with Matt. v. 11.1 And again a similar modification exists in Luke xii. 3. The first Gospel (x. 27) has: "What I tell you in the darkness speak in the light; and what ye hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops." This is altogether omitted by the second synoptist, and it had so little significance left for the third, when Christianity, which had once been taught secretly and in private, had long been so widely preached that even the passage Matt. x. 23 had to be erased, that it was altered to (xii. 3): "Therefore, whatsoever ye said (enаTE) in the darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye spake (èλaλnσaTe) in the ear in the closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."

Along with these alterations and modifications, however, which directly tend to push back the limits of the prophecies, and yet to leave room for their long-delayed fulfilment, the third synoptist still retains the final indication of the first and second Gospels, xxi. 32: "Verily I say unto you, that this generation (ỷ yeveà aütŋ) shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Whilst the ablest critics, therefore, to a great extent agree that the variations elsewhere introduced by the third synoptist demonstrate the stand-point of a later age, a difference of opinion arises as to how far back the writer could be removed from the destruction of Jerusalem, without exceeding the line drawn, in the verse just quoted, by the words "this generation." On the one hand, it is maintained that many of that generation, who had been direct eye-witnesses of the appearance of Jesus, must still have been alive, when this was written, to justify the expression. How did the writer interpret the traditional yeveà avτn, which he still retained, within which the second advent was to take place? As he omitted Matt. x. 23, and modified in such a manner the eschatological prophecies, it is obvious that, if he intelligently retained the term "this generation," he must have understood it in its widest sense, and this we shall find he was justified in doing by the practice of the time. It has been, we think, clearly proved by Baur and others,3 that the word yeveά was understood to express the duration of the longest life, like the Latin sæculum.* Baur rightly argues that the generation would not be considered as "passed away" so long as even one of that generation remained alive. Now, the fact is, as he points out, that the apostle John was still living at the beginning of Trajan's reign, the date of his death being commonly set a.D. (1) Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii. p. 144.

(2) Cf. Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30.

(3) Baur, Theol. Jahrb., 1849, p. 317 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justin's, p. 367 f.; Die Evangelien, p. 212; Einl. N. T., p. 609; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1852, p. 229; Die Apostelgesch., p. 467.

(4) Baur quotes Censorinus, a writer of the third century: "Sæculum est spatium vitæ humanæ longissimum partu et morte definitum. Quare qui annos triginta saeculum putarunt, multum videntur errasse." De die Nat., c. 17; Theol. Jahrb., 1849, p. 318, anm. 1.

2

99-100, and long after that period many who read John xxi. 23 may very probably have supposed him to be still alive. Indeed, that passage of the fourth Gospel, indicative of a belief in the advent within the lifetime of the apostle, has a direct bearing upon the interpretation which we are discussing. According to Hegesippus,1 again, Symeon of Jerusalem was martyred under Trajan A.D. 107, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he says, and he was one of the "generation" in question, as was also Ignatius, if the tradition regarding him is to be believed, who died a martyr A.D. 115-116. Then Quadratus, who presented an "Apology" to the Emperor Hadrian about A.D. 126, states, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, that some of those who were healed by Jesus were still living in his own times. A writer at the end of the first quarter of the second century, therefore, might consider that the generation had not yet passed away. Hilgenfeld3 points out that Irenæus, in the last book of his great work, written consequently at the very end of the second century, speaking of the Apocalyptic vision, says: "For it is not a long time ago it was seen, but nearly in our own generation (yeveά), towards the end of Domitian's († 96) reign." Irenæus, therefore, speaks of something which he supposes to happen about a century before, as all but in his own yeveά, and it must be noted that the phrase ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεάς is rendered in the ancient Latin version: "sed pene sub nostro sæculo." Another instance occurs in the remarks of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius. Hegesippus says that the Church remained pure from heresy till the generation (yeveά) of those who had heard the apostles had passed away, and this he dates in the reign of Trajan. The expression in Luke xxi. 32 is not, we think, in contradiction with the late date to which other potent considerations seem to assign the third Synoptic. It will be seen that the internal evidence supplied by the Acts of the Apostles still further confirms the indications of a late date in the Gospel itself.

5

The Acts of the Apostles being the devτepos λóyos, of course it was composed later than the Gospel; and there is good reason for believing that a considerable interval occurred before the second work was written. According to the traditional view, some ten years probably elapsed between the production of the two works, and the interval could certainly not well be less. It will be remembered that the author not only repeats particulars of the Ascension, but that the account of it which is given in Acts i. 3-9 differs materially from that of the Gospel. The names of the Twelve, moreover, are

(1) Eusebius, H. E., iii. 32.

