Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Acts


(Show All Books)

Chapter Commentaries:

Verse Commentaries:


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HANDBOOK

TO

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY

ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT

HANDBOOK

TO

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TH . D.,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

MDCCCLXXVII.

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION

T HE third edition of this Commentary appeared in the year 1861. The accessions to the exegetical literature of the Book of Acts since that date have been on the whole meagre; and they have been chiefly directed to the investigation of certain specially important facts which are recorded in the Book, as regards their miraculous character and their relation to the Pauline Epistles.[1] The critical researches as to this canonical writing are, doubtless, not yet concluded; but they are in such a position that we must regard the attempts—prosecuted with so much keenness, confidence, and acuteness—to make the Book of Acts appear an intentional medley of truth and fiction like a historical romance, as having utterly failed. To this result several able apologetic works have within the last ten years contributed their part, while the criticism which finds “purpose” everywhere has been less active, and has not brought forward arguments more cogent than those already so often discussed. Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in which its now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing essentially new, and it touches only here and there on the objections urged by his opponents.

[1] There has just appeared in the first part of the Stud, und Krit. for 1870 the beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag: “die Visions-hypothese in ihrer neuesten Begründung,” which I can only mention here as an addition to the literature noted at Act_9:3-9. [Soon after this preface was written, there appeared Dr. Overbeck’s Commentary, which, while formally professing to be a new edition of de Wette’s work, is in greater part an extravagant application to the Book of Acts of a detailed historical criticism which de Wette himself strongly condemned. It is an important and interesting illustration of the Tübingen critical method (above referred to) as pushed to its utmost limits; but it possesses little independent value from an exegetical point of view.

With reference to the method of judging the New Testament writings, which Dr. Baur started, and in which he has taken the lead, I cannot but regret that, in controversy with it, we should hear people speak of “believing” and “critical” theology as of things necessarily contrasted and mutually exclusive. It would thus seem, as if faith must of necessity be uncritical, and criticism unbelieving. Luther himself combined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay, boldness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even on the dogmatic side (“what makes for Christ”),—a course, no doubt, which led him to mistaken judgments regarding some N. T. writings, easily intelligible as it may appear in itself from the personal idiosyncrasy of the great man, from his position as a Reformer, and from the standpoint of science in his time. As regards the Acts of the Apostles, however, which he would have called “a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul,” he with his correct and sure tact discerned and hit upon the exact opposite of what recent criticism has found: “Thou findest here in this book a beautiful mirror, wherein thou mayest see that this is true: Sola fides justificat.” The contrary character of definite “purpose,” which has in our days been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the corresponding lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not hesitated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in my judgment, an assent on their part to a critical impossibility. For—as hardly a single unbiassed person would venture to question—the author has not made use of any of the Pauline Epistles preserved to us; and therefore these letters cannot have been accessible to him when he was engaged in the collection of his materials or in the composition of his work, because he would certainly have been far from leaving unused historical sources of such productiveness and of so direct and supreme authenticity, had they stood at his command. How is it to be still supposed, then, that he could have written his work in an age, in which the Epistles of the apostle were already everywhere diffused by means of copies and had become a common possession of the church,—an age, for which we have the oldest testimony in the canon itself from the unknown author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter (2Pe_3:15 f.)?

It is my most earnest desire that the labour, which I have gladly devoted, as in duty bound, to this new edition, may be serviceable to the correct understanding of the book, and to a right estimate of its historical contents; and to these ends may God give it His blessing!

I may add that, to my great regret, I did not receive the latest work of Wieseler,[2] which presents the renewed fruit of profound and independent study, till nearly half of my book was already finished and in type. But it has reference for the most part to the Gospels and their chronology, the investigation of which, however, extends in many cases also into the Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his tenth Beitrag, with his wonted thoughtfulness and depth of research, in proof of the agreement of Luk_24:44 ff. and Act_1:1, have not availed to shake me in my view that here the Book of Acts follows a different tradition from the Gospel.

[2] Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte, Gotha, 1869.

DR. MEYER.

HANNOVER, October 22, 1869.

PREFATORY NOTE

THE explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this Commentary [see especially the General Preface to ROMANS, vol. I.] regarding the principles on which the translation has been undertaken, and the method followed in its execution, are equally applicable to the portion now issued.

W. P. D.

GLASGOW COLLEGE, May 1877.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE

[FOR commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole New Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. The following list consists mainly of works which deal with the Acts of the Apostles in particular. Several of the works named, especially of the older, are chiefly doctrinal or homiletic in their character; while some more recent books, dealing with the history and chronology of the apostolic age, or with the life of St. Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book of Acts, have been included because of the special bearing of their discussions on its contents. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest; al. appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted; † marks the date of the author’s death; c = circa, an approximation to it.]

ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., [3] 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist. at Princeton: The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols. 8°, New York [and Lond.] 1857, al.

[3] The date of the author’s death

ANGER (Rudolf), [4] 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: De temporum in Actis Apostolorum ratione. 8°, Lips. 1833.

[4] The date of the author’s death

ARCULARIUS (Daniel), [5] 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus. See also GERHARD (Johann). 8°, Francof. 1607, al.

