ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

that on which they had passed it going eastward (27' 21S), though that was, and is, the normal course in autumn for sailing vessels (Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 317). It has been truly remarked by Ramsay (ib. p. 22) that the writer's interests and views are incompatible with the idea ol a 2nd cent, compiler; e.g. the view oi the Roman officials, and the optimistic tone, would be impossible after the persecution of Domitian — or even (we may add) after that of Nero.

9. Date. — -From the reasoning of §§ 2, 8 (see also § 12) we must reject the idea of a 2nd cent, compiler, and decide between a date at the end of the two years at Rome, 28*°'- (Blass, Salmon, Headlam, Rackham), and a later date 70-80 a.d. (Ramsay, Sanday, Harnack, and most of those who ascribe the book to Luke). — (a) For the former date we note that there is no reference to anything after the Roman imprisonment, to the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother in a.d. 62, or to the Neronian persecution in a.d. 64, or to the death of Peter and Paul (contrast the allusion to Peter's death in Jn 21"), or to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Also there is good reason to believe from the Pastoral Epistles, from Eccle.siastical history, and from a priori reasons, that St. Paul was released soon after the two years; but we should gather that our author did not know for certain the result of the appeal to Ceesar. He could hardly have known that the Apostle's expectation that he would not again see the Ephesian elders was falsified, or he would not have left 20'8 without remark [but see Paul, i. 4 (d)]. The optimistic tone (§ 8), contrasting so greatly with that of the Apocalypse, points in the same direction; as also does the absence of any reference to the Pauline Epistles, which we should expect if 15 or 20 years had elapsed since they were wjitten; and of any explanation of the apparent contradiction between Galatians and Acts (see art. Galatians [Epistle to the]). On the other hand, it is quite likely that a close companion of St. Paul would be the last to have, as long as he was with him, a copy of his correspondence. — (6) For the later date, A.D. 70-80, it is suggested that Luke contemplated a third volume, and so ended his second abruptly (cf. 1', properly 'first treatise,' not 'former'; but in late Greek comparatives and superlatives were frequently confused, cf. 1 Co 13'= RVm). It is also thought that Lk 2V must have been written after the taking of Jerusalem, and that a fortiori Acts must be later; and that the atmosphere of the Flavian period may be detected in it. For an alleged borrowing of Acts from Josephus, and for further remarks on the date, see artt. Luke [Gospel acc. to] and Theudas. To the present writer the earlier date given above seems the more probable.

10. Sources. — The author had exceptional oppor-tunities of getting information. For the last part of the book he was his own informant, or he had access to St. Paul. John Mark would tell him of the deliverance of St. Peter and of the mission to Cyprus (12i-13i'). For the 'Acts of the Hellenists' (chs. 6-8) and for the Cornelius episode he would have Philip the Evangelist as an authority, for he spent two years at Caesarea; and perhaps also Cornelius himself. He had perhaps visited the Syrian Antioch, and could get from the leaders of the Church there (e.g. Manaen) informa-tion about the events which happened there. The first five chapters remain. Here he had to depend entirely on others; he may have used written documents similar to those mentioned in Lk 1', though he may also have questioned those at Jerusalem who had witnessed the events. Dr. Blass thinks that Luke here used an Aramaic document by Mark; this is pure conjec-ture, and it is quite uncertain if Luke knew Aramaic.

11. The Bezan codex. — This great Uncial MS (D, now at CJambridge) , supported by some MSSof the OldLatin Version , presents a strikingly different text from that of the other great CJreek MSS, and has also many additions, especially

10

ADAH

in Acts. Dr. Blass' theory is that the variations in Acts come from Luke's having made two drafts of the book, though he would admit that some of the readings of D are interpolations. He thinks that the ' Bezan ' Acts represents the first draft, the 'Bezan' Luke the second draft, cut the Bezan text of Acta is too smooth, and its readings are too often obviously added to ease a rough phrase, for it to be original. It is more probable that it represents a revision made in Asia Minor in the 2nd cent, by one who was very familiar with the localities described. Many scholars, however, think that it preserves a large number of true and authentic readings which have been lost in the other great MSS; but this seems doubtful. — In 11™ this MS (supported by Augustine), by inserting 'we,' makes the writer to have been present at Syrian Antioch when Agabus prophesied.

12. Accuracy of Acts. — This is most important, as it would be almost impossible for a late writer to avoid pitfalls when covering so large a ground. Instances of remarkable accuracy are: (o) the proconsul in Cyprus (13'), which had only been under the rule of the Senate for a short time when St. Paul came there, and afterwards ceased to be so governed — otherwise the governor would have been a 'proprsetor.' An inscription in Cyprus is dated ' in the proconsulship of Paulus.' (6) So the proconsul in Achaia (18'^); this province had been off and on united to Macedonia. At one time separated and governed by a propraetor and then united, a few years before St. Paul's visit it had been again separated and governed by a proconsul, (c) The 'first men' at Pisidian Antioch (13'"), i.e. the Duumviri and the 'First Ten.' This last title was only given (as here) to a board of magistrates in Greek cities of the East ; in Roman colonies in Italy the name was given to those who stood first on the Senate roll. (,d) The ' first man ' in Malta (28') and (e) the ' polit-archs' ('rulers of the city') at Thessalonica (17'; prob-ably a local Macedonian title), are both attested by inscriptions, (f) The old Court of the Areopagus at Athens (17"), which really ruled the city, — though it was a 'free city,' — as the demos or popular assembly had lost its authority. ((/) The 'Asiarchs' at Ephesus (19'' RVm), the presidents of the 'Common Council' of the province in cities where there was a temple of Rome and the Emperor; they superintended the worship of the Emperor. Their friendliness to St. Paul is a sure sign of an early date, for the book could only have been written while the Imperial policy was still neutral to Christianity, or at least while the memory of that time was stUl green. Contrast the enmity between Christianity and this Rome worship depicted in Rev 2" 13" etc. No 2nd cent, author could have written thus. (h) The details of the last voyage, thoroughly tested by Mr. Smith of Jordanhill, who sailed over the whole course. — Against all this it is alleged that there are contradictions between Acts and Galatians (see art. on that Epistle); but these vanish on examination, especially if we accept the 'South Galatian' theory. Instances of minute accuracy such as those given above show that we have in Acts a history of great importance and one that is most trustworthy. The accuracy can only come from the book being a genuine contem-porary record. a. J. Maclean.

ACUE (1 Es 5").— His sons were among the 'temple servants' who returned with Zerubbabel. Called Bak-buk, Ezr 25', Neh 7".

ACUD (1 Es 6™).— His sons were among the 'temple servants' who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel. Called Akkub, Ezr 2«; omitted in Neh 7.

ADADAH (Jos IS^^).— A city of Judah in the Negeb; perhaps a corrupt reading for Ararah, i.e. Aroer oi 1 S 30^8.

ADAH.— 1. One of the two wives of Lamech, and mother of Jabal and Jubal (Gn 4'9- 20). The name pos-sibly means 'brightness' (cf. Arab, ghadat), Lamech's other wife being named 'Zillah' = 'shadow,' 'darkness ' 2. Daughter of Elon, a Hittite, and one of the wives