coniecit. Operae pretium non est omnium corum nomina afferre, qui arbitrarias hasce sententias evolvendas et defendendas susceperunt.
5. Ipse Jtenan Les Apótres, Introd. p. NI. hae in quaestione nobiscum consentit : « Le troisiéme Evangile et les Actes forment un ouvrage trés bien rédigé, compose avec réflexion ct méme avec art, écrit «'une méme main et d'apres un plan suivi. Les deux. ivres réunis font un ensemble absolument du mene style, présentant les mó- mes locutions favorites et la méme facon de citer l'Ecriture. Une faute de rédaction aussi choquantoe que celle dont. il s'agit serait inexplicable. On est dono invinciblement porté à conclure que celui qui a écrit ]a fin de l'ouvrage en a écrit le commencement et que Ie narrateur du tout est eclui qui dit nous aux passages précités ».
i. Nos quoque libentes concedimus circa idem fcre tempus epistolas ad Coloss. ct iul Philipp. esso conscriptas, atque ob banc ipsam rationem Lucam cum Daulo non fuisse contendimus, quando Philippensihus scripsit Apostolus. Quem enim in cp. ad Coloss. vocat « medicum carissimum » (Col. 4, 143), eum codem fere temporc illi: adnumerare non potuit, qui « quae sua sunt, quaerunt, non quae Tesu Christi » (Philipp. 2. 19-21). — Duo alia argumenta, quae Pe Wette aliique addunt (De Wette Einl. $ 111. Anm, d.), non maioris, sed minoris sunt momenti. Socii Pauli, inquit, ab auctore Actuum nominari solent, Lucas autem nec c. 16. nec alibi nominatur; neque admitti potest, eum Troade sese Paulo adiunxisse, quum 16, 10 intimo nexu cum praecedentibus versibus cohacereat. At in quarto Evangelio, quamvis aliorum Apostolorum nomina ponantur, Ioannis nomen silentio premitur; nihilominus De Wette quartum Evangclium Ioanni attribuit. Procul dubio Theophilus primique Christiani, quibus 8. Lucas suos libros destinavit, optime sciverunt non alium cesse eum, qui in ultima Actuum parte de sc aliisque sociis Pauli loquens prima persona plurali utebatur, atque eum, qui in prooemiis Evangelii et Actium de se solo primaim personam singularem adhibuit. Quare ctiam, quam primum in decursu Actuum prima persona plur. adhiberi cocpit, monito peculiari non indisuernnt, quo Lucam. Troade se Apostolo adiunxisse comnoscecrent.
3.) At nec Lucam noc ullum Pauli discipulum aut testem ocularem auctorem Actuum esse, si De Wette fidem mereretur, docerent a.^ ea, quae de Paulo referuntur, quoniam alia epistolis paulinis contradicant , alia non satis accurate sint narrata, alia. sint omissa; b.) nonnullae prioris partis narrationes , quae, quum historicae non sint, auctorem iuniorem prodant, qui ex aliis libris suam narrationem composuerit *. Percurramus singula.
a.) Contradictionem inter Actus interque epistolas paulinas non adesse. facillime ostenditur, dummodo prae oculis habeamus, Actuum auctorem inutegram Pauli vitam nnrrare noluisse, sedilla sola facla elegisse, quae ad finem suum, de quo infra sermo erit, obtinendum necessaria. vel utilia. iudicavit (83. 81 p. 310. 336 sqq.".
Prima contradictio inter Act. 9, 19-28 et inter Gal. 1, 17 - 19 adesse dicitur.
Etenim 8. Lucas narrat Paulum post conversionem suam Damasci euim diseipulis « per dies aliquot » (Zuspae zvvas. mansisse tct. 9. 19,; eum vero, « quunt implerentur dies mulli » (44£2ot íxavxt) ob ludaeorum persecutionem relicta Dainasco lerosolyma venisse ,9.23-26;; qua in urbe, quum Christiani eum limerent, « non credentes, quod esset discipulus », a Barnaba ad Apostolos adductum ct cum iis familiariter conversatum esse; quia autein contra. ]udaeos disputasset, ab illis ad necem quaesitum urbem reliquisse (9,27 - 30). lam S. Paulus ipse narrat, se post conversionem suam non slatim lerosolyma ad antecessores suos Apostolos rediisse, sed in Arabian. profectuin ct iternin Dainascum reversum post tres demum annos lerosolyma venisse « videre Petrum », apud illum quidei quindecim diebus se mansisse, alium autem Apo- *loloruim nion. vidisse practer lacobum fratrein Dornini Gal. 1,17-19 . Quo: nodo duae hae narrationes inler se. pugnare dicantur, quia. altera. potius alteram complet, equidem uon. video, uisi forte quis pulet, utrümque integram historian narrare voluisse. 8. Lucas eniin duplicem commorationeni diimnascenam clarissime distinguit. siquideui prius Paulum « aliquot dies », deinde « multos dies » Diinascei rnansisse asserit : cum Paulo igitur consentit, qui inter duplicem istam cominorationem iter arabicum inserit, quod Lucas, quia ad. eius finem non faciebat, silentio praetermisit. Quare hunc in modum disponenda est narratio : Post conversionem Paulus paucos duintaxat dies Damasci commoratus in Arabiam se recepit; quo ex itinere, quod forte maiorem trienuii illius, de quo loquitur Paulus, partem absuinsit, Damascum reversus « multis diebus » cum ludaeis disputans eorum iram in se concilavit, ita ul fugere coactus, quum inimicis suis instigantibus milites Aretae regis portas civitatis custodirent (2 Cor. 14,32^, ex fenestra per murum detnissus sit. Da- "iraseo aulem lerosolyma se contulit, ut videret. Petrum. Triennium iun ab eius conversione erat elapsum, quare nuntii, quos immediate postea de perseeulore converso lerosolyma allatos esse concedimus, oblivioni dari potuerant, atque Christiani hierosolymitani , qui per triennium de co nihil audierant, falsos illos rumores fuisse. putabant; ideoque quum post triennium lerosolyma inexspeetatus advenisset, « 202 credentes (97, n161£v0vtes, quod esset discipulus », eum timebant, donee a Barnaba. ad. Apostolos, i. e. ad Petrum et Facobuin. Alphaei, fratrem Doriini, * qui soli ex Apostolis tuni in urbe videntur adfuisse, adductus et ab iis receptus esset. Ibi denuo cum Iudaeis hcllenislis disputans. post quindeciin. dies £ujrere coactus est; Aptissime omma hac ralione conciliari perspicuum est.
Altera contradictio inter. 1 ZAess. 3,1.2. et inter Act. 17,14 sq. et 18,5. adesse dicitur. ''hessalonicensibus enini scribit Paulus se solum Mhenis remansisse atque "'imotheum ad. ipsos confirmandos niisisse. Lucas auteni narrat. Paulum, qui solus Beroca. Athenas venisset, Silae et "l'iinotheo Berocae relictis mandasse, ut quain celeriter ad se venirent (Act. 47, 11.402. interea eum Athenis in synagoza cum fudaeis el in foro cum philosophis ac demum coram. Areopazo. disputasse (17, 16 sqq.,, demum Corinthii profectum esse ibique ad. eum reversos esse. "imotlieum ct. Sila. (18,1 -5 . 'fota iterum diffieullas disparet atque omnia aptissime couciliantur. si dua relationes in unam coniungantur. Paulus scilicct solus Beroea Athenas advectus, quoniam magnos ea in civitate fructus se collecturum speravit, Timotheunm et Silam aceersivit. Postquam vero advenerunt, de macedonicarum ecclesiarum statu certior factus Athenis solus remanere discipulosque suos in Macedoniam ablegare satius duxit. Timotheus ergo Thessalonicam, Silvanus in. aliam civitatem macedonicam profecti sunt; unde demum post aliquot hebdomades reduces Paulum, qui interea Athenas reliquerat, Corinthi invenerunt. S. Lucas autem, quia Silas et Timotheus Athenis Paulo adiumento non fuerant, rationem non habuit, cur illos Athenas ad Paulum venisse narraret.
b.) Contradictio igitur Actus inter et epistolas paulinas nulla adest, at nonnullas narrationes, utpole nimis breves, non sufficere dicunt neque satis esse accuratas. Quo praesertim trahitur, quod Actuum auctor Paulum « galaticani regionem pertransisse » referat ( Act. 16,6; 18,23), quum tola epistola ad Galatas demonstret, eum diu illa in regione esse commoratum ?. Praeterea quartum iter Pauli hierosolymitanum unico versu absolvitur (18.22), de biennio, quod Caesareae captivus Paulus peregit, paucissima traduntur (21,24 - 27), et satis abrupta est libri conclusio (4c. 98,30.3U. Breves esse illas relationes neque curiositati nostrae sufficero fatemur; at quomodo inde deducatur, eas u teste oculari aut a socib. Pauli non esse. scriptas, nemo prudens vidobit. Num interpretis est deflnire, quid auctor scribere debuerit, an auctoris diiudicare, quid ad finem suum obtinendum utile sit vel necessarium?
c.) Idem responsum tertiae obiectioni sufficit, quae multa ab Actuum auctore omissa esse contendit. Nullum enim est dubium, quin aliqua Lucas omiserit, quae ex paulinis epistolis supplere possumus, multo plura, quae in paulinis indicata quidem sunt, sed chronologice, quoniam Paulus tempus non indicat, Aclibus inseri nequeunt, plurima demum, quae etiam a Paulo silentio prorsus sunt praetermissa. At tantuin abest, ut ideo auctorem vituperare aut Lucae librum abiudicare liceat, ut gratissimo potius animo illa accipiamus, quae Deus per eum nobiscum communicare dignatus est '^.
d.) Ratio demum, cur narrationes aliquae prioris partis negentur esse historicae, alia non est, nisi quod miracula nonnulla maiora referantur; id enim indicant textus a De Wette adnotati, in quibus de dono linguarum sermo est. Donum autem hoc in Actibus ita describitur, ut cum illis, quae Paulus (4 Cor. 14,2 sqq.) de eodem tradit, plene consentiat; nuin ergo etiam Pauli descriptioni historicam fidem denegabimus?
Sed haec hoc loco sufficiunt; infra enim de historica auctoritate Actuum disseremus.
Apótres. Introd. p. XIV.) : « Nous montrerons bientót, que dans deux ou trois cireonstances ses principes de conciliation l'ont porté à fausser gravement la biographie de Paul?; il commet des inexactitudes (Act. 17, 14-16; 18, 5. et 1. Thess. 3, 1. 2). et surtout des omissions vraiment étran:zes chez un disciple de ce dernier (1 Cor. 15. 32; 2 €or. 1, 8; H1, ?3 sqq. ; Kom. 15, 19; I9, 3 sq.). Il ne parle pas d'une seule des épitres; il resserre de da. facon là. plus surprenante des exposés de premiere imporiance (Act. 16, 6; 15, 22. 23 en comparant l'epitre aux Galates). Méme dans la partie oà il a dà éire eoimnpagnon de Paul, il est quelquefois singuliérement sec, peu informé, peu éveillé; par exemple le séjour à Césaréce est laissé dans l'obscurité ». Similia habet 4. Jülicher Einl. in as Neuc 'Test. 1894. p. 266.
8 42. — De Actinn fiue et historica auctoritate,
87. — Quin S. Lucasin Aetibus seribendis, quippe quos ipse alteram Evangelii sui. partem constituere dicat, eosdem, quos in priore libro, lectores prae oculis habuerit eundemque, quem in illo, finem sibi proposuerit, non est quod dubitemus. Evangelium autem Theophilo dedicatum illarum ecclesiarum gratia eum seripsisse demonstravimus, quae a Paulo fundatae ex. Budaeis et ex etlinicis eonversis coaluevant, ut saa. Secundum. Renan (I. e. p. NXX sqq) 8. Lucas adülteravit biographiam Panli 1. quia eam. ininediate post conversionem Damasco leiosolyina venisse dicat (cf. 8, 19 599.; 27, 17 sqq. et GalL 1, 11 3q9.), 2.: quia ei attribuat iter. aliquod hierosolymitanum (Act. 11. 30; 12. 23^, quod Paultrs ipse se fecisse neget (Gat. 1, 21-2. 1), 3.) quia in concilio hierosolymilano plenatn concerdiam Paulum inter et antiquos Apostolos adfuisse asserat (Ac£. 0o, 1. $q40.*, quamquam Paulus integram historiam illius concilii prorsus alio modo narret (Gal. 2, 1 uq. Prinam obiectionem supra iam solvimus; Renan adulteravit textum Actuum, ut Lucam adulterationis reuma dcelarare posset: de duabus aliis infra recurret serino (88 p. 331 $q4.).
lutem per lesum omnibus hominibus allatam esse omnimoda cum certitudine cognoscerent. Quia igitur in Evangelio scribendo verba S. Pauli : Evangelium virtus. Dei est, Indaeo. primum et Graeco quodam modo illi ob oculos versabantur, ideo ea praesertim facta dictaque. dominica elegit, quae salutis universalitatem clarius demonstrabant, In Actibus autem ex primitivae Ecclesiae. historia eorundem verborum veritatem ostendere aggressus est; revera Evangelium virtufemi suam salutarem inter Iudaeos primum manifestasse docet, quamprimum Apostoli, postquam. Spiritum S. acceperunt, lerosolymis et in. Iudaea. Domini doctrinam propagare coepissent; deinde vero idem Evangelium , post quam Petrus, Apostolorum princeps, primum ethnicum, centurionem Cornelium, baptismo in Ecclesiam recepisset. atque Apostoli Barnabae missione ecclesiam. Antiochiae ex ethnicis conversis collectam approbassent, per. Paulum, quem gentium Apostolum singulari modo sibi elegerat Dominus, inter ethnicos Galatiae, Asiae, Macedoniae, Graeciae non minorem manifestasse virtutem.
Quo sensu safis apte dici quoque potest, finem scriptoris eum fuisse, ut verba, quae ultima ante suam. ascensionem. Dominus ad. Apostolos fecit, impleta demonstraret : « Accipietis virtutem supervenientis Spiritus S. in vos, et eritis milii testesin lerusalem, et in omni Iudaea el Samaria, et usque ad. ultimum terrae »?. Ex brevi enim argumenti conspectu, quem statim trademus, satis elucebit, verba haec summam quandam totius libri complecti atque eodem ordine, quo prolata sunt, narratione demonstrari impleta.
