ACT ON PETITION, the term for a part of the procedure in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, now of infrequent occurrence. It was more freely used in the old Admiralty and Divorce courts before the Judicature Acts. (See PLEADING.)
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. This book of the Bible, which now stands fifth in the New Testament, was read at first as the companion and sequel of the Gospel of Luke. Its separation was due to growing consciousness of the Gospels as a unit of sacred records, to which Acts stood as a sort of appendix. Historically it is of unique interest and value: it has no fellow within the New Testament or without it. The so-called Apocryphal Acts of certain apostles, while witnessing to the impression produced by our Acts as a type of edifying literature, only emphasize this fact. It is the one really primitive Church history, primitive in spirit as in substance; apart from it a connected picture of the Apostolic Age would be impossible. With it, the Pauline Epistles are of priceless historical value; without it, they would remain bafflingly fragmentary and incomplete, often even misleading.
1. Plan and Aim.—-All agree that the Acts of the Apostles is the work of an author of no mean skill, and that he has exercised careful selection in the use of his materials, in keeping with a definite purpose and plan. It is of moment, then, to discover from his emphasis, whether by iteration or by fulness of scale, what objects he had in mind in writing. Here it is not needful to go farther back than F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school, with its theory of sharp antitheses between Judaic and Gentile Christianity, of which they took the original apostles and Paul respectively as typical. Gradually their statement of this position underwent serious modifications, as it became realized that neither Jewish nor Gentile Christianity was a uniform genus, but included several species, and that the apostolic leaders from the first stood for mutual understanding and unity. Hence the Tubingen school did its chief work in putting the needful question, not in returning the correct answer. Their answer could not be correct, because, as Ritschl showed (in his Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed., 1857 ), their premisses were inadequate. Still the attitude created by the Tubingen theory largely persists as a biassing element in much that is written about Acts. On the whole, however, there is a disposition to look at the book more objectively and to follow up the hints as to its aim given by the author in his opening verses. Thus (1) his second narrative is the natural sequel to his first. As the earlier one set forth in orderly sequence (kathexes) the providential stages by which Jesus was led, "in the power of the Spirit,'' to begin the establishment of the consummated Kingdom of God, so the later work aims at setting forth on similar principles its extension by means of His chosen representatives or apostles. This involves emphasis on the identity of the power, Divine and not merely human, expressed in the great series of facts from first to last. Thus (2) the Holy Spirit appears as directing and energizing throughout the whole struggle with the powers of evil to be overcome in either ministry, of Master or disciples. But (3) the continuity is more than similarity of activity resting on the same Divine energy. The working of the energy in the disciples is conditioned by the continued life and volition of their Master at His Father's right hand in heaven. The Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Jesus,'' is the living link between Master and disciples. Hence the pains taken to exhibit (i. 2, 4 f. 8, ii. I ff., cf. Luke xxiv. 49) the fact of such spiritual solidarity, whereby their activity means His continued action in the world. And (4) the scope of this action is nothing less than humanity (ii. 5 ff.), especially within the Roman empire. It was foreordained that Messiah's witnesses should be borne by Divine power through all obstacles and to ever-widening circles, until they reached and occupied Rome itself for the God of Israel—now manifest (as foretold by Israel's own prophets) as the one God of the one race of mankind. (5) Finally, as we gather from the parallel account in Luke xxiv.46-48, the divinely appointed method of victory is through suffering (Acts xiv. 22). This explains the large space devoted to the tribulations of the witnesses, and their constancy amid them, after the type of their Lord Himself. It forms one side of the virtual apologia for the absence of that earthly prosperity in which the pagan mind was apt to see the token of Divine approval. Another side is the recurring exhibition of the fact that these witnesses were persecuted only by those whose action should create no bias against the persecuted. Their foes were chiefly Jews, whose opposition was due partly to a stiff-necked disinclination to bow to the wider reading of their own religion —to which the Holy Spirit had from of old been pointing (cf. the prominence given to this idea in Stephen's long speech)—and partly to jealousy of those who, by preaching the wider Messianic Evangel, were winning over the Gentiles, and particularly proselytes, in such great numbers.
