If during Paul's imprisonment in Rome, Luke himself was there (Acts 28:13-16, Col. 4:24, Phil. 24), then Jerome's conclusion that Rome is the place where the book of the Acts of the Apostles was written is not unfounded. But since Luke was hardly there all the time with Paul, the undoubted correctness of such a conclusion remains undecided.

It is more difficult than the time of the writing of the book of the Acts of the Apostles to determine the time of each historical event mentioned in it, and the chronology of the book of Acts presents many difficulties. Attempts have long been made to establish it, and attention has been drawn to the following points as the main and historically more definite: the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:59ff.), the conversion of Paul (9:1ff.; cf. 12:2ff., and Gal.2:1), the death of Herod Agrippa (12:20ff.), the famine in Palestine (11:28ff.), 25), the proconsulship of Sergius Paul in Cyprus (13, 7), the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (18, 2), the proconsulship of Gallio in Corinth (18, 12), the procuratorship in Judea of Felix (23, 24 and 24, 10), and after him Festus. According to these events, the chronology of the book of the Acts of the Apostles was established in various ways. All the positive and negative results in this respect have recently been critically analysed, partly by Unger and partly by Wiesler. The unsubstantiated denials of the New Tübingen school in the face of the results of the latter are insignificant.

Authenticity. As for the authenticity of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, its writer often points to himself as a companion of the Apostle Paul and an eyewitness (part) of the events he describes (16:10-17; 20:5-1.5; 21:1-17; 27:1-28, 16). With these indications, which impartial and thorough criticism must recognize as obviously belonging to Luke himself and on the basis of them conclude about everything else, agree with the internal signs contained in the book of Acts: an exact knowledge of the time and circumstances described, the naturalness and truth of the character of the speakers and actors, independence from dogmatic prejudices; this is also confirmed by the clear voice of historical tradition.

As early as the second half of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, in the Epistle of the Lyons and Vienna Churches to the Asians and Phrygians, relating to the second half of the 2nd century, in Tertullian, in Clement Alex., in the ancient, so-called Muratorian Canon, in the ancient Syrian Peshito, in Origen, in Eusebius himself, who directly considers the Acts of the Apostles to be the generally recognized canonical scripture of Luke, and in all ecclesiastical writers Luke is called the writer of the Book of Acts (according to Phil. 24; Col. 4:14; and 2 Tim. 4:11, a faithful companion of Paul), and his writings are recognized by all as canonical. That the book of Acts, attributed to Luke, Paul's co-worker, and not to Paul himself, was from such an early time and indisputably recognized as canonical, is explained (apart from the content of the book itself) by the fact that the first part of Luke's great work, the Gospel, was recognized as authentic and canonical, according to tradition about Paul's participation in it. The same meaning, and for the same reason, naturally had to extend to another part of Luke's great work, the Acts of the Apostles, especially since in this book it is impossible not to notice Paul's influence.

But it was not from the second half of the second century that the Church began to know about the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Still earlier allusions and references to it are more likely to be found not only in Tatian, but even in Justin, and even more clearly in Polycarp and Ignatius. Of course, the early references to the book of the Acts of the Apostles are not fully definite, and in general in the very first times of Christianity it is referred to less often and less definitely than to all the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. But, firstly, the ancient references to the Gospels are for the most part not exact quotations, but only references. Later, the Book of Acts, originally written for the private man Theophilus (Acts 1:1), could not have spread everywhere in such a short time as the apostolic writings were distributed, addressed to entire Christian communities. Finally, its content, however important and sublime in itself, aroused less the need for Christians to read it. For this reason, in comparison with the content of the Gospels and most of the Pauline Epistles, there seemed to be less incentive to quote it in apologetic-dogmatic works, which were most prominent in the early Christian times.

And the book of the Acts of the Apostles, like all the New Testament writings, had in the early Church a kind of enemies, namely the Marcionites, who, according to the basic principles of their sect, had to be against everything that is said in the Acts of the Apostles about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, about Paul's adherence to the Jewish rite, etc., and who in this case, instead of in order to distort the book, as they had done with the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline Epistles, they preferred the easier means of rejecting it outright. Further, the Manichaeans, whose criticism was generally the most arbitrary, must have been hostile to the book of Acts, if only because of their hostility to the Old Testament. Then the Ebionites very naturally became irreconcilable enemies of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, as irreconcilable enemies of Paul's teaching about the participation of pagans in the kingdom of the Messiah by faith and enemies of Paul himself. Finally, the one-sided asceticism of the Severians similarly made them opponents of the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostolic Acts. The denial by these opponents of the authenticity of the book of Acts was evidently based on their preconceived dogmatic opinions and principles, and therefore has no force or significance at all, just like the recent attacks on it raised by the Baur school, which is based on a preconceived opinion (the falsehood of which is evident from the book of Acts itself) about the irreconcilable opposition between the Petrine and Pauline trends in the Apostolic Age. opinion on which the whole false view of this school is based.