Neque nostra sententia ab ea, quam propsuit S. CArysostomus , multum discedit, qui « argumentum et finem praecipuum huius libri censet esse demonstrationem resurrectionis Domini, qua credita omnia alia facile succedent »?. Quoniam enim ultimus finis scriptoris in co fuit , ut lectores suos in fide, quam orali institutione acceperant, confirmaret consolidaretque, efficaciorem eorum, quae in Evangelio iam retulerat, atque praesertim resurrectionis dominicae demonstrationem et confirmationem afferre non potuit, quam miraculosam illam doctrinae Christi propagationem inter Iudacos, quibus crux Christi erat scandalum, et inter ethnicos, quibus cadem crux erat stultitia. lunc enim sensum esse verborum $. Doctoris ipse indicat, si in eadem homilia Evangelia dicit esse historiam eorum, quae Christus fecit et dixit, Actus vero historiam eorum, quae alius Paracletus fecit et dixit^.
Magna cun subtilitate egregius nostrae aetatis interpres librum Actuum apologiam quandam S. Pauli esse ostendere conatus est eum in finem a S. Luca conscriptam, ut Apostoli corani Neronis tribunali accusati causam praevia accusationum refutatione prepararet romanosque. magistratus, eoram quibus eausa. agebatur, Apostolo amicos. et benevolos redderet*. Trium enim criminum ait Paulum accusatum esse : quod seditiones inter Iudaeos ubique concitasset , quod sectae Nazarenorum esset caput (sz9rTocri-z; 72 7v Na?" agaiow aioícso;), quodque templum hierosol ymitanum violasset"; tertium crimen coram magistralibus ethnicis non magni momenti fuisse ; duo alia vero eo spectasse, ut integra religio christiana reipublicae romanae noxia atque periculosa esse demonstraretur; ideo S. Lucam facta, quae narraret, ita elegisse, ut seditiones illas ab Iudaeis ipsis motas esse doceret Paulique in eis innocentia patefacta christianam religionem periculum reipublicae non afferre ostenderet.
Illud quidem non negamus, Actuum librum etiam apologiam quandam Pauli esse, neque quidquam obstat, quominus S. Lucas praeter primum illum finem, quem indicavimus , secundarium apologeticum prae oculis habuisse dicatur. Illa enim, quae Pauli innocentiam et culpam Iudaeorum in omnibus illis seditionibus demonstrant, magna cum diligentia exposuit?, neque pauca attulit, quae Apostolum a romanis magistratibus honore affectum et innocentem declaratum esse ostendunt?. At scriptorem christianos lectores prae oculis habuisse, ex integro libro evidentissime apparet; quare ethnicis magistratibus apologia haec non erat destinata. Etenim ut taceaumus, quam plurima in libro contineri, quae nec directe nec indirecte neque ad Paulum neque ad Christianismum coram ethnicis magistratibus defendendum quidquam conferant, quot alia in orationibus Apostolorum et in toto libro leguntur, quae ab ethnicis non intelligebantur! Quae in initio libri de ascensione Domini, de electione Matthiae, de missione Spiritus S., de discordiis inter Palaestinenses et Hellenistas conversos etc narrantur, ea omnia et multa alia partim Evangelium cognitum et creditum supponunt, partim ad defendendum Paulum nihil iuvant. Quidnam ex omuibus illis orationibus, quas Petrus post Spiritus S. missionem, Stephanus in synedrio , Paulus in synagoga pisidiensi habuerunt, ethnici lectores intellexissent, quum integrae Veteri Testamento innitantur?? Quod si quis vero baec omnia a S. Luca, ut praecipuum suum finem occultaret, libro inserta esse putaret, astutiam calliditatemque ei affingeret, quae num sacro scriptore sit digna ipse videat.
Ethnieis igitur lectoribus librum suum S. Lucas non destinavit; nihilominus autem apologeticum quendam finem libro non prorsus abiudicamus; at hanc Pauli apoloziam Christianis romanis destinatum fuisse arbitramur, inter quos non tantum aliqui « de Caesaris domo », sed historia teste non omnino pauci ex primis reipublicae familiis fuerunt. Scimus autem ludaeos Apostolum zentium calumniis suis ubique terrarum esse persecutos; nou temere igitur coniicimus, illos etiam, ut nobilium istorum neophytorum, qui eum idololatria amorem patriae suae non deposuerant, animos contra Paulum excitarent, eum velut inimicum reipublicae romanae diffamasse, qui continuis, quas provocasset, seditionibus imperii pacem et securitatem perturbaret. Ad quam calumniam refutandam S. Lucas libro suo aptissime illa inserere potuit imo debuit, quae seditiones omnes ab Iudaeis provocatas, Paulum autem a romanis magistratibus ubique honoratum demonstrabant.
88. — Alios prorsus fines Actuum auctori affinxerunt moderni rationalistae ac praesertim Neotubingiani, quorum sententias silentio praeterire non licet, quia si verae essent, actum iam esset de libri nostri fide historica ac proinde eius divinitate et canonicitale*. Postquam Schneckenburger primus fuse demonstrare conatus est, Actus eum in finem esse conscriplos, ut Pauli apostolica dignitas apostolicumque inler ethuicos ministerium contra iudaizantes vindicaretur !, Neolubingiani eadem in via ulterius progressi id unum intendisse auctorem statuerunt, ut duas, quas in primitiva Ecclesia adfuisse fingunt, partes, Petrinos scilicet iudaizantes el Paulinos universalistas, inter se conciliaret et in unum corpus coniungeret; quem finem ut atlingeret, auctorem dicunt integram primilivae Ecclesiae historiam ad instar scriptorum fabularum romanensium tractasse, non tantum factis historicis circumstanliisque necessariis silentio praetermissis, sed aliis quoque corruptis et alteratis, aliis novis ficlis, ita ut non nisi scverissitna crisi vera a falsis discernantur; hoc unum enim eum studuisse, ut Petrum aliosque antiquos Aposlolos inter et Paulum differentiam vel dissensum non adfuisse ostenderet; ideo in priore libri parte Petrum simillimum Paulo depingi, et in altera Paulum Petro simillimum; eadem miracula, quae in. priore parte Petro, in altera Paulo a) De Luca eauctorilate historica supra (32 p. 151 sqq.) iam egimus, in. quantum ei scien - tiam non defuisse ostendimus; a Neotubingianis autem eius infegritas in dubium vocalur vel polius negalur; haec igitur sola hoc loco vindicanda remanet.
attribui; Petro antiquisque Apostolis primam ethnicorum admissionem adscribi, Paulo autem non tantum legalium rituum observantiam affingi, sed tantam quoque iudaicarum praerogativarum reverentiam, ut Iudaeis primis ubique et semper in itineribus suis apostolicis Evangelium afferret; ideo etiam historiam Concilii hierosolymitani ita referri, ac si plenus inter antiquos Apostolos et inter Paulum adfuisset consensus perfectaque concordia, quamvis eiusmodi consensum plane defuisse nec ullum decretum in favorem Ethnicochristianorum latum esse paulinae epistolae demonstrent etc ?.
Arbilrariae fictioni toluin hoc systema inniti, vix opus est ul dicamus. fitoniin sive ante Concilium apostolicum sive post illud inter primitivos Iudaeochristianos fuisse, qui ethnicos, nisi per circumcisionem populo Israel essent inserti, ad baptismum recipiendum adinittere nollent, aut admissos, ut perfecti lierent Chrisliani, ad Legis observantiam obligare vellent, certissimum quidein est; id enim paulinae epistolae demonstrant neque negat Actuum auctor; at Petrum aut ullum Apostolum in eadem persuasione fuisse, postquam Apostolorum princeps coelesti visione edoctus fratres suos de iminediata ethnicorum in Ecclesiam admissione certiores reddidit, modernum est commentum , quod tantum abest, ut idoneo testimonio historico fulciatur, ut illis ipsis epistolis paulinis, quas genuinas agnoscunt rationalistae, prorsus refellatur?. Opus igitur non erat, ut Actuum auctor Petrum Paulo aut Paulum Petro simillimum fingeret, quuni nulla inter eos esset doctrinae dissensio, quamvis in praxi aliquando dissentirenl. A limite igitur totum hunc finem, quem Actuum auctori affingunt Neotubingiani, iure respuimus; facile autem ex libro ipso etiam ostenditur, eum gratuito prorsus et erronee statui.
Namque Actuum scriptor, quem astutum impostorem fuisse blasphemant adversarii, si Indaeochristianos ad Pauli apostolicam dignitatem agnoscendam adducere voluisset, cur statim a principio demonstrationis huius viam sibi obstruxisset? Refert enim immediate post ascensionem, quando de novi Apostoli electione agebatur, a Petro velut conditionem ad apostolicum munus subeundum necessariam esse stabilitam continuam cum Christo conversationem « a baptismate loannis usque in diem, qua assumtus est ». Num forte hanc conditionem in Paulo adfuisse Lucas demonstrat? Postquam iam Pauli conversionem retulit, alium sermonem Patri affert, in quo « praeordinati lestes resurrectionis » vocantur illi, « qui manducaverunt et biberunt cum Christo, postquam resurrexit a mortuis » (Act. 1,21; 10,41); num hanc condilionem in l'aulo adfuisse demonstrat ?
Neque magis intelligitur, quomodo aliquis, qui unquam Actus legit, eorum auctorem iudaizanles el Ethnico-christianos conciliare voluisse crediderit ; qui enim conciliare partes voluerit, ab omnibus procul dubio abstinebit, quae alterutrius partis animos offendant. lam vero totus liber Iudaeorum obstinationem praedicat velut occasionem et causam, propler Quam ethuicis iam tum allatum sit Evangelium; Petrus iam in primis suis orationibus Iudaeos accusat, quod ipsi Iesum Nazarenum virum virtutibus et signis et prodigiis a Deo approbatum interfecerint, quod lesum sanctum et iustum ante faciem Pilati negaverint et. viruni petierint homicidam donari sibi, auctorem vero vitae interfecerint; Stepbanus eos dura cervice et incircumcisis cordibus et auribus proclamat , qui semper Spiritui S. restiterint: Paulus dübique ab iis reiectus tandem gravissimo Isaiae vaticinio in menfem revocato; « [ncrassatum est cor populi huius ct auribus graviter audierunt et oculos suos compresserunt, ne forte videant oculis et auribus audiant et corde. intelligant et sanem eos » illis inclamat : « Notum ergo sit vobis, quoniam gontibus missum est hoc salutare Dei, et ipsi audient ». Quomodo liber, qui praciudiciis iudaicis tam parum parcit. iudaizantium animos conciliare potuit 1?
Similitudo deinde. quae inter Petri et Pauli miracula ab auctore conficta dicitur *, re accuratius considerata in eo solo dicenda est adesse, quod uterque miracula patraverit; omnes enim omnium miraculorum circumstantiae tam diversae sunt. ut quomodo inter se conferantur vix appareat. Quae enim est similitudo, si Ananias etSaphira. « quia S. Spiritui mentili erant », subita inorte correpti ante Petri pedes ceciderunt, et si Elymas magus, quia « non desiit subvertere vias Domini rectas », a Paulo caecitate punitur? Quae similitudo inter Tabithae mortuae resuscitationem factam poer Petrum, ct iuvenis Eutychi resuscitationem factam per Paulum? Quid, quod Stephani lapidationem in priore libri fictam esse contendant, ut haberetur parallelismus cum Pauli lapidatione Lystris facta, quod verba « Paulus, qui et Saulus » inserta dicant, ne nominis mutatione Paulus Petro videretur esse inferior, quod Cornelium centurionem ad pedes Petri salutationis causa procidentem comparent cum Lystrensibus, qui Paulo et Barnabae vclut diis sacrificia offerre voluerunt *? At singula prosequamur necesse non est, quoniam, uti diximus, tota similitudo in eo est, quod uterque Apostolus dono miraculorum fuerit ornatus.
Quod ab Actuum auctore Petro antiquisque Apostolis prima ethnicorum in Ecclesiam admissio gratis et arbitrario attribuatur, id non tantum asserendum, sed probandum erat ; documenta autem historica, quibus id demonstretur, « criticis » prorsus deesse manifestum cst, nisi quis forte praciudicia rationalistica pro argumentis historicis recipere voluerit. At Paulum dicunt in Actibus prorsus alium depingi, quam ex epistolis cius cognoscitur; mirantur nimirum, quod Paulus ab lacobo Min. monitus, ne patrias leges contemnere videretur, votum in templo solverit, quod Timotheum circumciderit, quod in synedrio se Pharisaeum esse professus sit, quod ubique lIudacis primis Evangelium obtulerit. Nunquam nimirum videntur legisse, quod Paulus ipse testatur se ludaeis tamquam ludacum esse factum, ut Iudaeos lucraretur, et iis. qui sub Lege erant, quasi sub Lege esset, ut eos qui sub Lege erant luerifaceret, quod in epistola ad Philippenses se « llebracum ex Moebraois, secundum Legem Pharisacum » proclamat, quod non sernel in suis epistolis vix verba satis fortia invenit, quibus tenerrimum suum erga contribules suos amorcm et studiosissimum suum desiderium salutis corum exprimat.
Sed iam ad Concilium apostolicum veniamus, quo veluti ariele utitur schola « critica », ut Actuum auctorem conciliationis gratia historiam primilivam adulterasse demonstret ?. Omnino concedimus, de eodem facto loqui Lucam, quando historiam Concilii apostolici refert (Act. 13), et Paulum, quando in epistola ad Gal. illa narrat, quae in altero cius itinere hierosolymitano ? acta sunt; at duae istae relationes tantum abest, ut inter se pugnent, ut amice consentiant et se mutuo compleant, dummodo ad diversos fines, quos uterque scriptor prosecutus est, animus advertatur. Revera enim Actuum auctor historicum agit, ideoque ea, quae ad publicam Ecclesiae historiam pertinent, sola refert; Paulus auteni, qui contra iudaizantes suos adversarios consensum et concordiam praedicationis suae cum antiquorum Apostolorum, ad quorum auctoritatem semper provocabant, doctrina demonstrare voluit, illis omissis, quae omnibus nota erant, ea, quae privatim cum praecipuis Apostolis egit, sola referenda iudicavit. Ideo f,ucas, utpote historicus, externam Concilii occasionem narrat (Act. 15, 1.2.), Paulus autcm privatam, qua ad iter illud permotus est, ralionem addit, quia haec iam doctrinae suae divinam originem demonstrat (Ga. 2,2. « secundum revelationem »). Ideo Lucas praeter Paulum et Barnabatn. alios quidem Antiochia ad Concilium missos esse narrat, neminem aulem, quia ad finem suum non pertinebat, nominat (xai xwez dÀÀot i£ abcvov), Paulus vero Titum nominat (cuunagaAa6o xa Tícov scilicet praeter alios:, quia ex eo solo, quod socium incircumcisum itineris hierosolymitani adhibuit, Galutis palam fiebat, antiquos Apostolos non repulisse Ethnicochristianos non circumcisos. Ideo Lucas ea, quae privatim inter Apostolos acta sunt, obiter tantum attingit (Act. 15,6 « convenerunt Apostoli et seniores videre de verbo hoc »), ut fuse ea enarret, quae in publica sessione gesta sunt (Act. 15,7 sqq.), Paulus vero publica sessione etdecrelo, quippe quae ad rem suam non facerentet omnibus iam nota essent, silentio praetermissis privata sua cum « aestimatis » (ol oxouvtt;) colloquia refer, quae omnibus Apostolis eandem fuisse doctrinam demonstrant. Sed uccuralior huius quaestionis expositio interpretibus relinquenda est; quae autem diximus, sufliciunt ad viam indicandam, qua adversariorum cavillationes refelluntur '*, Si vero decretum Concilii apostolici a Paulo prorsus ignorari asserant, id illo quidem sensu verum est, quod nullibi disertis verbis ab eo commemoretur; at satis aperte in priore ad Corinthios epistola ab eo supponitur alque extra dubium est, quin saec. 2. etiam in ecclesiis ab Apostolo gentium fundatis sit observatum ; quare indirecte saltem ea conlirmantur, quae de promulgatione decreti per Paulum facta Actuum auctor narrat !!.
