Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

who sold all his land and laid the price at the apostles' feet, is set off against the wickedness of Ananias; though it may be further remarked that here another proof of the unhistorical character of the entire narrative has been detected; for why, it is asked, should the fact that Barnabas sold his land be specially mentioned if the whole church had really "all things common"?

Let the reader now turn from this picture of the church to consider more particularly in what light the apostles appear, and through what events they are raised to that height of glory in which they at length stand, surrounded by the wondering and awe-stricken crowd. Following the steps of this upward progress, we shall have occasion once more to express our appreciation of the great skill with which our historian has conducted his narrative-an appreciation, however, which cannot be altogether unqualified by distaste, if any signs are discoverable of a departure, for the sake of effect, from strict historic truth. Some such signs Baur thinks he has detected, and we shall have to concede that he has pointed out difficulties and inconsistencies which at least tend to throw doubt upon the credibility of the narrative. Let us see what these are. Peter and John, going up together into the temple, heal a man above forty years old, who had been afflicted with lameness from his mother's womb. The wondering people run into Solomon's porch, where the two apostles and the man hitherto lame now are, to see the marvel; but are warned by Peter that this cure has been performed by no human power, but by the name of Jesus Christ, whom God has raised from the dead, and whom He will again send to the Jewish nation. This discourse, and the doctrine it contains of the resurrection from the dead, arouse against the apostles the hostility of the Sadducees, who, with the priests and the captain of the temple-watch, come upon them, and commit the two apostles to prison.* The mention of the Sadducees here is thought by Baur to cast suspicion upon the narrative, as indicating an event improbable in fact, but obvious to the thought of a writer remote from the period of which he treats. The doctrine of the resurrection would at once suggest its well-known enemies; but considering the cold philosophic temper of the Sadducees, their comparatively small numbers, and their general indifference to the doings of the populace, it must appear somewhat doubtful whether they would have thought it worth while to adopt any active measures against the disciples. The improbability, indeed, is not so great as to be by itself a ground for rejecting this portion of the history; but we cannot look upon the objection as so absurd as Dr. Lechler seems to consider it; and, taken along with other dif*Acts iii. 1, iv. 3.

ficulties that follow, it may be allowed to have some weight. At the same time, we are willing to give due credit to the consistency of the author of the Acts in presenting a PhariseeGamaliel as the adviser of moderation, and in bringing this sect conspicuously upon the scene, in the person of Saul, only after the defection of the Hellenists from the law of Moses. It is possible, therefore, that any opposition the Christians experienced at this early period may have proceeded from the Sadducaic party, which may have numbered the high priest and some other members of the Sanhedrim amongst its adherents (as Luke plainly intimates); but, on the whole, we lean to the conclusion of Baur, that at first the Christians met with no opposition, and that this period of church history was extremely barren of events. And this conclusion is confirmed by the further difficulties we have now to notice.

*

It is observable with what pomp of utterance, and with what an array of names, this meeting of the Sanhedrim, on the day following that on which the miracle took place, is announced. And for what purpose do they meet, and with what result? They met, it would seem, not at all hazards to deny the miracle, nor to prove that it was the work of the devil, nor to pass it over in silence, and punish the apostles on the charge of sedition, but to set out with acknowledging the miracle, and then proceed simply to ask by what power or what name it had been performed. And the result of this great meeting, to which even those members of the Sanhedrim who live out of Jerusalem have been suddenly summoned,† is, that they dismiss their prisoners with a threat. The improbabilities of the story, it must be confessed, are very great. Peter and John are apprehended for preaching a doctrine distasteful to the authorities; they are tried for healing a lame man; and they are acquitted, at least dismissed, after they have confessed themselves guilty of both offences, and repeated the first in the very presence of their judges. The opportune appearance of the man who had been healed in the Sanhedrim on the day of trial is, moreover, quite unaccountable. It cannot be supposed that he was imprisoned along with the apostles, for there could hardly have been a plea for detaining him, especially as it does not appear that the miracle was even known to the authorities at the time of the arrest; and, on the other hand, it seems hardly probable that the Sanhedrim should have sent for him, since, if they were aware of the reported miracle and disbelieved it, they would ask for no refutation, and if they believed it, they would be most anxious to avoid having its truth established. Here, then, is another difficulty, which, together with those already noticed, † Implied in the words eis 'Iepovσaλýμ, Acts iv. 6.

*Acts v. 17.

must raise still further doubtings in the mind. And when we add to this, that the whole tone of the narrative is eminently calculated to produce an impression of the weakness, folly, and inefficiency of the Jewish council, and of the power, energy, and wisdom of Peter and John,—the effect being heightened by the contrast, it is difficult to escape the conclusion, that to create this impression is the grand design of the writer, and historical truth but a secondary object.

