§ 6. MODERN C&ITICISll, An Introduction to the Acte would hardly be complete without a brief reference to the viewe of modern criticiem. It is observable, then, that a certain number of critice, who Beem to think that the main function of criticism is to disregard all external evidence, and all internal evidence also which chances to agree with the external, deny the authenticity of the book. With a strange kind of ~uTEpov 1rp6TEpov logic, instead of inferring the truth of the narrative from the overwhelming evidence that it ie the narrative of an eye-witness and a contemporary, they conclude that it is not the narra- tive of a contemporary because it contains statements which they are indisposed to admit as true. The account of the a11cension of our Lord and of· the day of Pentecost in eh. iii., of the miracles of Peter and John in the following chaptere, and of other supernatural events occurring throughout the book, are by the light of nature incredible; and therefore the book that contains them cannot be, what the Acts of the Apostles claims to be, and what all the evidence proves it to be, the work of a companion of St. Pan.I. It must be the work of a later age, say the second century, when a legendary history had cropped up, and the mists of time already obscured the clear reality of events. In addition to this general reason for assigning the work to the second century, a further one is found in an hypothesis based upon the imagination of the inventor of it (F. C. Baur), viz. that the purpose of the writer of the Acts was to afford an historical basis for the reunion of two discordant sections of the Church, viz. the followers of St. Peter and the followers of St. Paul. The different doctrines preached by the two apostles having iseued in a strong antagonism between their respective followers, some unknown author of the second century,wrote this book in order to reconcile them, by showing an agreement between their two leaders. The writer, by the use of the word "we" (so at least say some of the critics), assumed the character of a companion of St. Paul, in order to give greater weight to his history; or, as others say, incorporated a bit of contemporary writing in his book without being at the pains to alter the " we." The great ability and learning and ingenuity with which F. C. Baur supported his hypothesis attracted great attention, and some adhesion to it in Germany. But common sense and the laws of evidence seem to be resuming their legitimate power. W o have seen above how Renan, certainly one of the ablest of the freethink- ' • De Pra,dest, Banot.,' § 4o, quoted in Inu-oduotion to Aots in• Speaker's Commentary,' p. 849, note 3. INTRODUCTION TO
ing echool, expresses hia unhesitating belief that Luke is the e.uthor of the Ach!. Another theory (Mayerho:ff, etc.) makes Timothy the author of the Acts of the Apostles; a.nd yet another (that of Schleiermacher, De Wette, aurl Bleek) makes Timothy and not Luke to have been the compo.nion of Paul who speaks in the first person (we), and Luke to have inserted these portions withouta.lteration from Timothy's journal (see Alford's' Prolegom.'). Both these wanton and gratuitous conjectnree a.re contradicted by the plain words of eh. n:.. 4, 5, where the companions of Paul, of whom Timothy was one, are distinctly stated to have gone before, while the writer remained with Pa.nl ( see above, § 2). Another theory (Schwanbeck, etc.) makes Silae the author of the book, or section of the book ; and yet another at the ea.me time identifies Silas with Lnke, supposing the names Silas = Silvanus, and Lukae, derived from Zucus, a grove, to be mere va.riations of the same no.me, like Cephas and Peter, or Thomas and Didymus. But, besides that this is quite unsupported by external evidence, it is inconsistent with eh. xv. 22, 84, 40; xvi. ; xvii. ; xviii. (pcusim); where the "we" ought to have been introduced if the writer wae one of the actors. It is most unlikely too that Silas should have described him.self as being one of the " chief men among the brethren " ( eh. xv. 22). It may be added that the failure of all other hypotheses is an e.dditione.I argument in favour of the authorship of St. Luke. The grounds of the adverse criticisms of De Wette, F. C. Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Kostlm, Helgenield, and others, are thus summed np by Meyer (Introduction, p. 6): Alleged contra.dictions with the Pauline Epistles (eh. ix. 19, 23, 25-28; :xi. 30 compared with Gal. i. 17-19 and ii. 1; eh. xvii. 16, et sqq.; rnii. 22, et 11eq.; xrnii. 30, el seq.); inadequate accounts (eh. xvi. 6; xviii. 22, et seq.; xxviii. 30, 31); omission of facts (1 Cor. xv. 82; 2 Cor. i. 8; ri. 25; Rom. xv. 19; xvii. 3, 4); the partially unhistoric character of the first portion of the book ; un-Pauline miracles, speeches, and actions (eh. :a:viii. 7-10; :a:i. 20, et 11eq.; xxii.i. 6, et sqq.; :xx.; :n:vi.; approval of apostolic decree, xv.). Meyer (ibid., p. 14, note 1) adds, "According to Schwanbeck, the redactewr of the book has used the four following docnments :-(1) A biography of Peter ; (2) a rhetorical work on the death of Stephen ; (3) a biography of Barnabas; (4) a memoir of Silas. The effect of these mutually destructive criticisms, the distinct faihmt in each case to get over the difficulties which oppose themselves to the conclusion attempted to be established, and the thoroughly arbitrary and v,ill-lfliitrl,i,ch nature of the objections ma.de to St. Luke's authorship, and of the assumptions on which opposing hypotheses a.re grounded,-all this leaves the conclusions to which we came in sections l and 2 immovably confirmed. 'l1IE ACTS OF nm A POSTLES. xi