(3) Die Evv. Justin's, p. 367 f.

(2) Eusebius, H. E., iv. 3.

(4) Irenæus, Adv. Hær., v. 30, § 3; Eusebius, H. E, iii. 18; v. 8.
(5) Eusebius, H. E., iii. 32.

detailed (i. 13), although they had already been given in the former work, vi. 14-16. One or two curious modifications are further made, which certainly indicate a more advanced period. The author represents the disciples as asking the risen Jesus (i. 6): "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" To which answer is made: "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father appointed by his own authority. But ye shall receive power through the coming upon you of the Holy Ghost, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." Having spoken this, Jesus is immediately lifted up, and a cloud receives him out of their sight. We believe that the chief motive for which this singular episode was introduced, was to correct the anticipations raised by the eschatological prophecies in chap. xxi. of the Gospel. Those prophecies had already been modified, as we have seen, to suit the altered circumstances of the times, and the troublesome expression "this generation" is now quietly removed. There is no longer any definite limitation in the statement: "It is not for you to know times or seasons," accompanied by the vista of testimony to be borne, "unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” We are here, unmistakably, in the second century, to which also the whole character of the Acts leads us.

There is an allusion to Gaza in the Acts which has been much discussed, and also advanced as an indication of date. In the account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, the angel is represented as saying to Philip (viii. 26): "Arise and go toward the south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert (avτη coτìv ënμos)." The city of Gaza, after having been taken and destroyed by Alexander the Great, was rebuilt by the pro-consul Gabinius1 (c. 58 B.C.), but it was again destroyed, by the Jews themselves, shortly before the siege of Jerusalem. The expression, "this is desert," may grammatically be applied either to the "way" or to "Gaza" itself. Those who consider that epnuos refers to Gaza, of course understand the word as describing the devastated condition of the place, and some of them argue that, as the latest date referred to in Acts, the two years' imprisonment of Paul, carries the history up to A.D. 64, and the destruction of Gaza took place about A.D. 66-probably somewhat later -the description was applied to Gaza by the author as a parenthetic allusion, its destruction being quite recent at the time when the Acts were written. On the other side, it is contended that, as there was more than one way-as there still is-from Jerusalem to Gaza, the angel simply indicated the particular way by which Philip was to go so as to meet the Ethiopian: "this way is desert," and con(2) Ib. Bell. Jud. ii. 18, § 1.

(1) Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5, § 3.

VOL. XXII. N.S.

N N

sequently little frequented. Applied to the way, and identifying it, the description has direct and perfectly simple significance, whereas, understood as a reference to the state of Gaza itself, it is certainly an unnecessary display of local or historical knowledge. The majority of critics connect epnuos with ódós, and not with Gaza ;1 but in any case the expression has really no value for the establishment of a date, for even supposing the words applied to Gaza, there is no limit to the time when such a reference might have been made. A writer at the middle of the second century, for instance, describing an episode supposed to occur near Gaza, and knowing of its destruction from Josephus, or possibly having it suggested by some older legend, might have inserted the detail, whether applied to Gaza or to the road to it, as a dash of local colouring.

We now arrive at the point which suggested the present discussion: the apparent indications of contact between Luke and Josephus. M. Renan has been struck, as we have seen, by the analogy between the two writers, which he attributes to contemporary residence in Rome, without seeming to suggest any use of the writings of the Jewish historian by the Christian writer. He does not appear to be aware of the discussion of the question which has recently taken place in Germany. Holtzmann and others, however, have pointed out that the author of the Gospel and Acts has been very sensibly influenced by the works of Josephus, which were certainly largely circulated in Rome, where most critics conjecture our two canonical books to have been written. Supposing the use of the writings of the Jewish historian to be demonstrated, it is obvious that we have a very important fact to guide us in determining an epoch beyond which the composition of the third Synoptic cannot be set. It must be borne in mind, in considering such evidence as we can afford space to quote, that indications of the use of an original historian, using his own characteristic expressions, and largely relating his own experiences, may be accepted in quite a different way from supposed indications of the use of Gospels like ours, which not only almost literally reproduce the same matter, showing their mutual dependence upon each other, and upon common sources, of which we positively know the earlier existence, but which, moreover, profess to give an historical record of sayings and doings which might have been, and in all probability were, similarly reported in a dozen different works, or handed down by common tradition.