[5] The date of the author’s death

BARRINGTON (John Shute, Viscount), [6] Acts 1734: Miscellanea sacra; or a new method of considering so much of the history of the Apostles as is contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725. 2d edition, edited by Bishop Barrington. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1770.

[6] The date of the author’s death

BAUMGARTEN (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Die Apostelgeschichte, oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Romans 2 Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1852.

[Translated by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer. 3 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854.]

BAUR (Ferdinand Christian), [7] 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen: Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre. 8°, Stuttg. 1845, al.

[7] The date of the author’s death

[Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1875–6.]

BEDA (Venerabilis), [8] 735, Monk at Jarrow: In Acta Apostolorum expositio [Opera].

[8] The date of the author’s death

BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum.… 2 voll. 4°, Lovanii, 1850.

BENSON (George), D.D., [9] 1763, Minister in London: The History of the first planting of the Christian religion, taken from the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1735. 2d edition, with large additions. 3 vols. 4°, Lond. 1756.

[9] The date of the author’s death

BISCOE (Richard), [10] 1748, Prebendary of St. Paul’s: The History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, confirmed from other authors.… 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1742, al.

[10] The date of the author’s death

BLOMFIELD (Charles James), D.D., [11] 1857, Bishop of London: Twelve Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles.… 8°, Lond. 1825.

[11] The date of the author’s death

BRENZ [BRENTIUS] (Johann), [12] 1570, Provost at Stuttgart: In Acta Apostolica homiliae centum viginti duae. 2°, Francof. 1561, al.

[12] The date of the author’s death

BUGENHAGEN (Johann), [13] 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Vitemb. 1524, al.

[13] The date of the author’s death

BULLINGER (Heinrich), [14] 1575, Pastor at Zürich: In Acta Apostolorum commentariorum libri vi. 2°, Tiguri, 1533, al.

[14] The date of the author’s death

BURTON (Edward), D.D., [15] 1836, Prof. of Divinity at Oxford: An attempt to ascertain the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul’s Epistles. 8°, Oxf. 1830.

[15] The date of the author’s death

CAJETANUS [TOMMASO DA VIO], [16] 1534, Cardinal: Actus Apostolorum commentariis illustrati. 2°, Venet. 1530, al.

[16] The date of the author’s death

CALIXTUS (Georg), [17] 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Expositio literalis in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Brunsvigae, 1654.

[17] The date of the author’s death

CALVIN [CHAUVIN] (Jean), [18] 1564, Reformer: Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Genev. 1560, al.

[18] The date of the author’s death

[Translated by Christopher Featherstone. 4°, Lond. 1585, al.]

CAPELLUS [CAPPEL] (Louis), [19] 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur: Historia apostolica illustrata ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistolis inter se collatis, collecta, accurate digesta … 4°, Salmur. 1683.

[19] The date of the author’s death

CASSIODORUS (Magnus Aurelius), [20] 563. See ROMANS.

[20] The date of the author’s death

CHRYSOSTOMUS (Joannes), [21] 407, Archbishop of Constantinople: Homiliae lv. in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].

[21] The date of the author’s death

CONYBEARE (William John), M.A., HOWSON (John Saul), D.D.: Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 4°, Lond. 1852, al.

COOK (Frederick Charles), M.A., Canon of Exeter: The Acts of the Apostles; with a commentary, and practical and devotional suggestions.… 12°, Lond. 1850.

CRADOCK (Samuel), B.D., [22] 1706, Nonconformist minister: The Apostolical history … from Christ’s ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus; with a narrative of the times and occasions upon which the Epistles were written: with an analytical paraphrase of them. 2°, Lond. 1672.

[22] The date of the author’s death

CRELL (Johann), [23] 1633, Socinian Teacher at Racow: Commentarius in magnam partem Actorum Apostolorum [Opera].

[23] The date of the author’s death

DENTON (William), M.A., Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cripplegate: A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1874–6.

DICK (John), D.D., [24] 1834, Prof. Theol. to United Secession Church, Glasgow: Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Glasg. 1805–6, al.

[24] The date of the author’s death

DIEU (Louis de), [25] 1642, Prof. at Leyden: Animadversiones in Acta Apostolorum, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati, Erasmi et Bezae versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illustrantur … 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1634.

[25] The date of the author’s death

DIONYSIUS CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE RYCKEL], [26] 1471, Carthusian monk: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria. 2°, Paris, 1552.

[26] The date of the author’s death

DU VEIL. See VEIL (Charles Marie de).

ELSLEY (Heneage), M.A., Vicar of Burneston: Annotations on the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; compiled and abridged for the use of students. 3 vols. 8°, Lond. 1812, al.

FERUS [WILD] (Johannes), [27] 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: Enarrationes breves et dilucidae in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Colon. 1567.

[27] The date of the author’s death

FROMOND [FROIDMONT] (Libert), [28] 1633, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Louvain: Actus Apostolorum brevi et dilucido commentario illustrati. 4°, Lovanii, 1654, al.

[28] The date of the author’s death

GAGNÉE (Jean de), [29] 1549, Rector of the University of Paris: Clarissima et facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evangelia necnon in Actus Apostolicos scholia selecta. 2°, Paris, 1552, al.

[29] The date of the author’s death

GERHARD (Johann), [30] 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Jenae, 1669, al.

