It is very difficult to deal with some of these objections quite seriously. Even if the use of the Pauline Kpistles were proved, it is difficult to see what that has to do with the late date of the Acts. The contradirtinns with the I'auline Kpistles are largely dependent on a priori views of Church history. Some points, as the resemblance
to I'lutarch, are purely fanciful. The political point of view is exactly that of St. Paul's Epistles. One point requires perhaps slightly fuller investi- gation ; and the remaining points, so far as they are serious, will be best dealt with in an independent survey of the historical character of the work.
viii. The Relation of the Acts to Joseph fs presents to us, under the auspices of modern criticism, a curious double problem. While older critics, like Zeller, contented themselves with pointing out historical discrepancies, later critics since Keim (Gesch. Jcsn, iii. 1872, 134, and Attsdem Urchriste.nthum, 1878, 18) have attempted to show that St. Luke made u.se of Josephus. The crucial pas.sage is that concerning Theudas (Ac S^"). In his speech Gamaliel is made to refer to a rebellion under a leader of that name ; but according to Jos. this took place at least ten years later, under Cnspius Fadus, and long after that of Judas the Galihean. So far the problem was simple, but it is now main- tained that the mistake arose from the misappre- hension of a passage of Josephus. In one paragrapli he speaks about Theudas, in the next of the Sons oi Judas of Galilee, and this, it is maintained, is the origin of the mistake. The two passages are quoted thus —
Jos. Ant. XX. V. 1 f. &cv8as . . . TTfldd rhv
Trpo(p'i]T-qs yap $Kfy€v flvai,
K.T.K.
4»a5oj . . , e^4iTffjL^iv t\riv iinreajf . . . in' ai/Tovi, TjTiS . . . iroAAoi/s . . .
Acts SSO f- aviari) 0€u5ay \4yo}v iivai riva kavrov . . . tj ai'T}p(6rj Kal iracrej oVoi
<Tav, K.T.K,
fjLfra Tovrov dve'ffTTj loi/Sns 6 FaAiAatoy 4v toTs
7]/dfpaL^ rrjS a-7roypa<f'7js Kal iLtrfffTTjfft \ahp iitiatu
avTov.
irpiy TOuToty 5e Ka\ ol iraiSts 'loySa toD FaAiAafou aTT-fix^V^av Tov rhv \ahv airh 'PwfxaittJV atTO(JTi](rav- Toy Kvpivlov TTJs 'louSaias Tt^i.r}Tivov^os.
Now, whatever plausibility this comparison may have at first sight is very much diminished when we remember that the two passages in Jos. do not immediately follow one another, but are separated by an interval of 20 lines or more. Nor when we come to examine them do we find any close resemblance in the language. There are words common to both accounts, but they are none of them characteristic ; it is not easy to describe a revolt without using the word awoarriaai in some form, while the details are different in the two accounts ; the Acts give 4000 men, Jos. gives no number. This is recognised by Clemen (SK, 1805, p. 339), who is of opinion that the author of the Acts had read .los. but forgotten him. Is this resemblance, or fancied resemblance, supported by any other passages ? Keim and the author of Supernatural lieliijion have collected a large number of parallel passages, but they are not of a character to bring conviction. On the other hand, the argument of Zeller (Eng. tr. i. p. 2.32) on the discrepancy between the Acts and Jos. in the case of the death of Herod Agrippa is (jnite sufficient to prove inde- pendence ; and this argument has been very well brought out by Schiirer. Wluatever the differences between the Acts and Jos. prove, they are only conceivable on the suppo-sition of independence. Most of these do not affect our estimate of the historical character of the work ; the difficulty about Theudas, even if it admits of no solution, may cast doubts on the historical character of Gamaliel's speech ; it does not really affect the question of the Lucan authorship of the Acts.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
31
ix. THE Historical Value OF THE Acts— l.yi priori Objections. — In invesligatiiig the historical value of the Acts, we must lirsl of all clear the ground by putting on one side a number of a priori objections. To say that the document is un- historical because it narrates miraculous events, or because it contains accounts of angels, is simply to beg the question. Even if we were quite certain that such events were impossible and never occurred, we have abundant evidence for knowing that the early Christians believed in them. St. Paul claims himself to have worked what were believed both by him and his readers to be miracles (Blass, Acta Apuxtolornm, p. ri f.). Again, all such difficulties a.s arise from an a priori theory of Church history must be banished. To deny docu- ments because they conflict with one's theories, is to argue in a vicious circle. Although there are few serious critics who now accept tlie Tubingen theories, yet many of their assumptions have •icquired a traditional hold on the minds of writers, and consciously or unconsciously affect their argu- ments. Similarly, objections based on the liier- archioal or sacramental tendencies of a book as.sume that we can find the beginning of such tendencies in the Church ; which we clearly cannot do.
Much the same may be said of the suppo.sed parallelisms between St. I'eter and St. Paul. According to Holtzmann, the strongest argument for the critical position is the correspondence between the acts of St. Peter and the other apostles on the one side, and these of .St. Paul on the other. Both begin their ministry with the healing of a lame man ; both work miracles, the one with his shadow, the other with napkins. Demons flee in the name of St. Peter and in the name of St. Paul. St. Peter meets Simon Magus; St. Paul Elymits and the Ephesian magicians. Hoth raisi! the dead. Both receive divine honours. Both are supported by Pharisees in the council. St. Paul is stoned at Lystra, Stephen at .reru.salem. .St. Paul is ma<le to adopt the language of St. Peter, St. Peter of St. Paul, and so on. The value of such an argument is one which can only depend upon individual feeling. It is, of course, perfectly true that they both occupy prominent places, tiiat they are, in fact, the writer's heroes ; but that dues not prove the unhistorical character. We may well refer to Plutarch's lives. Because the writer tiiids parallels between the lives of two men, it does not prove that his narrative is fictitious. But, further, although there are resemblances, there are very considerable differences as well, and the resemblances arise largely from the positions in which tlu^ apostles were placed. There is nothing unnatural in the points of similarity, and they are balanoed by many points of difference.