Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 5

been reported with any accuracy. At no time an easy task correctly to record a discourse of any length, it is doubly difficult when those speeches, like many in Acts, were spoken under circ.u.mstances of great danger or excitement. The experience of modern times, before the application of systems of short-hand, may show how imperfectly speeches were taken down, even where there was deliberate preparation and set purpose to do so, and if it be suggested that some celebrated orations of the last century have so been preserved, it is undeniable that what has been handed down to us not only does not represent the original, but is really almost a subsequent composition, preserving little more than some faint echoes of the true utterance. The probability that a correct record of speeches made, under such circ.u.mstances, in the middle of the first century could have been kept, seems exceedingly small. Even, if it could be shown that the Author of the Acts took these speeches substantially from earlier doc.u.ments, it would not materially tend to establish their authenticity; for the question would still remain perfectly open as to the closeness of those doc.u.ments to the original discourses; but in the absence of all evidence, whether as to the existence or origin of any such sources, the conjecture of their possible existence can have no weight. We have nothing but internal testimony to examine, and that, we shall see, is totally opposed to the claim to historical value made for those discourses.

Apologists scarcely maintain that we have in the Acts a record of the original discourses in their completeness, but in claiming substantial accuracy most of them include the supposition at least of condensation.(1) The longest

{76}

discourse in the Acts would not have taken more than six or seven minutes to deliver,(1) and it is impossible to suppose that what is there given can have been the whole speech delivered on many of the occasions described. For instance, is it probable that King Agrippa who desires to hear Paul, and who comes "with great pomp" with Berenice to do so, should only have heard a speech lasting some five minutes.

The Author himself tells us that Paul was not always so brief in his addresses as any one might suppose from the specimens here presented.(2) It is remarkable, however, that not the slightest intimation is given that the speeches are either merely substantially reported or are abridged, and their form and character are evidently designed to convey the impression of complete discourses. If the reader examine any of these discourses, it will be clear that they are concise compositions, betraying no marks of abridgment, and having no fragmentary looseness, but, on the contrary, that they are highly artificial and finished productions, with a continuous argument. They certainly are singularly inadequate, many of them, to produce the impressions described; but at least it is not possible to discover that material omissions have been made, or that their periods were originally expanded by large, or even any, amplification. If these speeches be regarded as complete, and with little or no condensation, another strong element is added to the suspicion as to their authenticity, for such extreme baldness and brevity in the declaration of a new religion,

{77}

requiring both explanation and argument, cannot be conceived, and in the case of Paul, with whose system of teaching and doctrine we are well acquainted through his Epistles, it is impossible to accept such meagre and onesided addresses, as representations of his manner. The statement that the discourses are abridged, and a mere _resume_ of those originally delivered, however, rests upon no authority, is a mere conjecture to account for an existing difficulty, and is in contradiction to the actual form of the speeches in Acts. Regarded as complete, their incongruity is intensified, but considered as abridged, they have lost in the process all representative character and historical fitness.

It has been argued, indeed, that the different speeches bear evidence to their genuineness from their suitability to the speakers, and to the circ.u.mstances under which they are said to have been spoken; but the existence of anything but the most superficial semblance of idiosyncratic character must be denied. The similarity of form, manner, and matter in all the speeches is most remarkable, as will presently be made more apparent, and the whole of the doctrine enunciated amounts to little more than the repet.i.tion, in slightly varying words, of the brief exhortation to repentance and belief in Jesus, the Christ. that salvation may be obtained,(1) with references to the ancient history of the Jews, singularly alike in all discourses. Very little artistic skill is necessary to secure a certain suitability of the word to the action, and the action to the word; and certainly evidence is reduced to a very low ebb when such agreement as is presented in the Acts is made an argument for authenticity. Not only is the consistency of the sentiments uttered by

{78}

the princ.i.p.al speakers, as compared with what is known of their opinions and character, utterly disputed, but it must be evident that the literary skill of the Author of the Acts was quite equal to so simple a task as preserving" at least such superficial fitness as he displays, and a very much greater amount of verisimilitude might have been attained, as in many works of fiction, without necessarily involving the inference of genuineness.

It has been freely admitted by critics of all schools that the author's peculiarities of style and language are apparent in all the speeches of the Acts,(1) and this has been so often elaborately demonstrated that it is unnecessary minutely to enter upon it again. It may not be out of place to quote a few lines from the work of one of the ablest and most eminent advocates of the general authority of the Acts. Speaking of the speeches of Paul, Lekebusch says:--"The speeches of our Book, in fact, are calculated, perhaps more than anything, to excite doubt regarding its purely historical character. But here everything depends upon an unbia.s.sed judgment. We are sufficiently free from prejudice to make the admission to recent criticism that the speeches are not verbally given as they were originally delivered, but are composed by the author of the Acts of the

{79}

Apostles. Schleiermacher, certainly, has confidently a.s.serted their originality. He thinks: 'If the speeches were separately reported they could not but appear just as we find them in the Acts of the Apostles.'

