contact with men like Philip the Evangelist (xxi. 8). There
and elsewhere he might also learn a good deal from John Mark,
Peter's friend (1 Pet. v. 13; Acts xii. 12). In any case the
study of sources (Quellenkritik) is a comparatively new
one, and the resources of analysis, linguistic in particular,
are by no means exhausted. One important analogy exists
for the way in which our author would handle any written
sources he may have had by him, namely, the manner in
which he uses Mark's Gospel narrative in compiling his own
Gospel. Guided by this objective criterion, and safeguarded
by growing insight into the author's plastic aim, we need
not despair of reaching large agreement as to the nature
of the sources lying behind the first half of Acts.
In the second or strictly Pauline half we are confronted by
the so-called ``we'' passages. Of these two main theories
are possible: (1) that which sees in them traces of an
earlier document--whether entries in a travel-diary, or a
more or less consecutive narrative written later; and (2)
that which would regard the ``we'' as due to the author's
breaking instinctively into the first person plural at certain
points where he felt himself specially identified with the
history. On the former hypothesis, it is still in debate
whether the ``we'' document does or does not lie behind more
of the narrative than is definitely indicated by the formula
in question (e.g. cc. xiii.-xv., xxi. 19-xxvi.). On the
latter, it may well be questioned whether the presence or
absence of ``we'' be not due to psychological causes, rather
than to the writer's mere presence or absence.2 That is,
he may be writing sometimes as a member of Paul's mission at
the critical stages of onward advance, sometimes rather as
a witness absorbed in his hero's words and deeds (so ``we''
ceases between xx. 15 and xxi. 1). Naturally he would fall
into the former attitude mostly when recording the definitive
transition of Paul and his party from one sphere of work
to another (xvi. 10 ff., xx. 5 ff., xxvii. 1 ff.). At such
times the whole ``mission'' was as one man in its movements.
4. Historical Value.---The question of authorship is
largely bound up with that as to the quality of the contents
as history. Acts is divided into two distinct parts. The
first (i.-xii.) deals with the church in Jerusalem and Judaea,
and with Peter as central figure---at any rate in cc. i.-v.
``Yet in cc. vi.-xii.,'' as Harnack3 observes, ``the author
pursues several lines at once. (1) He has still in view the
history of the Jerusalem community and the original apostles
(especially of Peter and his missionary labours); (2) he
inserts in vi. 1 ff. a history of the Hellenistic Christians
in Jerusalem and of the Seven Men, which from the first tends
towards the Gentile Mission and the founding of the Antiochene
community; (3) he pursues the activity of Philip in Samaria
and on the coast . . .; (4) lastly, he relates the history of
Paul up to his entrance on the service of the young Antiochene
church. In the small space of seven chapters he pursues all
these lines and tries also to connect them together, at the
same time preparing and sketching the great transition of
the Gospel from Judaism to the Greek world. As historian,
he has here set himself the greatest task.'' No doubt gaps
abound in these seven chapters. ``But the inquiry as to
whether what is narrated does not even in these parts still
contain the main facts, and is not substantially trustworthy,
is not yet concluded.'' The difficulty is that we have but
few external means of testing this portion of the narrative
(see below, Date). Some of it may well have suffered
partial transformation in oral tradition belore reaching
our author; e.g. the nature of the Tongues at Pentecost
does not accord with what we know of the gift of ``tongues''
generally. The second part pursues the history of the
apostle Paul; and here we can compare the statements made
in the Acts with the Epistles. The result is a general
harmony, without any trace of direct use of these letters; and
there are many minute coincidences. But attention has been
drawn to two remarkable exceptions. These are, the account
given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as
compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the
apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.
In regard to the first point, the differences as to Paul's
movements until he returns to his native province of
Syria-Cilicia (see PAUL) do not really amount to more than can
be explained by the different interests of Paul and our author
respectively. But it is otherwise as regards the visits of
Gal. ii. 1-10 and Acts xv. If they are meant to refer to
the same occasion, as is usually assumed,4 it is hard to
see why Paul should omit reference to the public occasion
of the visit, as also to the public vindication of his
policy. But in fact the issues of the two visits, as given
in Gal. ii. 9 f. and Acts xv. 20 f., are not at all the
same.5 Nay more, if Gal. ii. 1-10=Acts xv., the historicity
of the ``Relief visit'' of Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, seems
definitely excluded by Paul's narrative of events before the
visit of Gal. ii. 1 ff. Accordingly, Sir W. M. Ramsay and
others argue that the latter visit itself coincided with the
Relief visit, and even see in Gal. ii. 10 witness thereto.
But why, then, does not Paul refer to the public charitable
object of his visit? It seems easier therefore to admit that
the visit of Gal. ii. 1 ff. is one altogether unrecorded
in Acts, owing to its private nature as preparing the
way for public developments---with which Acts is mainly
concerned. In that case it would fall shortly before the Relief
visit, to which there may be tacit explanatory allusion, in
Gal. ii. 10 (see further PAUL); and it will be shown below
that such a conference of leaders in Gal. ii. 1 ff. leads up
excellently both to the First Mission Journey and to Acts xv.