Cornelius a Lapide
Preface to the Benevolent Reader 6 paragraphs
From the Twelve Prophets of the Old Testament I pass to as many of the New, namely the twelve Apostles, whose Acts St. Luke writes, whose Epistles they themselves wrote, as also the Apocalypse, which, as it is their own, so it is the unique prophecy of the law of the Gospel. These truly are the Seers of Christ, the Evangelists of God, the Doctors of truth, the Dictators of faith, the Legislators of the world, the Princes of the Church, indeed the animated heavens, Angels and Archangels, who declare the glory of God, whom the Royal Prophet, foreseeing in spirit, exclaims in admiration: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the whole world. I shall be brief after my manner, so that the Acts of the Apostles, seven Canonical Epistles, and the Apocalypse I may embrace in the same Volume: for I reserve the four Gospels for the third Volume of the New Testament (1). I prefix a Chronotaxis, or brief series of times, because that will bring great light to each, and thus will everywhere offer a torch to readers.
Approbation of the Ordinary Censor
This exposition and Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, prepared by the Reverend Father Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide, of the Society of Jesus, Theologian and Professor of Sacred Letters in the Roman College, is learned and pious, and adorned with many flowers of various Authors. Wherefore it will wonderfully serve both to confirm the doctrine of the Roman Church and to provide knowledge of the rites used in the primitive Church, so that it may serve both the learned and the unlearned: Which I testify, on the 18th of February, in the year 1626, I who wrote and subscribed these things.
EGBERTUS SPITHOLDIUS, Canon and Pastor of Antwerp, S.T.L., Censor of Books.
Mutius Vitelleschi, Superior General of the Society of Jesus
Since the Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles by the Reverend Father Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide, of our Society, have been reviewed by several Theologians of the same Society, to whom this was entrusted, and have been approved to be brought to light; we grant permission that they be committed to the press: if so it shall seem good to those to whom it pertains. In witness whereof we have given these letters subscribed by our hand and furnished with our seal, at Rome on the 1st of May, in the year 1625.
MUTIUS VITELLESCHI 115 paragraphs
Chronotaxis of the Acts of the Apostles
CHRONOTAXIS OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, OF THE CANONICAL EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE, AND THUS OF THE WHOLE FIRST CHRISTIAN CENTURY FROM CHRIST, IN ALL THINGS AGREEING WITH THE ANNALS OF CARDINAL BARONIUS, A FEW THINGS EXCEPTED.
In the year from the nativity of Christ 34, the 18th year of the reign of Tiberius.
In the year of Christ 34, begun through three months, which was the year of the world 3984, from the flood 2327, from Abraham 2035, from the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt 1530, from the temple of Solomon 1031, from Isaiah and the Prophets 800, the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, from the founding of Rome 785, from the Babylonian captivity 625, from Cyrus 565, from the beginning of the 70 weeks of Daniel 487, namely in the middle of the 70th and final week, as Daniel prophesied, cap. IX, 26, from the years of the Greeks, or Seleucids 344, from the Maccabees 199 (see the Chronological table which I prefixed to the Pentateuch), in this year, I say, at the age of 34, Christ the Lord, Prince of Priests, Hierarch of the Church, Redeemer and Savior of the world, priest according to the order of Melchizedek, about to fulfill the vows and promises of the Patriarchs, the shadows and figures of the law, and the prophecies of the Prophets, completed the office of His legation and economy in the flesh, and of our redemption entrusted to Him by the Father: wherefore He suffered for us most atrocious torments, and was crucified between thieves as a thief, died, that He might give us life, on the 25th of March: on which same day 34 years before, the Holy Spirit overshadowing, He was conceived and incarnate in the immaculate womb of the Blessed Virgin, as the more common opinion of the Doctors holds: consequently He rose on the 27th of March; He ascended into heaven after 40 days, on the fifth of May; He sent the Holy Spirit in the form of fiery tongues on the fiftieth day, namely at Pentecost, on the 15th of May, as I shall show in Act. I, 12.
Shortly after the ascension of Christ before Pentecost, with St. Peter acting, Matthias was chosen by lot in place of and to the apostolate of Judas the traitor.
Having received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, immediately Peter preaching converted three thousand men, Act. II, 41, who all sold their possessions and their prices they laid at the feet of the Apostles, persevering unanimously in the temple, and breaking bread around their houses, they took food with exultation. Shortly after Peter, healing the lame man at the beautiful gate of the temple, and from there preaching to the people, converted five thousand men: wherefore he was imprisoned by the High Priests, he answers freely, that it is necessary to obey God rather than men, Act. III and IV. Thence, cap. V, Ananias and Sapphira, who had stolen from the price of their field, he punishes with death. Soon again with the other Apostles he is imprisoned, but is freed by an angel, and is commanded to preach in the temple: on which account, brought by the magistrate to the council, examined and rebuked, he answers the same as before with intrepidity: Gamaliel pleads his cause. He and the other Apostles, having been scourged, "went away rejoicing from the presence of the council, because they were counted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus."
In the same year, shortly after Pentecost, on account of the murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, the Apostles created seven Deacons: among whom St. Stephen stood out as the principal and, as it were, archdeacon, who, disputing ardently and assiduously against the Jews and confuting them, was at length overwhelmed by them with stones and crowned with glorious martyrdom on the 26th of December, Acts VI and VII.
In the same following year, namely on the 27th of December, St. James, the brother of the Lord, is created the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Thus the Church grew wonderfully immediately after Christ's ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit, since Christ ascending left only twelve Apostles, seventy-two Disciples, and five hundred Christians, I Corinthians XV, 6.
In the year of Christ 35, the 19th of the Emperor Tiberius.
On account of Stephen, the Jews raging persecuted the other Christians: hence all of them were scattered through the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the Apostles. Wherefore Philip the Deacon, preaching in Samaria, converted it. Whence Peter and John went there, that they might impart to those baptized by Philip the sacrament of Confirmation. There St. Peter had his first contest with Simon Magus. Philip, snatched away by an angel, converted the Eunuch of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who afterwards propagated the faith of Christ in Ethiopia.
who afterwards propagated the faith of Christ in Ethiopia. Many, with Cardinal Baronius, believe that in the same persecution the Jews attacked the most intimate friends of Christ, namely St. Mary Magdalene, Martha, Lazarus, Maximinus, Marcella, and Joseph of Arimathea, and put them in a ship without sails and oars, that they might be engulfed in the deep by the force of winds and waves; but by God's guidance the ship, with all safe, reached Marseilles, where they disseminated the faith of Christ; and at length Magdalene withdrew to a steep mountain, where, devoted to penance, tears, and contemplation, she lived an angelic life for thirty years, and, being daily rapt on high by angels and nourished by angelic hymns, she disdained all human food.
In the year of Christ 36, the 1st of the Apostle Paul, the 20th of the Emperor Tiberius.
On the 25th of January Saulus was converted and became Paul. For, breathing out threats and slaughter against the Christians, being struck down from heaven to the earth, he dedicated himself to Christ. Whence, sent to Ananias, he was baptized by him. For God had said to Ananias: "This man is a vessel of election unto me, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Paul soon began to preach Christ in Damascus. Thence he went into Arabia: from which he returned to Damascus, Galatians I, 17.
In the year of Christ 37, the 2nd of Paul, the 21st of the Emperor Tiberius.
St. Peter, by the vision of the sheet in which were all four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth, hearing: "Arise, Peter, kill and eat," understood that the Gentiles were to be admitted to the Church, and that the Gospel was to be preached to them. Wherefore, called by Cornelius the Centurion, he instructed him with his family and baptized him, and thus publicly opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. Whence in the same year he established his see at Antioch, and sat there for seven years. Wherefore, the Gospel being now opened to the Gentiles, in the same year St. James set out for Spain, and the other Apostles went into their provinces to evangelize according to Christ's precept. Before their separation and departure they composed the Creed, which is called from them the Apostles' Creed, as it were a common token of faith. Baronius assigns the division and departure of the Apostles to the year of Christ 44. But I have reviewed the reasons why it seems it should be placed earlier in Acts XII, 1.
In the year of Christ 38, the 3rd of Paul, the 22nd of the Emperor Tiberius.
Pilate, God avenging the death of Christ, was deprived of office by Vitellius, the governor of Syria, and brought to order, and sent to Rome, that he might clear himself before the Emperor of the charges brought against him: where, upon the death of Tiberius, he was confined to perpetual exile by the Emperor Caius at Vienne in Gaul, and was so afflicted there with such great sufferings inflicted by Caius that he pierced himself with his own hand. Thus Eusebius, Ado, and Cassiodorus in the Chronicle, and Josephus, book XVIII, chapter v. A little before, Caiaphas the high priest, who had demanded the death of Christ, weary of life, likewise took his own death, as testified by Clement, book VIII of the Constitutions, chapter 1. And Annas also, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, came to a bad end, as testified by Nicephorus, book II, chapter x. Tiberius wished to number Christ among the gods, but the senate opposing, he threatened death by edict to the accusers of Christians. Thus Tertullian in the Apology, and from him Eusebius in the Chronicle.
In the year of Christ 39, the 4th of Paul, the 1st of the Emperor Caius Caligula.
Tiberius Caesar dies on the 17th of the Kalends of April, in the 78th year of his age. Caius Caligula succeeded him, who freed Herod Agrippa from the chains into which he had been cast by Tiberius, and in place of the iron chain which Tiberius had put upon him, adorned him with a golden one of the same weight, and made him king of Judaea. A poet recently placed this epitaph on Tiberius:
He, the son of Livia, the stepson of Augustus, held to his mother's ways, not his stepmother's. With keen wit in the worst things, dull in the best, he had a fortunate right hand, an unfortunate left hand. Often a conqueror of others, never of himself. With his stepfather opposing, his mother defending, he came to the Empire from exile, about to send the Empire into exile. So much a lover of the scepter when he did not have it, as mad when he had it,
Paul, three years having elapsed from his departure into Arabia, preaching at Damascus, sought for chains by the Jews and King Aretas, escaped by being let down in a basket through the wall and went to Jerusalem, that he might see Peter, Gal. I, 18; and II Corinth. XI, 32.
In the year of Christ 40, Paul's 5th, Caius the Emperor's 2nd.
Herod Agrippa, setting out from Rome into Judaea through Alexandria, was there mocked by the citizens in the same manner as Christ had been mocked by the Jews, of whom Agrippa was king. In the same year Herod Antipas, Agrippa's uncle, who had despised Christ clothed in a white garment, accused by Agrippa his nephew before Caius Caesar, was stripped of his tetrarchy and his fortune, and with his impious wife Herodias was condemned to perpetual exile in the city of Lugdunum in Gaul: where each, wasting away with grief, perished, because he had killed John the Baptist and mocked Christ.
In the year of Christ 41, Paul's 6th, Caius the Emperor's 3rd.
In this year, if we believe Eusebius in his Chronicle, whom Baronius follows, St. Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew, which St. Bartholomew the Apostle, about to depart to the Indians, transcribed and carried with him, and left to them, as Eusebius says, lib. V Hist., cap. x, and St. Jerome, lib. De Script. Eccles., in Panteno, cap. xxxvi. St. Barnabas also transcribed it with his own hand: whence it was found with his body in the time of the Emperor Zeno. St. Jerome testifies that the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew existed in his own age in the Library of St. Pamphilus the Martyr, and that he himself transcribed it. Thus he himself, lib. De Viris illust., in Matthew. The same Gospel, published at Jerusalem, was expounded by James the brother of the Lord, as Athanasius testifies
in Synop. But what is asserted concerning this year seems strange, that Matthew alone remained so long at Jerusalem, when the other Apostles had departed thence into their provinces in the year of Christ 37. Wherefore it seems more true that Matthew departed at the same time, having first composed the Gospel. For Bartholomew carried it with him to the Indians. Moreover, St. Matthew wrote the Gospel at the command of the Apostles, as Epiphanius testifies, haeresi 51. Finally, the common opinion of the Doctors is that Matthew wrote the Gospel before the Apostles departed into their provinces, which happened, as I have said, in the year of Christ 37. Therefore at that same time Matthew also wrote the Gospel.
In the year of Christ 42, Paul's 7th, Caius the Emperor's 4th.
A famine began throughout the whole world, predicted by Agabus the prophet, and lasted for a long time, Act. XI, 28.
At the same time Barnabas and Paul evangelize at Antioch for a whole year and teach a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first called Christians, Act. XI, 26.
Caius Caesar persecuted the Jews by the just judgment of God, because they persecuted Christ and the Apostles. Wherefore he wished his statue to be placed in the temple at Jerusalem, and to be adored by the Jews. For this reason Philo was sent by the Jews with companions to Caius, that he might entreat him against this, but Caius, turning to them with a sneer, said: "Do you, who are hated by all the gods, who have declared me God by universal confession, alone reject me?" See Philo in Legatione ad Caium, and Josephus, XVIII Antiq., cap. XII.
In the year of Christ 43, Paul's 8th, Claudius the Emperor's 1st.
In this year Thaddeus was sent to Edessa to Abgarus, and converted him with his kingdom.
In the same year Caius Caesar was killed by the soldiers of the Praetorian Guard in the fourth year of his reign, at the age of 29. Claudius succeeded him, son of Drusus Nero and grandson of Livia Augusta, who confirmed Agrippa in his kingdom and added to him Samaria and the rest of Judaea.
In the year of Christ 44, Paul's 9th, Claudius the Emperor's 2nd.
St. James, returning from Spain to Jerusalem, was killed by Herod Agrippa about Passover. By the same Herod, St. Peter was imprisoned, but was freed by an angel, and evangelizing he travels through Caesarea, Berytus, Sidon, Tripoli, Byblos, Orthosias, Antandrum, Balanaas, Laodicea, Cappadocia and other cities and provinces, everywhere establishing Churches, Priests and Bishops, and finally enters Rome.
In the year of Christ 45, Peter the Roman Pontiff's 1st, Paul's 10th, Claudius the Emperor's 3rd.
