CHAPTER X.

ACTS, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, REVELATION.

In this chapter will be reviewed the so-called historical book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. In some versions of the New Testament the Catholic Epistles come immediately after Acts.

Acts of the Apostles.

The Acts of the Apostles is one of many books bearing this name which appeared during the early centuries of the church. Concerning the origin of our canonical Acts, Dr. Hitchcock says: "It was written by Luke, in considerable part from his own observations of the facts narrated, and about A.D. 63, and at Rome, during Paul's stay there."

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus; the book of Acts is addressed to the same person, and as the author states that he has addressed a former work to him, it is inferred that both works were written by the same person. It has been shown that Theophilus lived in the latter part of the second century, and that the Gospel of Luke was written at this time. If Luke and Acts, then, were written by the same person, and Acts was written after Luke, it also must have been written late in the second century, and consequently could not have been written by Luke, the companion of Paul.

It is asserted that Luke was the associate of Paul, and that he was in Rome with Paul when his book was written. This implies Paul's sanction of the book. But if the Epistles of Paul are genuine, and it is generally agreed that those bearing upon this question are, this can not be true; for the Paul of these epistles and the Paul of Acts are two entirely different characters.

The book is entitled the Acts of the Apostles; and yet the acts of Peter and Paul are almost the only apostolic acts recorded. Besides the narrative of the author, the book consists largely of discourses attributed to Peter and Paul. But the style of the "unlearned and ignorant" (iv, 13) Peter is so similar to that of Paul with his "much learning" (xxvi, 24), and both so closely resemble the style of the author, that one not strongly imbued with faith must conclude that the whole is the product of one mind.

The author cites a speech made by Gamaliel before the Jewish council, in which he uses the following language: "For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, almost four hundred, joined themselves, who were slain," etc. (v, 36).

Josephus, who gives an account of this event (Antiq. Bk. xx, ch. v, sec. 1), says that it happened "while Fadus was Procurator of Judea." This was 45 or 46 A.D. Gamaliel's speech was delivered, according to the accepted chronology, 29 A.D. Thus the author of Acts makes Gamaliel refer to an event as long past which in reality did not happen until sixteen years after that time.

Continuing his speech, Gamaliel refers to another event, as follows: "After this man [Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished" (37).

Here the author makes Gamaliel state that the sedition of Judas of Galilee occurred after that of Theudas, when in fact it occurred in 6 A.D.--forty years before. Such grave discrepancies could have been made only by one writing long after the date claimed.

Holtzmann, a German critic, has shown that the author of Acts borrowed from the Antiquities of Josephus. The Antiquities appeared 93 A.D.--just thirty years after the date assigned to Acts.

This book will not be given up by orthodox Christians without a struggle. The authenticity of primitive Christianity depends largely upon the authenticity of this book. Renan who was a Rationalist, and, at the same time something of an apologist for Christianity, affirms that the last pages of Acts, which are devoted almost entirely to Paul's missionary labors constitute the only historical record of the early church. At the same time, he admits that it is the most faulty book in the New Testament. The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas concedes the same. He says:

"Of the earliest fortunes of the community of Jesus, the primitive history of the Christian church and the whole of the apostolic age, we should know as good as nothing if we had not the book of Acts. If only we could trust the writer fully! But we soon see that the utmost caution is necessary. For we have another account of some of the things about which this writer tells us--an account written by the very man to whom they refer, the best possible authority, therefore, as to what really took place. This man is Paul himself. In the first two chapters of the epistle to the Galatians he gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design, an attempt--conceived no doubt with the best intentions--to hide in some degree the actual course of events" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 25).

The dissensions which arose in the first century between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians had only increased with time, and these were among the chief obstacles in the way of uniting Christians and establishing the Catholic church. The composition of Acts was one of the many attempts made toward the close of the second century to heal these dissensions. The author was a man who cared little for either Petrine or Pauline Christianity--little for the so-called truths of Christianity in any form--but a man who cared much for church unity and church power.

The book of Acts was little known at first. St. Chrysostom, writing in the fifth century, says: "This book is not so much as known to many. They know neither the book nor by whom it was written."

James and Jude.

The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and Jude, have been declared spurious or doubtful by eminent Christian scholars in every age of the church. The Fathers were loath to admit them into the Bible, and their right to a place there has always been disputed.

James and Jude, the first and the last of these epistles, orthodox Christians believe, were written by James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus, in 62 and 64 A.D.

Three leading orthodox authorities, representing the three great divisions of the Christian church, Cajetan of the Roman Catholic church; Lucar of the Greek Catholic church, and Erasmus of the Protestant church, have denied the authenticity of James. Luther himself refused to accept it. He says: "The Epistle of James I account the writing of no apostle."

The composition of Jude and Second Peter are both placed in A.D. 64. There is no proof that either was in existence in A.D. 164. It is only necessary to read Jude and the second chapter of Second Peter to see that one borrowed from the other. While most believe that the author of Second Peter used Jude in the construction of his epistle, Luther contends that Jude is the plagiarist. He says: "The epistle of Jude is an abstract or copy of St. Peter's Second" (Preface to Luther's Version).

Jude cites as authentic the apocryphal book of Enoch, and the apocryphal story of Michael the archangel contending with Satan for the body of Moses. Origen, Jerome, and others in ancient, and Calvin, Grotius and others in modern times, have doubted its authenticity. Mayerhoff says it was written in the second century to combat the heresies of the Carpocratians.

Epistles of Peter.

Most Christians contend that the First Epistle of Peter is genuine. Some of the early Christian Fathers, however, rejected it. Irenæus did not place it in his canon. Not until the third century was it accepted as the writing of Peter.

