IN ACTA APOSTOLORVM

VII. We attribute the rest, now from chapter 27 to the end, to the fourth journey, which he undertook no longer as a free man, but in bonds. In this, first are his companions on the road: Julius the Centurion, Aristarchus the Macedonian, Luke the writer of the history, and many others, 276 in number. Then the route is described along the coasts of Asia: Sidon, Cyprus, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Myra, Cnidus, Crete, Salmone, Fair Havens, from where the navigation began to be dangerous. Chapter 28: how they were received by the barbarians in Malta. Paul shook off a viper into the fire without harm, for which he was taken for a god. The hospitality of Publius toward the strangers and shipwrecked men is singular. Paul frees his father from a fever. From here the remainder of the journey to Rome is completed. They arrive at Syracuse, Rhegium, Puteoli, at the Three Taverns, at the Appian Forum, and from there finally to Rome, where he affirms that Paul taught freely for two years, with no one forbidding him, but he does not explain the history of that time. The reason is that he was separated from him and returned to the East to those churches which he had seen were founded by Paul. This is the series of parts in this whole history, and we shall follow it in its proper place as much as possible, intending to recount individual things more diligently and clearly, the Lord so willing and His grace aspiring.

How are these the Acts of the Apostles, when this history testifies almost only to Paul?

It is often asked here, and not without reason, how they are called the Acts of the Apostles when he writes almost only of Paul. The mention of the others, besides their bare names, is certainly rare or non-existent. He only mentions James in chapters 1 and 12, briefly indicating his death. Of John, too, he writes in passing in chapter 3, that he went up to the temple with Peter. The history of Stephen is fuller in chapters 6 and 7, likewise of Philip in chapter 8, but they are not Apostles, but of the number of the deacons. Let us therefore weigh this matter in this order: first, why he does not exhibit the history of all for us; then, why so much of Paul; thirdly, why nothing of the others separately?

First, why the history of all the Apostles is not woven here, the reason is manifest: because the title does not permit this. It does not say πάντων τῶν Ἀποστόλων of all the Apostles, and therefore no more is to be required of him than he promises. Furthermore, a good part of the history pertains not only to Paul, but to all the rest. For the first twelve chapters have a history common to all the Apostles. Commonly, they are auditors of Christ for 40 days. Then, all are present at the Ascension. 3. They commonly persist in prayer. 4. By common vote, they elect Matthias in place of Judas. 5. All receive the Holy Spirit. 6. It is written of all that they performed many signs, in chapters 2 and 6. 7. The doctrine of all is common concerning the resurrection of Christ, in chapter 4, which place is explained through almost all the sermons: that Christ rose from the dead, and by his merit grace is granted to us. 8. The Apostles themselves distribute possessions in chapters 4 and 5. Ninth, dangers are common, chapter 5. Tenth, everywhere the present deliverance of God is common. 11. The defense of all is common. 12. They commonly elect Deacons, in chapter 6. 13. They commonly occupy themselves with doctrine and prayers. 14. Common constancy, animosity, and strength of spirit, in chapter 8. 15. They commonly send Peter and John to the Samaritans, whom Philip had taught, in chapter 8. 16. Their synod and decision at Jerusalem is common, in chapter 15.

These and many other things pertain to all the Apostles, so that he does not promise us the history of τῶν Ἀποστόλων the Apostles without cause.

But why so much of Paul? We answer that he was his disciple and companion ὁμοδιαίτου one who shared the same life in all his journeys. It is therefore no wonder if he writes more accurately of those things in which he was present and of which he himself was a part. And this pertains to the credibility of the history. He did not borrow narrations from elsewhere about things that others heard and saw and carried to Luke, so that he might refer things heard and seen by others into the history, but he himself was an αὐτόπτης eyewitness of all.

Furthermore, his love toward his teacher required this, so that just as he was singularly loved by Paul, as can be seen in 2 Cor. 8, so for the sake of gratitude he would not omit the things done by him in his history.

Also, the public utility of the Church of posterity demanded this, so that such a history might be gifted with immortality. Add to this that the Apostle Paul labored more than the others (2 Cor. 15); therefore, he deserved more praise.

But why nothing specifically about the others, as about Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon the Zealot, Judas, etc.?

We answer that because of the dispersion of the Apostles, it was not possible for him to be present with each one so that their history could be known to him. Wherefore, of those unknown to him, he could not write with certainty.

Furthermore, that history suffices for the pious, especially since the doctrine of all was one and the same, since all defended it with equal constancy, explained the scripture with the same gifts of the Holy Spirit, and confirmed the truth with miracles whenever it was necessary. Therefore, what is described in Paul should be held as a kind of idea of the Apostolic office. Finally, there had to be some end to the writing of the history; this end was limited within these boundaries by the Holy Spirit. We shall acquiesce to His will, lest we inquire scrupulously into other things which were not brought forth by the Holy Spirit. It is certain that the Holy Spirit has sufficiently handed down to us through the Apostle the discipline of those things which pertain to salvation.