Aug. A.D. 51. We may then reconstruct as follows : —
Trial by Gallio— Aug. 51.
Corinth to Antioch— end of 51.
Arrival at Ephesus — summer of 52.
Departure from Ephesus and arrival at Corinth — autumn of 54.
Arrival at Jerusalem and arrest — summer of 55.
Two years' imprisonment — 65 to summer 57.
Trial before Festus — summer 57.
In view of the evidence as to Gallio, this is the earliest possible chronology, unless we suppose that two years in prison means June 55-summer 56, which is, indeed, part of two years, though it is doubtful Avhether it could have been described as SieTias irXrjpwdeiffTjs — the phrase used in Ac 24-''.
Summary. — These are the only data in Acts for which any high degree of probability can be claimed. The date of Gallio is by far the most certain. If we combine with them the further data in Galatians, we obtain a reasonably good chronology as far back as the conversion of St. Paul. The second visit to Jerusalem in Galatians is identical either with the time of the famine or with that of the Council. If the former, it can be placed in +46, if the latter, in + 48 ; and the conversion was either 14 or 17 years before this, according to the exegesis adopted for the statements in Galatians ; though, owing to the ancient method of reckoning, 14 may mean a few months more than 12, and 17 a few months more than 15. Thus the earliest date for the conversion would be A.D. 31, the latest 36.
It should, however, be remembered that the period of 14 years reckoned between the first and second visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem depends entirely on the reading AIMAGTCON in Gal 2^, which might easily have been a corruption for AIAAGTCjON ( = ' after 4 years'), and that the 14 years in question are always a difficulty, as events seem to have moved rapidly before and after that period, but during it to have stood relatively still. The possibility ought not to be neglected that the conversion was 10 years later than the dates suggested, i.e. in 41 or 46. This is especially important, in view of the fact that the evidence of Josephus as to the marriage of Herod and Herodias suggests that the death of John the Baptist, and therefore the Crucifixion, were later than has usually been thought (see K. Lake, ' Date of Herod's Marriage with Herodias and the Chron- ology of the Gospels,' in Expositor, 8th ser. iv. [1912] 462).
LiTERATiTRB. — For literature on the subject see A. Harnack,
Chronolociie, Leipzig, 1897-1904, i. 233-9; the art. in HDB on 'Chronology' by C. H. Turner (older statements are almost entirely based on K. Wieseler's Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, Hamburg, 1848) ; C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904.
VII. The Theology of Acts.— The theology of Acts is, on the whole, simple and early, showing no traces of Johannine, and surprisingly few of Pauline, influence. In common with all other canonical writings, it regards the God of the Christians as the one true God, who had revealed Himself in time past to His chosen people the Jews ; and it identifies Jesus wdth the promised Messiah, who will come from heaven to judge the world, and to inaugurate the Kingdom of God on the earth. There is, however, just as in the Third Gospel, a noticeably smaller degree of interest in the Messianic kingdom than in Mk. and Mt. , and a proportionately increased interest in the Spirit. This may probably be explained as due to the fact that the writer belonged to a more Gentile circle than those in which Mk. and Mt. were written. It is strange that in some respects Acts is less ' Gentile ' or ' Greek ' than the Epistles. This is partially explained by the fact that much of so-called Faulinismus has been read into the Epistles ; but, even when an allowance
28
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
has been made for this fact, the difficulty re- mains. The points on •which the theology of Acts requires discussion in detail are its christology, eschatology, attitude to the OT and Jewish Law, doctrine of the Spirit, and doctrine of baptism.
1. Christology. — In Acts Jesus is recognized as the Christ, but the Christology belongs to an early type. There is no suggestion of the Logos-Christ- ology of the Fourth Gospel, or even of the Epistles of the Captivity. ' The Christ ' appears to have the quite primitive meaning of ' the king of the kingdom of God, who is appointed by God to judge the world ' (cf. ^<xrr}aev rjfjApav ev 17 fxiWei KpLveiv Tr)v olKovfiiprjV ev 5i.Ka,i.o(Tvvrj ev di'dpi <^ iopiaev, TricTTiv Trapaffxi^v irdffLV dvaffrrjaas avrbv in veKpuiv, 17'*^). At what point Jesus became Christ, according to Acts, is not quite clear. Harnack (Neue Unter- suchungen zur Apostelgesch. , p. 75 ff. ) thinks that Luke regarded the Resurrection as the moment, in agreement with one interpretation of Ro 1^ In favour of this view can be cited Ac 13^-'* (St. Paul's speech at Antioch in Pisidia), ravTi^v [i.e. iirayyeXiav] 6 debs eKireirX-qpuiKev rois t^kvois r}fiQ>v dvacTTrjcras 'Itjctovv, wj Kal iv ry xj/aKfii^ y^ypairrai ry deirripcfi- vios fiov elcrv, iyw (TT]fj.epov yeyevvrjKd ere, wliich, strictly interpreted, must mean that Jesus became God's Son at the Resurrection, for in the context dvaarrjo-as can be given no other translation. On the other hand, it must be remembered that many critics think that this same quotation from Ps 2 is connected with the Baptism in Lk 3-,* in which case the further quotation in Lk 4^*, irvevpLa Kvpiov iir' ifxe, oD e'iveKev ixp'-'^^" M^i kt\., acquires increased force, for the connexion of exptcev with Xpiaros is obvious. This, again, reflects light on Ac 10^ (ojs ^XP'O'"' o-vrbv 6 Oebs irvevfiaTi. dyiui /cat Swd/iet) and the similar phrase in 4'-". It must remain a problem for critics how far this difi'erence between Ac IS^^*- and 10^ and 4-'' is accidental (or merely apparent), and how far it is justifiable to connect it with the fact that Ac 13 (which agrees with Ro 1^) belongs to the Pauline source, while Ac 4 and 10 belong to the Jerusalem source A and the closely connected or identical Jerusalem-Caesarean source (which agree with at all events one interpretation of the meaning of the Baptism in Mk 1).