ACTS
OF
THE
APOSTLES
2
longer
lines,
In
chs.
1
and
2
it
is
3
longer
lines;
in
Pss
9
and
10
(a
single
continuous
poem),
and
in
Ps
37,
it
is
4
lines.
In
La
3,
where
the
interval
between
each
successive
letter
o(
the
alphabet
is
3
long
lines,
each
of
each
set
of
three
lines
begins
with
the
same
letter;
and
similarly
in
Ps
119,
where
the
interval
is
16
lines,
each
alternate
line
within
each
set
of
16
begins
with
the
same
letter.
Certainly
in
La
2.
3
and
4,
and,
according
to
the
order
of
the
verses
in
theLXX,
inPrSl
.probablj^
also
in
Ps
34(where
the
sense
seems
to
require
the
transposition
of
v.
^^
and
v.
'^)
and
in
Ps
9,
the
sixteenth
and
seventeenth
letters
of
the
Hebrew
alphabet
occupy
respectively
the
seventeenth
and
sixteenth
places
in
the
acrostic
scheme.
The
reason
for
this
is
unknown.
Comparatively
few
of
these
poems
have
comedown
to
us
intact.
They
have
suffered
from
accidental
errors
of
textual
transmission,
and
probably
also
from
editorial
alterations.
In
some
cases
an
entire
strophe
has
dropped
out
of
the
text;
thus
the
sixth
strophe
(of
2
lines)
has
fallen
out
between
v.6
and
v.7inPs34,
and
the
fourteenth
between
v.'s
and
v."
of
Ps
145,
though
in
the
latter
case
it
still
stood
in
the
Hebrew
MS
from
which
the
Greek
version
was
made.
Occasionally
lines
have
been
inserted,
as,
apparently,
in
more
than
one
place
in
Ps
37,
and
in
Nah
1^.
But
such
corruption
of
the
text
is
really
serious
only
in
Ps
9
f.,
Nah
1,
and
Sir
SI''-™.
The
earliest
of
these
fifteen
poems
are
probably
La
2
and
4,
which
may
have
been
written
in
the
earlier
half
of
the
6th
cent,
b.c;
but
the
custom
of
writing
such
poems
may
have
been
much
more
ancient.
Perhaps
the
latest
of
the
poems
is
Sir
si''-'"
(about
b.c.
180),
but
the
Jews
continued
to
compose
such
poems
long
after
this.
The
English
reader
will
find
the
strophes
clearly
dis-tinguished,
and
the
initial
Hebrew
letters
with
their
names
in
English
letters
indicated,
in
the
RV
of
Ps
119.
Unfortunately
the
RV
does
not
give
the
initials
in
the
other
poems;
but
they
will
be
found,
in
the
case
of
the
Psalms,
in
(for
example)
Kirkpatrick's
Psalms
(Cambridge
Bible),
Cheyne's
Book
of
Psalms,
Driver's
Parallel
Psalter.
For
La
2
and
4
see
Expositor,
1906
(April)
[G.
A.
Smith];
for
Nah
1,
Expositor,
1898
(Sept.),
pp.
207-220
[G.
B.
Gray],
or
Driver,
Century
Bible,
p.
26
f.
Common
though
it
is
in
other
litera-tures
and
with
such
mediaeval
Jewish
poets
as
Ibn
Ezra,
no
decisive
instance
of
the
type
of
acrostic
in
which
the
initial
letters
compose
a
name,
has
been
found
in
the
OT,
though
some
have
detected
the
name
Simeon
(or
Simon)
thus
given
in
Ps
110.
Pss
25
and
34
contain
each
an
additional
strophe
at
the
close
of
the
alphabetic
strophes;
in
each
case
the
first
word
of
the
verse
is
a
part
of
the
Hebrew
verb
pSid&h,
'
to
redeem,'
and
it
has
been
suggested
that
the
author
or
a
copyist
has
thus
left
us
a
clue
to
his
name
—
Pedahd;
but
interesting
as
this
suggestion
is,
it
is
for
several
reasons
doubtful.
G.
B.
Gray.
ACTS
OP
THE
APOSTLES.—
1.
Summary
of
con-tents.
—
The
fifth
book
of
our
NT
gives
the
history
of
the
Church
from
the
Ascension
till
c.
a.d.
61.
It
may
be
divided
into
two
parts,
one
of
which
describes
the
early
history
('Acts
of
Peter'
and
'Acts
of
the
Hellenists'),
and
the
other
the
life
of
St.
Paul
('
Acts
of
Paul')
from
his
conversion
to
his
imprisonment
at
Rome.
The
two
parts
overlap
each
other;
yet
a
clear
division
occurs
at
13S
from
which
point
forwards
the
Pauline
journeys
are
described
by
one
who
for
a
con-siderable
part
of
them
was
a
fellow-traveller.
The
parallelism
between
Peter
and
Paul
is
very
striking,
corresponding
deeds
and
events
being
related
of
each;
and
this
peculiarity
was
thought
by
the
Tubingen
school
to
betray
a
fictitious
author,
who
composed
his
narrative
so
as
to
show
the
equality
of
Peter
and
Paul.
Though
this
conclusion
is
arbitrary,
the
paralleUsm
shows
us
that
the
author,
whoever
he
was,
selected
his
facts
with
great
care
and
with
a
set
purpose.
2.
Unity
of
authorship.^From
16i»
onwards,
the
writer,
who
never
names
himself,
frequently
betrays
ACTS
OF
THE
APOSTLES
his
presence
as
a
fellow-traveller
by
using
the
pronoun
'we.'
It
is
generally
conceded
that
these
'we'
sections
are
genuine
notes
of
a
companion
of
St.
