Acts
The Acts of the Apostles (Latin: Acta Apostolorum), usually
referred to simply as Acts, is the fifth book of the New
Testament; Acts outlines the history of the Apostolic Age. The
author is traditionally identified as Luke the Evangelist.
While the precise identity of the author is debated, the
general consensus is that this work was composed by a (Koine)
Greek speaking Gentile writing for an audience of Gentile
Christians. The Early Church Fathers wrote that Luke was a
physician in Antioch and an adherent of the Apostle Paul. Luke
is said to have written the volume entitled Acts of the
Apostles...
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts...
LITERATURE
I. Title.
It is possible, indeed probable, that the book originally
had no title. The manuscripts give the title in several
forms. Aleph (in the inscription) has merely "Acts"
(Praxeis). So Tischendorf, while Origen, Didymus, Eusebius
quote from "The Acts." But BD Aleph (in subscription) have
"Acts of Apostles" or "The Acts of the Apostles" (Praxeis
Apostolon). So Westcott and Hort, Nestle (compare Athanasius
and Euthalius). Only slightly different is the title in
31,61, and many other cursives (Praxeis ton Apostolon, "Acts
of the Apostles"). So Griesbach, Scholz. Several fathers
(Clement of Alex, Origen, Dionysius of Alex, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Chrysostom) quote it as "The Acts of the
Apostles" (Hai Praxeis ton Apostolon). Finally A2 EGH give
it in the form "Acts of the Holy Apostles" (Praxeis ton
Hagion Apostolon). The Memphitic version has "The Acts of
the Holy Apostles." Clearly, then, there was no single title
that commanded general acceptance.
II. Text.
(1) The chief documents. These are the Primary Uncials
(Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus,
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Bezae), Codex Laudianus (E)
which is a bilingual Uncial confined to Acts, later Uncials
like Codex Modena, Codex Regius, Codex the Priestly Code
(P), the Cursives, the Vulgate, the Peshitta and the
Harclean Syriac and quotations from the Fathers. We miss the
Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus, and have only fragmentary
testimony from the Old Latin.
(2) The modern editions of Acts present the types of text
(Textus Receptus; the Revised Version (British and
American); the critical text like that of Westcott and Hort,
The New Testament in Greek or Nestle or Weiss or von Soden).
These three types do not correspond with the four classes of
text (Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, Neutral) outlined by
Hort in his Introduction to the New Testament in Greek
(1882). These four classes are broadly represented in the
documents which give us Acts. But no modern editor of the
Greek New Testament has given us the Western or the
Alexandrian type of text, though Bornemann, as will
presently be shown, argues for the originality of the
Western type in Acts. But the Textus Receptus of the New
Testament (Stephanus' 3rd edition in 1550) was the basis of
the King James Version of 1611. This edition of the Greek
New Testament made use of a very few manuscripts, and all of
them late, except Codex Bezae, which was considered...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/A/ACTS+OF...
VIII. The Speeches in Acts.
This matter is important enough to receive separate
treatment. Are the numerous speeches reported in Acts free
compositions of Luke made to order a la Thucydides? Are they
verbatim reports from notes taken at the times and literally
copied into the narrative? Are they substantial reports
incorporated with more or less freedom with marks of Luke's
own style? In the abstract either of these methods was
possible. The example of Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy and
Josephus shows that ancient historians did not scruple to
invent speeches of which no report was available. There are
not wanting those who accuse Luke of this very thing in
Acts. The matter can only be settled by an appeal to the
facts so far as they can be determined. It cannot be denied
that to a certain extent the hand of Luke is apparent in the
addresses reported by him in Acts. But this fact must not be
pressed too far. It is not true that the addresses are all
alike in style. It is possible to distinguish very clearly
the speeches of Peter from those of Paul. Not merely is this
true, but we are able to compare the addresses of both Paul
and Peter with their epistles. It is not probable that Luke
had seen these epistles, as will presently be shown. It is
crediting remarkable literary skill to Luke to suppose that
he made up "Petrine" speeches and "Pauline" speeches with
such success that they harmonize beautifully with the
teachings and general style of each of these apostles. The
address of Stephen differs also sharply from those of Peter
and Paul, though we are not able to compare this report with
any original work by Stephen himself. Another thing is true
also, particularly of Paul's sermons. They are wonderfully
stated to time, place and audience. They all have a distract
Pauline flavor, and yet a difference in local color that
corresponds, to some extent, with the variations in the
style of Paul's epistles. Professor Percy Gardner (The
Speeches of Paul in Acts, in Cambridge Biblical Essays,
1909) recognizes these differences, but seeks to explain
them on the ground of varying accuracy in the sources used
by Luke, counting the speech at Miletus as the most historic
of all. But he admits the use of sources by Luke for these
addresses. The theory of pure invention by Luke is quite
discredited by appeal to the facts. On the other hand, in
view of the apparent presence of Luke's style to some extent
in the speeches, it can hardly be claimed that he has made
verbatim reports. Besides, the report of the addresses of
Jesus in Luke's Gospel (as in the other gospels) shows the
same freedom in giving the substance exact reproduction of
the words that is found in Acts. Again, it seems clear that
some, if not all, the reports in Acts are condensed, mere
outlines in the case of some of Peter's addresses. The
ancients knew how to make shorthand reports of such
addresses. The oral tradition was probably active in
preserving the early speeches of Peter and even of Stephen,
though Paul himself heard Stephen. The speeches...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/A/ACTS+OF...
