distorted pictures of fact. But the conception of history as an attempt to represent facts in correct perspective, even when it is poorly and feebly carried out, is a great and sacred possession, which we owe to the Greeks ; and is a generically different thing from popular tradition, which aims either at the moral apologue, or the glory of an individual or a family, and regards faithfulness to actual facts as quite a secondary thing.
The episode of Ananias and Sapphira V I f. excites reasonable suspicion. That Ananias should be carried forth and buried unknown to his family, unmourned by his kindred and friends, is not merely contrary to right con- duct, but violates the deepest feelings of oriental life. That a man should be properly lamented and wept for by his family is and has always been a sacred right, which even crime does not forfeit. But the desire to bring into strong relief the unselfishness of the primitive Church has worked itself out in a moral apologue, which has found here an entrance alongside of real history.
Again in II 5-1 1 another popular tale seems to ob- trude itself. In these verses the power of speaking with tongues, which is clearly described by Paul as a species of prophesying (I Cor. XII 10 f., XIV 1 f.), is taken in the sense of speaking in many languages. Here again we observe the distorting influence of popular fancy.
Yet alongside of these suspicious stories we find passages which show strongly the characteristic method of Luke ; and the entire plan of the narrative, con- centrating attention on the successive critical steps, is thoroughly Lukan. We take one example of a Lukan passage.
The incident in IV 13 f. is especially characteristic of
Stc. 2. Trustworthiness of the Narrative, I-V. 371
Luke's style ; and it has been widely misunderstood. Zeller, Holtzmann, Meyer- Wendt and others, understand these verses to mean that the members of the Sanhedrim became aware only during the trial that Peter and John had been disciples of Jesus : which, as they justly point out, is most unnatural and unsuitable. But the force of the passage seems to be very different : the Jewish leaders perceived the bold and fluent speech of Peter and John , and yet they observed from their dress and style of utterance that they were not trained scholars ; and they marvelled (for there was then probably an even more marked distinction than at the present day between the speech and thought of a fisherman or shepherd and of an educated person) ; and they further took cognisance of the fact that they were disciples of Jesus ; and they gazed on the man that had been cured standing along with his pre- servers. These were the facts of the case : all were un- deniable ; and all were vividly brought before them. What conclusion could be drawn from them ? The historian's point is that there was only one possible inference ; and, as the Jewish leaders were unwilling to draw that inference, they perforce kept silence, not having wherewithal to dis- pute the obvious conclusion.
Here, as usual, the historian does not himself draw the inference; but merely states the main facts, and leaves them to tell their own tale. But in no passage does he state the facts in more dramatic form. The conclusion lies close at hand, viz., that these illiterate fishermen had acquired the art and power of effective oratory through their having been the disciples of Jesus, and through the Divine grace and power communicated to them.
We notice also that John's speech has not previously
tfi Chronology of Early Church History. Chap. XVI.
been mentioned, yet now it is assumed that he had spoken. This is characteristic of the writer's style, as we have seen it in the second part of the work. It is evident that Peter's single speech did not exhaust the proceedings at the trial ; but Luke assumes that the reader conceives the general situation and the style of procedure in such trials ; and he quotes the most telling utterance, and leaves the rest to the reader's imagination.