It is recognised by almost all modern writers that the author of the third Synoptic and Acts was not a Jew, but a Gentile Christian. (1) Some able critics are disposed to consider the words aürn kotiv konμoç a mere gloss which has crept into the text. We need not discuss the argument that it distinguished the particular Gaza intended.

(2) Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol. 1873, p. 89 ff.; Krenkel, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 141 ff.; Hausrath, N. T. Zeitgesch. iii. p. 423 ff.

Where did he get such knowledge of Jewish history as he displays? The reply is he got it from the works of Josephus. The whole of the historical personages introduced into his two books, as well as the references to contemporary events, are found in those works, and although sometimes erroneously employed and distorted from his pious point of view, there still remain singular coincidences of expression, and of sequence, which show the effect upon the author's memory of his study of Josephus. The high priests, Annas, Caiaphas, and Ananias; Gamaliel; the two Herods; Agrippa and Philip, together with Herodias, Berenice and Drusilla; and the Roman Procurators, Felix and Festus.1 Simon the Magician,2 and the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38), Theudas, and Judas the Galilean, as well as others, seem to be derived from this source, together with such facts as the enrolment under Cyrenius, and the great famine (Acts xi. 28).3 Josephus furnishes the material for drawing the character of Ananias, who commanded those who stood by to smite (TUTTEIV) Paul on the mouth, and was characterized by the apostle in such strong terms; and Josephus even states that the servants of the high priest smote (TUTTEL) those priests who would not give up their tithes (xx. 9, § 2 f.).*

(1) The whole of the preceding personages, indeed, figure largely in the first five chapters of Book xviii. of the Antiquities. The condensed references in Luke iii. 1, 2, do not represent many pages of Josephus. It is curious to compare iii. 1, év étui dè πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος. . . . καὶ τετραρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ηρώδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετραρχοῦντος τῆς Ιτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, κ. τ. λ., with the following of Josephus : τότε δὲ καὶ Φίλιππος (Ηρώδου δὲ ἦν ἀδελφός) τελευτᾷ τὸν βίον, εἰκοστῷ μὲν ἐνιαυτῷ τῆς Τιβερίου ἀρχῆς ἡγησάμενος δὲ αὐτὸς ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα τῆς Τραχωνίτιδος καὶ Γαυλανίτιδος, κ. τ. λ., Antig. xviii. 4, § 6-"Now at that time also Philip, who was Herod's brother, died, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after having for thirty-seven years governed the region of Trachonitis and Gaulonitis," &c. Lysanias of Abylene is referred to in Antiq. xix. 5, § 1; xx. 7, § 1; and Annas and Caiaphas in an earlier paragraph of the same chapter we have just quoted (xviii. 4, § 3; cf. 2, §§ 1, 2, &c.). The story of Herodias is told in the next chapter (xviii. 5, § 1 f.; cf. 7, § 1; cf. Luke iii. 19 f.). From Antiq. xx. 7, 2, may be learnt why Felix trembled, when he came with his wife Drusilla, and Paul discoursed to him of righteousness and temperance (Acts xxiv. 24 f.). Berenice is mentioned in the very same section (Antiq. xx. 7, § 2, cf. Acts xxiv. 23). In Acts xxiv. 27, Festus is introduced: "But after two years Porcius Festus came in Felix' room” (διετίας δὲ πληρωθείσης ἔλαβεν διάδοχον ὁ Φὴλίξ Πόρκιον Φῆστον). He is introduced by Josephus: "But Porcius Festus having been sent by Nero in Felix' room (Πορκίου δέ Φήστου διαδόχου Φήλικι πεμφθέντος ὑπὸ Νέρωνος, κ. τ. λ.). Antiq. xx. 8, § 9. (2) We shall not here discuss the historical reality of Simon the magician, cf. Acts viii. 9 ff., but in Josephus there is likewise Simon a magician, who helps Felix to marry Drusilla. The author of Acts introduces him, viii. 9: "But a certain man named Simon (óróμarı Ziμwv). . . using sorcery (uayɛúwv)... boasting himself to be some great person (Aéywv elvai riva ¿avròv péyav).” Josephus says, " And one of his friends, named Simon (Σίμων ὀνόματι) . . . who pretended to be a sorcerer (μάγον εἶναι σκηπ Tóμevov)," &c., Antiq. xx. 7, § 2.

"

(3) The third synoptist is the only evangelist who records the excursion to Emmaus, and it may be mentioned that the name of this village, even, may have been derived from Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1, § 3; De Bello Jud. v. 2, § 3.

(4) Hausrath, N. T. Zeitgesch. xii. p. 425 f., cf. p. 32.