XIII. Analysis.
1. The connection between the work of the apostles and that
of Jesus (Acts 1:1-11).
2. The equipment of the early disciples for their task (Acts
1:12 through 2:47).
(a) The disciples obeying Christ's parting command (Acts
1:12-44).
(b) The place of Judas filled (Acts 1:15-26).
(c) Miraculous manifestations of the presence of the Holy
Spirit (Acts 2:1-13).
(d) Peter's interpretation of the situation (Acts 2:14-36).
(e) The immediate effect of the sermon (Acts 2:37-41).
(f) The new spirit in the Christian community (Acts 2:42-
47).
3. The development of the work in Jerusalem (Acts 3:1
through 8:1a).
(a) An incident in the work of Peter and John with Peter's
apologetic (Acts 3).
(b) Opposition of the Sadducees aroused by the preaching of
the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:1-31).
(c) An internal difficulty, the problem of poverty (Acts
4:32 through 5:11).
(d) Great progress of the cause in the city (Acts 5:12-16).
(e) Renewed hostility of the Sadducees and Gamaliel's retort
to the Pharisees (Acts 5:17-42).
(f) A crisis in church life and the choice of the seven
Hellenists (Acts 6:1-7).
(g) Stephen's spiritual interpretation of Christianity stirs
the antagonism of the Pharisees and leads to his violent
death (Acts 6:8 through 8:1a).
4. The compulsory extension of the gospel to Judea, Samaria
and the neighboring regions (Acts 8:1b-40).
(a) The great persecution, with Saul as leader (Acts 8:1b-
4).
(b) Philip's work as a notable example of the work of the
scattered disciples (Acts 8:5-40).
5. The conversion of Saul changes the whole situation for
Christianity (Acts 9:1-31).
(a) Saul's mission to Damascus (Acts 9:1-3)...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/A/ACTS+OF...
the fifth book in the New testament and the second treatise
by the author of the third Gospel, traditionally known as
Luke. The book commences with an inscription to one
Theophilus, who was probably a man of birth and station. The
readers were evidently intended to be the members of the
Christian Church, whether Jews or Gentiles; for its contents
are such as are of the utmost consequence to the whole
Church. They are the fulfillment of the promise of the
Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the results of
that outpouring by the dispersion of the gospel among the
Jews and Gentiles. Under these leading heads all the
personal and subordinate details may be arranged. First St.
Peter becomes the prime actor under God int he founding of
the Church. He is the centre of the first group of sayings
and doings. The opening of the door to Jews, ch. 2, and
Gentiles, ch. 10, is his office, and by him, in good time,
is accomplished. Then the preparation of Saul of Tarsus for
the work to be done, the progress, in his hand, of that
work, his journeyings, preachings and perils, his stripes
and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem and being
brought to testify in Rome, --these are the subjects of the
latter half of the book, of which the great central figure
is the apostle Paul. The history given in the Acts occupies
about 33 years, and the reigns of the Roman emperors
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. It seems most
probable that the place of writing was Roma, and the time
about two years from the date of St. Paul's arrival there,
as related in Ac 28:30 This would give us fro the
publication about 63 A.D.
