Origen's time the order of the Gospels was Jn Mt Mk Lk, and that these were followed by the Acts. In the case of Irenaus, however, our oldest evidence for Asia and the West, we find the Gospel already separated from the Acts and definitely grouped with the other Gospels (Zahn, Geschichte (les A'eutest. Kanons, ii. ;54;i-383).
iv. MODKUN Ci'.n'icisM. — 1. By far the most prevalent opinion concerning the Acts has always been, and still is, that which ascribes it to St. Luke the companion of St. Paul. This is the opinion, not only of those critics who are classed as ortho- dox, but of Kenan, whilst it has recently been maintained with great vigour by Kamsay and Blass. It is, of course, compatible with very vary- ing estimates of its historical authority. While Renan considers it valuable mainly as a witness to the opinions and ideas of the author's own time, Ramsay, on the other hand, claims for St. Luke a place in the very first rank of histcnians — i.e. amongst those who have good material, who use it well, and who write their history with a very clear insight into the true course of events. Even he, however, admits that for the earlier portion its value is tlependent on the value of the sources used.
2. As soon as Baur began to develop his theory of Church history, it became apparent that it was inconsistent with the Acts ; and partly arising from a comparison with the history recorded in the Galatians and for other critical reasons, but partly owing to a different a priori conception of what was the nature of the development of the early Church, an opinion has widely prevailed that the Acts presents us with a fancy picture written in the second century in the interests of the growing (Catholicism of the day. This has been the view of Baur, Schwegler, Zeller (to whom we owe by far the fullest investigation on this side), Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Hausrath, Moisten, Lipsius, Davidson, van Manen. and others. But in the extreme form in which it was held it is gradually being given up. Neither the late date nor the exaggerated view of the differences of parties in the early Church is really tenable. The unhistorical character comes, it is now said, rather from defective knowledge and insight, not from deliberate purpo.se, and the writer wrote as he could rather than as he would. He represents, in fact, the opinions of his day, those of ' Heathen Christianity developing into Catho- licity' (Harnack, Jlist. of Dogma, Kng. tr. i. 56). Moreover, few would care for a much later date than 100 A.d. 'The authorship by St. Luke would be just conceivable if some time about the year 80 were taken as the terminus ad quem ' (Holtzmann, Ilandkomm. p. 312).
3. The school of Baur had the great merit of establishing the fact that the Acts is an artistic whole, that the writer had a clear conception of the manner in which the Church developed, and wrote with that idea always before him. In the last ten years a series of writers have attacked the question of the sources of the Ixiok (see § x.) in a manner quite inconsistent with this. They have imagined a number of writers who have gradually compiled the book by collecting and piecing together scrajis of other books, and by altering or cutting out such passages in the same as seemed inconsistent with their particular opin- ions. This view, in anything like an extreme form, is ab.solutely inconsistent with the whole character of the work.
A sufficient amount has been said about the various opinions which have been held, and it will be most convenient to pursue our subsequent investigations from the point of view which we consider most probable.
V. PfurofiK AND C;oNTENT8. — The purpose Which the writer of the Acts had before him may bo
28
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
gathered from his own preface, corresponding as it tloes with the plan and arrangement of the work. There is indeed a slight obscurity. He begins by referring to liis previous book in the words rhu /iff trpuiTov \6yoii, and very clearly sums up the contents
of the work as being 7r«pl irarTcor S}V (jp^aro d 'ItJiToCs
iroitii' Tf Kal StSi(TK(iv\ but he never gives the second part of the sentence. Its purport, however, may be gathered from the following verses. The apo.s- tles were to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and of power, and were to be witnesses of the Lord in Jerusalem and in all Judsea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. In other words, the subject of the book is (1) the divine credentials of the apostles as exhibited in their power, and (2) the extension of the gospel in the stages marked by the words Jerusalem, Jud»a, and Samaria, the uttermost parts of the earth.
When we examine the structure of the book, we find that it almost exactly corresponds with these words. There is clear evidence of method. The writer begins with the enumeration of the names of the apostles and the members of the corjmunity. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the immediate outburst of power. Then the preaching in Jerusalem. In this we notice that all signs of the apostolic power and all points which lead to the spread of the gospel are specially noted. An in- stance of the first is the story of Ananias and Sapphira ; of the last, the way in which the different stages in the growth of the Church are continually emphasised Ci*'-" 4*). In ch. 6 there is clearly a new start. Tlie appointment of the seven is dwelt on, both because of the immediate exhibition of power (0"), and because of the immense results which followed from the preaching of Stephen and the persecution which followed his death.