Such, then, seem to be the author's main motifs. They make up an account fairly adequate to the manifoldness of the book; yet they may be summed up in three ideas, together constituting the moral which this history of the expansion of Christianity aims at bringing home to its readers. These are the universality of the Gospel, the jealousy of national Judaism, and the Divine initiative manifest in the gradual stages by which men of Jewish birth were led to recognize the Divine will in the setting aside of national restrictions, alien to the universal destiny of the Church. The practical moral is the Divine character of the Christian religion, as evinced by the manner of its extension in the empire, no less than by its original embodiment in the Founder's life and death. Thus both parts of the author's work alike tend to produce assured conviction of Christianity as of Divine origin (Luke i. 1, 4; Acts i. 1 f.).
This view has the merit of giving the book a practical religious aim—a sine qua non to any theory of an early Christian writing. though meant for men of pagan birth in the first instance, it is to them as inquirers or even converts, such as "Theophilus,'' that the argument is addressed. In spite of all difficulties, this religion is worthy of personal belief, even though it mean opposition and suffering. Among the features of the occasion which suggested the need of such an appeal was doubtless the existence of persecution by the Roman authorites, perhaps largely at the instigation of local Judaism. To meet this special perplexity, the author holds up the picture of early days, when the great protagonist of the Gospel constantly enjoyed protection at the hands of Roman justice. It is implied that the present distress is but a passing phase, resting on some misunderstanding; meantime, the example of apostolic constancy should yield strong reassurance. The Acts of the Apostles is in fact an Apology for the Church as distinct from Judaism, the breach with which is accordingly traced with great fulness and care.
From this standpoint Acts no longer seems to end abruptly. Whether as exhibiting the Divine leading and aid, or as recording the impartial and even kindly attitude of the Roman State towards the Christians, the writer has reached a climax. "He wished,'' as Harnack well remarks, "to point out the might of the Holy Spirit in the apostles, Christ's witnesses; and to show how this might carried the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome and gained for it entrance into the pagan world, whilst the Jews in growing degree incurred rejection. In keeping with this, verses 26-28 of chapter xxviii. are the solemn closing verses of the work. But verses 30, 31 are an appended observation.''
Yet the writer is, in fact, ending up most fitly on one of his keynotes, in that he leaves Paul preaching in Rome itself, "unmolested.'' "Paulus Romae, apex Evangelii.''
The full force of this is missed by those who, while rejecting the idea that the author had in reserve enough Pauline history to furnish another work, yet hold that Paul was freed from the imprisonment amid which Acts leaves him (see PAUL). But for those, on the other hand, who see in the writer's own words in xx. 38, uncontradicted by anything in the sequel, a broad hint that Paul never saw his Ephesian friends again, the natural view is open that the sequel to the two years' preaching was too well known to call for explicit record. Nor would such silence touching Paul's speedy martyrdom be disingenuous, any more than on the theory that martyrdom overtook him several years later. The writer views Paul's death (like the horrors of Nero's Vatican Gardens in 64) as a mere exception to the rule of Roman policy heretofore illustrated. Not even by the Roman authorities were some of Nero's acts regarded as precedents.
2. Authorship.—External evidence, which is relatively early and widespread (e.g. Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian,Clement and Origen), all points to Luke, the companion and fellow-worker of Paul (Philem. 24), who probably accompanied him as physician also (Col. iv. 14). It must be noted too that evidence for his authorship of the third Gospel counts also for Acts. This carries us back at least to the second quarter of the 2nd century (Justin, Dial. 103, and most probably Marcion), when Loukan no doubt stood at the head of the Gospel, especially where it was used side by side with the others. We have every reason to trust the Church's tradition at this time, particularly as Luke was not prominent enough as an associate of Paul to suggest the theory as a guess. Nor does Eusebius, who knew the ante-Nicene literature intimately, seem to know of any other view ever having been held. If, then, the traditional Lucan authorship is to be doubted, it must be on internal evidence only. The form of the book, however, in all respects favours Luke, who was of non-Jewish birth (see Col. iv. 12-14 compared with 10 f.), and as a physician presumably a man of culture. The medical cast of much of its language, which is often of a highly technical nature, points strongly the same way;1 while the early tradition that Luke was born in the Syrian Antioch admirably suits the fulness with which the origin of the Antiochene Church and its place in the further extension of the Gospel are described (see LUKE). Again, the