Link: https://bible-history.com/smiths/A/Acts+...
the title now given to the fifth and last of the historical
books of the New Testament. The author styles it a
"treatise"
(1:1). It was early called "The Acts," "The Gospel
of the Holy
Ghost," and "The Gospel of the Resurrection." It
contains
properly no account of any of the apostles except
Peter and
Paul. John is noticed only three times; and all that
is recorded
of James, the son of Zebedee, is his execution by
Herod. It is
properly therefore not the history of the "Acts of
the
Apostles," a title which was given to the book at a
later date,
but of "Acts of Apostles," or more correctly, of
"Some Acts of
Certain Apostles."
As regards its authorship, it was certainly the work
of Luke,
the "beloved physician" (comp. Luke 1:1-4; Acts
1:1). This is
the uniform tradition of antiquity, although the
writer nowhere
makes mention of himself by name. The style and
idiom of the
Gospel of Luke and of the Acts, and the usage of
words and
phrases common to both, strengthen this opinion. The
writer
first appears in the narrative in 16:11, and then
disappears
till Paul's return to Philippi two years afterwards,
when he and
Paul left that place together (20:6), and the two
seem
henceforth to have been constant companions to the
end. He was
certainly with Paul at Rome (28; Col. 4:14). Thus he
wrote a
great portion of that history from personal
observation. For
what lay beyond his own experience he had the
instruction of
Paul. If, as is very probable, 2 Tim. was written
during Paul's
second imprisonment at Rome, Luke was with him then
as his
faithful companion to the last (2 Tim. 4:11). Of his
subsequent
history we have no certain information.
The design of Luke's Gospel was to give an
exhibition of the
character and work of Christ as seen in his history
till he was
taken up from his disciples into heaven; and of the
Acts, as its
sequel, to give an illustration of the power and
working of the
gospel when preached among all nations...
Link: https://bible-history.com/eastons/A/Acts...
The second treatise, in continuation of the Gospel as
recorded by Luke. The style confirms the identity of
authorship; also the address to the same person, Theophilus,
probably a man of rank, judging from the title "most
excellent." The Gospel was the life of Jesus in the flesh,
the Acts record His life in the Spirit; Chrysostom calls it
"The Gospel of the Holy Spirit." Hence Luke says: "The
former treatise I made of all that Jesus began to do and
teach;" therefore the Acts give a summary of what Jesus
continued to do and teach by His Spirit in His disciples
after He was taken up. The book breaks off at the close of
Paul's imprisonment, A.D. 63, without recording his release;
hence it is likely Luke completed it at this date, just
before tidings of the apostle's release reached him.
There is a progressive development and unity of plan
throughout. The key is Acts 1:8; "Ye shall be witnesses unto
Me in (1) Jerusalem, and (2) in all Judaea, and (3) in
Samaria, and (4) unto the uttermost part of the earth." It
begins with Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish
dispensation, and ends with Rome, the metropolis of the
whole Gentile world. It is divisible into three portions:
I. From the ascension to the close of Acts 11, which
describes the rise of the first purely Gentile church, at
Antioch, where the disciples consequently were first called
See CHRISTIAN (see);
II. Thence down to the special vision at Troas (Acts
16), which carried the gospel, through Paul, to Europe;
III. Thence onward, until it reached Rome. In each
of the three periods the church has a distinct aspect: in
the first, Jewish; in the second, Gentile with a strong
Jewish admixture; in the third, after the council at
Jerusalem (Acts 15), Gentile in a preponderating degree. At
first the gospel was preached to the Jews only; then to the
Samaritans (Acts 8:1-5); then to the Ethiopian eunuch, a
proselyte of righteousness (Acts 8:27); then, after a
special revelation as Peter's warrant, to Cornelius, a
proselyte of the gate; then to Gentile Greeks (not Grecians,
i.e. Greek speaking Jews, but pagan Greeks, on the whole the
best supported reading, Acts 11:20); then Peter, who, as
"the apostle of the circumcision," had been in the first
period the foremost preacher, gives place from Acts 13 to
Paul, "the apostle of the uncircumcision," who successively
proclaimed the word in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and
Rome. Luke joined Paul at Troas (about A.D. 53), as appears
from the "we" taking the place of "they" at that point in
his history (Acts 16:8-10). The repetition of the account of
the ascension in Acts 1 shows that an interval of some time
had elapsed since writing the more summary account of it at
the end of Luke 24; for...
Link: https://bible-history.com/faussets/A/Act...