[30] The date of the author’s death

Also: S. Lucae evangelistae Acta Apostolorum, triumvirali commentario … theologorum celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi, Danielis Arcularii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustrata. 4°, Hamburgi, 1713.

GLOAG (Paton James), D.D., Minister of Galashiels: Critical and exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1870.

GORRAN (Nicholas de), [31] 1295, Prof. at Paris: In Acta Apostolorum … Commentarii. 2°, Antverp. 1620.

[31] The date of the author’s death

GRYNAEUS (Johann Jakob), [32] 1617, Prof. Theol. at Basle: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Basil. 1573.

[32] The date of the author’s death

GUALTHERUS [WALTHER] (Rudolph), [33] 1586, Pastor at Zürich: In Acta Apostolorum per divum Lucam descripta homiliae clxxxv. 2°, Tiguri, 1577.

[33] The date of the author’s death

HACKETT (Horatio Balch), D.D., Prof. Bibl. Lit. in Newton Theol. Institution, U.S.: A commentary on the original text of the Acts of the Apostles. 8°, Boston, U.S., 1852, al.

HEINRICHS (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Acta Apostolorum Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata. 2 tomi. [Testamentum Novum … illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. iii. partes 1, 2.] 8°, Gotting. 1809, al.

HEMSEN (Johann Tychsen). See ROMANS.

HENTENIUS (Johannes), [34] 1566, Prof. Theol. at Louvain: Enarrationes vetustissimorum theologorum in Acta quidem Apostolorum et in omnes Epistolas. 2°, Antverp. 1545.

[34] The date of the author’s death

HILDEBRAND (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau: Die Geschichte der Aposteln Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen Abschnitten bearbeitet. 8°, Leipz. 1824.

HOFMEISTER (Johann), [35] 1547, Augustinian Vicar

General in Germany: In duodecim priora capita Actorum Apostolicorum commentaria. 2°, Colon. 1567.

[35] The date of the author’s death

HUMPHRY (William Gilson), M.A., Vicar of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, London: A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. 8°, Lond. 1847, al.

KISTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), [36] 1834, R. C., Prof. Theo. at Münster: Geschichte der Aposteln mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Münster, 1822.

[36] The date of the author’s death

KUINOEL [KUHNÖL] (Christian Gottlieb), [37] 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen: Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos. 4 voll. 8°, Lips. 1807–18, al.

[37] The date of the author’s death

LANGE (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Das Apostolische Zeitalter. 2 Bände. 8°, Braunschw. 1853.

LECHLER (Gotthard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig: Der Apostel Geschichten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homiletisch von G. Gerok [Lange’s Bibelwerk. V.]. 8°, Bielefeld, 1860, al.

[Translated by Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 1866. And by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. 8°, New York, 1867.]

Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rücksicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8°, Stuttg. 1851. Zweite durchaus umgearbeitete Auflage. 8°, Stuttg. 1857.

LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), [38] 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: De Handelingen der heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verklaart. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll. 8°, Amst. 1724.

[38] The date of the author’s death

LEKEBUSCH (Eduard): Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte von neuem untersucht. 8°, Gotha, 1854.

LEWIN (Thomas), M.A., Barrister: The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 8°, Lond. 1851.

New edition. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1874.

LIGHTFOOT (John), D.D., [39] 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge: A commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles; chronical and critical.… From the beginning of the book to the end of the twelfth chapter.… 4°, Lond. 1645, al.

[39] The date of the author’s death

[Also, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. See MATTHEW.]

LIMBORCH (Philipp van), [40] 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad Romanos et ad Ebraeos. 2°, Roterod. 1711, al.

[40] The date of the author’s death

LINDHAMMER (Johann Ludwig), [41] 1771, General Superintendent in East Friesland: Der … Apostelgeschichte ausführliche Erklärung und Anwendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck ausgelegt und … mit … philologischen und critischen Noten erläutert wird. 2°, Halae, 1725, al.

[41] The date of the author’s death

LIVERMORE (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The Acts of the Apostles, with a commentary. 12°, Boston, U.S., 1844.

LOBSTEIN (Johann Michael), [42] 1794, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Vollständiger Commentar über die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas. Th. I. 8°, Strassb. 1792.

[42] The date of the author’s death

LORINUS (Jean), [43] 1634, Jesuit: In Acta Apostolorum commentaria … 2°, Lugd. 1605, al.

[43] The date of the author’s death

MALCOLM (John), [44] 1634, Minister at Perth: Commentarius et analysis in Apostolorum Acta. 4°, Mediob. 1615.

[44] The date of the author’s death

MASKEW (Thomas Ratsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dorchester: Annotations on the Acts of the Apostles, original and selected … 2d edition … 12°, Camb. 1847.

MENKEN (Gottfried), [45] 1831, Pastor at Bremen: Blicke in das Leben des Apostel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach etlichen Kapiteln der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bremen, 1828.

[45] The date of the author’s death

MENOCHIO (Giovanni Stefano), [46] 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Historia sacra de Actibus Apostolorum. 4°, Rom. 1634.

[46] The date of the author’s death

MORUS (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), [47] 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Versio et explicatio Actorum Apostolicorum. Edidit, animadversiones recentiorum maxime interpretum svasque adjecit G. J. Dindorf. 2 voll. 8°, Lips. 1794.