attitude of Acts towards the Roman Empire is just what would be expected from a close comrade of Paul (cf. Sir W. M. Ramsay, St Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 1895), but was hardly likely to be shared by one of the next generation, reared in an atmosphere of resentment, first at Nero's conduct and then at the persecuting policy of the Flavian Caesars (see REVELATION). Finally, the book itself seems to claim to be written by a companion of Paul. In chap. xvi. 10 the writer, without any previous warning, passes from the third person to the first. Paul had reached Troas. There he saw a vision inviting him to go to Macedonia. "But when he saw the vision, straightway we sought to go forth into Macedonia.'' Thenceforth "we'' re-emerges at certain points in the narrative until Rome is reached. Irenaeus (iii. 14. 1) quotes these passages as proof that Luke, the author, was a companion of the apostle. The minute character of the narrative, the accurate description of the various journeyings, the unimportance of some of the details, especially some of the incidents of the shipwreck, are strong reasons for believing that the narrative is that of an eyewitness. If so, we can scarcely help coming to the conclusion that this eye-witness was the author of the work; for the style of this eye-witness is exactly the style of the writer who composed the previous portions (see Harnack, op. cit., reinforcing the argument as already worked out by B. Weiss, 1893, and especially by Sir J. C. Hawkins in Horae Synopticae, 1899, pp. 143-147). Most scholars admit that the "we'' narrative is that of a personal companion of Paul, who was probably none other than Luke, in view of his traditional authorship of Acts. But many suppose that the tradition arose from confused remembrance of the use by a later author of Luke's "we'' document or travel-diary. This supposition would compel us to believe either that the skilful writer of Acts was so careless as to incorporate a document without altering its form, or that "we'' is introduced intentionally. In the latter case we must suppose either that the writer was an eye-witness, or that he wished to be thought an eye-witness. E. Zeller, a follower of Baur, adopted this latter alternative, and P. W. Schmiedel adheres to it. Indeed it is hard to see how it can be avoided on the theory that the author of Acts used a travel-document by another hand (see below, Sources). On the whole, then, the most tenable theory is that the writer of the "we'' sections was also the author of Acts; and that he was Luke, Paul's companion during most of his later ministry, and also his "counterpart,'' "as a Hellene, who yet had personal sympathy with Jewish primitive Christianity'' (Harnack, op. cit. p. 103; see also LUKE).
3. Sources.—So far from the recognition of a plan in Acts being inimical to a quest after the materials used in its composition, one may say that it points the way thereto, while it keeps the literary analysis within scientific limits. The more one realizes the standpoint of the mind pervading the book as a whole, the more one feels that the speeches in the first part of Acts (e.g. that of Stephen)—-and indeed elsewhere, too—are not "free compositions'' of our author, the mere outcome of dramatic idealization such as ancient historians like Thucydides or Polybius allowed themselves. The Christology, for instance of the early Petrine speeches is such as a Gentile Christian writing c. 80 A.D. simply could not have imagined. Thus we are forced to assume the use of a certain amount of early Judaeo-Christian material, akin to that implied also in the special parts of the Third Gospel. Paul Feine (Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas, 1891) suggested that a single document explains this material in both works, as far as Acts xii. Others maintain that at any rate two sources underlie Acts i.-xii., or even i.-xv. (see A. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 131 ff.). In particular we can recognize a source embodying the traditions of the largely Hellenistic Church of Antioch, a secondary gloss from which may survive in the Bezan addition to xi. 27, "when we were assembled.'' Further, if our author was a careful inquirer (Luke i. 3), especially if he was in the habit of taking down in writing what he heard from different witnesses, this may explain some of the phenomena. Such a man as Luke would have rare faculties for collecting Palestinian materials, varying no doubt in accuracy, but all relatively primitive, whether in Antioch or in Caesarea, where he probably resided for some two years in contact with men like Philip the Evangelist (xxi. 8). There and elsewhere he might also learn a good deal from John Mark, Peter's friend (1 Pet. v. 13; Acts xii. 12). In any case the study of sources (Quellenkritik) is a comparatively new one, and the resources of analysis, linguistic in particular, are by no means exhausted. One important analogy exists for the way in which our author would handle any written sources he may have had by him, namely, the manner in which he uses Mark's Gospel narrative in compiling his own Gospel. Guided by this objective criterion, and safeguarded by growing insight into the author's plastic aim, we need not despair of reaching large agreement as to the nature of the sources lying behind the first half of Acts.