If, moreover, some other critics of modern times, like de Wette and others, put forward internal reasons for doubting the authenticity of the book of the Acts of the Apostles; then the one-sided subjectivity of their views is visible at first glance. The miraculousness, which is necessary in the history of the foundation and discovery of such an institution as the Christian Church (the only one in the world and in its essence standing above the world), and the supernatural mystery so natural, seems to these opponents in the story of the Book of Acts a myth or an indefinite and unsettled folk tale, which, by its very miraculousness (allegedly), is suspicious, improbable, and incompatible with the opinion of the authenticity of the book. In this case, exegetical difficulties are declared without further reasoning for incorrect indications, historical difficulties —

The top of the argument is the reference to the preface to the Gospel of Luke (1:1), according to which Luke himself relies on the testimony of other eyewitnesses and speaks of himself (as if) only as a researcher and scribe of everything that is transmitted by others. But all this hostile argumentation, self-confident as it is, is nevertheless based solely and entirely on arbitrary exegesis. It will always be appropriate to counter these subjective philosophies with a different kind of conclusions of the New Tübingen school itself. Not long ago it itself was proved, on the basis of internal signs, that the book of the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one writer, and not only that, but even that the writer of the Acts of the Apostles is also the writer of the 3rd Gospel. At the same time, of course, in accordance with the entire view of the school, the origin of the book (as the work of some adherent of Paul from the Roman Church) is attributed to the first half of the 2nd century. The followers of the school themselves are confused in all these arguments, foundations, and results, and disagree with themselves. (Introduction to the New Testament Books of the Holy Scriptures, Guericke, translated from German under the editorship of Archim. Michael, Part 1, pp. 205-208, 212-217).

Inscription

Prot. Polotebnova.

Acts of the Holy Apostles.  — The great antiquity of this writing of the book is undoubted; even the teachers of the Church of the second half of the second century and the beginning of the third, Origen, Tertullian and St. Irenaeus, often mentioned it in their works (Tishendorfs App. 1870). Meanwhile, there were no indications of the origin of this inscription from the writer of the book "Acts" himself, or were not preserved in the monuments of the ancient fathers; nor is it possible to speak affirmatively about the origin of all the titles in the New Testament from the inspired writers themselves, with the exception of the word εύαγγέλιον in the inscriptions of the Gospels. It must be thought that the binding inscription "Acts of the Holy Apostles" was unanimously established by the Church of the first centuries, and precisely at the time when the representatives of the Church, impelled by the need to defend the Holy Scriptures against heresies that had already developed, were concerned about the gathering into one composition and everywhere the uniform canonical preservation of the Apostolic Writings; — the time of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen and Tertullian. The book, so entitled in our sacred canon, constitutes an account or stories of what the apostles did to form and establish the Christian Church, and therefore constitutes a book of the acts (πράξεις, Acta) of the apostles of the saints. However, it is worth noting that this narrative contains only the deeds of Peter and Paul predominantly. The names of the other Holy Apostles are sometimes found in the Book of Acts; but neither about their labors outside Judea, nor about their death, except for the Apostle James (Acts 12:2), the holy historian tells anything. The Apostle Peter was appointed to open the doors of the Church of Christ to all in general, Jews and Gentiles (cf. Matthew 16:18, 19), while the Apostle Paul was chosen to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ primarily in the midst of the Gentile world and to bring the Gospel of our Lord to all the ends of the world. These two great of the apostles of Christ labored with greater glory than the others in the creation of the one universal Church. That is why it pleased the Holy Spirit to write a narrative about the deeds of these great pillars of the Church of Christ (Galatians 2:9), "primarily about the deeds of Paul, who labored more than anyone else" (Chrysostom), and to leave this history of the memory and teaching of the entire Church for all ages, in our sacred New Testament canon. At the same time, St. Luke, in recounting the history of Peter and Paul, can be said to pass on to posterity the image and character of the activities of all the apostles – the teachings and deeds – were naturally completely dependent on the actions of the representatives of the apostles, chosen for this purpose by the Lord Himself. (Public interpretation, Reading on the Book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, Issue 1, pp. 1-3).

About the same

St. Zlatoust.