[47] The date of the author’s death

NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), [48] 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin: Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel. 2 Bände. 8°, Hamb. 1832, al.

[48] The date of the author’s death

[Translated by J. E. Ryland. 8°, Lond. 1851.]

NOVARINO (Luigi), [49] 1650, Theatine monk: Actus Apostolorum expansi et notis monitisque sacris illustrati. 2°, Lugd. 1645.

[49] The date of the author’s death

OECUMENIUS, c[50] 980, Bishop of Trieca. See ROMANS.

[50] . circa

OERTEL (J. O.), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz: Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte.… 8°, Halle, a. S., 1868.

PALEY (William), D.D., [51] 1805, Archdeacon of Carlisle: Horae Paulinae; or, the truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul evinced by a comparison of the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another.

[51] The date of the author’s death

See TATE (James). 8°, Lond. 1790, al.

PATRIZI (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Rome: In Actus Apostolorum commentarium. 4°, Rom. 1867.

PEARCE (Zachary), D.D., [52] 1774, Bishop of Rochester. See MATTHEW.

[52] The date of the author’s death

PEARSON (John), D.D., [53] 1686, Bishop of Chester: Lectiones in Acta Apostolorum, 1672; Annales Paulini [Opera posthuma]. 4°, Lond. 1688, al.

[53] The date of the author’s death

[Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. R. Crowfoot, B.D. 12°, Camb. 1851.]

PETRI [PEETERS] (Barthélemi), [54] 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 4°, Duaci, 1622.

[54] The date of the author’s death

PLEVIER (Johannes), [55] c[56] 1760, Pastor at Middelburg: De Handelingen der heylige Apostelen, beschreeven door Lukas, ontleedt, verklaardt en tot het oogmerk toegepast. 4°, Utrecht, 1725, al.

[55] The date of the author’s death

[56] . circa

PRICAEUS [PRICE] (John), LL.D., [57] 1676, Prof. of Greek at Pisa: Acta Apostolorum ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis scriptoribus illustrata. 8°, Paris, 1647, al.

[57] The date of the author’s death

PYLE (Thomas), D.D., [58] 1756, Vicar of Lynn: A paraphrase, with some notes, on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles of the New Testament. 8°, Lond. 1725, al.

[58] The date of the author’s death

RIEHM (Johann Karl): Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Actorum Apostolorum. 8°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1821.

RITSCHL (Albrecht), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen: Die Entstehung der altkatholischer Kirche. 8°, Bonn, 1850—2te durchgängig neu ausgearbeitete Ausgabe. 8°, Bonn, 1857.

ROBINSON (Hastings), D.D., [59] 1866, Canon of Rochester: The Acts of the Apostles; with notes, original and selected, for the use of students. 8°, Lond. 1830.

[59] The date of the author’s death

Also, in Latin. 8°, Cantab. 1824.

SALMERON (Alphonso), [60] 1585, Jesuit: In Acta Apostolorum [Opera, xii.].

[60] The date of the author’s death

SANCHEZ [SANCTIUS] (Gaspar), [61] 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac. Scrip. at Alcala: Commentarii in Actus Apostolorum … 4°, Lugd. 1616, al.

[61] The date of the author’s death

SCHAFF (Philip), D.D., Prof. of Church Hist. at New York: History of the Apostolic church. 8°, New York, 1853. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1854.

[Previously issued in German at Mercersburg, 1851.]

SCHNECKENBURGER (Matthias), [62] 1848, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte. 8°, Bern, 1841.

[62] The date of the author’s death

SCHRADER. (Karl), Pastor at Hörste near Bielefeld: Der Apostel Paulus. 5 Theile. [Theil V. Uebersetzung und Erklärung … der Apostelgeschichte.] 8°, Leipz. 1830–36.

SCHWEGLER (Albert), [63] 1857, Prof. Rom. Lit. at Tübingen: Das nachapostolisches Zeitalter. 8°, Tübing. 1847.

[63] The date of the author’s death

SELNECCER (Nicolaus), [64] 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 8°, Jenae 1567, al.

[64] The date of the author’s death

STAPLETON (Thomas), [65] 1598, Prof. at Louvain: Antidota apostolica contra nostri temporis haereses, in Acta Apostolorum.… 2 voll. 1595.

[65] The date of the author’s death

STIER (Rudolf Ewald), [66] 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben: Die Reden der Aposteln. 2 Bände. 8°, Leipz. 1829.

[66] The date of the author’s death

[Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8°, Edin. 1869.]

STRESO (Caspar), [67] 1664, Pastor at the Hague: Commentarius praeticus in Actorum Apostolicorum … capita. 2 voll. 4°, Amstel. 1658–9, al.

[67] The date of the author’s death

SYLVEIRA (Juan de), [68] 1687, Carmelite monk: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 2°, Lugd. 1678.

[68] The date of the author’s death

TATE (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s: The Horae Paulinae of William Paley, D.D., carried out and illustrated in a continuous history of the apostolic labours and writings of St. Paul, on the basis of the Acts … 8°, Lond. 1840.

THEOPHYLACTUS, c[69] 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].