The celebrated Tubingen school of critics rejects the authenticity of the book. Baur and Zeller believe it to be a Pauline document. Schwegler believes that it was written to reconcile the Pauline and Petrine doctrines. The Dutch critics say that it was borrowed largely from Paul and James, and that it was probably written early in the second century. Regarding its authorship, Jules Soury, of the University of France, says:

"Nobody, however, knows better than he [Renan] that the so-called First Epistle of Peter, full of allusions to Paul's writings, as well as the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle of James, dates in all probability from the year 130 A.D., at the earliest, thus placing two generations between the time of its composition and the latter years of the reign of Nero, when Peter is fabled to have been in Rome" (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32).

All critics pronounce Second Peter a forgery. Chambers's Encyclopedia says: "So far as external authority is concerned, it has hardly any. The most critical and competent of the Fathers were suspicious of its authenticity; it was rarely if ever quoted, and was not formally admitted into the canon till the Council of Hippo, 393 A.D. The internal evidence is just as unsatisfactory."

Smith's "Bible Dictionary" contains the following relative to its authenticity: "We have few references to it in the writings of the early Fathers; the style differs materially from that of the First Epistle, and the resemblance amounting to a studied imitation between this epistle and that of Jude, seems scarcely reconcilable with the position of Peter.... Many reject the epistle altogether as spurious."

It is believed by some that the original title of Second Peter was the Epistle of Simeon. Grotius argues that it is a compilation from two older epistles. The third chapter begins as follows: "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you." These words clearly denote the beginning of a document. Those who affirm its genuineness consider the second chapter an interpolation. Westcott says there is no evidence of the existence of this epistle prior to 170 A.D. Scaliger declares it to be a "fiction of some ancient Christian misemploying his leisure time."

Epistles of John.

The so-called Epistles of John, so far as the books themselves are concerned, are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by the Apostle John, nor by anyone bearing the name of John.

Of First John, "Chambers's Encyclopedia" says: "Of the epistles it is almost certain that the First proceeded from the same writer who composed the [Fourth] Gospel. In style, language, and doctrine, it is identical with it." If John did not write the Fourth Gospel, and it is conceded by most writers that he did not, then he did not write this epistle.

Referring to the Gospel of John, whose authenticity he denies and whose composition he assigns to the second century, Dr. Hooykaas says: "The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).

Of two passages in the First Epistle, ii, 23, and v, 7, which teach the doctrine of the Trinity, the "Bible Dictionary" says: "It would appear without doubt that they are not genuine." The Revisers of the King James version pronounced them spurious.

The second and third epistles were not written by the writer of the first. The early Fathers rejected them. Eusebius in the fourth century classed them with the doubtful books. It has been claimed that the second epistle was written for the purpose of counteracting the heretical teachings of Basilides and his followers. Basilides was a famous writer of the second century.

These epistles have the following superscriptions: "The elder [presbyter] unto the elect lady" to the first, and "The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius" to the second. The declaration that they are from an elder or presbyter proves that they are not from an apostle, and consequently not from the Apostle John. If they were written by a writer named John, it was probably John the Presbyter, who lived in the second century. Jerome states that they were generally credited to him. In his account of John the Presbyter, Judge Waite says: "He is also, not without reason, believed to have been the author of the Epistles of John" (History of the Christian Religion, p. 228).

Revelation.

Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and the one least understood. Christians themselves are not agreed as to its meaning. Some believe it to be a series of prophecies which have had their fulfilment in the struggles between Christianity and Paganism; others believe that its prophecies are yet to be fulfilled; still others pronounce it a symbolical poem, representing the conflict between truth and error, while not a few consider it the recorded fancies of a diseased imagination.

The book purports to be from "John to the seven churches of Asia" (i, 4). This John is declared to be the Apostle John and its authority is based upon this claim. Smith's "Bible Dictionary" says: "The question as to the canonical authority of the Revelation resolves itself into a question of authorship. Was St. John the Apostle and Evangelist the writer of the Revelation?" If John the Apostle and the author of the Fourth Gospel were one, as assumed by the "Bible Dictionary," then the question of its authenticity and canonical authority must be abandoned, for the author of the Fourth Gospel did not write it. There is nothing in common between them. The German theologian, Lucke, says: "If all critical experience and rules in such literary questions do not deceive, it is certain that the Evangelist and Apocalyptist are two different persons." De Wette says: "The Apostle John, if he be the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine epistles, did not write the Apocalypse." Regarding this conclusion, Ewald says: "All men capable of forming a judgment are of the same opinion." Among the eminent critics and commentators who take this position are Luther, Erasmus, Michaelis, Schleiermacher, Credner, Zeller, Evanson, Baur, Renan, and Davidson.

The Apostle John wrote neither the Fourth Gospel, the so-called Epistles of John, nor Revelation. That he did not write Revelation is shown by the following:

1. The author does not claim to be an apostle.

2. He refers to the Twelve Apostles (xxi, 14) in a way that forbids the supposition that he was one of them.

3. The Apostle John is declared to have been illiterate and incapable of writing a book.

4. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, and yet the seven churches of Asia, to which it is addressed, rejected it.

The Alogi maintained that it was a forgery which came from Corinth. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, writing in the third century, says: "Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged."

Concerning its rejection by modern churchmen, the Edinburgh Review (No. 131) says: "The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines here almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book of Revelation. Calvin and Beza pronounced the book unintelligible, and prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all attempts at interpretation." Dr. South described it as "a book that either found a man mad or left him so."

Luther, in the Preface to his New Testament (Ed. of 1522) writes: "In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either prophetic or apostolical."