THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
6<B
who had perhaps already learned something of the affair, of the entire development.
If the course of this explanation should prove correct, it may be supposed that in other matters the author was well oriented, that in more or less weighty affairs his observation had been true and that his version is correct. He handles 7. The the history rather in the way of ad- Author's ducing significant events than of a Methods, complete narration. With regard to the sections in which the first person is used, it is now seldom affirmed that they proceed from a man who falsely claims to have been present, and it is generally assumed that an eye-witness stands behind those sections. But it is sometimes held that the eye-witness is a different person from the author of the book, though against this is the lack of linguistic differences in the two portions of the text. Moreover, the time indications of the " we " sections agree well with those of the Pauline epistles concerning the companionship of Luke and Paul. If all the indications be taken together, the pronouncement of historians like Curtius and Ranke, of philologists like Blass and Vogel, and archeologists like Ramsay, as well as of a host of theologians, to the effect that the authorship by Luke of the Acts of the Apostles is best supported is not easily to be combated.
Some other questions remain for consideration. One is that of sources. A starting-point like that given for the Gospel in the parallel accounts is not furnished for Acts, and consequently no sure results are attained. The relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles is also debated, one 8. Remain- affirming the frequent use of them, ing another asserting that they were in- Problems. accessible to the author. It can not be definitely proved that literary dependence existed between the two sets of writings. A difficult question is that of the date, which can not be fixed at the conclusion of Paul's two years at Rome (Blass). The dependence of the Gospel upon Mark, which was not written before the death of Peter, gives the superior date. Krenkel in 1894 attempted to show literary dependence upon Josephus; in that case the earlier date would be 75- 80 a.d. Tradition is silent as to the place of writing, though in Rome both writings were known at an early date. In the matter of the diffusion of these writings before the name of Luke was attached to them, the testimony of Clement of Rome (as implied by his citation of passages) is not easy to contest, and the same may be said of citations in Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, the Didache, Polycarp, and Papias. With respect to the text it may be said that in no other book of the New Testament is the text in so bad a condition as in Acts. It is due to Blass that a new stadium has been reached in its treatment. This scholar observes that in a number of manuscripts circulated in the East, of which D is the example among the uncials, one form of text is current which is no less original than that of the received text, and that of the two forms of text thus existent one is that of the original first draft while the other is the result of a revision by Luke's own hand. Blass in 1900
maintained that neither of these forms of the text is the original, but that both are the editions of a prior form (TSK, 1900, pp. 11, 19). That the hypothesis of the use of sources will be fully disproved in case of the establishment of this view is to be regarded as doubtful. (Paul Ewald.)
Bibliography: On the personality of Luke, consult the introductions prefixed to the commentaries and the pertinent sections in the works on Biblical introduction; also A. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, Leipsic, 1906, Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1907; W. M. Ramsay, Luke the Physician and Other Studies, New York, 1907; DB, iii. 161-162; EB, iii. 2830-33.
On matters of criticism consult the works cited under Biblical Introduction II., particularly Zahn, and under Paul. Special treatises on authorship, credibility, and the like are: H. H. Evans, St. Paul the Author of the Third Gospel, London, 1884-86; J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben Verfassers, Halle, 1890; A. C. Hervey, Authenticity of Luke, London, 1892; F. H. Chase, Credibility of the Acts, ib. 1901. On origins and sources consult: E. Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und . . Ur sprung, Stuttgart, 1854, Eng. transl., with Overbeck's Introduction to Acts, 2 vols., London, 1875; H. J. Litzinger, Die Entstehung des Lukasevangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte, Essen, 1883; F. Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlichen Wert, Halle, 1891; J. Jungst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, Gotha, 1895; B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums, Stuttgart, 1907; J. Horner, Gospels of Matthew and Luke: a Vindication of their Agreement and Accuracy, Pittsburg, 1908; A. Harnack, Beitrage zur Einleitung in das N. T., III., Die Apostelgeschichte, Leipsic, 1908, Eng. transl., New Testament Studies, III., The Acts, London, 1908. Other problems are discussed in: F. Schleiermacher, Veber die Schriften des Lukas, Berlin, 1817, Eng. transl., London, 1825; M. Schneckenburger, Ueber den Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, Bern, 1841; J. R. Oertel, Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte, Halle, 1868 (on the historicity); W. Stewart, The Plan of Luke's Gospel, Glasgow, 1873; W. M. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, chap, viii., London, 1876; W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of Luke, ib. 1882; A. Klostermann, Probleme in Aposteltexte, Gotha, 1883; P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, Leipsic, 1890; J. M. Stifler, Introduction to the Study of Acts, New York, 1892; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, New York, 1893; idem, St. Paul the Traveller, ib. 1896; M. Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, Leipsic, 1894; J. Weiss, Veber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostelgeschichte, Marburg, 1897 (makes Acts an apologetic work addressed to the heathen world); DB, i. 25-35, iii. 162- 173; EB, i. 37-57, ii. 1761-1898.
For the Gospel the best commentary in English is A. Plummer, Edinburgh, 1897, which contains a good list of the earlier literature. Other commentaries are: C. W. Stein, Halle, 1830; J. Ford, London, 1851; J. H. Scholten, Het paulinisch evangelie, Leyden, 1870; M. Vernet, Paris, 1870; H. Cowles, New York, 1881; W. H. Van Doren, 2 vols., ib. 1881; P. Schanz, Tubingen, 1883; T. Lindsay, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887; F. Godet, 3 vols., Neuchatel, 1875, Eng. transl. of earlier edition, Edinburgh, 1875; C. Robinson, New York, 1889; H. D. M. Spence, in Pulpit Commentary, London, 1889; H. Burton, ib. 1890; F. W. Farrar, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1890; A. Maclaren, New York, 1894; J. C. Ryle, 2 vols., London, 1896; P. Girodon, Paris, 1903; J. M. S. Baljon.Utrecht, 1908.
Commentaries on the Acts are: F. Blass, Gottingen, 1895, and an edition of the text, Leipsic, 1897; F. Rendall, London, 1897 (the two works just mentioned are the best); P. J. Gloag, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1870 (ultraconservative); J. S. Howson, Companions of St. Paul, London, 1871; J. R. Lumby, in Cambridge Bible, Cambridge, 1879; H. B. Hackett, Philadelphia, 1882 (long regarded as the best); C. F. Nosgen, Leipsic, 1882; A. C. Hervey, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., London, 1884; T. M. Lindsay, Edinburgh, 1885 (very helpful); D. Thomas, London, 1889; W. Arnot, The Church in the House, New York, 1891; G. T. Stokes, in Expositor's Bible, 2 vols., London, 1891; J. M. Stifler, ib. 1894; B. B. LoomiH, Studies in the Acts, New York, 1896; J. Belser,
"\