[69] . circa

THIERSCH (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theol. at Marburg: Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter. 8°, Frankf. 1852, al.

[Translated by Carlyle. 8°, Lond. 1852.]

THIESS (Johann Otto), [70] 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Lukas Apostelgeschichte neu übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 8°, Gera, 1800.

[70] The date of the author’s death

TRIP (Ch. J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland: Paulus nach der Apostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte … 8°, Leiden, 1866.

TROLLOPE (William): A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles … 12°, Camb. 1847.

VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), [71] 1785, Prof. in Leyden: Selecta e scholis L. C. Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb. Wassenbergh. 2 partes. 8°, Amst. 1815–17.

[71] The date of the author’s death

VEIL (Charles Marie de), [72] c[73] 1701, R. C. convert, latterly Baptist: Explicatio literalis Actorum Apostolicorum. 8°, Lond. 1684.

[72] The date of the author’s death

[73] . circa

[Translated by the author into English, 1685.]

WALCH (Johann Ernst Immanuel), [74] 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Dissertationes in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4°, Jenae, 1756–61.

[74] The date of the author’s death

WASSENBERGH (Everaard van). See VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar).

WIESELER (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen: Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. 8°, Götting. 1848.

WOLZOGEN (Johann Ludwig von), [75] 1661, Socinian: Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].

[75] The date of the author’s death

ZELLER (Eduard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin: Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. 8°, Stuttg. 1854.

[Translated by Rev. Joseph Dare. 8°, Lond. 1875.]

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

INTRODUCTION

SEC. I.—AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK

T HE fifth historical book of the New Testament, already named in early Christian antiquity (Canon Murat., Clem. Al. Strom. v. 12, p. 696, ed. Potter, Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2 f., de jejun. 10, de bapt. 10; comp. also Iren. adv. haer. iii. 14. 1, iii. 15. 1) from its chief contents πράξεις ( τῶν ) ἀποστόλων , announces itself (i. 1) as a second work of the same author who wrote the Gospel dedicated to Theophilus. The Acts of the Apostles is therefore justly considered as a portion of the historical work of Luke, following up that Gospel, and continuing the history of early Christianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of Paul at Rome; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient orthodox church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 25, among the Homologoumena. There is indeed no definite reference made to the Acts by the Apostolic Fathers, as the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp. Act_10:41), and Polycarp, ad Philippians 1 (comp. Act_2:24), cannot even be with certainty regarded as special reminiscences of it; and the same remark holds good as to allusions in Justin and Tatian. But, since the time of Irenaeus, the Fathers have frequently made literal quotations from the book (see also the Epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus. v. 2), and have expressly designated it as the work of Luke.[76] With this fact before us, the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see Wolf, Cur. IV. p. 731, Schmidt in Stäudlin’s Kirchenhist. Archiv, I. p. 15), might appear strange: τὸν δὲ συγγραφέα τῶν πράξεων οἱ μὲν Κλήμεντα λέγουσι τὸν Ῥώμης , ἄλλοι δὲ Βαρνάβαν καὶ ἄλλοι Λουκᾶν τὸν εὐαγγελιστήν , but this statement as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated, unsupported by any other notice of ecclesiastical antiquity, that it can only have reference to some arbitrary assumption of individuals who knew little or nothing of the book. Were it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been alleged to be a work of Clement or Barnabas; but of this there is not the slightest trace. That the Book of Acts was in reality much less known and read than the Gospels, the interest of which was the most general, immediate, and supreme, and than the N. T. Epistles, which were destined at once for whole churches and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evident from Chrysostom, Hom. I.: πολλοῖς τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίον οὐδʼ ὅτι ἔνι , γνώριμόν ἐστιν , οὔτε αὐτὸ , οὔτε ὁ γράψας αὐτὸ καὶ συνθείς .[77] And thus it is no wonder if many, who knew only of the existence of the Book of Acts, but had never read it (for the very first verse must have pointed them to Luke), guessed at this or that celebrated teacher, at Clement or Barnabas, as its author. Photius himself, on the other hand, concurs in the judgment of the church, for which he assigns the proper grounds: Αὐτὸς δὲ Λουκᾶς ἐπικρίνει . Πρῶτον μὲν ἐξ ὦν προοιμιάζεται , ὡς καὶ ἑτέρα αὐτῷ πραγματεία , τὰς δεσποτικὰς περιέχουσα πράξεις καταβέβληται . Δεύτερον δὲ , ἐξ ὧν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων εὐαγγελιστῶν διαστέλλεται , ὅτι μέχρι τῆς ἀναλήψεως οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν τὸ σύνταγμα προελθεῖν ἐποιήσατο , ἀλλʼ οὗτος μόνος καὶ τὴν ἀνάληψιν ἀκριβῶς ἐξηγήσατο , καὶ πάλιν τὴν τῶν πράξεων ἀπαρχὴν ἀπὸ ταύτης ὑπεστήσατο . Moreover, so early an ecclesiastical recognition of the canonicity of this book would be inexplicable, if the teachers of the church had not from the very first recognised it as a second work of Luke, to which, as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authority belonged. The weight of this ancient recognition by the church is not weakened by the rejection of the book on the part of certain heretical parties; for this affected only its validity as an authoritative standard, and was based entirely on dogmatic, particularly on anti

Pauline, motives. This was the case with the Ebionites (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16), to whom the reception of the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant; with the Severians (Euseb. H. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic principles were incompatible with the doctrines of Paul; with the Marcionites (Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2, de praescr. 22), who could not endure what was taught in the Acts concerning the connection of Judaism and Christianity; and with the Manichaeans, who took offence at the mission of the Holy Spirit, to which it bears testimony (Augustin. de utilit. credendi, ii. 7, epist. 237 [al. 253], No. 2).