In the second or strictly Pauline half we are confronted by the so-called "we'' passages. Of these two main theories are possible: (1) that which sees in them traces of an earlier document—whether entries in a travel-diary, or a more or less consecutive narrative written later; and (2) that which would regard the "we'' as due to the author's breaking instinctively into the first person plural at certain points where he felt himself specially identified with the history. On the former hypothesis, it is still in debate whether the "we'' document does or does not lie behind more of the narrative than is definitely indicated by the formula in question (e.g. cc. xiii.-xv., xxi. 19-xxvi.). On the latter, it may well be questioned whether the presence or absence of "we'' be not due to psychological causes, rather than to the writer's mere presence or absence.2 That is, he may be writing sometimes as a member of Paul's mission at the critical stages of onward advance, sometimes rather as a witness absorbed in his hero's words and deeds (so "we'' ceases between xx. 15 and xxi. 1). Naturally he would fall into the former attitude mostly when recording the definitive transition of Paul and his party from one sphere of work to another (xvi. 10 ff., xx. 5 ff., xxvii. 1 ff.). At such times the whole "mission'' was as one man in its movements.
4. Historical Value.—-The question of authorship is largely bound up with that as to the quality of the contents as history. Acts is divided into two distinct parts. The first (i.-xii.) deals with the church in Jerusalem and Judaea, and with Peter as central figure—-at any rate in cc. i.-v. "Yet in cc. vi.-xii.,'' as Harnack3 observes, "the author pursues several lines at once. (1) He has still in view the history of the Jerusalem community and the original apostles (especially of Peter and his missionary labours); (2) he inserts in vi. 1 ff. a history of the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem and of the Seven Men, which from the first tends towards the Gentile Mission and the founding of the Antiochene community; (3) he pursues the activity of Philip in Samaria and on the coast . . .; (4) lastly, he relates the history of Paul up to his entrance on the service of the young Antiochene church. In the small space of seven chapters he pursues all these lines and tries also to connect them together, at the same time preparing and sketching the great transition of the Gospel from Judaism to the Greek world. As historian, he has here set himself the greatest task.'' No doubt gaps abound in these seven chapters. "But the inquiry as to whether what is narrated does not even in these parts still contain the main facts, and is not substantially trustworthy, is not yet concluded.'' The difficulty is that we have but few external means of testing this portion of the narrative (see below, Date). Some of it may well have suffered partial transformation in oral tradition belore reaching our author; e.g. the nature of the Tongues at Pentecost does not accord with what we know of the gift of "tongues'' generally. The second part pursues the history of the apostle Paul; and here we can compare the statements made in the Acts with the Epistles. The result is a general harmony, without any trace of direct use of these letters; and there are many minute coincidences. But attention has been drawn to two remarkable exceptions. These are, the account given by Paul of his visits to Jerusalem in Galatians as compared with Acts; and the character and mission of the apostle Paul, as they appear in his letters and in Acts.
In regard to the first point, the differences as to Paul's movements until he returns to his native province of Syria-Cilicia (see PAUL) do not really amount to more than can be explained by the different interests of Paul and our author respectively. But it is otherwise as regards the visits of Gal. ii. 1-10 and Acts xv. If they are meant to refer to the same occasion, as is usually assumed,4 it is hard to see why Paul should omit reference to the public occasion of the visit, as also to the public vindication of his policy. But in fact the issues of the two visits, as given in Gal. ii. 9 f. and Acts xv. 20 f., are not at all the same.5 Nay more, if Gal. ii. 1-10=Acts xv., the historicity of the "Relief visit'' of Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, seems definitely excluded by Paul's narrative of events before the visit of Gal. ii. 1 ff. Accordingly, Sir W. M. Ramsay and others argue that the latter visit itself coincided with the Relief visit, and even see in Gal. ii. 10 witness thereto.
But why, then, does not Paul refer to the public charitable object of his visit? It seems easier therefore to admit that the visit of Gal. ii. 1 ff. is one altogether unrecorded in Acts, owing to its private nature as preparing the way for public developments—-with which Acts is mainly concerned. In that case it would fall shortly before the Relief visit, to which there may be tacit explanatory allusion, in Gal. ii. 10 (see further PAUL); and it will be shown below that such a conference of leaders in Gal. ii. 1 ff. leads up excellently both to the First Mission Journey and to Acts xv.
