Sec. i. Hypothesis of " The Travel- Document" '. 385
One episode, which bears all the marks of vivid personal witness, comes under neither of these categories, viz., the story of Peter's imprisonment and escape, XII. Here some other authority was used ; and the narrative suggests distinctly that the authority was not Peter himself, but one of those in the house of Mary. John Mark, who is pointedly mentioned as being in Jerusalem, XII 25, and who was afterwards with Luke and Paul in Rome, was almost certainly (v. 12) the ultimate authority here.
Luke added to these authorities an obvious acquaintance with Paul's own letters. He rarely states anything that is recorded in them ; he assumes them as known ; and he makes it one of his objects to set them in a clearer light.
The whole of his materials he used with the true historical sense for the comparative importance of events and for the critical steps in a great movement, and also with a wide and careful study of the general history of the contemporary world (i.e., the Roman Empire). The research which Luke applied in the execution of his work is shown with especial clearness in the chronological calculations which he introduced in Book I (similar to those which he would probably have added in Book II, see p. 23). These calculations deserve fresh study with a view to estimate the work which the author has compressed into them. The accuracy of one of them (viz., the state- ment about Philip in Luke III 1) I have defended elsewhere, and. as I believe, on grounds which would carry conviction to every one, were it not that they are incon- sistent with the dominant North-Galatian theory. Again the census (Luke II 1) under Quirinius is pointedly called the first, implying that it was the first of a series of census. A census is known to have been made in
25
386 Composition and Date of Acts. Chap. XVIL
Syria by Quirinius in his second government, about 6 A.D., which suggests that they were perhaps decennial. We have no other evidence as to a census in 5-4 B.C. ; but when we consider how purely accidental is the evidence x for the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to constitute no argument against the trustworthi- ness of Luke's statement. It is certain that the dependent kingdoms paid tribute to Rome exactly as if they had been part of the Empire ; and it is in perfect accord with the methodical character of Augustus's administration that he should order such census to be made regularly throughout " the whole world ". Incidentally we observe in this phrase that Luke's view is absolutely confined to the Roman Empire, which to him is " the world ". Luke investigated the history of this series of census.
2. DATE OF THE COMPOSITION OF ACTS. The elaborate series of synchronisms by which Luke dates the coming of John the Baptist are especially remarkable ; and it is to them we turn for evidence as to the date of com- position. On our view the Crucifixion took place at the Passover of A.D. 30, the fourth Passover in the public career of Jesus. Now John was six months older than Jesus ; and his career began in his thirtieth year, a little before the coming of Jesus. Thus we reach the conclusion that the synchronisms of Luke III 1, 2, are calculated for the summer (say July) of A.D. 26 ; and he calls this year the fifteenth of the reign of Tiberius, implying that he
xAn inscription found in Venice is the sole authority. As the stone was lost, the inscription was pronounced a forgery, apparently for no reason except that it mentioned Quirinius's census. Even Mommsen refused to admit it as genuine, until, fortunately, part of the stone was rediscovered
Sec. i Date of the Composition of Acts. 387