From these circumstances—the less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less degree of veneration for it—is to be explained the somewhat arbitrary treatment of the text, which is still apparent in codd. (particularly D and E) and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although Bornemann (Acta apost. ad Codicis Cantabrig. fidem rec. 1848) saw in cod. D the most original form of the text (“agmen ducit codex D haud dubie ex autographo haustus,” p. xxviii.), which was an evident error.

[76] It cannot be a matter of surprise that our old codd. name no author in the superscription (only some minusculi name Luke), since there are not several “Acts of the Apostles” in the Canon, as there are several Gospels, needing distinctive designation by the names of their authors. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 57.

[77] So much the less can it be assumed with certainty, from the fragment of Papias, preserved by Apollinaris, on the death of Judas (of which the different forms of the text may be seen, (1) in Theophyl. on Act_1:18, and Cramer, Cat. in Act. p. 12 f.; (2) in Oecum. I. p. 11, Cramer, Cat. in Matth. p. 231, and Boissonade, Anecd. II. p. 464; (3) Scholion in Matthaei on Act_1:18), that Papias had in view the narrative of the event in the Acts, and wished to reconcile it with that of Matthew. He gives a legend respecting the death of Judas, deviating from that of Matthew and the Acts, and independent of both. See the dissertations on this point: Zahn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff., and in opposition to him, Overbeck in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 35 ff.; also Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 87 ff.

That the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one author, follows from the uniformity in the character of its diction and style (see Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 160 ff.; Credner, Einl. I. p. 132 ff.; Zeller, Apostelgesch. nach Inh. u. Urspr. Stuttg. 1854, p. 388 ff.; and especially Lekebusch, Composit. u. Entsteh. d. Apostelgesch. Gotha 1854, pp. 37–79; Klostermann, Vindiciae Lucanae, Götting. 1866; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868), from the mutual references of individual passages (de Wette, Einl. § 115, and Zeller, p. 403 ff.), and also from that unity in the tenor and connection of the essential leading ideas (see Lekebusch, p. 82) which pervades the whole. This similarity is of such a nature that it is compatible with a more or less independent manipulation of different documentary sources, but not with the hypothesis of an aggregation of such documentary sources, which are strung together with little essential alteration (Schleiermacher’s view; comp. also Schwanbeck, über d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk. I. p. 253, and earlier, Königsmann, de fontibus, etc., 1798, in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 215 ff.). The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel, and evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary character as to both books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. In the passages Act_16:10-17, Act_20:5-15, Act_21:1-18, Act_27:1 to Act_28:16, the author expressly by “we” includes himself as an eye-witness and sharer in the events related. According to Schleiermacher, these portions—belonging to the memoirs, strung together without elaboration, of which the book is composed—proceed from Timothy, a hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Einleit., and earlier in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1025 ff., p. 1046 ff.), Ulrich (Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 367 ff., 1840, p. 1003 ff.), and de Wette, and consistently worked out by Mayerhoff (Einl. in d. Petr. Schr. p. 6 ff.) to the extent of ascribing the whole book to Timothy; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections, as well as in general almost all from Act_15:1 onwards, to Silas.[78] But the reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke is the narrator using the we, are wholly unimportant. For, not to mention that it is much more natural to refer the unnamed I of that narrative in the first person plural to Luke, who is not elsewhere named in the book, than to Timothy and Silas, who are elsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished from the subject of the we; and apart also from the entire arbitrariness of the assertion that Luke could not have made his appearance and taken part for the first time at Act_16:10; the circumstance that in the Epistle to the Philippians no mention of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of the objectors, is still merely such in semblance. How long had Luke, at that time, been absent from Philippi! How probable, moreover, that Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians by means of Epaphroditus, left it to the latter to communicate orally the personal information which was of interest to them, and therefore adds in the Epistle only such summary salutations as Act_4:22! And how possible, in fine, that Luke, at the time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle, was temporarily absent from Rome, which is strongly supported, and, indeed, is required to be assumed by Php_2:20 f., comp. on Php_2:21. The non-mention of Luke in the Epistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum e silentio (see Lekebusch, p. 395); and the greater vividness of delineation, which is said to prevail where Timothy is present, cannot prove anything in contradistinction to the vividness of other parts in which he is not concerned. On the other hand, in those portions in which the “we” introduces the eye-witness,[79] the manipulation of the Greek language, independent of written documents, exhibits the greatest similarity to the peculiar colouring of Luke’s diction as it appears in the independent portions of the Gospel. It is incorrect to suppose that the specification of time according to the Jewish festivals, Act_20:6, Act_27:9, suits Timothy better than Luke, for the designations of the Jewish festivals must have been everywhere familiar in the early Christian church from its connection with Judaism, and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both the Timothy-hypothesis, already excluded by Act_20:4 f., and the Silas-hypothesis, untenable throughout, are clogged, only serve more strongly to confirm the tradition of the church that Luke, as author of the whole book, is the person speaking in those sections in which “we” occurs. See Lekebusch, p. 140 ff.; Zeller, p. 454 ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 33 ff., and Jahrb. IX. p. 50 ff.; Klostermann, l.c.; Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch. p. 8 ff. In the “we” the person primarily narrating must have been the “I,” with which the whole book begins. No other understanding of the matter could have occurred either to Theophilus or to other readers. The hypothesis already propounded by Königsmann, on the other hand, that Luke had allowed the “we” derived from the memoir of another to remain unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of Gfrörer (heil. Sage, II. p. 244 f.), impute to the author something bordering on an unintelligent mechanical process, such as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle Ages (examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 ff.), but must appear utterly alien and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of such company as we have here.

