24
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
Peter, and a practical defiance of the command of the authorities not to preacli in tiie name of Jesus. Then follows a description of the joy of the Church at the release of Peter and John, and an account of their prayer — dos rois 8ov\ols <tov /xera, irapprjcrLas Trdcrrjs \a\eiv Toy \6yov aov. In answer to their prayer, the Spirit was outpoured amid the shaking of the room in which they were, after which they were able, as they had asked, to speak the word /xera irapprjaias. Finally, a picture is drawn of the prosperity of the Church, and of the voluntary communism which prevailed.
The narrative gives an intelligible picture of the events which led to the growth of the Jerusalem Church and of an organization of charitable dis- tribution that ultimately led to the development described in Ac 6. Moreover, it has several marks of individuality, and an early type which suggests that we have here to do with a source used by Luke, probably in documentary form, rather than a Lucan composition. This applies especially to Peter's speech, which is in some ways one of the most archaic passages in the NT. Peter does not describe Jesus as having been the Messiah, but as a irais 6eov (more probably ' Servant of God ' than ' Child of God,' and perhaps with a side reference to the ' Servant of Jahweh ' in Is 53, etc.) — a phrase peculiar to source A, 1 Clement, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Didache. He then goes on to announce that God has glorified this irais by the Resurrection, and that He is the predestined Messiah {rbv Trpoa-KexeipifffJ.^i'ov XpiffrSv), who will remain in the Heavens until the 'restoration of all things.' Recent research in the field of eschato- logy and Messianic doctrine has brought out clearly the primitive character of this speech. The same can also be said of the prayer of the Church in i^*^-, in which the phrase rd;/ dyiov iraWd <rov 'Iriffodu, 5v ^xP'O'as ( ' made Christ ' ?) is very remarkable.
Thus source A commends itself as an early and good tradition, but it begins in the middle and tells us nothing about the events previous to the visit of Peter and John to the Temple. Apparently it was to till up this gap that Luke turned to source B, which seems to relate some of the same events, but in a different order ; and, though Harnack doubts this, it seems, on the whole, probable that Ac 1, or at least vv.®"^^, ought to be regarded as belonging to it. According to this narrative, the disciples received the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost amid the shaking of the room, after which Peter made a speech, in many points resembling that in Ac 3, but without the characteristic phraseology of A, and with the addition of many more ' testimonia ' as to the Resurrection. A great number of converts (about 3000) were made ; and, in the enthusiasm which prevailed, a sj^irit of voluntary communism flourished, and an organization of charitable dis- tribution came into being.
This narrative does not seem so convincing as that of source A. But if Ac 1 be regarded as belonging to it, it has the advantage of connecting the story of the Church at Jerusalem directly with the events that followed the Crucifixion — a period on which A is silent. Now, it is tolerably clear that A was a written Greek source used by Luke, just as he used Mark in the Gospel ; for, although it has been ' Lucanized,' it still retains its own <!haracteristic expressions. Presumably, therefore, a copy of this document came into Luke's possession, and he supplemented it at the beginning with B ; but, whether B was a written source or oral tradi- tion, it is impossible to say. The question presents in this respect a remarkable parallel to the state of things in the last chapters of the Gospel of Luke. Here also the writer made use of a Greek document — Mark — and supplemented it with a Jerusalem tradition — whether written or oral it is impossible
to say— -either because the Marcan narrative broke off', as it breaks oti' in the existent text of Mark, or because he desired to correct the Marcan tradition. It is, moreover, plain that this Jerusalem tradition at the end of Luke is the same as that in source B of the Acts. The question then suggests itself whether source A — the written source of Acts — may not belong to the same document as ' Mark ' — the written source of the Gospel. If we suppose that the original Mark contained a continuation of the Gospel story down to the foundation of the Church in Jerusalem, and either that Luke dis- liked the section referring to the events after the Crucifixion, or perhaps that his copy had been mutilated, the composition of this part of Acts becomes plain ; * but it also becomes a question whether the John who accompanies Peter in source A (and nowhere else) is not John Mark, rather than John the son of Zebedee.
All this, however, is hypothetical. The actual existence of the source A in ch. 3f. and of the supplementary source B in ch. 2 is a point for which comparative certainty may be claimed.