No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Unity Of The Aramaic Acts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
Extract
The most interesting contribution to New Testament criticism in recent times has come from a scholar in another field. Professor Torrey, a student of Semitics and particularly of the Aramaic, the language of the common people in Palestine before and after the Christian era, has propounded a new theory regarding the Book of Acts. Chapters 1 1b —15 35 are thought by him to have comprised an Aramaic book written about 49 or 50 A.D., which Luke later procured in Palestine and translated as faithfully as he was able, at the same time adding the remaining chapters himself in Greek on the basis of his own knowledge and investigation. The two parts of the book are accordingly designated I and II Acts, respectively. The evidence for the hypothesis is primarily linguistic. A striking series of Aramaisms and of mistranslations which can be plausibly corrected on the basis of the Aramaic, is found in I Acts, while in II Acts the reflections of Aramaic idiom are rare and instances of mistranslation are wholly lacking. The literature of the subject is not yet large, but a careful résumé and discussion of the new theory has appeared from the pen of Professor Foakes-Jackson. Since he questions the validity of Professor Torrey's more important deductions—conclusions whose correctness had been accepted almost without qualification by the present writer—a further consideration of their claims to credence may be permissible.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1918
References
1 Torrey, C. C., The Composition and Date of Acts, Harvard Theological Studies, No. 1 (1917).Google Scholar
2 In an article entitled “Professor Torrey, C. C. on the Acts,” Harvard Theological Review, October, 1917, pp. 352–361.Google Scholar
3 In an article entitled “Some Observations on the Aramaic Acts,” Harvard Theological Review, January, 1918, pp. 74–99. This was written before, though published after, the appearance of Professor Foakes-Jackson's treatment.
4 “A man of Judea, presumably of Jerusalem, undertook to set forth the main facts touching the growth of the Christian church from the little band of Jews left behind by Jesus to the large and rapidly growing body, chiefly Gentile, whose branches were in all parts of the world. He was a man of catholic spirit and excellent literary ability. He wrote in Aramaic, and with great loyalty to the Holy City and the Twelve Apostles, and yet at the same time with genuine enthusiasm for the mission to the Gentiles and its foremost representatives, especially Paul. His chief interest was in the universal mission of Christianity. He was secondarily interested to show —what the far-seeing among the Jewish Christians of his time must generally have acknowledged—that although the new faith was first developed, of necessity, among the Jews, yet being rejected by the main body of them it passed out of their hands. From the very beginning of his account, he had in mind as its central feature the wonderful transition from Jewish sect to world-religion. From the outset he purposed to show how Antioch became the first great Gentile centre of Christianity; his pride in Antioch was of course hardly equal to his pride in Jerusalem, but was very real nevertheless. It is a skilful arrangement of his material by which he makes it all lead up, in successive steps, to the first great triumphs of the new faith on foreign soil, and to the true climax in chapter 15.”—Pp. 64 f.
“There is good reason to believe that in 15 35 we have the original conclusion of Luke's Aramaic source. This is the natural place for the Judean document to come to an end, for the story of the first distinct period of the Christian church in Jerusalem has been written. Peter has initiated the work among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas have gained their first great successes as foreign missionaries. The Mother Church has sent out its circular letter, voicing its own supreme authority and at the same time making Gentile Christianity permanently free from the regulations of Judaism. The verses 15 30–35 are admirably suited to bring the book to a close. The Gentiles, represented by the foremost Gentile Christian city, Antioch, receive their charter of freedom with joy; Judas and Silas return to Jerusalem; Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch, ‘teaching and preaching, with many others, the word of the Lord.’”—P. 64.
5 In the Harvard Theological Review, January, 1918, pp. 77, 94–99.
6 Professor Harnack is surely right in suggesting the rejection of the references to “Judea” in verse 9 and to the “Cretans and Arabians” in verse 11, thus leaving an even twelve, again the sacred number.
7 Acts 2 32 f.
8 Harvard Theological Review, January, 1918, pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar
9 Acts 15 29.
10 See Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 48 ff., who rejects πνικτῶν as a gloss.
11 P. 358. However, if I read aright, Professor Torrey at the beginning of his second chapter is not so much giving his own judgment on the varying Christology and style of the different parts of Acts and the incompatibility of Acts 15 with Galatians 2 as simply reviewing the reasons, cogent and otherwise, which have led to the so prevalent opinion that II Acts is composite.
12 A note may be intruded at this point regarding another objection raised by Professor Foakes-Jackson in the same paragraph (p. 359)—“the problem of reconciling Acts 28 17 ad fin. with all that is elsewhere known of Paul's attitude toward the Jewish leaders. How could a disciple of Paul who knew of the Epistle to the Romans, make the Jewish elders of Rome ignorant not only of his existence but of that of the Christian sect?” There is a certain exegesis of the passage, however, which relieves it of these supposed implications. In 28 17–20 Paul is apparently anxious lest his Jewish accusers at Jerusalem should already have sent to the Jews at Rome a prejudicial statement regarding his character and past conduct. He is anxious to anticipate such a report if it has not already come, or to meet and answer it if it has. But the Jewish leaders assure him (verse 21) that no such report has come either by letter or by messenger, and they express their desire to hear his teachings; “for as concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against” (verse 22). Does this indeed imply ignorance of the existence of the Christian sect, or quite the reverse? Does it not in the plainest possible terms imply considerable hearsay knowledge concerning the sect, mostly of a prejudicial character; and does not their desire to hear Paul's doctrines even suggest that perhaps they knew of him already by reputation as a leader in the new movement and so able to give them authoritative information? At any rate verse 21 need not mean at all that they had never heard of Paul, but only that no adverse report concerning him had preceded him from Judea: “We neither received letters from Judea concerning thee, nor did any of the brethren come hither and report or speak any harm of thee.” In any case, Paul's tactful and earnest effort to conciliate the Roman Jews and win their confidence, before turning to the Gentiles, seems quite in accord with his usual custom elsewhere.
13 So Torrey, p. 68, who finds it very significant that the Aramaic author “did not know that Silas had started on a new missionary journey in company with Paul. A man of his interests and information could not have remained for many months in ignorance of this most important turn of events.” Hence a date late in the year 49, or early in the year 50.
14 So Foakes-Jackson, p. 352: “To Luke it was so important — I had almost said so sacred — that he did not presume to alter a word when he made his literal translation.”
15 Ibid. p. 360.