But his remarks, however ingenious and acute they may be, do not stand the test of a thorough examination of the individual speeches. No one who impartially compares these, one with another, and particularly their style with the mode of expression of the Author in the other sections, can help agreeing with Eichhorn, when, in consonance with his view regarding the uniform character of the Acts, on the grounds quoted, page 14, he ascribes the composition of the speeches to the writer from whom the whole book in all its parts proceeds."(1) To this impartial expression of opinion, Lekebusch adds a note:--"In saying this, it is naturally not suggested that our author simply _invented_ the speeches, independently, without any historical intimation whatever as to the substance of the original; the_ form_ only, which certainly is here very closely connected with the substance, is hereby ascribed to him."(2) Lekebusch then merely goes on to discuss the nature of the author's design in composing these speeches. The reasons given by Eichhorn, which Lekebusch quotes at "page 14," referred to above, had better be added to complete this testimony. After referring to the result of Eichhorn's "very careful examination" of the internal character of the Acts, Lekebusch says:--"He finds, however, that, 'throughout the whole Acts of the Apostles there prevails the same style, the same manner, the same method and mode of expression' (ii. 35). Not

{80}

even the speeches, which one at first might take for inserted doc.u.ments, seem to him 'from a strange hand, but elaborated by the same from which the whole book, with its three parts, proceeds.' 'Various peculiarities existing in the speeches' prove this to him, independent of the similarity of the style, and that, 'although they are put into the mouths of different persons, they nevertheless follow one and the same type, make use of one and the same mode of argument, and have so much that is common to them that they thereby prove themselves to be speeches of one and the same writer' (ii. 38). From these circ.u.mstances, therefore, it seems to Eichhorn 'in the highest degree probable, that Luke, throughout the whole Acts of the Apostles, writes as an independent author, and apart from all extraneous works.' And in this view he is 'strengthened by the resemblance of the style which runs through the whole Acts of the Apostles, through speeches, letters, and historical sections,' as well as by the fact that, 'through the whole book, in the quotations from the Old Testament, a similar relation prevails between the Greek text of the Septuagint and that of Luke' (ii.

43)."(1) We have thought it well to quote these independent opinions from writers who range themselves amongst the defenders of the historical character of the Acts, rather than to burden our pages with a ma.s.s of dry detail in proof of the a.s.sertion that the peculiarities of the author pervade all the speeches indifferently, to a degree which renders it obvious that. they proceed from his pen.

Without entering into mere linguistic evidence of this, which will be found in the works to which we have

{81}

referred,(1) we may point out a few general peculiarities of this nature which are worthy of attention. The author introduces the speeches of different persons with the same expression:--"he opened his mouth," or something similar. Philip "opened his mouth" [------](1) and addressed the Ethiopian (viii. 35). Peter "opened his mouth (and) said" [------], when he delivered his discourse before the baptism of Cornelius (x. 34).

Again, he uses it of Paul:--"And when Paul was about to open his mouth [------], Gallio said," &c. (xviii. 14). The words with which the speech of Peter at Pentecost is introduced deserve more attention:--"Peter lifted up his voice and said unto them" [------] (ii. 14). The verb [------] occurs again (ii. 4) in the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues, and it is put into the mouth of Paul (xxvi. 25) in his reply to Festus, but it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. The favourite formula(3) with which all speeches open is, "Men (and) Brethren" [------], or [------] coupled with some other term, as "Men (and) Israelites" [------], or simply[------] without addition.

[------], occurs no less than thirteen times. It is used thrice by Peter,(4) six times by Paul,(5) as well as by

{82}

Stephen,(1) James,(2) the believers at Pentecost,(3) and the rulers of the Synagogue.(4) The angels at the Ascension address the disciples as "Men (and) Galileans" [------].(5)

Peter makes use of [------] twice,(6) and it is likewise employed by Paul,(7) by Gamaliel,(8) and by the Jews of Asia.(9) Peter addresses those a.s.sembled at Pentecost as [------].(10) Paul opens his Athenian speech with [------],(11) and the town-clerk begins his short appeal to the craftsmen of Ephesus: [------].(12) Stephen begins his speech to the Council with Men, Brethren and Fathers, hear [------], and Paul uses the very same words in addressing the mult.i.tude from the stairs of the Temple.(13)

In the speech which Peter is represented as making at Pentecost, he employs in an altogether peculiar way (ii. 25--27) Psalm xvi., quoting it in order to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah was a necessary occurrence, which had been foretold by David. This is princ.i.p.ally based upon the tenth verse of the Psalm: "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One [------]

to see corruption [------]."(14) Peter argues that David both died and was buried, and that his sepulchre is with them to that day, but that, being a prophet, he foresaw and spake here of the Resurrection of Christ, "that neither was he left in Hades nor did his flesh see

{83}

corruption {------}."(1) Is it not an extremely singular circ.u.mstance that Peter, addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem, where he might naturally be expected to make use of the vernacular language, actually quotes the Sep-tuagint version of the Old Testament, and bases his argument upon a mistranslation of the Psalm, which, we may add, was in all probability not composed by David at all?(2) The word translated "Holy One," should be in the plural: "holy ones,"{3} that is to say: "thy saints," and the word rendered [------]corruption, really signifies "grave" or "pit." 4 The poet, in fact, merely expresses his confidence that he will be preserved alive. The best critics recognize that Ps.