St. Peter established his chair at Rome on the 18th day of January, and founded the Roman Church. At Antioch after St. Peter, Evodius is created the first Bishop. Thus Eusebius in his Chronicle.
In the same year Paul is sent to evangelize the Gentiles. Wherefore, ordained Bishop by the command of the Holy Spirit, as an Apostle sent by the Church of Antioch, he departs with Barnabas and goes about evangelizing the Gentiles round about.
Herod Agrippa, God avenging the death of St. James and the imprisonment of St. Peter, hearing the acclamations of the people, "The voice of a god and not of a man," and tacitly approving them, was struck by an angel, consumed by worms and died, Acts XII, 23.
In the same year St. Peter at Rome writes his first Epistle to the faithful scattered in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.
In the same year St. Mark at Rome wrote the Gospel and soon departed to Alexandria, and there preached the Gospel and erected the Alexandrian Church and governed it as Bishop with wonderful wisdom and holiness.
In the year of Christ 46, Peter's 2nd, Paul's 11th, Claudius the Emperor's 4th.
Paul and Barnabas, having traversed Seleucia, sailed thence to Cyprus, and coming to Salamis, they went through the whole island, and finally arriving at Paphos, they converted Sergius Paulus the Proconsul to Christ, blinding Elymas the magician who resisted the Gospel, on which occasion the name of Saul was changed to Paul. Thence they went to Perga of Pamphylia and to Antioch of Pisidia; but being expelled by the Jews, they turn to the Gentiles and go to Iconium, Acts XIII, 4 et seq.
In the year of Christ 47, Peter's 3rd, Paul's 12th, Claudius the Emperor's 5th.
At Iconium Paul by preaching converted many Jews and Gentiles, and among them St. Thecla, whom the Fathers celebrate with remarkable praises. Wherefore, as Luke says, he remained there a long time, until a tumult being stirred up by the Jews, he was stoned by them and fled into Lycaonia, Acts XIV, 1 et seq.
In the year of Christ 48, Peter's 4th, Paul's 13th, Claudius the Emperor's 6th.
Paul came to Lystra, where he healed a cripple by a miracle: wherefore he was acclaimed by the crowds as a god, namely Mercury, and Barnabas as Jupiter, and when they wished to sacrifice to them, they resisted with all their might: soon a sedition being stirred up by the Jews, Paul was stoned and nearly killed, and went to Derbe. Thence retracing his steps, he revisited and confirmed the faithful in Lystra, Iconium, Antioch of Pisidia, and evangelizing passed through Pisidia, Pamphylia and Attalia, Acts XIV, 6 et seq.
Paul, about to go to evangelize the Gentiles, is caught up to the third heaven and hears secret words which it is not lawful for a man to speak, II Corinthians XII, 2.
In the year of Christ 49, Peter's 5th, Paul's 14th, Claudius the Emperor's 7th.
Paul after five years spent in this his pilgrimage and apostolate, returned with Barnabas to Antioch and remained there two years, Acts XIV, last verse.
Paul teaches at Antioch, Peter at Rome, and thence sends forth through cities and provinces of the whole world in all directions Bishops and Apostles, who propagate the Gospel, and found and govern Churches everywhere.
In the year of Christ 51, Peter's 7th, Paul's 16th, Claudius the Emperor's 9th.
The Emperor Claudius expels the Jews from Rome: wherefore St. Peter, by God's counsel leaving the city, returns to Jerusalem. For a controversy having arisen at Antioch concerning the observance by Christians of the law of Moses, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to the Apostles, that they might seek its decision. In that same year therefore the first Council was held at Jerusalem, which St. Peter presided over, St. John, James, Paul and Barnabas attended, in which the question being ventilated at length, at last Peter decided it and was the first to give his opinion, decreeing that the legal observances were not to be kept by Christians: which opinion St. James and all the others immediately confirmed. Paul, Barnabas, Silas and Judas brought this decision to Antioch.
Paul separates from Barnabas: for the latter goes with John Mark to Cyprus, but Paul travels through Syria and Cilicia with Silas, confirming the Churches. And he came to Derbe and Lystra, where circumcising Timothy, he took him as a companion of his pilgrimage and preaching. And as they passed through, says Luke, Acts XVI, 6, Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come to Mysia, they went down to Troas, where a vision was shown to Paul. A certain Macedonian man was standing and beseeching him, and saying: "Come over into Macedonia and help us." Wherefore from Troas he sailed to Samothrace, thence to Neapolis, thence to Philippi, where he converted Lydia the seller of purple and cast out the spirit of Python from a girl; wherefore by the masters of the girl who made gain from the oracles of Python, Paul was accused, beaten and cast into prison, where in the middle of the night, as he and Silas were praying and praising God, an earthquake sent by God opened the doors of the prison and all the bonds were loosed. Seeing this, the keeper of the prison believed in Christ, and washed the stripes of Paul and Silas. The magistrates hearing from Paul that he was a Roman citizen, begged his pardon and released him free. Paul and Silas having gone out of Philippi, says Luke, Acts XVII, 1, when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where they converted many, and not a few noble women. Whence the Jews stirred up a sedition, and not finding Paul they dragged Jason before the tribunal, who having given satisfaction was released. Paul and Silas were sent away by the brethren at night to Beroea, whose inhabitants eagerly received the Gospel; but as the Jews persecuted Paul, he himself was conducted by the brethren to Athens.
In this year three suns appeared at the same time, and straightway came together into the same orbit, says Eusebius in the Chronicle.
In the year of Christ 52, Peter's 8th, Paul's 17th, Claudius the Emperor's 10th.
Paul preaching at Athens in the Areopagus converted Dionysius the Areopagite and a notable matron Damaris, Acts XVII, 16. Many think that St. Hierotheus was also converted at that time, whom St. Dionysius celebrates and follows throughout his books, and calls him his "divine master."
In the same year Paul departed from Athens to Corinth, and converted many there, and among them Crispus, the ruler of the Synagogue. Wherefore being admonished by an oracle of God he evangelized there for a longer time. There, after the arrival of Silas and Timothy, he wrote the first epistle to the Thessalonians, Acts XVIII, 1 et seq.
In the same year, says Baronius, Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus, brother of the Emperor Claudius, whom Claudius took as wife after the death of Messalina, is honored with the title of Augusta, and her son Domitius is adopted by the same Emperor into the Claudian family and is called Nero Claudius. This is the Nero who succeeded Claudius as if to an adoptive father in the empire: in that same year also Agrippina ordered a colony to be led to the town of the Ubii, in which she had been born when her father Germanicus was conducting an army there, to which a name was given from this, so that it is called Colonia Agrippina from her own name. Furthermore, Agrippina was the daughter of Germanicus, who was the son of Drusus Germanicus, brother of the Emperor Tiberius from his mother Livia, wife of the Emperor Augustus.
In the year of Christ 53, the 9th of Peter, the 18th of Paul, the 11th of the Emperor Claudius.
Paul spent the second year at Corinth. There he wrote the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. There the Jews, making a tumult, dragged Paul before the tribunal of Gallio, who was the brother of Seneca the philosopher and tutor of the Emperor Nero. Gallio repressed them and drove them away; whereupon the Jews, raging, beat Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, as if he favored Paul, before Gallio; and none of these things mattered to Gallio. St. Chrysostom adds that Paul himself was also beaten by them. After the tumult Paul remained at Corinth for a much longer time, and finally, about to depart into Syria, he shaved his head in fulfillment of a vow at Cenchreae, which was the port of Corinth, Acts XVIII, 11 and seq.
In the year of Christ 54, the 10th of Peter, the 19th of Paul, the 12th of the Emperor Claudius.
Paul, sailing into Syria across the Icarian sea, which is part of the Aegean sea, arrived at Ephesus: where he remained a short time, leaving Aquila and Priscilla, he set sail for Caesarea, thence to Jerusalem, where he greeted the primitive Church and mother of the others: soon returning to Antioch, he traveled in order through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, confirming all the disciples, Acts XVIII, 19.
Apollo, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, instructed at Ephesus by Aquila and Priscilla, goes to Corinth, where he confirms the faithful and powerfully refutes the Jews, Acts XVIII, 24.
In the same year, says Eusebius in his Chronicle, which was the 4th year of the 207th Olympiad, Philip the Apostle at Hierapolis, a city of Asia, while announcing the Gospel to the people, is affixed to the cross and crushed with stones. He died therefore in the 20th year from the Passion of Christ under Claudius, according to Eusebius and his followers: although Hippolytus, in his tract On the 72 Disciples, asserts that he suffered under the Emperor Domitian.
In the year of Christ 55, the 11th of Peter, the 20th of Paul, the 13th of the Emperor Claudius.
Paul, having traveled through the upper parts of Asia, comes to Ephesus, and there for three years, namely for two years and three months, he remains and preaches, Acts XIX, 1, and cap. XX, 31. At Ephesus Paul was exposed to beasts, I Corinthians XV, 32. There God wrought not ordinary miracles by the hand of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and evil spirits went out, Acts XIX, 12.
In the year of Christ 56, the 12th of Peter, the 21st of Paul, the 14th of the Emperor Claudius.
Paul spends the second year and preaches at Ephesus. By occasion of the Jewish exorcists into whom a demon leaped, a great access of the Ephesians to Christ and Paul was made.
Many of them that believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds.
Many of them who had followed curious arts brought together their books and burned them, Acts XIX, 13 and seq.
In the same year, on the 13th day of October, the Emperor Claudius dies, being in the 64th year of his age, in the 13th year and eight months of his reign. Thus Suetonius in the Life of Claudius, cap. XLV, and Dio, lib. LX. Thus with him dead, by the treachery of his wife Agrippina, poison having been administered to him, Nero, the son of Agrippina, succeeded to the empire, being in the 18th year of his age, and he held it for 13 years and 7 months, excluding Britannicus, the full brother of the Emperor Claudius, son from his wife Messalina, and therefore the legitimate heir of the empire, whom Nero accordingly shortly after removed by poison. Thus Josephus, lib. XX Antiq., cap. v. Furthermore, Nero descended from the Sabines, in the Sabine language the same word means strong and vigorous, says Suetonius in Tiberius, cap. 1, and Gellius, lib. XIII, cap. XXII: "Nerio," he says, "or Nerienes is a Sabine word, by which virtue and fortitude are signified. Therefore from the Claudii, whom we have received as descended from the Sabines, he who was of outstanding and excellent fortitude was called Nero. The Sabines moreover seem to have received this name from the Greeks, because they call the bonds and supports of the limbs νεῦρα: whence we also in Latin call them nerves. But Servius Claudius interprets Nerio as it were Neirio, that is without anger, peaceful, mild, tranquil;" which is what Nero was at the beginning of his reign.
In the year of Christ 57, the 13th of Peter, the 22nd of Paul, the 1st of Nero.
Now that the edict of Claudius concerning the expulsion of Jews from Rome had been removed by his death, Paul, having spent a third year in Ephesus, thinks of going to Rome; but first he decides to visit the churches of Achaia and Macedonia and to return to Jerusalem. About to depart from Ephesus soon, he writes the first Epistle to the Corinthians. The silversmiths, craftsmen of Diana, stirred up by Demetrius, raise a sedition against Paul, crying out: "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Alexander calms it. Soon Paul, having called his disciples and exhorted them, bids them farewell, and leaving Timothy there, whom he also constituted the first Bishop of Ephesus, he set out into Macedonia, Acts XIX, 23; traveling through Asia Minor, he comes to the city of Troas, which lies adjacent to the Hellespont, where seeking Titus, when he did not find him, having crossed the strait he went into Macedonia, II Corinthians II, 12.
From Macedonia to Timothy, whom he had left in Ephesus, he wrote in this year the first Epistle, by which he instructs him in the pastoral office.
Paul, having visited and confirmed the churches of Macedonia, sailing across the Aegean sea and the Cyclades, arrives at Crete, and there leaves and creates Titus, his most beloved disciple, as Bishop, Epistle to Titus, cap. I, 5.
In the year of Christ 58, of Peter 14, of Paul 23, of Nero 2.
In this year all things were done which Luke recounts in cap. XX of Acts, and thereafter up to cap. XXVIII, last verse. For Paul, traveling through Greece, comes to Nicopolis, and there determines to winter: whence from Crete he calls Titus to him, writing to him the Epistle to Titus, cap. III, 12. At Nicopolis also Paul seems to have written the second Epistle to the Corinthians: soon he himself seems to have gone to Corinth and there in the port of Cenchreae written the Epistle to the Romans. Thence he went to Philippi in Macedonia, soon to Troas, where he raised Eutychus from death: thence to Assos, Mytilene, Chios, Samos, Miletus; where calling together the elders from Ephesus, he bids them a long farewell with exhortation, Acts XX. From Miletus he sails to Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, Caesarea, where Agabus predicts to him bonds at Jerusalem; and at last in the same year at Pentecost, as he had determined, he arrives at Jerusalem; where, persuaded by James, purifying himself in the temple, he is seized by the Jews and nearly killed; but the Tribune rescues him; by whom being given power of speech, he addresses the people, Acts XXI and XXII. The people, hearing from Paul that he himself was sent to the Gentiles, abandoning the Jews, cries out and demands his death. Wherefore the Tribune orders him to be scourged, but Paul, saying he is a Roman citizen, escapes the scourges, Acts XXII. Soon brought before the council and placed between Pharisees and Sadducees, saying he is a Pharisee and is being judged concerning the resurrection of the dead, with the judges disagreeing among themselves, he escapes judgment. The Jews lay snares for him, which
...he avoids, and specifically Spain, where among others by the judgment of his nephew Paul escapes. Wherefore the Tribune sends him bound to Caesarea to Felix the Governor, Acts XXIII; there Tertullus the orator accuses him, Paul defends himself; and again disputing before Felix concerning justice, chastity and judgment, he strikes him with fear. Portius Festus succeeds Felix, Acts XXIV. When Festus wished to judge Paul at Jerusalem before the Jews, Paul, appealing to Caesar, is sent to Rome, after he had first pleaded his case before King Agrippa, Acts XXV and XXVI. Paul therefore sails with a Centurion to Sidon, thence to Cyprus, thence to Lystra, and at last suffers shipwreck. Christ appears to him and promises that all in the ship will escape safely: all therefore arrive safely at Malta, Acts XXVII.
In the same year, shortly after Paul's arrival at Jerusalem, the Blessed Virgin, being in the seventy-second year of her age, departed from earthly Jerusalem to the heavenly, with triumph led by angels into paradise. See what is said in Acts XXI, 17.
In the same year, Baronius holds that St. Luke wrote his Gospel, but I shall show that it was written earlier by Luke in Acts XVI, 10.
In the year of Christ 59, of Peter 15, of Paul 24, of Nero 8.