We pass next to the Paul of Acts. Paul insists that he was appointed the apostle to the Gentiles, as Peter was to the Circumcision; and that circumcision and the observance of the Jewish law were of no importance to the Christian as such. His words on these points in all his letters are strong and decided. But in Acts it is Peter who first opens up the way for the Gentiles. It is Peter who uses the strongest language in regard to the intolerable burden of the Law as a means of salvation(xv. 10 f., cf. 1). Not a word is said of any difference of opinion between Peter and Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 ff.). The brethren in Antioch send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem to ask the opinion of the apostles and elders: they state their case, and carry back the decision to Antioch. Throughout the whole of Acts Paul never stands forth as the unbending champion of the Gentiles. He seems continually anxious to reconcile the Jewish Christians to himself by personally observing the law of Moses. He circumcises the semi-Jew, Timothy; and he performs his vows in the temple. He is particularly careful in his speeches to show how deep is his respect for the law of Moses. In all this the letters of Paul are very different from Acts. In Galatians he claims perfect freedom in principle, for himself as for the Gentiles, from the obligatory observance of the law; and neither in it nor in Corinthians does he take any notice of a decision to which the apostles had come in their meeting at Jerusalem. The narrative of Acts, too, itself implies something other than what it sets in relief; for why should the Jews hate Paul so much, if he was not in some sense disloyal to their Law?
There is, nevertheless, no essential contradiction here, only such a difference of emphasis as belongs to the standpoints and aims of the two writers amid their respective historical conditions. Peter's function in relation to the Gentiles belongs to the early Palestinian conditions, before Paul's distinctive mission had taken shape. Once Paul's apostolate—-a personal one, parallel with the more collective apostolate of "the Twelve''—has proved itself by tokens of Divine approval, Peter and his colleagues frankly recognize the distinction of the two missions, and are anxious only to arrange that the two shall not fall apart by religiously and morally incompatible usages (Acts xv.). Paul, on his side, clearly implies that Peter felt with him that the Law could not justify (Gal. ii. 15 ff.), and argues that it could not now be made obligatory in principle (cf. "a yoke,'' Acts xv. 10); yet for Jews it might continue for the time (pending the Parousia) to be seemly and expedient, especially for the sake of non-believing Judaism. To this he conformed his own conduct as a Jew, so far as his Gentile apostolate was not involved (1 Cor. ix. 19 ff.). There is no reason to doubt that Peter largely agreed with him, since he acted in this spirit in Gal. ii. 11 f., until coerced by Jerusalem sentiment to draw back for expediency's sake. This incident it simply did not fall within the scope of Acts (see below) to narrate, since it had no abiding effect on the Church's extension. As to Paul's submission of the issue in Acts xv. to the Jerusalem conference, Acts does not imply that Paul would have accepted a decision in favour of the Judaizers, though he saw the value of getting a decision for his own policy in the quarter to which they were most likely to defer. If the view that he already had an understanding with the "Pillar'' Apostles, as recorded in Gal. ii. 1-10 (see further PAUL), be correct, it gives the best of reasons why he was ready to enter the later public Conference of Acts xv. Paul's own "free'' attitude to the Law, when on Gentile soil, is just what is implied by the hostile rumours as to his conduct in Acts xxi. 21, which he would be glad to disprove as at least exaggerated (ib. 24 and 26). What is clear is that such lack of formal accord as here exists between Acts and the Epistles, tells against its author's dependence on the latter, and so favours his having been a comrade of Paul himself.
The speeches in Acts deserve special notice. Did its author follow the plan adopted by all historians of his age, or is he an exception? Ancient historians (like many of modern times) used the liberty of working up in their own language the speeches recorded by them. They did not dream of verbal fidelity; even when they had more exact reports before them, they preferred to mould a speaker's thoughts to their own methods of presentation. Besides this, some did not hesitate to give to the characters of their history speeches which were never uttered. The method of direct speech, so useful in producing a vivid idea of what is supposed to have passed through the mind of the speaker, was used to give force to the narrative. Now how far has the author of Acts followed the practice of his contemporaries? Some of his speeches are evidently but summaries of thoughts which occurred to individuals or multitudes. Others claim to be reports of speeches really delivered. But all these speeches have to a large extent the same style, the style also of the narrative. They have been passed though one editorial mind, and some mutual assimilation in phraseology and idea may well have resulted. They are, moreover, all of them, the merest abstracts. The speech of Paul at Athens, as given by Luke, would not occupy more than a minute or two in delivery. But these circumstances, while inconsistent with verbal accuracy, do not destroy authenticity; and in most of the speeches (e.g. xiv. 15-17 ) there is a varied appropriateness as well as an allusiveness, pointing to good information (see under Sources). There is no evidence that any speech in Acts is the free composition of its author, without either written or oral basis; and in general he seems more conscientious than most ancient historians touching the essentials of historical accuracy, even as now understood.