[78] Assuming, with extreme arbitrariness, that the redacteur has in Act_16:10 ff., misled by the preceding βοήθησον ἡμῖν (!), copied the first person after the Silas-document, and only in ver. 19 felt the necessity of changing the ἡμεῖς of Silas into the names concerned, in doing which, however, he has forgotten to include the name of Timothy. See Schwanbeck, p. 270 f., who has many other instances of arbitrariness, e.g. that ἄνδρας ἡγουμ . ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφ ., Act_15:22, stood in the Silas-document after ἐκλεξαμένους , and other similar statements, which refute themselves. The holding Luke and Silas as identical (van Vloten in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 223 ff.) was perhaps only a passing etymological fancy (lucus, silva). See, in opposition to it, Cropp in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 353 ff.

[79] Especially chap. 27 and 28. See Klostermann, Vindic. Luc. p. 50 ff.; and generally, Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch. p. 28 ff.

Recent criticism, however, has contended that the Acts could not be composed at all by a companion of the Apostle Paul (de Wette, Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, and others). For this purpose they have alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (Act_9:19; Act_9:23; Act_9:25-28, Act_11:30, compared with Act_1:17-19; Act_2:1; Act_17:16 f., Act_18:5, with 1Th_3:1 f.), inadequate accounts (Act_16:6, Act_18:22 f., Act_28:30 f.), omission of facts (1Co_15:32; 2Co_1:8; 2Co_11:25 f.; Rom_15:19; Rom_16:3 f.), and the partially unhistorical character of the first portion of the book (according to de Wette, particularly Act_2:5-11), which is even alleged to be “a continuous fiction” (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. 111 f.). They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (Act_28:7-10), un-Pauline speeches and actions (Act_21:20 ff., Act_23:6 ff., chap, 22, 26), an un

Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-Christians: approval of the apostolic decree). It is alleged that the formation of legend in the book (particularly the narrative of Simon and of Pentecost) belongs to a later period, and that the entire tendency of the writing (see sec. 2) points to a later stage of ecclesiastical development (see especially Zeller, p. 470 ff.); also that its politically apologetic design leads us to the time of Trajan, or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119); that the ἡμεῖς in the narrative of the travels (held even by Köstlin, Urspr. d. Synopt. Evang. p. 292, to be the genuine narrative of a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand by the author of the book, who wishes to be recognised thereby as a companion of the Apostle (according to Köstlin: for the purpose of strengthening the credibility and the impression of the apologetic representation); and that the Book of Acts is “the work of a Pauline member of the Roman church, the time of the composition of which may most probably be placed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130 after Christ” (Zeller, p. 488). But all these and similar grounds do not prove what they are alleged to prove, and do not avail to overthrow the ancient ecclesiastical recognition. For although the book actually contains various matters, in which it must receive correction from the Pauline Epistles; although the history, even of Paul the apostle, is handled in it imperfectly and, in part, inadequately; although in the first portion, here and there, a post-apostolic formation of legend is unmistakeable; yet all these elements are compatible with its being the work of a companion of the apostle, who, not emerging as such earlier than chap. 16, only undertook to write the history some time after the apostle’s death, and who, when his personal knowledge failed, was dependent on tradition developed orally and in writing, partly legendary, because he had not from the first entertained the design of writing a history, and had now, in great measure, to content himself with the matter and the form given to him by the tradition, in the atmosphere of which he himself lived. Elements really un-Pauline cannot be shown to exist in it, and the impress of a definite tendency in the book, which is alleged to betray a later stage of ecclesiastical development, is simply imputed to it by the critics. The We-narrative, with its vivid and direct impress of personal participation, always remains a strong testimony in favour of a companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of which that narrative is a part; to separate the subject of that narrative from the author of the whole, is a procedure of sceptical caprice. The surprisingly abridged and abrupt conclusion of the book, and the silence concerning the last labours and fate of the Apostle Paul, as well as the silence concerning the similar fate of Peter, are phenomena which are intelligible only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of the apostle being prevented by circumstances from continuing his narrative, but would be altogether inconceivable in the case of an author not writing till the second century, and manipulating with a definite tendency the historical materials before him,—inconceivable, because utterly at variance with his supposed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of Luke’s authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from the ἡμεῖς in the narrative of the travels (comp. Col_4:14; 2Ti_4:11; see especially Köstlin, p. 291), is so arbitrary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting mode in which such traditions arise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiastical tradition is to be explained, not from the wish to have a Pauline Gospel, but from the actual possession of one, and from a direct certainty as to its author.