Paul, bound, sails from Malta to Syracuse, thence to Rhegium, thence to Puteoli, thence on foot enters Rome on the 6th day of July. He was lodged in a hired house, which was afterwards converted into the church of St. Mary in the Via Lata. The next day, having called together the Jews, he gave an account of himself and his faith: of whom some believed, others did not believe. He remained in Rome for two years with a soldier guarding him, receiving all and freely preaching Christ; although on account of fear of Nero, all his own had abandoned him. For Christ stood by him and comforted him, so that through him the preaching might be fulfilled and all nations might hear; indeed he even rescued him from the mouth of the lion, namely Nero, II Timothy IV, 16 and 17. In Rome Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, through Epaphroditus their Bishop; likewise the Epistle to the Ephesians, which he sent through Tychicus.
In the year of Christ 60, of Peter 16, of Paul 25, of Nero 4.
Paul, spending his second year at Rome in chains, wrote the Epistle to the Colossians and the Epistle to Philemon, beseeching him to receive back into favor and home Onesimus, his runaway servant. Philemon did this, and moreover granted Onesimus his freedom, who, growing in virtue, was made Bishop of the Ephesians after Timothy. In this Epistle, verse 23, he mentions Epaphras, his fellow prisoner, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, and commends them as it were as his helpers in the propagation of the Gospel. In the same year Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.
In the year of Christ 61, of Peter 17, of Paul 26, of Nero 5.
Paul, having completed two years in chains, was released by Nero and traveled through various provinces evangelizing, and namely Spain, where among others he converted Xantippe and Polyxena to Christ. In this year at Rome St. Luke, finishing the Acts of the Apostles (where he also painted images of the Blessed Virgin and Christ the Lord, which we venerate there today), returned to Greece, and evangelizing died in Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, Macedonia, Libya, etc., and finally, unmarried to the age of 84 years, coming to the city of Patras in Achaia, there concluded his Apostolate with noble martyrdom. In the same year Nero killed his mother Agrippina, by the just judgment of God, inasmuch as she had removed by poison her husband the Emperor Claudius, so that her son Nero might succeed him in the empire; she therefore who killed her husband for the sake of her son was killed by the son himself. For it was a just and fitting vengeance of the divine power: the son became a matricide, the executioner of his mother's murder of her husband, and the avenger of the death of his stepmother: "Rendering her this gratitude not only for his birth, but also because by her arts he had been advanced to the empire," says Josephus, book XX of the Antiquities, chapter v.
In the year of Christ 62, of Peter 18, of Paul 27, of Nero 6.
Festus, Prefect of Judaea, who had sent St. Paul in chains to Rome, died: Nero designated Albinus as his successor. Thus Eusebius in the Chronicle.
Agrippa the King deposed Josephus from the priesthood, and substituted in his place Ananus, son of the elder Ananus: thus Josephus, book XX of the Antiquities, chapter viii.
Rome was shaken by various prodigies: for on account of the appearance of a recent comet and on account of lightning striking Nero's table, as if it had been made more certain of his death, he turned all his attention to Rubellius Plautus, who traced his origin from the Julian family through his mother, who by Nero's order was forced to leave his land and depart into Asia. Thus Cornelius Tacitus, book XIV.
Laodicea, an illustrious city of Asia, which the Apostle mentions in the Epistle to the Colossians, is overthrown and collapsed by an earthquake; but by its citizens, being very wealthy, it is quickly restored to its former state.
In this year of Christ 62, St. Andrew was crucified at Patras in Achaia, says Onuphrius in the Chronicle.
In the year of Christ 63, of Peter 19, of Paul 28, of Nero 7.
In this year, says Eusebius in the Chronicle, St. Jerome, book On Ecclesiastical Writers, on James, Baronius and others, St. James, brother of the Lord and first Bishop of Jerusalem, who wrote the canonical epistle, constantly preaching Christ, is cast down by the Jews from the pinnacle of the temple, and struck with a fuller's club, praying for his murderers, he departed to glorious martyrdom, having most holily governed that Church for 29 years. His death being soon avenged by divine power, Judaea began to be harassed by various calamities and prodigies, harbingers of its final destruction. Wherefore Josephus, although a Jew, whom Eusebius cites, book II, chapter XXII, and Origen, book I Against Celsus, ascribes the destruction of Jerusalem and Judaea by Titus to the death of this James, who on account of his remarkable holiness and likeness to Christ in morals, was surnamed the Just and brother of the Lord. To St. James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem succeeded Simeon, son of Cleophas, a kinsman of Christ, who governed the Jerusalem Church holily until the age of 120 years, and under Trajan was affixed to the cross and died. Thus Eusebius in the Chronicle.
-holiness and likeness of morals to Christ, was surnamed the Just and brother of the Lord. To St. James in the Bishopric of Jerusalem succeeded Simeon, son of Cleophas, a kinsman of Christ, who governed the Jerusalem Church holily until the age of 120 years, and under Trajan was affixed to the cross and died. Thus Eusebius in the Chronicle.
In the same year St. Barnabas was killed in Cyprus, as L. Dexter and Onuphrius relate in the Chronicle.
In the year of Christ 64, of Peter 20, of Paul 29, of Nero 8.
St. Mark the Evangelist fell as a martyr at Alexandria, for when he had been sent by St. Peter from Rome, where he had written his Gospel, to Alexandria for the sake of the Gospel, he there established a Church with such continence of doctrine and life that he compelled all followers of Christ to his example. For he instituted the Essenes as it were the first Religious and Angelic men, whom Philo, Eusebius, St. Jerome and others wonderfully celebrate. Wherefore the Gentiles on a certain Lord's Day, when he was celebrating Mass, rushing upon him, threw a rope around his neck and dragged him over rocks, tearing his flesh: whence, nearly giving up the ghost, he was thrust into prison, and the Lord appearing to him with angels, he was strengthened for the coming struggle. But when morning came, he was again led out of prison and dragged over rough places, giving thanks to God and saying: "Into thy hands I commend my spirit," he rendered himself undefiled to God, and was buried honorably by his disciples. Thus the Menology of the Greeks, Bede and Ado in the Martyrology, on the 25th of April.
In the same year Nero compelled his wife Octavia and sister (being the daughter of the Emperor Claudius, who had married Agrippina, the mother of Nero, and therefore had adopted him as his son) to die, being ensnared by calumnies and relegated to an island, finally by the vapor of the bath. Thus Tacitus, book XV.
In the same year Simon and Judas the Apostles were slain in Persia, as Onuphrius says in his Chronicle, but Baronius and others deny this: concerning which matter I shall speak in the preface to the Epistle of St. Jude.
In the year of Christ 65, of Peter 21, of Paul 30, of Nero 9.
In this year, which was the fourth before the Jewish war and the eighth before the siege of Jerusalem, a certain Jesus (bearing his own name and the vaticination of Jesus Christ, on account of whose death Judaea was to be destroyed, representing him), son of Ananias, a plebeian and rustic man, impelled by God, predicted the calamities impending upon the city. For he suddenly began to cry out: "A voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the four winds, a voice to Jerusalem and the temple: a voice to all this people." Wherefore he was severely scourged by the Magistrate, yet he did not beg for pardon, nor did he weep, but daily as if meditating some prayer, he cried out: "Woe, woe to Jerusalem," and this for seven years and five months continuously, until standing upon the wall, crying out with a loud voice: "Woe, woe to the city, the temple, the people, and to me," he was struck by a stone, a torment sent by the Romans, and died. Thus Josephus, book VII of the War, chapter XII.
In this year Persius of Volterra, the satirical poet, beyond his strength and age, steadfastly underwent martyrdom for Christ, on whose account he was crucified, whose natal day the Church celebrates on the 18th of February.
In the year of Christ 66, of Peter 22, of Paul 31, of Nero 10.
Rome was consumed by a horrible fire, the cause of which Nero by calumny imputed to the Christians, and on that account he slew them with the most savage and diverse kinds of death, "so that covered with the skins of beasts, they perished by the tearing of dogs, or fixed to crosses, or set on fire, and when daylight failed, they were burned for the use of nocturnal light," as Tacitus says, book XV. These were the first fruits of the Martyrs, inscribed in their catalogue in the Roman Martyrology on the 24th of June.
In this year St. Matthias the Apostle was slain, as L. Dexter and Onuphrius relate in their Chronicles. Dexter adds: "Helena, queen of the Adiabenes, flourishes as a Christian in Jerusalem, converted by the preaching of the Apostles."
In the year of Christ 67, of Peter 23, of Paul 32, of Nero 11.
Nero instituted the first persecution of the Christians by public edict and prolonged it to the end of his Empire and life. Wherefore in it, already begun before, very many of the Christians met a glorious martyrdom, who are scattered throughout the Roman Martyrology, such as St. Barnabas, St. Andrew, St. James, the brother of the Lord, and the other Apostles, although in different years and places. Likewise many from Nero's own household, whom Paul mentions, Philippians IV, 22, among whom Torpes and Evellius were eminent, who are inscribed in the Roman Martyrology on the 11th and 17th of May. Furthermore St. Processus and Martinianus, keepers of the prison; Herodion, Olympias and the most devout women Basilissa and Anastasia, disciples of the Apostles, who are read as associated with the martyrs in the Martyrology on the 15th of April, whom they sustained with their wealth and buried. St. Lucina and Perpetua baptized by St. Peter, concerning whom in the Martyrology on the 30th of June. In Rome Nero killed many Senators and leading men, because they had conspired for his death, and among them Seneca his teacher, and Lucan the Poet, nephew of Seneca, and Plautus Lateranus, Consul designate, who had a palace on the Caelian hill, which was later converted by the Emperor Constantine into a temple of the Saviour, and named by him the Basilica Lateranensis, as St. Jerome testifies, epistle 30 to Oceanus. There followed the death of Poppaea Sabina Augusta, whom, although most beloved, Nero in anger, struck with a kick, killed. Thus Tacitus, Dio and others.
In the year of Christ 68, of Peter 24, of Paul 33, of Nero 12.
St. Peter and Paul returned to Rome and restored the Church, which was almost collapsing on account of Nero's persecution.
St. Peter wrote his second Epistle, in which he signifies by revelation made to him that the swift putting off of the tabernacle of his body would come to pass.
Shortly after, Jude wrote his canonical Epistle. For in it he alludes in many places to the second Epistle of Peter.
Simon Magus with his magical arts maddening the Romans, and especially Nero, obtained divine honours from them. St. Peter and Paul contend against him, and finally cast him down as he attempts to fly from on high. For when Simon was caught up into the air by demons, by the prayers of St. Peter he fell down, his hip and legs broken, and shortly after breathed out his wretched soul. Wherefore Nero, indignant that his magical delights were taken from him, committed St. Peter and Paul to the Mamertine prison, especially because Paul also had taken away a concubine from Nero and brought her to Christ. From prison Paul writes his second Epistle to Timothy, calling him to himself, that he might be a witness to his impending death and martyrdom.
In the same year Apollonius of Tyana, succeeding Simon Magus, came to Rome, against whom the Apostles and Christians contended in like manner.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
Cursus Scripturae Sacrae
Eundem qui scripsit tertium evangelium etiam 'scripsisse Actus apostolorum , ita evidenter constat accurata inquisitione facta, ut fere a nullo iam in dubium vocetur (cf. Be/ser, Theol. Quartalschrift 1895 p. 70; Holtzmann, Einleitung 3. ed. p. 391; Jü/icher, Einleitung p. 261). Cum alias iam satis demonstratum sit Lucam scripsisse evange- ' lium (cf. Cornely , Introd. 11] 2 ed. et vide meum Comment. in Luc.), hic de Luca auctore Actuum pluribus agere necesse minime est. Hoc solum addendum est quod nuperrime exposuit 07055 , philologus, qui et Lucam esse auctorem eumque accurata rerum cognitione eminere valide demonstravit. Contendit enim rectissime : testimonium antiquitatis summa fide dignum esse per se patere; « non enim apostolo alicui libellus tribuitur neque omnino homini illustriori, sed plane obscuro quique ignotus mansisset, nisi Paulus nomen eius locis compluribus breviter commemorasset » (Actus ap. editio philologica, Goettingen 1895, p. 1) et philologus contra theologos protestantes haud paucos intrepide affirmat Lucam hos libros scripsisse : « qua de re equidem aeque sum securus atque de cuiusvis antiqui scriptoris nomine, quod traditum accepimus acceptumque tenere solemus, dum ne sint alia testimonia quae contra faciunt », et iterum : « si Quintilianus diserte rhetoricon libros Cornifici esse testaretur, quis tandem dubitaret quin id nomen unice verum esset? perfricate nunc frontem vos et negate Lucae, Pauli 601111, hunc ipsum librum Actorum disertissime et constantissime tribui ab Irenaeo, Tertulliano, aliis, qui minore spatio temporis ab Actis separantur quam a libris ad Herennium Quintilianus » (Acta ap. secundum formam quae videtur romanam 1896 p. III. IV). Atque idem merito perstringit illos > qui nunc florent et auctoritate pollent : itaque quibusnam argumentis usi hi Lucae non modo portentosam illam, sed etiam communem et vulgarem fidem derogant, adeo ut ex numero quoque scriptorum Lucam eximant, anonymum ex more suo substituant » (edit. philol. p. 6)?
Dein pluribus prosequitur quam accurata rerum, nominum , locorum cognitione Lucas se praeditum esse exhibeat; et inter alia « hodie si quis falsarius exstiterit, poterit-uti tabula orbis antiqui ab homine docto sollerter facta ; tum autem hic scriptor quibus tandem auxiliis, nisi rerum locorumque vera notitia, perfecit ut per obscurissimas partes Asiae velut securus de itinere incedere posset »?
Continue reading 31 paragraphs
Libro iam ab antiquissimo tempore titulus est χράξεις ἀποστόλων, ita quidem, ut non defuerint qui ab ipso Luca titulum hunc profectum esse existimarent (cf. Cornely 1. c.); ita iam Clemens alex. allegat ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων (Strom. 5, 12; M. 9,194) et in Adumbrationibus in 1 Petr. quae latine exstant commemorantur Actus (1. c. 132); Irenaei quoque interpres scribit ἐπ Actibus (adv. haer. 3, 13, 3; 3, 15, 1); Tertullianus autem affert Apostolorum Acta (c. Marc. 3,12) et scribit in Actis (de bapt. 10; M. 1,1211; 2,472) et eodem modo leguntur Acta in fragmento muratoriano (lin. 3&), praeterea vide quae in lect. var. ad Prooemium (1,1-3) dicuntur.