Miracles. Objections to the trustworthiness of Acts on the ground of its miracles require to be stated more discriminately than has sometimes been the case. Particularly is this so as regards the question of authorship. As Harnack observes (Lukas der Arzt, p. 24), the "miraculous'' or supernormal element is hardly, if at all, less marked in the "we'' sections, which are substantially the witness of a companion of Paul (and where efforts to dissect out the miracles are fruitless), than in the rest of the work. The scientific method, then, is to consider each "miracle'' on its own merits, according as we find reason to suppose that it has reached our author more or less directly. But the record of miracle as such cannot prejudice the question of authorship. Even the form in which the gift of Tongues at Pentecost is conceived does not tell against a companion of Paul, since it may have stood in his source, and the first outpouring of the Messianic Spirit may soon have come to be thought of as unique in some respects, parallel in fact to the Rabbinic tradition as to the inauguration of the Old Covenant at Sinai (cf. Philo, De decem oraculis, 9, 11, and the Midrash on Ps. lxviii. 11).
Finally as to such historical difficulties in Acts as still perplex the student of the Apostolic age, one must remember the possibilities of mistake intervening between the facts and the accounts reaching its author, at second or even third hand. Yet it must be strongly emphasized, that recent historical research at the hands of experts in classical antiquity has tended steadily to verify such parts of the narrative as it can test, especially those connected with Paul's missions in the Roman Empire. That is no new result; but it has come to light in greater degree of recent years, notably through Sir W. M. Ramsay's researches. The proofs of trustworthiness extend also to the theological sphere. What was said above of the Christology of the Petrine speeches applies to the whole conception of Messianic salvation, the eschatology, the idea of Jesus as equipped by the Holy Spirit for His Messianic work, found in these speeches, as also to titles like "Jesus the Nazarene'' and "the Righteous One'' both in and beyond the Petrine speeches. These and other cases in which we are led to discern very primitive witness behind Acts, do not indeed give to such witness the value of shorthand notes or even of abstracts based thereon. But they do support the theory that our author meant to give an unvarnished account of such words and deeds as had come to his knowledge. The perspective of the whole is no doubt his own; and as his witnesses probably furnished but few hints for a continuous narrative, this perspective, especially in things chronological, may sometimes be faulty. Yet when one remembers that by 70-80 A.D. it must have been a matter of small interest by what tentative stages the Messianic salvation first extended to the Gentiles, it is surely surprising that Acts enters into such detail on the subject, and is not content with a summary account of the matter such as the mere logic of the subject would naturally suggest. In any case, the very difference of the perspective of Acts and of Galatians, in recording the same epochs in Paul's history, argues such an independence in the former as is compatible only with an early date.
Quellenkritik, then, a distinctive feature of recent research upon Acts, solves many difficulties in the way of treating it as an honest narrative by a companion of Paul. In addition, we may also count among recent gains a juster method of judging such a book. For among the results of the Tubingen criticism was what Dr W. Sanday calls "an unreal and artificial standard, the standard of the 19th century rather than the 1st, of Germany rather than Palestine, of the lamp and the study rather than of active life.'' This has a bearing, for instance, on the differences between the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. In the recovery of a more real standard, we owe much to men like Mommsen, Ramsay, Blass and Harnack, trained amid other methods and traditions than those which had brought the constructive study of Acts almost to a deadlock.
5. Date.—External evidence now points to the existence of Acts at least as early as the opening years of the 2nd century. As evidence for the Third Gospel holds equally for Acts, its existence in Marcion's day (120-140) is now assured. Further, the traces of it in Polycarp 6 and Ignatius 7 when taken together, are highly probable; and it is even widely admitted that the resemblance of Acts xiii. 22, and 1 Cicm. xviii. 1, in features not found in the Psalm (lxxxix. 20) quoted by each, can hardly be accidental. That is, Acts was probably current in Antioch and Smyrna not later than c. A.D. 115, and perhaps in Rome as early as c. A.D. 96.
With this view internal evidence agrees. In spite of some advocacy of a date prior to A.D. 70, the bulk of critical opinion is decidedly against it. The prologue to Luke's Gospel itself implies the dying out of the generation of eye-witnesses as a class. A strong consensus of opinion supports a date about A.D. 80; some prefer 75 to 80; while a date between 70 and 75 seems no less possible. Of the reasons for a date in one of the earlier decades of the 2nd century, as argued by the Tubingen school and its heirs, several are now untenable. Among these are the supposed traces of 2nd-century Gnosticism and "hierarchical'' ideas of organization; but especially the argument from the relation of the Roman state to the Christians, which Ramsay has reversed and turned into proof of an origin prior to Pliny's correspondence with Trajan on the subject. Another fact, now generally admitted, renders a 2nd-century date yet more incredible; and that is the failure of a writer devoted to Paul's memory to make palpable use of his Epistles. Instead of this he writes in a fashion that seems to traverse certain things recorded in them. If, indeed, it were proved that Acts uses the later works of Josephus, we should have to place the book about A.D. 100. But this is far from being the case.
Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited. (1) The circumstances attending the death of Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44. Here Acts xii. 21-23 is largely parallel to Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2; but the latter adds an omen of coming doom, while Acts alone gives a circumstantial account of the occasion of Herod's public appearance. Hence the parallel, when analysed, tells against dependence on Josephus. So also with (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts xxi. 37, f., Jos. Jewish War, ii. 13. 5, Antt. xx. 8. 6; for the numbers of his followers do not agree with either of Josephus's rather divergent accounts, while Acts alone calls them Sicarii. With these instances in mind, it is natural to regard (3) the curious resemblance as to the (non-historical) order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both as accidental, the more so that again there is difference as to numbers. Further, to make out a case for dependence at all, one must assume the mistaken order (as it may be) in Gamaliel's speech as due to gross carelessness in the author of Acts—an hypothesis unlikely in itself. Such a mistake was far more likely to arise in oral transmission of the speech, before it reached Luke at all.
6 Place.—-The place of composition is still an open question. For some time Rome and Antioch have been in favour; and Blass combined both views in his theory of two editions (see below, Text). But internal evidence points strongly to the Roman province of Asia, particularly the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Note the confident local allusion in xix. 9 to "the school of Tyrannus''—-not "a certain Tyrannus,'' as in the inferior text—and in xix. 33 to "Alexander''; also the very minute topography in xx. 13-15. At any rate affairs in that region, including the future of the church of Ephesus (xx. 28-30), are treated as though they would specially interest "Theophilus'' and his circle; also an early tradition makes Luke die in the adjacent Bithynia. Finally it was in this region that there arose certain early glosses e.g. on xix. 9, xx. 15), probably the earliest of those referred to below. How fully in correspondeoce with such an environment the work would be, as apologia for the Church against the Synagogue's attempts to influence Roman policy to its harm, must be clear to all familiar with the strength of Judaism in "Asia'' (cf. Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9, and see Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, ch. xii.).
7. Text.—-The apparatus criticus of Acts has grown considerably of recent years; yet mainly in one direction, that of the so-called "Western text.'' This term, which our growing knowledge, especially of the Syriac and other Eastern versions, is rendering more and more unsatisfactory, stands for a text which used to be connected almost exclusively with the "eccentric'' Codex Bezae, and is comparable to a Targum on an Old Testament book. But it is now recognized to have been very widespread, in both east and west, for some 200 years or more from as early as the middle of the 2nd century. The process, however, of sitting out the readings of all our present witnesses—(Aleph MSS.), versions, Fathers —has not yet gone far enough to yield any sure or final result as to the history of this text, so as to show what in its extant forms is primary, secondary, and so on. Beginnings have been made towards grouping our authorities; but the work must go on much further before a solid basis for the reconstruction of its primitive form can be said to exist. The attempts made at such a reconstruction, as by Blass (1895, 1897) and Hilgenfeld (1899), are quite arbitrary. The like must be said even of the contribution to the problem made by August Pott,8 though he has helped to define one condition of success—-the classification of the strata in "Western'' texts—-and has taken some steps in the right direction, in connexion with the complex phenomena of one witness, the Harklean Syriac.
Assuming, however, that the original form of the "Western'' text had been reached, the question of its historical value, i.e. its relation to the original text of Acts, would yet remain. On this point the highest claims have been made by Blass. Ever since 1894 he held that both the "Western'' text of Acts (which he styles the b text) and its rival, the text of the great uncials (which he styles the a text), are due to the author's own hand. Further, that the former (Roman) is the more original of the two, being related to the latter (Antiochene) as fuller first draft to severely pruned copy. But even in its later form, that "b stands nearer the Grundschrift than a, but yet is, like a, a copy from it,'' the theory is really untenable. In sober contrast of Blass's sweeping theory stand the views of Sir W. M. Ramsay. Already in The Church in the Roman Empire ( 1893 ) he held that the Codex Bezae rested on a recension made in Asia Minor (somewhere between Ephesus and S. Galatia), not later than about the middle of the 2nd century. Though "some at least of the alterations in Codex Bezae arose through a gradual process, and not through the action of an individual reviser,'' the revision in question was the work of a single reviser, who in his changes and additions expressed the local interpretation put upon Acts in his own time. His aim, in suiting the text to the views of his day, was partly to make it more intelligible to the public, and partly to make it more complete. To this end he "added some touches where surviving tradition seemed to contain trustworthy additional particulars,'' such as the statement that Paul taught in the lecture-room of Tyrannus "from the fifth to the tenth hour.'' In his later work, on St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895), Ramsay's views gain both in precision and in breadth. The gain lies chiefly in seeing beyond the Bezan text to the "Western'' text as a whole.
