50----31.
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ,! καὶ διδάσκων τὰ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ, μετὰ πάσης παῤῥησίας ἀκωλύτως.
1 Β]αθς with Syr. H., demid. tol., Par., Wern., Prov. reconstructs β text after του Θεονυ: διισχυριζοµενος και λεγων ακωλυτως, οτι ουτος εστιν o X. ο νιος του Θεον, δι ου µελλει πας ο κοσμος κρινεσθαι, and cf. Hilg. with variations in former
and we may note with Wordsworth and Page the cadence of these con- cluding words, pera π. π. ἀκωλ. But all this does not forbid the view that the writer intended to give a third book to complete his work. This latter view is strongly insisted upon by Prof. Ram- say, St. Paul, p. 23 ff., while Bishop Lightfoot, B.D.?, i., 27, can see no con- -ceivable plea for any third treatise, if the purpose of the narrative is completed by Paul coming to Rome and there delivering his message, so, although, less strongly, Harnack, Chyron., i., p. 248, see note on i. 8. But Prof. Ramsay has received the strong support not only of Zoéckler, and curiously enough of Spitta, Apostel- geschichte, p. 318, but still more recently -amongst English writers of Rendall, and in Germany of Dr. Zahn. Just as in St. Luke’s Gospel xxiv. 44 forms not merely a starting-point for, but an anticipation of, the succeeding history, or just as xxiv. 44-53 contain in a summary what is afterwards related in greater detail, Acts i. and ii., so in vv. 30, 31 of Acts xxviii. we have, as it were, a ‘brief sketch of what succeeded the events hitherto recorded, and an anticipation of what followed upon them. This pro- ‘bability remains quite apart from the additional force which is given to it if Ramsay is right in regarding πρῶτος, Acts i. I, as signifying not simply πρό- “repos, but the first of a series, a view strongly supported by Zahn, Einleitung, ii., p. 371. Certainly the aorist, ver. 30 ‘(see above), and the expression διετίαν ὅλην seem to show that some fact was known to the writer which followed the close of the two years, and we can there- fore hardly say that he wrote no more because he knew no more, unless we also suppose that he wrote his history at the conclusion and not during the course of the two years. This he may have done while the result of St. Paul’s first trial -was still unknown, although Phil. i. 25- 27, ii. 24, Philem. ver. 22, show us plainly with what confidence the Apostle awaited the issue. At all events almost any con- jecture seems more probable than that vthe writer should have concluded so
abruptly if he had nothing more to chronicle than the immediate and tragic death of his hero! Zéckler, Afostel- geschichte, p. 162, Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, Ἱ., 15,16. To say with Jilicher, Einleitung, Ρ. 27, that he refrained from doing this because in such an event he would chronicle not the triumph but the defeat of the Gospel is certainly a strange argu- ment, and no one has given a better answer to it than Harnack by asking, Since when did the early Christians re- gard martyrdom as a defeat? Is the death of Christ, or of Stephen, in the mind of the author of Acts a defeat ? is it not rather a triumph? Chron., i., 247. The elaborate discussion of the abrupt con- clusion in Acts by Wendt, 1899, pp. 31, 32, is entirely based upon the assumption that Luke was not the author of Acts, and that therefore this author, whoever he was, wrote no more because his in- formation failed him, and he knew no more. This could not have been so in the case of Luke, who was with the Apostle at Rome, as we have from un- doubted testimony quite apart from Acts. See further Introd. For the release of St. Paul, his subsequent journeys to Spain and to the East, and his second im- prisonment, see in support, Zahn, Einlei- tung, Ἱ., p. 435 Π., Harnack, Chron., i., 239, Spitta, 1. s., Salmon, Introd., p. 403 ff., Die zweite rimische Gefangenschaft des Apostels Paulus, Steinmeyer (1897), and Critical Review (July), 1898. There were many possible reasons why the hearing of St. Paul’s appeal was so long delayed. The record of the previ- ous proceedings forwarded by Festus may have been lost in the wreck, and it was therefore necessary to wait for fresh official information, as the prisoner’s accusers had not arrived. And when they arrived, it is very possible that they may have been glad to interpose fresh obstacles, and that they would be content to keep Paul bound as before; as evi- dence was probably wanted, not only from Jerusalem, but from various parts of the empire, the interposition of these fresh delays was easy. St. Paul had