Minime quidem omnium apostolorum res gestae enarrantur. Reeensentur quidem eorum nomina 1,13; plura ab initio referuntur quae omnibus sunt communia (2,1 seq. 37. &2; 4,33 seq. 5,19. 18-42; 6,6; 8,1.15) ; verum solum pauca commemorantur de Matthia, loanne; de lacobo solum refertur 12,9; ex epistola ad Galatas discimus Act. 9,27 spectare ad Iacobum fratrem Domini et ad Petrum, de quibus uti de loanne quoque etiam narratur Act. 15. Verum plura narrantur de Petro, et cumprimis de Paulo. Atque usque ad cap. 12 Petrus quidem partes habet praecipuas : Petrus monet in locum Iudae alterum testem esse substituendum; in die pentecostes ipse primus annuntiat evangelium; ipse primus cum loanne miraculo sanationis patrato et coneione ad plebem habita sistitur synedrio et testimonium reddit intre- . pidum; per eum punitur hypocrisis et fiunt insignia miracula ; ipse punit Simonem magum ; ipse visitat coetus fidelium per Iudaeam constitutos et Tabitham in vitam revocat; ipse mittitur divinitus ad Cornelium centurionem et docetur iam aperiri ianuam Ecclesiae gentibus; ipse ab Herode in carcerem missus ab angelo liberatur et proficiscitur in alium locum. A cap. vero 13 Pauli itinera apostolica enarrantur tria et demum eius captivitas lerusalem facta, commoratio caesareensis, iter romanum. Quare in tres partes argumentum libri dividendum esse existimavi. Alii aliter dividunt, de quibus vide Cornely 1. c. p. 387 et Felten, Apostelgeschichte p. 3; Freiburg 1892 et Aloys Scháfer, Einleitung p. 289, Paderborn 1898. ^ Liber Actuum ab ipso Luca adnectitur ad πρῶτον λόγον, ad priorem librum'evangelii (1, 1); est itaque δεύτερος λέγος ; inscribitur et. quasi dedicatur Theophilo, uti ille prior; proinde eodem consilio etiam esse conscriptus omnino existimandus erit atque iisdem destinari. Iam in priore libro id se ob oculos habuisse profitetur, ut cognoscas eorum verborum de quibus eruditus es veritatem, ἀσφάλειαν (1,5) inconcussam et indubitatam veritatem, certitudinem. Proin idem in hoc secundo opere prosequitur ostendere; scil. evangelium revera ipsis rebus gestis demonstrari virtutem Dei in salutem pro omnibus; exhiberi in praedicatione nuntii messiani vim et efficaciam qua divina eius origo manifesto appareat. In priore libro quasi originem evangelii esse divinam demonstravit; nunc eandem indolem divinam ostendit ex propagatione evangelii et ex eius contra varias impugnationes virtute victrice.
Quod itaque consilium si ob oculos habueris, facile explicaveris, cur quaedam narranda, alia omittenda existimare potuerit. Refert ultima illa Christi verba : eritis mihi testes in lerusalem et in omni Iudaea et Samaria et usque ad ultimum terrae (1,8); quae quam praeclare sint impleta rebus gestis statim & primordiis rei christianae prosequitur. Testibus enumeratis eorumque numero sacro completo enarrat, quam eximie impletum sit verbum Christi de baptismo Spiritus sancti et de virtute ex alto qua induendi sint; cernitur operatio divina in dono linguarum, in concione Petri, in conversione multorum, in sancta fidelium conversatione (cap. 1. 2). Uti Petrusimpletione vaticiniorum, ita miraculis quoque patratis veritatem nuntii messiani demonstrat. Auditur testimonium eius in urbe, auditur coram synedristis, qui frusira illud supprimere conantur minis et poenis inflictis. Apostolis praesto est virtus divina ad puniendos hypocritas, ad liberandos 605 0 carcere (cap. 3-5). Crescit numerus fidelium ; verum nobiles Iudaei, uti antea contra Christum, iia nunc contra eius fideles persecutiones movent; eorum malignitas eadem exscritur contra Stephanum, qui frustra iis persuadere conabatur obedientiam quam huic novae divinae revelationi et ordinationi exhibere deberent; uti Christum occiderunt, ita eodem modo in Stephanum et in fideles saevire incipiunt (cap. 6,7. 8,1-3). Sed ipsa hac persecutione propagatur evangelium. Nam dispersi praedicant verbum in 100868 , Samaria, usque Phoenicen, Cyprum, Antiochiam (8,& seq. 11,19 seq.). Virtusevangelii praeclare quoque demonstratur conversione persecutoris acerrimi, Sauli, qui statim incipit omni studio praedicare quod antea exterminare conatus erat (9,1seq.). Evangelium sigillo divino miraculorum confirmaturinsuscitatione mortuae, in sanatione paralytici, in mira liberatione . Petri e carcere; pariter monitione divina ad Petrum facta declaratur evangelium esse praedicandum etiam gentibus. Ultione vero divina in Herodem persecutorem exercita aliud cernitur documentum , quo veritas evangelii confirmatur (9,31-12,95). Praedicationem apostolicam gaudere ope Dei et fieri Deo volente et approbante, proin esse illam a Deo institutam insigni modo elucet ex laboribus Pauli apostoli, ad quos enarrandos Lucas 8 cap. 13 transit. Describit tria eius itinera apostolica, enarrat quos coetus fidelium instituerit per Asiam et Graeciam, explicat. quomodo mediis in persecutionibus e et ex ipsa iudaeochristianorum oppugnatione (cap. 15) praedicatio evangelii victrix evaserit; in ipso successu, in miraculis, in sanctitate fidelium clare cernitur opus Dei. Ita Lucas simplici rerum gestarum narratione probat inconcussam veritatem et firmissimam certitudinem evangelii.
Ostendit itaque secundum verba Christi 1, 8 propagationem evangelii; ostendit etiam impleri in Paulo verba illa 9,15. 16 ; quare eius quoque captivitatem refert, in qua praeclare illa Christi promissio completa deprehenditur 23,11 ; quare illa quae a:cap. 21 narrantur non poterant deesse. — Huic fini primario adiungi potest gecundarius quidam qui ex ipsis rebus de Paulo narratis sponte sua exoritur et legenti offertur : apologia quaedam Pauli pro iis qui de calumniis et accusationibus contra eum audierint (cf. Cornely 1. c. p. 3928), quam apologiam alii in demonstratione perfecti consensus Paulum inter et Petrum potissimum collocandam esse existimant (cf. Revue biblique 1895 p. 320).
Plura quidem nos discimus ex epistolis Pauli prioribus, quae in libro Actuum minime narrantur.. Neque id mirum videri debet. Duo enim bene considerare oportet. Prius profecto est Lucam ea narrare quae comperta habuit et quibus ipse interfuit; eum aliqua nescisse nemo negabit. Alterum est illud consilium quod narrando intendit. Ad hoc autem non spectabat enarrare quae Paulus in regendis fidelium coetibus praestiterit, de qua re.utique sat multa ex epistolis colliguntur; verum in hoc libro agitur solum de fundandis coetibus, de propagatione evangelii; pariter non erat singillatim agendum de conatibus Iudaistarum in coetibus iam fundatis apud Galatas, Corinthios; suffecit eos demonstrasse reiectos, ne condendis coetibus inter gentes obessent, id quod cap. 15 praestitum est. Accusant « critici » malam scriptoris fidem quia silentio presserit reprehensionem Petro illatam 4 Paulo, de qua re Gal. 2,11 seq. agitur. Verum quis non vidcat eventum illum plane non pertinere ad narrandam propagationem evangelii; id quod catholici interpretes monuerunt bene etiam Bl. agnoscit : « non erat igitur cur commemoraret Petrum Antiochiam venisse ibique cum Paulo rixam habuisse;.neque enim ex ea-rixa quidquam amplius consecutum est » (edit. philol. .כ 12). Neque om-
nia itinera recensentur; id quod ex 2 Cor. statim patet; adverte iterum illud iter corinthiacum quod tacetur non spectare ad condendum coetum fidelium; neque ad id spectat quod apostolus colligit eleemosynas pro pauperibus in Iudaea; de qua re saepius in epistolis loquitur et propter quam scribit se lerusalem profecturum (Rom. 15,25-928. 1 Cor. 16,1-4; 9 Cor. 8,1-9,15. Gal. 2,10), sed quam Lucas solum obiter in Pauli oratione tangit (94,17). EM .Offenduntur 6 critici » et rerum fidem deesse clamant, quia de Paulo similia narrentur quae iam de Petro dicta sint (cf. Weizsaecker, Das apost. Zeitalter p. 202,9. ed., ut alios taceam). Hisce respondet Bl. : > cum adverterint de Petro Pauloque complura similia narrari, haec quae sunt de, Paulo ad illorum exemplum conficta esse clamitant, scilicet ne minor Petro Paulus videretur. Liberatur e carcere Petrus; ergo et Paulus. Cum mago Simone ille conflixit : ergo Paulus cum Bariesua ceterisque. Petrus Spiritum sanctum tribuit eis qui 8 Philippo tincti erant : ergo Paulus quoque hominibus quibus- - dam et ipsis sacro ritu jam initiatis, quos Ephesi invenit. Haec et alia cum conquirunt fraudulentasque artes subesse statuunt, emunctae naris sibi esse videntur; alteri e contra ne monstratam quidem fraudem agnoscunt, sed dicunt dicentque et magorum omnia tum plena fuisse — id quod probare facillimum est —, et inter Simonem Bariesuamque et ea quae de utroque narrantur ne minimum quidem similitudinis esse — sicuti non est re vera --, et cetera, omnia intra eam similitudinem consistere, quae necessario fere aliquando accidebat. Nam cum opus utriusque simile esset, similia utrique interdum evenisse etiam sine testimonio credendum erat. Paulinus autem ille mendax incredibile est quam in mentiendo modestum se praebuerit. Angebatur ille, cum Petrum videret Dorcadem in vitam revocasse narrari, neque quicquam de Paulo simile traditum haberet; finxit igitur fabulam de Eutycho adulescente, sed ita finxit, ut ex ipsa narratione eius videri possit Eutychus non vere mortuus fuisse (cf. 20,10). Itaque omnis illa δεινότης eo usque valet, ut ei theologi sibi 0 suae placeant, cum res ipsae maneant tales quales ab initio fuerunt ». Offenduntur > critici » miraculis narratis. Audiatur iterum 27. qui illis haec considerand& proponit : > narrat Lucas de Paulo , gloriatur hic de se, et ad Romanos (15,19) et ad Corinthios (2,12,12) scribens σημεῖα xai τέρατα xai δυνάμεις ἃ se edita esse. Si tales res omnino fieri non possunt, mentitur Paulus; si contra huic credendum est, quidni etiam Lucae? Plerique autem etiam nunc Paulo parcendum esse ducunt, ne sublata ea columna quam unam fere reliquerunt omnia corruant; itaque non negant et illi fidem de miraculis 8 se editis habendam esse et Actorum scriptori de eis certe quae per ultimum iter
Pauli accidisse narrantur. Itaque apparuit Paulo per somnum angelus eumque de eventuris omnibus certiorem fecit, ut ea reliquis praedicere posset; tum ille Melitae multos aegrotos sanavit; concinere dicunt haec cum ipsius Pauli verbis! neque quicquam oppoperstitiosi videri possint. Qua fiducia Petro negemus,; quod Paulo concessimus? Desinant igitur somniare de aliquo tempore pristino a miraculis puro et intemerato, neve ad tempus alicuius scripti definiendum miraculis quae ibi narrantur uti velint » (1. c. p. 9). — Ceterum de auctoritate historica Actuum vide Cornely 1: c. p. 329-336; Felten p. 27 seq. Kaulen, Einleitung 3 ed. P 833 seq: Plura hac de re vide in Commentario.
Librum Actuum scriptum esse post evangelium , immediate ex 14 evidens est. Evangelium autem compositum esse haud multum post an. 69 nuperrime ràtionibus sat gravibus Belser demonstravit (Theol. Quartalschrift 1898 p. 998 seq.). Nam quod multis placet evangelium ob 21,20 amandare ad tempus post urbem eversam, nullatenus consistere potest (cf. Comment. Luc. p. 9), id quod B/. quoque ostendit : « Lucas autem in vaticinio maximo, quod tantopere urgent, nihil plane addit quod non in ipsa rei natura necessario insit. Κυχλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατοπέδων ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ : num everti poterat urbs nisi per hostes? num capi ab hostibus sine obsidione? Πεσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρης : solet profecto ita fieri. Ka! αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη : captivi venibant, venditi in omnes terras dispergebantur. Καὶ Ἰερουσαλὴμ. ἔσται πατουμένῃ ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν : interfectis vel abductis incolis erant > gentes » solum urbis occupaturi... Locum Danielis (9,26) quo utuntur Matthaeus et Marcus, si quis evolverit, statim videbit ibi omnia perscripta esse, quae Lucam ex sua rerum gestarum cognitione addidisse putant » (ed. phil. p. ^. 5). Sententia est probabilissima, ipso fine libri etiam tempus compositionis indicari, i. e. esse scriptum mox post biennium captivitatis expletum. Ita tempus scriptionis haud multum distat a scripto evangelio et prooemium illud 1,1 sponte fluit. Cur autem alia plura non addiderit, explica ex ipso scriptionis tempore, ex demonstratione pro sua rerum cognitione absoluta : esse evangelium virtutem Dei pro omnibus illudque esse praedicatum in Iudaea, Samaria et usque ad ultimum terrae (1,8). Sed cur non addidit Paulum esse liberatum? quia id per se intelligitur ab iis qui legunt : mansit &utem biennio toto eic. 28,30. 31; eum esse liberatum ii probe sciebant quibus scripsit; eis tantum narrandum erat per quod tempus manserit in suo conducto laborans pro evangelio sine prohibitione. Haec de tempore Actuum sententia est etiam satis communis (cf. Felten l. c. p. 23; Revue biblique 1895 p. 292); eam iam protulit Hieronymus (de vir. ill. 7), > eadem ratio plurimis postea placuit, et manifesto habet que se vehementer commendet » (B/. p. 3). Aliter A/. Schaefer qui evangelium Lucae intra an. 67-70 scriptum esse censet (p. 217.9977). Varias coniecturas, cur Lucas librum ita finierit, videre poteris in Revue biblique 1895 p. 338; inter alias ibi commendatur haec ratio voluisse Lucam δευτέρω λόγῳ addere τρίτον λόγον.
