δέχοµαι, ἐπικαλεῖσθαι and τὸ ὄνομα (Ndsgen, Felten), while it contains several peculiar to St. Luke. But if the Evangelist was present at the delivery of the defence, he would have been able to reproduce the speech himself, or at least its substance, and we have an explanation of the fact just mentioned (see Salmon, Introd., pp. 317, 318; Page, Acts, p. xxxvi.; Alford, Proleg., pp. 13-15).
The vivid description, xxi. 30-40, and especially the local details, vv. 34, 35, point to the presence of an eye-witness, who was in possession of information which he could use with accuracy, and at the same time with discrimination, limiting himself to the re- quisites of his narrative (Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, p. 174). It is difficult to understand why Blass should-say that although Luke may have heard the speech, it is doubtful if he understood it. In his Pref. to his Evangelium secundum Lucam, pp. xxi.-xxiii., he not only adopts Nestle’s theory that an Aramaic document underlies the first part of Acts, i.-xii., but amongst the few Aramaisms from chap. xili. onwards he notes especially, p. xxi., two from the chapter before us, xxii., vzz., ver. 19, ἥμην φυλακίζων ‘ periphrasis illa aramaica imperfecti futurique, que fit per participium et verbum ἤμην (ἔσομαι),᾿ and ver. 14, φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, cf. i. 16, ili. 18, 21 for ordpa. We must also bear in mind the strictures of Dalman upon Blass in this connection: cf. Die Worte Fesu, p. 28, 1898.
In the apology before Felix, xxiv. 10-21, we have traces of St. Paul’s diction (see commentary, and cf. Nésgen, wu. s., p. 54, Felten, u. s., Ρ. 34), and although it would be rash to affirm that St. Luke was present at the delivery of this defence, yet, if he was with St. Paul during any of the time of the Apostle’s imprisonment at Czsarea, it is surely not difficult to suppose that he would have received from the prisoner’s own lips a summary of his ἀπολογία before Felix. The same remark might account for St. Luke’s information as to the longer ἀπολογία before Agrippa, chap. xxvi., and it is specially noteworthy that in this speech, which may easily have been repro- duced exactly as it was delivered, cf. Blass, Grammatik, p. 5, and Proleg., p. 13, we have Greek phrases and words of a more cultured and literary style, such as would be more suited to the most distin- guished audience before which the Apostle had yet pleaded (see commentary). At the same time we may note that while the speech has many points of contact with St. Paul’s peculiar language and favourite words, there are other expressions which may be described as Lucan, to which we may appeal as justifying the belief that if St. Luke was present at the hearing, he reproduced the speech not immediately, but after an interval, when it had passed through his
a2 INTRODUCTION
own mind, Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, pp. 259, 260. That the speeches in Acts bear the impress of St. Luke’s own style and revising hand is freely admitted by conservative critics (cf. Lightfoot, B.D.?,i., p.36; Headlam, ‘‘ Acts,” Hastings’ B.D.,i., p. 34; Salmon, Introd., p. 317), and we may thus unhesitatingly account for the combination in them of peculiar Pauline expressions with those which may be classed as Lucan or Lucan-Pauline. These linguistic phenomena by no means destroy the substantial accuracy of the report ; rather they are exactly what we should expect to find. It is admitted on all sides that by comparing the language of St. Paul’s speeches in Acts with the language of his Epistles a striking amount of similarity is evident. But if the writer of Acts was not acquainted with St. Paul’s Epistles, we cannot account for this similarity of diction on the ground of literary dependence. If, however, the writer of Acts was a constant and frequent companion of St. Paul the explanation is easy enough, and we can readily believe that whilst in his report or revision of a speech words of the disciple might sometimes be found side by side with those of the master, yet the influence of the latter would nevertheless make itself felt in the disciple’s thoughts and language (cf. Salmon, uw. s., p. 315 ff., and Felten, w. s., p. 92). Im many cases it is perfectly ob- vious that the account of the speeches in Acts is an abridged account —the longest of them would not take more than some five or six minutesin delivery—and therefore, as a matter of necessity, such an abridgment would bear upon it, in a sense, the impress of St. Luke’s own style. Blass, Acta Apostolorum, p. 191, in speaking of St. Paul’s address at Athens expresses the belief that it has come down to us “fideliter etsi brevissime: ita sunt omnia et loco et audientibus accommodata,”’ and he adds a remark applicable to all the Apostle’s speeches: ‘Tum quilibet qui paullo recentiore ztate orationes Pauli conficturus esset, usurus erat Pauli epistolis; quarum in hac non magis quam in ceteris orationibus (c. 13, 20, 22, 24, 26) ullus usus comparet”’.