We pass next to the Paul of Acts. Paul insists that he
was appointed the apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was to
the Circumcision; and that circumcision and the observance
of the Jewish law were of no importance to the Christian as
such. His words on these points in all his letters are
strong and decided. But in Acts it is Peter who first
opens up the way for the Gentiles. It is Peter who uses
the strongest language in regard to the intolerable burden
of the Law as a means of salvation(xv. 10 f., cf. 1). Not a
word is said of any difference of opinion between Peter and
Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 ff.). The brethren in Antioch
send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem to ask the opinion
of the apostles and elders: they state their case, and carry
back the decision to Antioch. Throughout the whole of Acts
Paul never stands forth as the unbending champion of the
Gentiles. He seems continually anxious to reconcile the
Jewish Christians to himself by personally observing the law of
Moses. He circumcises the semi-Jew, Timothy; and he performs
his vows in the temple. He is particularly careful in his
speeches to show how deep is his respect for the law of
Moses. In all this the letters of Paul are very different
from Acts. In Galatians he claims perfect freedom in
principle, for himself as for the Gentiles, from the
obligatory observance of the law; and neither in it nor in
Corinthians does he take any notice of a decision to which
the apostles had come in their meeting at Jerusalem. The
narrative of Acts, too, itself implies something other than
what it sets in relief; for why should the Jews hate Paul so
much, if he was not in some sense disloyal to their Law?
There is, nevertheless, no essential contradiction here, only
such a difference of emphasis as belongs to the standpoints
and aims of the two writers amid their respective historical
conditions. Peter's function in relation to the Gentiles belongs
to the early Palestinian conditions, before Paul's distinctive
mission had taken shape. Once Paul's apostolate---a personal
one, parallel with the more collective apostolate of ``the
Twelve''--has proved itself by tokens of Divine approval,
Peter and his colleagues frankly recognize the distinction of
the two missions, and are anxious only to arrange that the two
shall not fall apart by religiously and morally incompatible
usages (Acts xv.). Paul, on his side, clearly implies that
Peter felt with him that the Law could not justify (Gal. ii.
15 ff.), and argues that it could not now be made obligatory
in principle (cf. ``a yoke,'' Acts xv. 10); yet for Jews
it might continue for the time (pending the Parousia) to be
seemly and expedient, especially for the sake of non-believing
Judaism. To this he conformed his own conduct as a Jew, so
far as his Gentile apostolate was not involved (1 Cor. ix. 19
ff.). There is no reason to doubt that Peter largely agreed
with him, since he acted in this spirit in Gal. ii. 11 f., until
coerced by Jerusalem sentiment to draw back for expediency's
sake. This incident it simply did not fall within the scope of
Acts (see below) to narrate, since it had no abiding effect
on the Church's extension. As to Paul's submission of the
issue in Acts xv. to the Jerusalem conference, Acts does not
imply that Paul would have accepted a decision in favour of the
Judaizers, though he saw the value of getting a decision for
his own policy in the quarter to which they were most likely to
defer. If the view that he already had an understanding with
the ``Pillar'' Apostles, as recorded in Gal. ii. 1-10 (see
further PAUL), be correct, it gives the best of reasons
why he was ready to enter the later public Conference of Acts
xv. Paul's own ``free'' attitude to the Law, when on Gentile
soil, is just what is implied by the hostile rumours as to his
conduct in Acts xxi. 21, which he would be glad to disprove
as at least exaggerated (ib. 24 and 26). What is clear is
that such lack of formal accord as here exists between Acts
and the Epistles, tells against its author's dependence on the
latter, and so favours his having been a comrade of Paul himself.
Speeches.
The speeches in Acts deserve special notice. Did its author
follow the plan adopted by all historians of his age, or
is he an exception? Ancient historians (like many of modern
times) used the liberty of working up in their own language
the speeches recorded by them. They did not dream of verbal
fidelity; even when they had more exact reports before them, they
preferred to mould a speaker's thoughts to their own methods of
presentation. Besides this, some did not hesitate to give
to the characters of their history speeches which were never
uttered. The method of direct speech, so useful in producing
a vivid idea of what is supposed to have passed through the
mind of the speaker, was used to give force to the narrative.
Now how far has the author of Acts followed the practice
of his contemporaries? Some of his speeches are evidently
but summaries of thoughts which occurred to individuals or
multitudes. Others claim to be reports of speeches really
delivered. But all these speeches have to a large extent the
same style, the style also of the narrative. They have been
passed though one editorial mind, and some mutual assimilation
in phraseology and idea may well have resulted. They are,
moreover, all of them, the merest abstracts. The speech of
Paul at Athens, as given by Luke, would not occupy more than
a minute or two in delivery. But these circumstances, while
inconsistent with verbal accuracy, do not destroy authenticity;