Cum Lucas auctor sit Actuum, quaestio de fontibus sat multis in locis ne instituenda quidem est. Erat ipse antiochenus , comes Pauli; proin quae de Paulo et ecclesia antiochena narrantur, nullatenus ab aliquo scripto libro necesse est deprompta dicere. Versatüs est Lucas cum Paulo per dies aliquot Caesareae apud Philippum )91,8-10( ; unde ea quae de Philippo narrantur 8,5-40, ab eo ipso accepit. Quae autem gesta sint in urbe, quae Petrus egerit, haec Lucas accipere potuit 8 Marco hierosolymitano, patruele Barnabae, Petri comite , qui Paulum quoque et Barnabam comitatus est Cyprum (13,5) et in Perge Pamphyliae ab eis discedens reversus est Ierosolymam (13,13). Lucas au» tem cum Marco erat apud Paulum, cum is in captivitate romana epistolas scriberet ad Colossenses et Philemonem (Col. &,10.. 18. Philem. 25). Insuper Lucas in Ierusalem versatus est cum Iacobo et senioribus (21,18); unde ab iis quoque de rebus in urbe gestis edoceri potuit : proinde pro longe maxima parte Actuum scriptis fontibus opus non est, cum adsint e quibus pleraque Lucas tamquam a rerum testibus accipere potuit. Quid vero de orationibus Petri, Stephani? censent aliqui orationes .688 litteris iam esse consignatas, fortasse ab ipso Marco (cf. Belser 1. c. 1895 p. 62), neque hoc est improbabile; immo ἃ vero non videtur alienum, si orationes litteris sint consignatae, etiam narrationes adiunctas esse rerum e quibus. orationes quasi enatae sint. Negant quidem « critici » orationes esse genuinas, volunt eas a scriptore confictas. At quod catholici interpretes observarunt etiam merito notat Bl. : « quo intentius has orationes inspexeris, eo plura in eis, reperies, quae cum sint temporibus personisque egregie accommodata, ad rhetoricam licentiam scriptoris referri se vetent » (l. c. p. 11).
Insunt Actibus partes quae prima persona pluralis a reliquis distinguuntur. Iste usus secundum lectionem in D et apud Augustinum servatam primo cernitur 11,27. 28 : descenderunt a lerusalem prophetae Antiochiam, eratque magna exsultatio; congregatis autem nobis surgens unus etc.; porro cernitur 16,10 seq., cum iter Troade in Macedoniam et commoratio Philippis narratur; cernitur 20,5 in narratione itineris 8 Philippis in urbem Ierusalem (20,5-21,17); pariter in ultimo itinere romano 27,2-28,16. Hisce igitur se adfuisse Lucas clare significat. Num hisce solis? id fortasse asserere dubitaveris. Et Bl. quidem adnotat : « sicut autem dicere potuit, ἐπορευόμεθα, ita minime debuit, etiamsi adfuerat ipse; itaque ubi prima persona
est, cognovimus adfuisse Lucam; at ubi tertia, non cognoscimus eundem afuisse. Valebat in hac re magis occasio quam consilium, potuitque usus primae personae paullatim in consuetudinem vertere, id quod factum re vera videmus » (p. 10). Uti patet, prima persona non potuit adhiberi in iis rebus, quas ipse Paulus gessit, verum solum in iis quae communiter gestae erant; unde : venimus, eramus in urbe, egressi sumus, navigavimus, sustinuerunt nos etc.; proinde poterat Lucas aliquando adesse, ita tamen ex rerum conditione, ut non esset occasio commemorandi quidquam communiter actum, ubi ergo illud nos necessario abest. ἡ
Has partes ita per nos distinctas esse omni fide dignas critici quoque concedunt, nisi quod ibi quoque interpolationes ab aliquibus statuuntur vel etiam mutationes textus primigenii ab redactore factae. Id enim apud criticos fixum ratumque est has partes ab aliis prorsus esse segregandas et esse fontem quendam peculiarem quo compilator Actuum usus sit. Sed in ea quoque re cum catholicis interpretibus consentit et merito ridet B/. hanc de compilatione sententiam ; nam qui eam sibi persuadere velit, ab eo profecto ait hunc Actuum scriptorem admodum male cognosci, quippe qui hoc opus scite composuerit. Et certo ita fit transitus ad primam personam, ut legentes necessario credere debeant ipsum scriptorem testem esse, et nullo modo iis in mentem venire possit haec ex alieno opere esse deprompta. « Alii non veriti sunt fraudi scriptoris hoc tribuere, qui falsa specie testis sese commendaverit. Sed qua modestia quam non possunt non agnoscere ipsi! Cur his tantum 10018 ἡμεῖς habet, ceteris tertia persona utitur? cur, quod gravissimum est, nomen suum reticet neque profert atque urget? Ita nimirum fecerunt alii praestigiatores, velut Prochorus ille personatus, qui Iohanis acta conscripsit, Petrusque falsus, qui evangelium , neque ulla re magis aperte scriptores Novi Testamenti a falsariis differunt, quam quod prae rerum magnitudine suae gloriolae ne cogitant quidem inservire. Hanc autem rem quamvis sit manifesta acuti illi 06 versuti atque δεινοί non videntur cernere potuisse; neque enim mirarentur Lucam de se reticere et ne id quidem significare, quonam tempore se Paulo adiunxerit ».
Uti Orosius refert, quarto anno Claudii fames gravissima per Syriam facta est (Orosius, 1,6) i. e. anno && p. Ch. ; eius famis losepAus quoque mentionem facit (Antiq. 3,15,3; 20,2,6; 20,5,2) quam pariter sub Claudio et temporibus Cuspii Fadi et Tiberii Alexandri procuratorum Iudaeam afflixisse scribit. Cuspius Fadus missus est procurator post mortem Agrippae, qui autumno anni 6% in Palaestinam advenit; Tiberius Alexander munus gessit usque ad annum 48. Cum igitur Iosephus dicat iis procuratoribus Iudaeam fame afflictam esse, censet Belser initium famis non cum Orosio ad annum 5&5, sed ad 45-^46 referendum esse (Theol. Qu. 1898 p. 354). Sed cum losephus nihil dicat de initio famis, sed solum famem eo tempore afflixisse Iudaeam, nihil obstat quominus cum Orosio famem factam esse i. e. incepisse dicamus anno &4. Inde itaque certum tempus colligitur pro iis quae Act. 11,95 seq. narrantur. Fames illa praedicitur ab Agabo, mittuntur subsidia, Barnabas et Saulus mittuntur Ierusalem. Haec igitur ante intium famis contigisse censenda erunt, proin ineunte anno 44; | nam famem non incepisse nisi anno 5% ad finem vergente ex 12,90 colligitur, quia aliquo tempore ante mortem Agrippae Tyrii et Sidonii profitentur regiones suas ali ex Palaestina, unde eo tempore quo haec dicunt, Palaestina nondum poterat esse fame afflicta.
Inde quoque colligitur tempus quo Barnabas Saulum Tarso Antiochiam adduxit; ibi enim annum totum conversali sunt et illis diebus vaticinium de fame editum est. |
Paulus advenit Corinthum aliquo tempore postquam Claudius om- | nes 1008608 Roma discedere iussit, quod decretum anno Claudii nono (Orosius 1,15) i. e. 89 p. Ch. editum est. Paulus enim Corinthi invenit Aquilam et Priscillam, qui nuper (προσφάτως recens) ab Italia venerant propter illud decretum (18,2). Si itaque annus ab Orosio recte assignatur, Paulus exeunte anno &9 (Beiser) vel anno 50 Corinthum advenit. Verum dubitant alii, num iam anno 49 eo modo Claudius in 1008605 animadverterit. Falso nempe Orosius provocat ad Iosephum qui ea de re silet; dein Agrippa quem Claudius valde diligebat, ab initio regni Claudii usque ad annum 50 Romae. degebat, quo praesente valde improbabile videtur eiusmodi decretum esse editum. Quare alii decretum illud ad annum 51 referunt (cf. Cornely, Introd. ΠῚ 2 ed. p. 343), vel ad 50/51 (Belser 1. c. p. 371).
Multo magis implicata est quaestio quando Felix in Palaestinam venerit, quando Felix successorem Festum acceperit. Uti Tacitus narrat, Felix simul cum Ventidio Cumano erat in Palaestina, ita ut huic Galilaeorum natio, Felici Samaritae parerent; unde secundum eum ad annum 52 Felix dici potest iam pridem Iudaeae impositus (Annal. 12, 55). Si illa divisio facta est, simul ac post Tiberium Alexandrum Cumanus munere fungi coepit, Felix iam ab anno 48 erat in Palaestina. Et secundum versionem armenam chronici Eusebii Festus mittitur in Felicis locum anno 15. Claudii i. e. anno 5%; sed secundum ipsum chronicon et Hieronymum anno 2 Neronis i. e. anno 56 (cf. Eus. Chr. Schoene 1] p. 152. 15%. 155). Quam computandi rationem aliqui sequuntur; ita Keiner Felicem munere defunctum dicit novembri 5* (cf. Kirchenlexicon 2. ed. IV p. 1312; Katholik 1887 I p. 146 seq. Zeitschrift für Καί. Theologie 1888 p. 650 etc. Historisches Jahrbuch 1887 p. 922), Weber aestate 55 (Kritische Geschichte der Exegese des 9. Cap. des Rómerbriefes. p. 177 seq.) Harnack anno 56 (Chronologie, Leipzig 1897 p. 233 seq.), ad quam computandi rationem etiam B/ass accedit (p. 91 seq.).
-: Verum si ea expenduntur quae losephus narrat, alia computandi ratio exoritur. Apud Iosephum nihil habetur de illa provinciae divisione inter Cumanum et Felicem, de qua Tacitus scribit. Secundum Iosephum procuratores ita inter se excipiunt : mortuo Agrippa 1 (anno . kk) Cuspius Fadus, dein Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus; narrat Iosephus, quomodo Cumanus 8 - Quadrato iussus sit in Italiam discedere ad Imperatorem et Cumanus sit in exsilium actus; dein scribit Felicem missum esse & Claudio ut rebus in Iudaea praeesset, et immediate adiungit quae-Claudius anno duodecimo imperii sui completo Agrippae donaverit (Antiq. 19,9,2. 90,5,9; 20,6,8. 7,1). Unde Iosephus adventum Felicis procuratoris ad annum 52 referri videtur. Etiam altero loco (Bell. iud. 9,19,8( scribit Cumani exsilio commemorato : μετὰ ταῦτα 'lovBalag μὲν ἐπίτροπον Φήλιχα ἐχπέμπει et iterum. donationem Agrippae narrat, cui subiungit : > ipse autem Claudius cum annos - tredecim imperium administrasset et menses octo et dies viginti vita decessit ». Unde iterum clare affirmat et Felicem post Cumanum esse missum et id ad ultimos Claudii annos pertinere, ita ut missio Felicis etiam forte ad annum 53 possit reiici. Iam vero planum est, si Felix anno 59 procurator missus est, fieri non posse, ut Paulus anno % ad eum loquens dicat : ex mullis annis te esse iudicem genti huic sciens (25,10).
Praeterea alia reperiuntur indicia quibus satis demonstratur fieri non posse, ut Felix iam anno 55 vel 56 sit 8 procuratione remotus. Cum enim avocatus esset, primores ludaeorum accusationem contra eum instituerunt et dedisset omnino poenas iniuriarum, nisi Nero fratris eius Pallantis qui tum maxime apud eum in honore erat precibus supplicibus multa indulsisset (Antiq. 20,8,9). lam vero Tacito referente certum est Pallantem anno 55 ἃ Nerone cura rerum fuisse demotum (Annal. 13,13) et quamvis ἃ crimine coniurationis contra Neronem absolveretur, tamen Neroni erat exosus : nec tam grata Pallantis innocentia quam gravis superbia fuit (Annal. 13,93). Proin anno 55.56 Pallas minime eratin magno apud Neronem honore et eo tempore non valuisset apud Neronem quidquam impetrare pro fratre reo. Facile autem fieri potuit, ut postea Pallas iterum in gratiam Neronis rediret , qui eius immensam pecuniam appetebat (Annal. 14,65). Narrat Josephus (Vita 3) se post vitae suae annum 26 Romam esse profectum, ut viam salutis inveniret quibusd&m sacerdotibus piis ac bonis, quos ob culpam leviculam Felix procurator Romam miserat causam apud Caesarem dicturos. Iani losephus natus erat anno primo principatus Caii Caesaris (Vita 1) i. e. inter 16 martium 37-38; eius nativitas autem referri debebit ad annum 38; nam Antiq. 20,11,9 dicit se anno imperii Domitiani Caesaris tertio decimo (i. e. anno 94 p. Ch.) agere aetatis suae annum 56. Iter ergo illud romanum instituit (38 -1- 26) anno 64 p. Ch. Atqui incredibile est eum tum demum de illis iuvandis cogitasse, cum iam per plus octo annos Romae detinerentur. Ergo ex hac quoque narratione fieri nequit, ut Festus iam anno 55 vel 56 sit avocatus.
Idem colligitur ex alia narratione. Refert Josephus (Antiq. 20,8,10) Festum cum in Iudaeam advenisset copias misisse contra sicarios ; dein statim subdit narrationem , cur proceres Iudaeorum legatos ad Neronem miserint, quibus Nero gratificatus τῇ γυναιχὶ Ποππηίᾳ χαριζόμεvog petita concessit. Hanc narrationem incipit scribens xaxa δὲ τὸν xatp?v τοῦτον; eam igitur aliquo modo cum adventu Festi connectit. Poppaea autem uxor Neronis facta est ànno 62; sed etsi Iosephus eam ita vocasset per anticipationem , tamen designaretur tempus quo iam apud Neronem multum valebat, ergo tempus post annum 58. Quod tempus etiam omnino exigitur, quia Helcia et Ismaele obsidum loco a Nerone retentis Agrippa pontificatum detulit Iosepho Cabi; sed hic hoc munus gessit 61-62 et Iosephus pergit : Caesar autem audita Festi morte Albinum in Iudaeam misit praesidem. Albinus autem aestate 69 in Palaestinam advenit. Festum vero haud diu munere functum esse etiam ex paucis illis colligitur quae de eo referuntur (Antiq. 20,8,9-11).
/ Contendit quidem KAe//ner ex lege ac consuetudine romana defuncto Claudio, a quo Felix missus erat procurator, etiam munus et auctoritatem Felicis exspirasse. Quidquid est de tali norma generali, eam tamen ad Felicem posse applicari negandum est. Nam Josephus explicite dicit : Νέρων ... eig δὲ τὴν λοιπὴν Ιουδαίαν Φήλιχα χατέστησεν ἐπίτρο- πον (Bell. iud. 2,13,2) et haec scribit postquam paucis lineis antea dixerat Felicem a Claudio esse missum procuratorem )1. c. 2,12,8) et postquam de primo Neronis anno narravit, sat multa subdit quae Fclix in ludaea gessit, latrones ct impostores 6556 sublatos, Eleazarum captum et Romam missum , lonatham pontificem occisum , Aegyptium vatem et impostorem esse fuga clapsum, tumultum fuisse Caesareae Syros inter et Iudaeos; haec losephus in utroque opere narrat postquam de Neronis imperio loqui coepit (Antiq. 90,8,8-8. Bell. iud. 2,13,2-7) et ultimo loco explicite addit de illo tumultu : vigente autem seditione nobiliores ex utraque parte delectos Felix ad Neronem misit de iure suo disceptaturos. Dein narrat Festum ἃ Nerone accepisse τὴν ἐπιτροπήν. Nonne audacius est haec omnia affirmare falso a Iosepho tempori Neronis adscribi ? Neque iuvat provocare ad versionem armenam chronici Eusebii. Nam ipse Eusebius in libro-historiae eccl. clare asserit Felicem sub Nerone procuratorem ludaeae fuisse (h. e. 9,20; M. 20, 189).