The Book of Acts has very different stages of credibility, from the lower grade of the legend partially enwrapping the history up to that of vivid, direct testimony; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free historical criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scepticism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader and Gfrörer) it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and his school, after the more cautious but less consistent precedent set by Schneckenburger (über d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841). On the whole, the book remains, in connection with the historical references in the apostolic Epistles, the fullest and surest source of our knowledge of the apostolic times, of which we always attain most completely a trustworthy view when the Book of Acts bears part in this testimony, although in many respects the Epistles have to be brought in, not merely as supplementing, but also in various points as deciding against particular statements of our book.

SEC. II.—AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK

When the aim of the Acts has been defined by saying that Luke wished to give us a history of missions for the diffusion of Christianity (Eichhorn), or a Pauline church-history (Credner), or, more exactly and correctly, a history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome (Mayerhoff, Baumgarten, Guericke, Lekebusch, Ewald, Oertel), there is, strictly speaking, a confounding of the contents with the aim. Certainly, Luke wished to compose a history of the development of the church from its foundation until the period when Paul laboured at Rome; but his work was primarily a private treatise, written for Theophilus, and the clearly expressed aim of the composition of the Gospel (Luk_1:4) must hold good also for the Acts on account of the connection in which our book, according to Act_1:1, stands with the Gospel. To confirm to Theophilus, in the way of history, the Christian instruction which he had received, was an end which might after the composition of the Gospel be yet more fully attained; for the further development of Christianity since the time of the ascension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor, and Greece up to its announcement by Paul himself in Rome, the capital of the world, might and ought, according to the view of Luke, to serve that purpose. Hence he wrote this history; and the selection and limitation of its contents were determined partly by the wants of Theophilus, partly by his own Pauline individuality, as well as by his sources; so that, after the pre-Pauline history in which Peter is the chief person, he so takes up Paul and his work, and almost exclusively places them[80] in the foreground down to the end of the book, that the history becomes henceforth biographical, and therefore even the founding of the church of Rome—which, if Luke had designed to write generally, and on its own account, a mere history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, he would not, and could not, have omitted—found no place. The Pauline character and circle of ideas of the author, and his relation to Theophilus, make it also easy enough to understand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter, fall gradually into the background in the history, but also how the reflection of Paulinism frequently presents itself in the pre-Pauline half (“hence this book might well be called a gloss on the Epistles of St, Paul,” Luther’s Preface). One who was not a disciple of Paul could not have written such a history of the apostles. The fact that even in respect of Paul himself the narrative is so defective and in various points even inappropriate, as may be proved from the letters of the apostle, is sufficiently explained from the limitation and quality of the accounts and sources with which Luke, at the late period when he wrote, had to content himself and to make shift, where he was not better informed by his personal knowledge or by the apostle or other eye-witnesses.

[80] The parallel between the two apostles is not made up, but historically given. Both were the representatives of apostolic activity, and what the Acts informs us of them is like an extended commentary on Gal_2:8. Comp. Thiersch, Kirche im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 120 f. At the same time, the purpose of the work as a private composition is always to be kept in view; as such it might, according to its relation to the receiver, mention various important matters but briefly or not at all, and describe very circumstantially others of less importance. The author, like a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled. Comp. C. Bertheau, über Galatians 2 (Programm), Hamb. 1854.

Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent our book as a composition marked by a set apologetic[81] and dogmatic purpose. A justification of the Apostle Paul, as regards the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian church, is alleged by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss. 1817, to be its design; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared himself. More recently Schneckenburger (üb. d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841) has revived this view with much acuteness, to the prejudice of the historical character of the book. By Baur (at first in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, then especially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller, 1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 331 ff., and in his Gesch. der drei ersten Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as regards the book, from the apologetic to the conciliatory standpoint. He was followed specially by Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. II. p. 73 ff.; Zeller, p. 320 ff.; and Volkmar, Relig. Jesu, p. 336 ff.; while B. Bauer (d. Apostelgesch. eine Ausgleichung des Paulinismus und Judenthums, 1850) pushed this treatment to the point of self-annihilation. According to Schneckenburger, the design of the Acts is the justification of the Apostle Paul against all the objections of the Judaizers; on which account the apostle is only represented in that side of his character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the greatest possible similarity to Peter (see, in opposition to this, Schwanbeck, Quellen d. Luk. p. 94 ff.). In this view the historical credibility of the contents is maintained, so far as Luke has made the selection of them for his particular purpose. This was, indeed, only a partial carrying out of the purpose-hypothesis; but Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller have carried it out to its full consequences,[82] and have, without scruple, sacrificed to it the historical character of the contents. They affirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his compliance towards Judaism, is entirely different from the apostle as exhibited in his Epistles (Baur); that he is converted into a Judaizing Christian, as Peter and James are converted into Pauline Christians (Schwegler); and that our book, as a proposal of a Pauline Christian towards peace by concessions of his party to Judaism, was in this respect intended to influence both pa