iii. The LiTEUAKT HISTORY of the Acts is similar to that of the great number of books of NT. In the last quarter of the second century, when we begin to have any great extent of Christian literature, we find it definitely cited, treated as Scripture, and assigned to St. Luke. This is the case esp. with Irenajus, who cites passages so continuous as to make it certain that he had the book before him substantially as we have it, but with many of the readings we call Western. He lays stress on the fact that there is internal evidence for the apostolic authorship, and is followed in this by the Muratoriau Fragment (Iren. Adv. Ilir. i. 23. 1 ; iii. 12. 12, 13. 3, 14. 1, 15. 1 ; iv. 15. 1). The book is also a-scribed to St. Luke by TertuUian (De h-iunio, 10) and Clement of .\lex. (Sfrom. v. 12. §83, p. 69fi, cf. Sanday, liL, p. (ifif.) ; while undoubted quotations appear in Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 24), in the letter concerning the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons {ib. v. 1), and a possible one in Dionysius of Corinth {ib. iv. 23). By this date the work is an
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
integral portion of the Canon in all Churches, and there are no signs of any difference of opinion. Nor is tliere any reason for arguing that because our knowledge of it begins suddenly, therefore the book suddenly appeared in the Canon. We have no decisive evidence earlier, because we have no books to contain tliat evidence. Jloreover, the wide area over which our evidence extends seems to imply that the iuscription to St. Luke is a genuine tradition, and not a mere critical deduction.
For an earlier period tlie industry of critics has collected a number of parallels, on which indeed, for the most part, no great stress can be laid ; but two lines of arirument enable us to take the book farther back. The unity of authorship of the Acts and St. Luke's Gospel must be admitted as axio- matic, and it is quite clear that Talian, Justin, and Marcion were acquainted with St. Luke's Gospel. Now, the existence of St. Luke's Go-spel implies the existence of the Acts, and this con- clusion is supported by a number of (larallels between the Acts and ,Ju.stin, which would not perhaps be bv themselves of great weight (Ac P = Ap. i. 50, 2»"' = Dial. «8. 7*- = Dial. 1(5, 17-3 = Ap. ii. 10, 2tV-a = Dial, m, 76). The use of St. Luke by Marcion clearly carries the Acts back to the early part of the second century; but we can go still earlier. Among the apostolic Fathers there are suggestions of contact with Barnabsts, Hennas, and Clement on which little stress can be laid, while Papias .shows himself acquainted with the persons mentioned by St. Luke ; but in Ignatius and I'olycarp (Ac '.i* = Pol. 1, 10*2 = Pol. 2, 20^ = Pol. 2, 7»2 = Pol. 6, 8-1 = Pol. 12, l-'s = Ign. Marj. 6, (553 = Ign. Phil. 11, 10*' = Ign. Snvjn. '-i) there are resemblances which, altliough slight, are so exact as to make the hy- pothesis of literary obligation almo.st neces.sary, a.s Holtzmann even seems to think {Einleitnni/,'-' 1892, p. 40(5, ' there are still more noteworthy resem- blances with Justin, I'olycarp, and Ignatius '). This la.st evidence is of increasing importance, as not only the genuineness but also the early date of the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius is becoming daily better established, and these quotations almost compel us to throw back the writing of the Acts into the 1st cent. — this is, of course, provided we accept the literary unity. If we accept the elaborate distinction of sources (see § x.) which has become fashionable lately, no evidence at an early date is valuable except for the words quoted.
The history subsequent to the second century need not detain us. Some few heretics appear to have left the work out of the Canon, and Chrysostom complains that it was not much read in his time ; but it is always with him as with all other Church writers, one of the accepted book.s. Its place in the Canon varies. The ordinary position is ininu'diately after the Gospels (Evv. Art. Cath. Paul, or Evv. Act. Paul. Calh.), and this is the place it occupies in almost all (Jr.- MSS. from the Vatican onwards, in the Muratorian Fragment and later lists, in Syr. and Lat. MSS. The order, Erv. Paul. Act. Calh., is that of the Sin., some Minusiuiles, MSS. of the Pesliitta of the 5th and tith cent., the Codex Fuldensis and Vulg. MSS. from the l.'ilh cent. A third order is Ecv. Paul. Cath. Act., which is found in the Apostolic Canons, 85, the IJohairic and perhaps the Sahidic MSS., in Jerome's Bible and Spanish Vulg. MSS. The only point of imijortance in the order would be whether there was an early tradition grouping the writings of St. Luke together. There is very Utile evidence of this. In stmie cases St. Luke'.s was placed fourth among the Gospels, but this happened, as a rule, in authorities which do not put the Acts next ; for example, the Codex Claromon- tanus and some Coptic authorities. There seems, however, .some evidence for thinking that in