Ex hisce igitur tempus captivitatis caesareensis et itineris romani colligendum est. Unde captivitas caesareensis refertur ad annum 57- 59, vel 58-60 (cf. Aberle, Theol. Quartalschrift 1883 p. 569; Schanz, Historisches Jahrbuch 1887 p. 199-222; Cornely, Introd. III p. 342, 376; Felten, Apostelgeschichte p. 39; Beíser, Theol. Quart. 1898 p. 353-379; Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes 1 p.. 485 , qui sententiae a Wurm propositae subscribit, Felicem esse avocatum probabiliter anno 60; posse tamen dici terminum priorem annum 58, terminum postremum annum 61).
Cetera quae ex Actibus desumi possunt, fere reducuntur ad 2,42- M1; 6,39-35; 5,19-16; modo enim loquendi et conditiones fidelium describendi longiora temporis intervalla designantur, uti Be/ser 1. c. p. 357 bene adnotat et merito reiicit sententiam , ab Harnack enuntiatam, omnia quae Act. cap. 1-8 usque ad conversionem Pauli referantur evenire potuisse tempore sex vel duodecim mensium. Ex epistolis paulinis ad temporis rationem spectant quae scribit Gal. 1,18; 2,1. Ex paucis istis chronologia est componenda. Crescit difficultas, quia ne de anno quidem mortis Christi constat. Unde mirum non est alia ab aliis statui. Addam quae Cornely et Belser ea de re proponunt locis modo allegatis
Cornely . Belser Conversio Pauli anno 34 ! 35 (39) Primum iter apostolicum post 8% per 29-3an. ^45 (56)-48 incl. Concilium apostolorum 51 | &9 Alterum iter apostolicum 51-54 49-59 Tertium iter 55-59 52-57 Captivitas caesareensis — 59-61 57-59 Adventus Romam 62 | 60 Captivitas romana 62-65 60-62 Liberatur . ante aestatem 6 aestate 62.
Inter testes textus Actuum id singulare reperitur, quod minor quaedam pars testium multo magis quam alias id deprehendi solet a longe maiore parté testium recedit. Testes quibus minor eaque diversa classis constituitur sunt codex D cantabrigensis saec. 6 (qui tamen in aliquibus partibus mutilus est; desunt v. ₪. 8,29-10,14; 21,2-10; 22,99 usque ad finem), codex quidam latinus palimpsestus, floriacensis, .fragmenta quaedam continens, cuius cum textu Cyprianus episcopus carthaginiensis congruere deprehenditur; item in aliquibus Augustinus; codex graecus n. 137 signatus, versio syriaca philoxeniana, sahidica, versio illa latina quam praebet « gigas librorum » (edidit Belsheim, Christiania 1879), codex laudianus E, eiusque versio latina e, Irenaeus quoque et Lucifer caralitanus pro aliquibus locis ad hanc classem pertinent. Neque tamen omnes hi testes omnia eodem modo efferunt; apud aliquos pauca solum reperiuntur siugularia; saepius unus vel duo praebent lectionem singularem aliis tacentibus vel deficientibus. Praecipua vel quae alicuius momenti esse videbantur, adnotavi vel inter lectiones variantes vel in commentario.
In hoc discrimen textus accurate inquisivit B/ass (edit. phil. p. 24 seq.) et tantam invenit diversitatem , ut scribat : « interest sane multum inter utrumque genus, ut necessarium sit duas Actorum recensiones statuere, alteram paullo prolixiorem, alteram breviorem, alteram plerisque non satis notam, alteram quae in omnium manibus 81) ». Et alio loco : « cum enim manifestum sit, bina eorum exempla paene ab initio fuisse, alterum quod primum Lucas conscripserat, alterum perpurgatum quod Theophilo miserat — hoc Actorum primum exemplar, postquam Romae confectum est, vel mansit ibidem vel Christianis romanis ab auctore ad describendum commodatum est. Altera autem forma, hanc vulgatam dico , Orientis ab initio fuit, ubi Theophilum illum vixisse et veleres putaverunt et ego puto ». (Acta apostolorum, secundum Ííormam quae videtur romanam, Lipsiae 1896 p. VII). Secundum hanc sententiam Lucas prius scripsit exemplar illud prolixius, quandoque minus perpolitum, cuius forma cernitur in D aliisque; verum Theophilo misit exemplar alterum in pluribus brevius, in genere dicendi castigatum magis et expolitum , cuius formam praebent codices plerique et versiones. Et B/ass quidem intime persuasum habet illam utriusque formae diversitatem aliter non posse explicari, nisi ut dicatur eam profectam esse ab ipso auctore : « nego potuisse quemquam qui a rebus illis alienus esset addere quae non paucis locis in 2 (ita priorem formam designat, a textus formam usitatam) ex intima rerum cognitione addita sunt » (ed. phil. p. 31).
Neque desunt qui eius sententiam adoptarunt. lta eam omnino approbat et quibusdam argumentis excoluit 260507, Beitráge zur Erklarung der Apostelg. Freiburg i. Br. 1897; item Nestle, ZoecKler, alii. Ad quam sententiam firmandam monuerunt haud desiderari exempla alia duplicis alicuius scripti editionis; ita duplicem recensionem reperiri orationis philippicae tertiae Demosthenis, Tertullianum testari opus adversus Marcionem ter a se scriptum esse, Eusebium de martyribus Palaestinae et brevius scripsisse et iterum fusius, Apollodori χρονιχῶν duplicem editionem et Longini ᾿Αττιχῶν ὀνομάτων ἐχδόσεις δύο ἃ Suida testatas, Ciceronis Academicorum editiones duas (cf. Blass, Acta p. VI). — Alii tamen sententiam duplicis recensionis reiiciebant, quae in periodico Revue biblique (1895 p. 293) appellatur un paradoxe pur et simple; eam non admittunt Felten (Literarische Rundschau, 1898 p. 103), H. Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld alii, qui tamen non negant aliquas lectiones omnino meliores et genuinas in textu illo & contineri. Sententiam a Blass propositam esse consideratione | dignam Z7renÁle censet (Einleitung P. 153); ; eam hypothesin solum commemorat A/. Scháfer (p. 997). '
Quid ergo concludendum? certum videtur lectiones quasdam genuinas ibi esse servatas; aliqua quae differunt ad emendationem amanuensium referri posse vix negari poterit; de aliis quidquam certi statuere velle post tot et tantas codicum, versionum vicissitudines merito videri potest res nimium salebrosa. Quis enim omnium illorum scribarum, interpretum, librariorum, emendatorum, mentes, ingenia, mores, indolem ita perspecta habet ut apud se decernat quid illi audere et efficere non potuerint? Non contradico, si qui se id prae- Stare posse arbitrantur. Suum quisque iudicium excolat, sequatur. Quare subiicio qua ratione AB/ass ostendat per emendatorem neque textum 2 ex a, neque textum a ex 0 efformari potuisse : « nego voluisse aliquem Acta ita refingere, ut esse in & videmus. Non perspicua magis narratio reddenda erat, nisi paucis locis, brevior fortasse reddi poterat, sed ille reddidit etiam prolixiorem, non elegantiam sectatus est, non mutavit sententias; cur igitur omnino quidquam mutavit? An quia mutando delectabatur, indulgens genio? Ergo cito futurum erat ut fessus. desisteret, quia utique animi acri intentione opus erat, ne quid falsi inferret; ille autem usque ad extremum librum perseveravit. Verba quoque ipsa non temere erant ponenda, sed cavendum ne quid in eis cum ceteris discreparet; aut, si hoc opus esse non putasset, facile nunc ex colore dictionis aliena additamenta deprehenderemus. At non deprehendimus, immo eundem plane colorem videmus; itaque edidicerat ille fortasse totum libellum, ut exacte eius dictionem imitari posset. Sed cur id voluisse dicamus? Est profecto hac ratione desistendum, si quidem probabilitatem sequamur. At si nequit Q ex a probabili ratione derivari , fortasse a ex 0 poterit. Erat igitur homini illi quem fingimus in recidendis superfluis maxima pars negotii, neque dici potest neminem ei operi parem fuisse, etsi potest dici non facile quemquam opus non prorsus sine molestia nec fructuosum vel utile suscipere voluisse. Sed alia oritur vix minor difficultas : qua enim ille ratione aut quibus artibus efficere potuit, ut mox mutilata libri forma in omnium paene manibus esset, integra in paucorum? — Iam igitur quid relinquitur, nisi ut ad auctorem ipsum utramque formam referamus? Ei nempe neque facultas deesse poterat neque voluntas, si quidem bis librum suum scripsit; nemo enim hoc cum facit ad verbum sua describere solet, sed passim mutare maximeque omittere quae supervacua videantur » (ed. phil. p. 31). Habes itaque quae in diversitate illa expendas oportet ad sententiam efformandam.
Et de Lagarde quidem iam anno 1857 hoc tulit iudicium : « dubium esse nullo modo potest quin in codice evangeliorum et actuum eantabrigiensi servata sit non quidem manus apostolorum, sed editio quae emendatorum orthodoxorum temeritate corrupta non esset » (cf. Nestle, Philologia sacra, Berlin 1896, p. 6). Atque id effecit B/ass sua inquisitione, ut iam multi fateantur, codicem illum D minime esse negligendum, verum sedulo potius explorandum examinandumque priore contemptu quo habebatur reiecto.
Narratio Actuum satis simplex et plana veteribus visa est. Unde in ea explananda haud multum laborarunt. Primus eius narrationis interpres nominandus est S. CArysostomus (Chr.) qui in 55 homiliis textum percurrit satis breviter longioribus admonitionibus et applicationibus adiectis. Id habet singulare, ut aliqua longiore parte exposita ad priora alio modo repetenda recurrat : « sed superiora repetamus » ἀλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα. Sed haec eius commentatio inter scripta eius exegelica infimo loco erit ponenda (.M. 60,13-385). Huc quoque perlinent quattuor homiliae : in illud : Saulus adhuc spirans etc. et de mutatione nominum (M. 51, 113 seq.). Eum satis presse secutus est Oecumenius (Oec.), M. 118,99-308; eius sententias quoque exprimit Theophylactus ( Theoph.), cuius duae expositiones prostant M. 125,596 seq. et 850 seq. graece et latine atque tertia 1061 solum graece, quae tertia tandem ex duabus prioribus plerumque est conflata. In catena graecorum Patrum in Acta, quam edidit Cramer, Oxonii 1855, sententiae et expositiones referuntur Ammonii, alicuius Anonymi, Apollinaris, Arsenii, Athanasii, Basilii, Chrysostomi (qui longe plurima suppeditavit), Clementis alex. Cyrilli, Dionysii, Epiphanii, Irenaei, Isidori etc. etc. Inter latinos commemorat Cassiodorius Tychonium Donatistam hunc librum subtiliter et diligenter exposuisse ; ipse Cassiodortus breves scripsit = Complexiones Actuum Apostolorum » (M. 70,1381-1506). Paraphrasin Actuum carmine heroico dedit Arator in libris duobus (M. 78,71 seq.), qui ut Beda dicit, « nonnullos in eodem metro allegoriae flores admiscuit, occasionem mibi tribuens vel alia ex his colligendi vel eadem planius exponendi »; ipse Beda qui in expositione Actuum se maxime adiutum dicit isto opere Aratoris duo opuscula in Actus conscripsit; priori enim expositioni (M. 92,939-996) addidit librum retractationis in Actus )1. c. 995-1032) > studio maxime vel addendi quae minus dicta vel emendandi quae secus quam placuit dicta videbantur; in quo etíam quae in graeco sive aliter seu plus aut.minus posita vidimus, breviter commemorare curavimus » et ea in re Beda quoque saepius pro textu 2 testis exsistit.
Ex medio aevo nominandae sunt Postillae Card. Hugonis, Nicolai Lyrani et Dionysii Carthusiani (Dion.) luculenta iuxta 80 compendiaria in Acta apostolorum exegesis sive commentaria; idem quoque epitomen brevem Actuum conscripsit; brevem etiam Commentarium Caietanus (Cai.) reliquit. In vasto illo opere « Critici sacri » continentur scholia Laur. Vallae, Erasmi, Vatabli, Clarii, Lucae brugensis, Grotii, Drusii, Casauboni etc. In opere Venetiis edito : Biblia sacra cum selectissimis litteralibus Commentariis (1756) exhibentur notationes ἃ Sa, Eslio, Mariana, Menochio, Tirino, Gordono. Praestant Gagnaei « Scholia in Actus ex praecipuis tam Graecorum quam Latinorum sententiis selecta », Ariae Montani « Elucidationes in Acta »; eminent commentarii Lorini, Casp. Sanctii; longiores disquisitiones variasque quaestiones textu exposito tractat Salmeron (omo 12. De aliorum lucubrationibus vide Cornely, Introd. ΠῚ 2 ed. p. 3&7. Eos qui totam s. Scripturam commentariis illustrarunt, uti Cornelius a Lapide (Lap.), Calmetus, etc. enumerare non opus est; saepius iam tum in Introd. tum in Commentariis eorum mentio facta est. In « Cursu completo » quem Migne edendum curavit proponuntur Commentaria in Actus /Jaraei cum aliorum annotationibus et « dilucidatae quaestiones auctore Wouters » (Scripturae s. Cursus completus t. 3 p. 1125-1563).
Ex recentiore tempore praecipue commendandi sunt commentarii quos ediderunt JJeelen, Patritius, Bisping, Van Steenkiste, Crellier, Felten; hisce addendi sunt, qui etsi non integros commentarios scripserint, tamen plurimis commentationibus historiam Actuum et textum. illustrarunt : .Hake, Pragmatisch-systematische Darlegung der Apostelgeschichte, Camus, L'oeuvre des apótres, Belser, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte in periodico Theologische Quartalschrift 1895 (p. 50. 229) et : Beitráge zur Erklaerung der Apostelgeschichte, Freiburg i. Br. 1897. Aliqua ad accuratam rerum narrationem demonstrandam valde utilia praebet Vzgourour, Le Nouveau Testament et les découvertes archéologiques modernes, Paris 1890. | . Ex commentariis acatholicis sufficiet nominare Wendt, Handbuch über die Apostelgeschichte, Góttingen 1888; B. Weiss, Die Apostelgeschichte, Leipzig 1893; Blass, Acta apostolorum, editio philologica, Goóttingen 1895. Addo disquisitiones criticas, quas supra iam commemoravi : Hi/genfeld, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihren Quellschriften untersucht in periodico : Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, Leipzig 1895. 1896. Alia quaedam adminicula suis locis in Commentario laudata invenies.