Paul.
But
some
assert
that
the
author
of
Acts
was
a
later
writer
who
incorporated
in
his
work
extracts
from
a
diary
contemporary
with
the
events
described.
These
critics
see
in
the
book
traces
of
four
strata,
and
assert
.that
it
is
a
compilation
of
the
same
nature
as
the
Pentateuch,
the
Book
of
Enoch,
and
the
Apostolic
Constitutions.
Now
no
doubt
our
author
used
sources,
in
some
parts
of
his
book
written
sources.
But
if
he
were
a
2nd
cent,
compiler,
we
ought
to
be
able
to
detect
interpolations
from
differences
of
style
(as
we
do
in
Apost.
Const.),
and
often
from
anachronisms.
Moreover,
seeing
that
he
was
at
least
a
man
of
great
literary
ability,
it
is
remarkable
that
he
was
so
clumsy
as
to
retain
the
pronoun
'we'
if
he
was
a
late
writer
copying
a
1st
cent,
source.
His
style
is
the
same
throughout,
and
no
anachronisms
have
been
really
brought
home
to
him;
his
interests
are
those
of
the
1st,
not
of
the
2nd
century
(§
8).
Further,
the
Third
Gospel
is
clearly,
from
identity
of
style
and
the
express
claim
in
Ac
1'
(cf.
Lk
13),
by
our
author,
and
yet
the
Gospel
is
now
gener-ally
admitted
to
have
been
written
by
c.
a.d.
80.
Thus
we
may,
with
Harnack,
dismiss
the
compilation
theory.
3.
The
author.
—
Internal
evidence,
if
the
unity
of
authorship
be
admitted,
shows
that
the
writer
was
a
close
companion
of
St.
Paul.
Now,
if
we
take
the
names
of
the
Apostle's
companions
given
in
the
Epistles,
we
shall
find
that
all
but
four
must
be
excluded,
whether
as
having
joined
him
after
his
arrival
at
Rome
(for
the
author
made
the
voyage
with
him,
27'),
or
as
being
mentioned
in
Acts
in
a
manner
inconsistent
with
author-ship
(so,
e.g.,
Timothy,
Tychicus,
Aristarchus,
Mark,
Prisca,
Aquila,
Trophimus
must
be
excluded),
or
as
having
deserted
him,
or
as
being
Roman
Christians
and
recent
friends.
Two
of
the
four
(Crescens
and
Jesus
Justus)
are
insignificant,
and
had
no
specially
intimate
connexion
with
the
Apostle.
We
have
only
Titus
and
Luke
left.
Neither
is
mentioned
in
Acts;
both
were
important
persons.
But
for
2
Ti
4""-
we
must
have
conjectured
that
these
were
two
names
for
the
same
person.
We
have
then
to
choose
between
them,
and
Patristic
evidence
(§
4)
leads
us
to
choose
Luke.
But
why
is
Titus
not
mentioned
in
Acts?
It
cannot
be
(as
Lightfoot
suggests)
that
he
was
unimportant
(cf.
2
Co.
passim),
but
perhaps
Luke's
silence
is
due
to
Titus
being
his
near
relation
(Ramsay);
cf.
Exp.
T.
Jfvm.
[1907]
285,
335,
380.
Tjje
author
was
a
Gentile,
not
a
Jew
(Col
4i<"-
"),
a
con-clusion
to
which
a
consideration
of
his
interests
would
lead
us
(5
8;
see
also
Ac
1"
'in
their
language').
He
was
a
physician
(Col
4»),
and
had
quite
probably
studied
at
the
University
of
Athens,
where
he
seems
quite
at
home
though
not
present
at
the
Athenian
scenes
he
describes
(Ac
l?""-).
His
native
country
is
disputed.
A
Preface
to
Inike,
thought
to
be
not
later
than
the
3rd
cent.,
says
that
he
was
'by
nation
a
Syrian
of
Antioch';
and
Eusebius
(.HE
in.
4),
using
a
vague
phrase,
says
that
he
was,
'
according
to
birth,
of
those
from
Antioch'
;
while
later
writers
like
Jerome
follow
Eusebius.
Certainly
we
should
never
have
guessed
this
from
the
cold
way
in
which
the
Syrian
Antioch
is
mentioned
inActs.
Some(Rackham,
Rendall)conjecturethatPisidian
Antioch
is
really
meant,
as
the
scenes
in
the
neighbourhood
of
that
city
are
so
vivid
that
the
description
might
well
be
by
an
eye-witness.
But
the
'we'
sections
had
not
yet
begun,
and
this
seems
decisive
against
the
writer
having
been
present.
Others
(Ramsay,
Renan)
believe
the
writer
to
have
been
a
Macedonian
of
Philippi,
since
he
took
so
great
anmterest
in
the
claims
otthat
colony(16i2).
Indeed.
Ramsay
(S(.Po«Z,
p.
202
ft.)
propounds
the
ingenious
oon-',1o^n™i*
,j
"''?',''*'"P8
met
Paul
at
Troas
accidentally
(16'";
It
could
not
have
been
by
appointment,
as
Paul
had
not
meant
to
go
there)
,
was
the
'
certain
man
of
Macedonia'
who
appearedin
the
vision
(16»)
;
it
must
have
been
some
one
whom
the
Apostle
knew
by
sight,
for
otherwise
he
could
not
have
told
that
he
was
a
Macedonian.
This
is
a
very
tempting
conjecture.
Luke
need
not
have
been
a
new
convert
at
that
time.
On
the
other
hand,
it
must
be
said
that
against
his
having
been
a
native
of
Philippi
are
the