xvi. is not properly a Messianic Psalm

{84}

at all,(1) and many of those who, from the use which is made of it in Acts, are led to a.s.sert that it is so, recognize in the main that it can only be applied to the Messiah indirectly, by arguing that the prophecy was not fulfilled in the case of the poet who speaks of himself, but was fulfilled in the Resurrection of Jesus. This reasoning, however, totally ignores the sense of the original, and is opposed to all legitimate historical interpretation of the Psalm. Not dwelling upon this point at present, we must go on to point out that, a little further on (xiii.

35--37), the Apostle Paul is represented as making use of the very same argument which Peter here employs, and quoting the same pa.s.sage from Ps.

xvi. to support it This repet.i.tion of very peculiar reasoning, coupled with other similarities which we shall presently point out, leads to the inference that it is merely the author himself who puts this argument into their mouths,(2) and this conclusion is strengthened by the circ.u.mstance that, throughout both Gospel and Acts, he always quotes from the Septuagint,(3) and even when that version departs from

{85}

the sense of the original It may be well to give both pa.s.sages in juxta-position, in order that the closeness of the a.n.a.logy may be more easily realized. For this purpose we somewhat alter the order of the verses:--

Not only is this argument the same in both discourses, but the whole of Paul's speech, xiii. 16 ff., is a mere reproduction of the two speeches of Peter, ii. 14 ff. and iii. 12 ff., with such alterations as the writer could introduce to vary the fundamental sameness of ideas and expressions. It is worth while to show this in a similar way:--

{86}

{87}

{88}

Paul's address likewise hears close a.n.a.logy with the speech of Stephen, vii. 2 ff., commencing with a historical survey of the earlier traditions of the people of Israel, and leading up to the same accusation that, as their fathers disregarded the prophets, so they had persecuted and slain the Christ. The whole treatment of the subject betrays the work of the same mind in both discourses. Bleek, who admits the similarity between these and other speeches in Acts, argues that: "it does not absolutely follow from this that these speeches are composed by one and the same person, and are altogether unhistorical;"

for it is natural, he thinks, that in the apostolical circle, and in the first Christian Church, there should have existed a certain uniform type in the application of messianic pa.s.sages of the Old Testament, and in quotations generally, to which different teachers might conform without being dependent on each other.1 He thinks also that, along with the close a.n.a.logy, there is also much which is characteristic in the different speeches. Not only is this typical system of quotation, however, a mere conjecture to explain an actual difficulty, but it is totally inadequate to account for the phenomena. If we suppose, for instance, that Paul had adopted the totally unhistorical application of the sixteenth Psalm to the Messiah, is it not a very extraordinary thing that in all the arguments in his

{89}

Epistles, he does not once refer to it? Even if this be waived, and it be a.s.sumed that he had adopted this interpretation of the Psalm, it will scarcely be a.s.serted that Paul, whose independence and originality of mind are so undeniable, and whose intercourse with the apostolical circle at any time, and most certainly up to the period when this speech was delivered, was very limited,(1) could so completely have caught the style and copied the manner of Peter that, on an important occasion like this, his address should be a mere reproduction of Peter's two speeches delivered so long before, and when Paul certainly was not present. The similarity of these discourses does not consist in the mere application of the same Psalm, but the whole argument, on each occasion, is repeated with merely sufficient transposition of its various parts to give a superficial appearance of variety. Words and expressions, rare or unknown elsewhere, are found in both, and the characteristic differences which Bleek finds exist only in his own apologetic imagination. Let it be remembered that the form of the speeches and the language are generally ascribed to the Author of the Acts. Can any unprejudiced critic deny that the ideas in the speeches we are considering are also substantially the same? Is there any appreciable trace of the originality of Paul in his discourses? There is no ground whatever, apart from the antecedent belief that the various speeches were actually delivered by the men to whom they are ascribed, for a.s.serting that we have here the independent utterances of Peter and Paul. It is internal evidence alone, and no avowal on the part of the author, which leads to the conclusion that the form of the speeches is the author's, and there is no internal evidence

{90}

which requires us to stop at the mere form, and not equally ascribe the substance to the same source. The speeches in the Acts, generally, have altogether the character of being the composition of one mind endeavouring to impart variety of thought and expression to various speakers, but failing signally either from poverty of invention or from the purpose of inst.i.tuting a close parallel in views, as well as actions, between the two representative Apostles.

Further to ill.u.s.trate this, let us take another speech of Peter which he delivers on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius, and it will be apparent that it also contains all the elements, so far as it goes, of Paul's discourse. [------]

{91}

Again, to take an example from another speaker, we find James represented as using an expression which had just before been put into the mouth of Paul, and it is not one in the least degree likely to occur independently to each. The two pa.s.sages are as follows:-- [------]

The fundamental similarity between these different speeches cannot possibly be denied;(2) and it cannot be