No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Chronological Scheme of Acts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
Extract
The article ‘Chronology of the New Testament’ by C. H. Turner in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible marks an epoch in this important subject. Its astronomical and calendar data are indeed not unimpeachable, for the more recent studies of Fotheringham make it highly probable that A.D. 30 should be taken as the year of the crucifixion, rather than Turner's date of A.D. 29. But Turner's careful survey of ancient sources proves that from a very early time “the year of the two Gemini” (A.D. 29) was fixed upon by tradition, and became the accepted starting-point for primitive reckonings in both directions. Convenience of adjustment to the paschal cycle had probably much to do with the adoption of this particular year, which facilitated harmonization; but at the very early period to which it can be carried back tradition is not likely to have varied more than a year or two from the correct date for so all-important an event. While, then, a slightly earlier or later absolute dating, such as A.D. 30, may obtain the preference of modern chronographers it seems not impossible that the traditional date of 29 A.D. for the crucifixion may go back to the period of Luke himself.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1921
References
1 Journal of Philology, xxix (1903)Google Scholar, and Journal of Theological Studies, xii (1910), 45.Google Scholar
2 The name “Luke” which tradition assigns to the author of the third Gospel and Book of Acts is employed in the present article without prejudice to the question of real authorship.
3 Vol. xix (1917–18), pp. 333–341.
4 Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 284 f.
5 See Bacon, Introduction, to New Testament, 1900, p. 280, comparing the preliminary studies in Expositor V, lix, lx (November and December, 1899). The date arrived at, is “spring of 50.” Deissmann's is “early in 50”; Turner's “fall of 50.”
6 On the placing of refrains 1 and 4, see below. In both cases it is necessary to distinguish the compiler's point of view from that of the sources he employs.
7 See Bacon, ‘Stephen's Speech’ in Contributions by the Semitic and Biblical Faculty, Yale Bicentennial Publications, 1901.Google Scholar The references in 6,8 and 11,18 suggest a special interest in Antioch.
8 The actual term appears only in the β text.
9 So Luke 24, 44–53, with which compare Acts 1, 6–9. Acts 11, 30 is susceptible of similar interpretation.
10 Very ancient tradition recorded in the Old Latin prologues, and referred to by Eusebius, makes the author a native of Antioch. The tradition is strongly corroborated by the internal evidence.
10a So Harnack.
11 Mentioned in the source (12, 12) in the phrase Luke employs in 12, 25, “John whose surname was Mark.”
12 On the supposition that 2 Cor. 10, 1–13, 10 is a fragment of the painful letter of self-commendation referred to in 2 Cor. 2, 3–9; 3, 1.
13 Not to be reconciled with Acts 22, 17–21, where Paul's departure is occasioned by a vision in the temple forestalling the outbreak.
14 In Pauline usage “Judaea” includes Caesarea, the principal port, and metropolis of Samaria.
15 The β text has: “And report came to the Apostles and to the brethren that were in Judaea that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. Now Peter for a considerable time had wished to journey to Jerusalem. So when he had called the brethren unto him and had established them, making a long discourse, he (went) through the districts teaching them. And when he was come up to Jerusalem,” etc. Either the a text obtains a closer adjustment to the context by trimming off the protruding corner (printed in italic) which still remained to resist a smooth bedding of the section in its new situation, or the β text shows consciousness of the duplication by imitating the parallels. Cf. 15, 2–3; 20, 17 ff.
16 Commentary, ad loc. in the Handbuch zum Neuen Testament.
17 For the broad appeal to divine principles seen in nature as superior to the conventions of Mosaic law, such as the distinctions of meats, compare Mark 7, 1–23 and 10,1–10. “What God hath cleansed make not thou common” is an utterance cast in the same mould as “Ye make the word of God of none effect that ye may keep your tradition,” and “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.”
18 The assembly of Acts 11, 1–18 is here distinguished from that of Acts 15, 1–35 by designating the former the Apostolic Conclave, the latter the Apostolic Council.
19 The title “Apostles” is restricted in Acts to the Twelve, and its conditions are so defined in 1, 21, 22 as to exclude Paul. The only exceptions are two references in the Antioch Source (14, 4, 14); but here Barnabas shares it with Paul showing that the missionaries are so called only in the ordinary sense, as ‘delegates’ of the Antioch church.
20 See below, p. 155.
21 Clem. Alex. Strom, vi, 5, 43. Von Dobschütz, who edits the fragments in Texte und Untersuchungen, xi, 1 dates the work so early as 90 A.d. The embodied tradition is probably older. It appears in several diverse forms (see Harnack, Chronologie, i, 243 f., 472 f.). In Harnack's judgment 90 A.d. is too early for the Preaching (which, however, he would admit to be identical with the Teaching (Doctrina) of Peter quoted according to Origen by Ignatius (Smyrn. 3, 2), but the “twelve year” tradition, which is calculated to end in A.d. 41 or 42 (persecution of Agrippa) “may well be historical” (p. 244).
22 See Warfield, B. B., ‘The Readings Ἕλληνας and Ἑλληνιστάς in Acts 11, 20,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, iii, 113–127.Google Scholar
23 An exodus of members of the conservatively minded Jerusalem church after the death of James in 41–42 falls in very well with Paul's reference in Gal. 2, 4 to the incoming of “false brethren who came in privily to spy out the liberty in Christ Jesus” enjoyed by Gentile Christians in Syria and Cilicia, an invasion which soon led (in 45?) to his appeal to the Pillars and the resulting Compact (Gal. 2, 1–10; cf. 6, 12).
24 The source probably counts from Passover to Passover (cf. 12, 4), and therefore aims at an exact fulfilment of the traditional “twelve years.” It is possible, however. that the Passover of the persecution is intended to be that of Agrippa's second year (42), in which case we reach a date for the crucifixion (A.d. 30) in better accord with the data of astronomy and the Jewish calendar system.
25 Turner (op. cit. p. 422a) makes it end ca. November 1, 48; Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 65–73) in July 49.
26 We designate as the Compact the agreement described in Gal. 2, 6–10 as sealed by “right hands of fellowship.”
27 Three, if “things strangled” be a gloss.
28 In the period of Augustine the understanding of the compact of Gal 21, 1–10 is still correct: Gentiles qui in Christo credidissent legis onere liberos, eos autem qui ex Judaeis crederent legi esse subjectos.
29 The years 51 and 52 are not possible for the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus (Turner, op. cit.).
30 From Passover A.d. 50 to the spring, A.d. 55, op. cit. p. 422a and b.
31 The reference in Acts 24, 10 to Felix, “many years as judge of this people,” may well include the period before his sole procuratorship, when he shared its responsibilties with Cumanus.