If such a suspicion is at all justified by what has been already advanced, it cannot fail to be heightened by observing, that almost the same events which have been described as happening to Peter and John, are repeated in reference to the apostles generally, and with some additional circumstances, calculated to strike the mind with an overwhelming sense of the wonderful success of the gospel. On the dismissal of the two bold preachers, who have hitherto occupied the most conspicuous place in the narrative, a prayer of thanksgiving and entreaty is offered up, which seems to be followed by a new outpouring of the Spirit.* Many miracles are subsequently performed by the apostles, and so great is their fame, so universally acknowledged their power, that numbers of sick persons are brought from the cities surrounding Jerusalem, and are every one healed. Here the Sadduces once more appear upon the scene; the apostles are imprisoned, but not now, as before, to be kept in ward till the next day; for the angel of the Lord descends, opens the prison-doors, and sends them forth with a special charge to speak in the temple to the people. On the following morning, just as happened before, the Sanhedrim assembles. Finding that their prisoners had meanwhile escaped, they send for them, and bring them without violence, for fear of the people, into their presence. Once more Peter is allowed the opportunity of preaching the resurrection before the council, and once more the Sanhedrim is dissolved without any decisive result. This time, indeed, the apostles are beaten; but in this circumstance another instance of the pragmatism of our author is observable, since it only gives him occasion to remark that they departed, "rejoicing that they are counted worthy to suffer shame for his name."+ The obscurity which surrounds these events is still further increased by the evidently fictitious character of Gamaliel's address in the Sanhedrim. We do not indeed attach much importance to the remark of Baur, that this renowned Pharisee seems peculiarly unadapted to the part he is here called upon to play, as being the instructor, at this very time, of one who so soon afterwards appeared as the bitterest persecutor of the Christians. For it is surely conceivable that the teacher may have been quite of † Ib. v. 15-41.

Acts iv. 23-31.

an opposite character from his pupil; and why may not Gamaliel have sometimes even trembled, like the conscience-stricken Felix, before the energy and earnestness of the youthful Saul? The conclusive evidence upon this subject, however, lies in the mention of Theudas, a false prophet and insurrectionist who appeared in the reign of Caligula, about ten years after the period of which we are now speaking. It is, of course, easy to say that Josephus, the authority for the later date, may be wrong, and that Luke may be right; or that there may have been two men of the name of Theudas, who each boasted himself to be somebody, who both became the ringleaders of an insurrection, and were both consequently executed. But the first of these hypotheses must be rejected, because there is no reason for doubting the historical accuracy of Josephus, who himself lived through the reign of Caligula and was intimately acquainted with the history of Palestine, while it is quite conceivable that the author of the Acts, remote both from the place and the time of the event, should have fallen into a chronological error; and the second must be also rejected, simply because it is so evidently a desperate resource to save the credit of a canonical work, and otherwise quite without foundation. Even admitting, therefore, that Gamaliel may have come forward publicly upon a certain occasion, as the advocate of moderate counsels respecting the Christians, we see positive reason for distrusting the fidelity of the reporter who has furnished the speech given in the Acts of the Apostles.

We have now arrived at a period in our history when the church ceases to be exclusively Hebrew, and Hellenists or Greek Jews, with their larger culture and more universal spirit, are found mingling with the Palestinian disciples. The election of the seven deacons, and the preaching and martyrdom of Stephen, serve as the transition stage to the introduction of Gentiles into the Christian church; while the last-mentioned circumstancethe stoning of Stephen-is used with marvellous effect to introduce us to the young man who stood by, consenting to his death, and who, throughout the remainder of the book, forms the centre of interest. At this stage, then, let us pause a moment to state more precisely the view of the Tübingen school in regard to the grand design of the book of Acts. We have already mentioned that this design is supposed to be apologetic, but apologetic for what or for whom? It is universally admitted that in the apostolic church there were two tendencies of opposite character, the one Jewish, the other Gentile; the one conservative and exclusive, the other progressive and comprehensive; the one proceeding from the Jerusalem Christians, the other commencing with Stephen and successfully forwarded by Paul.

Now the grand question in regard to these two tendencies is, how far the twelve apostles, and particularly the three most eminent amongst them-Peter, John, and James-gave themselves up to the first, to the complete rejection and condemnation of the second, how far these three leaders of the Palestinian disciples stood in direct opposition to Paul and his grand doctrine, that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availed any thing nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. The writer of the Acts has not concealed from his readers the existence of the two tendencies we have mentioned; on the contrary, he expressly states them. He does not even deny that the apostles themselves were at first strictly Judaic, and consequently maintained the necessity of circumcision; but he introduces a special interference of Providence for the conversion of Peter, and narrates how on Peter's return to Jerusalem from his visit to Cornelius, "they that were of the circumcision" who contended with him were brought round to his view on being informed that the Holy Ghost had fallen upon the Gentiles,-all eventually agreeing in the sentiment, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles (i. e. as Gentiles) granted repentance unto life."* This opinion, however, did not become universal, or else others soon entered the church who did not hold it. For some time after we find certain men teaching the brethren, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved;" and these strict adherents of the law, it appears, were Pharisees.† Now according to Baur the exclusive spirit which desired to make Jews of the Gentile believers was not confined to certain unknown individuals of the sect of the Pharisees, but, contrary to the statements of Acts, especially Acts xv., strongly infected the very heads of the church at Jerusalem,-the pillar-apostles themselves, who all along looked with the utmost suspicion upon Paul and his supporters, and from whom only an unwilling consent to the diffusion of a free gospel amongst the Gentiles was extorted by the indomitable will and energy of the great heathen-apostle. And this view, it ought in fairness to be remembered, is not founded solely upon the statements of the apostle Paul himself, though these are looked upon as strongly in its favour,-not solely upon certain inconsistencies (whether apparent or real) between Paul's epistles and the Acts, but upon both of these, combined with the innumerable arguments which Baur has adduced to show that the apostolic history is no history at all. Any one, therefore, who desires to maintain the historical character of the book of Acts is bound, not only to reconcile it with Paul's epistles, but to drive the Tübingen critics point after point from their positions, and after all to say how so many

Acts x. 1, xi. 18.

† Ib. xv. 1 and 5.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »