Besides this, on grounds of general probability, various small points give rise to doubt, or seem to belong to the world of legend rather than to that of history — for instance, the removal of Philip by the Spirit (or angel ?) from the side of the Ethiopian to Azotus ; but the main narrative otters no real reason for rejection. The best statement of all the points open to suspicion is still that of Zeller- Overbeck {The Acts of the Apostles, Eng. tr., Lon- don, 1875-76), but the conclusions which Zeller draws are often untenable. He did not realize that in any narrative there is a combination of really observed fact and of hypotheses to explain the fact. The hypotheses of a writer or narrator of the 1st cent, were frequently of a kind that we should now never think of suggesting. But that is no reason why the narrative as a whole should not be regarded as a statement of fact. The exist- ence, in any given narrative, of improbable ex-
planations as to how events happened is not an argu- ment against its early date and general trust- worthiness, unless it can be shown that the ex- planation involves improbability not only in fact but also in thought — it must not only be improb- able that the event really happened in the manner suggested, but it must be improbable that a narra- tor of that age would have thought that it so hap- pened. Judged by this standard, the Antiochene and Jerusalem-Csesarean traditions seem to deserve credence as good and early sources.
The same thing can be said of source A in the purely Jerusalem tradition. But the problem raised by source B is more difficult. If it be as- sumed that Ac 1 does not belong to it, it can only be compared with source A. To this it seems in ferior, but on the whole it narrates the same events, and it would certainly be rash to regard B as valueless. No doubt it is true that, if the events happened in the order given in A, they cannot have happened in the order given in B, but it is quite possible that many details in B may be cor- rect in spite of the fact that they are told other- wise or not told at all in A.
If, on the other hand, Ac 1 be assigned to B, the question is more complicated. According to Ac 1, the Ascension took place near Jerusalem forty days after the Resurrection, and the infer- ence is suggested that the disciples, including Peter, never left Jerusalem after the Crucifixion. That this was Luke's own view is made quite plain from the Gospel, except that there does not appear to be any room in the Gospel narrative for the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The problems which arise are therefore: (1) How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be recon- ciled? (2) Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee ?
1. How far can the Gospel of Luke and Acts 1 be reconciled ? — Various attempts have been made to find room in the Gospel for the ' forty days.' They have not, however, been successful, as the connecting links in the Gospel narrative are quite clear from the morning of the Resurrection to the moment of the Ascension, which is plainly intended to be regarded as taking place on the evening of the same day. According to Lk 24^^-, the sequence of the events was the following. Early on Sunday morning certain women went to the tomb, and to them two men appeared who announced the Resur- rection ; the women believed, but failed to con- vince the disciples. Later on in the same day (iv avry ry rj/jLipg.) two disciples saw the risen Lord on the way to Emmaus, and at once returned to Jeru- salem to tell the news {dvaardi'Tes avTrj ry (bpq.). While they were narrating their experience the Lord appeared, led them out to Bethany, and was taken up to heaven. The only place where there is any possibility of a break in the narrative is v.*^ (elirev 54), but this possibility (in any case contrary to the general impression given by the passage) is excluded by the facts that etTrei' 5^ is a peculiarly Lucan phrase (59 times in Luke, 15 times in Acts, only once elsewhere in the NT), and that it never implies that a narrative is not continuous, and usually the reverse. Moreover, that Lk 24^^, what- ever text be taken, refers to the Ascension is rendered certain by the reference in Ac P. Thus, there is no doubt that the Gospel places the Ascen- sion on the evening or night of the third day after the Crucifixion. It is equally clear that Acts places the Ascension forty days later, if the text of 1* (5i 7]ixepCiv TeaaapaKovra) is correct ; and, though there is, it is true, some confusion in the text at this point, it is not enough to justify the omission of ' forty days ' (see esp. F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 1896, p. xxiii). The only possible suggestion.
26
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
therefore, is that the writer found some reason to modify his opinions in the interval between writ- ing the Gospel and the Acts. Whether he was right to do so depends on the judgment passed on various factors, which cannot be discussed here, but may be summed up in the question wliether the eviileiice of the Pauline Epistles does not sug- gest that the earliest Christian view was that Ascension and Resurrection were but two ways of describing the same fact, and whether this is not also implied in the speeches of Peter in Ac 2 and 3 * (cf. especially Ro 8^, Ph 1^3, Ac 2^3 Sif-'S), The evidence is not sufficient to settle the point, but it shows that the problem is not imaginary.