Generally speaking, then, the text of Acts as printed by Westcott and Hort, on the basis of the earliest MSS. (alephB), seems as near the autograph as that of any other part of the New Testament; whereas the "Western'' text, even in its earliest traceable forms, is secondary. This does not mean that it has no historical value of its own. It may well contain some true supplements to the original text, derived from local tradition or happy inference—-a few perhaps from a written source used by Luke. Certain of these may even date from the end of the 1st century, and the larger part of them are probably not later than the middle of the 2nd. But its value lies mainly in the light cast on ecclesiastical thought in certain quarters during the epoch in question. The nature of the readings themselves, and the distribution of the witness for them, alike point to a process involving several stages and several originating centres of diffusion. The classification of groups of "Western'' witnesses has already begun. When completed, it will cast light, not only on the origin and growth of this type of text, but also on the exact value of the remaining witnesses to the original text of Acts—-and further on the early handling of New Testament writings generally. Acts, from its very scope, was least likely to be viewed as sacrosanct as regards its text. Indeed there are signs that its undogmatic nature caused it to be comparatively neglected at certain times and places, as, e.g., Chrysostom explicitly witnesses.
LITERATURE.—An account of the extensive and varied literature that has gathered round Acts may be found in two representative commentaries, viz., H. H. Wendt's edition of Meyer (1899), and that by R. J. Knowling in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii. (1900), supplemented by his Testimony of St Paul to Christ (1905). See also J. Moffatt, The Historical New Testament (1901). 412 ff., 655 ff.: C. Clemen, Die Apostelgesch. im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (Giessen, 1905); and A. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte (1908). (J. V. B.)
1 This argument, first worked out by Dr W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St Luke (Dublin, 1882), but hitherto neglected by many Continental scholars, has been urged afresh by Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (Leipzig, 1906; Eng. trans., London, 1907), to which reference may be made for all matters connected with Lucan authorship; comp. also R. J. Knowling in The Expositor's Greek Testament.
2 This view has received Harnack's support, op. cit. 89 f.
3 Apostelgeschichte (1908), p46. Harnack finds that our sense of the trustworthiness of the book "is enhanced by a thorough study of the chronological procedure of its author, both where he speaks and where he keeps silence.'' In this aspect the book "as a whole is according to the aims of the author and in reality a historical work'' (p. 41; cf. pp. 1-20, 222 ff.).
4 Though this view had the support of J. B. Lightfoot, it should be remembered that this was before the "South Galatian'' theory as to the date of Paul's work among the Galatians came to prevail.
5 Harnack, indeed, argues (op. cit. pp. 188 ff.) that the Abstinences defined for Gentiles were in the original text of Acts xv. 20 purely moral, and had no reference to Jewish scruples as to eating blood. He regards "what is strangled'' (pnikton) as originally a mistaken gloss, which crept into the text. External evidence is against this, nor does it seem demanded by the context; in fact xv. 21 rather goes against it.
6 Polyc. ad Philipp. i. 2, Acts ii. 24; ii. 1, Acts x. 42; ii. 3, Acts xx. 35; vi. 3, Acts vii. 52.
7 Ign. ad Magn. v. 1, Acts i 25; ad Smyrn. iii. 3, Acts x. 41.
8 Der abendlandische Text der Apostelgeschichte u. die Wir-quelle (Leipzig, 1900). See a review in the Journal of Theol. Studies, ii. 439 ff.
ACTUARY. The name of actuarius, sc. scriba, in ancient Rome, was given to the clerks who recorded the Acta Publica of the senate, and also to the officers who kept the military accounts and enforced the due fulfilment of contracts for military supplies. In its English form the word has undergone a gradual limitation of meaning. At first it seems to have denoted any clerk or registrar; then more particularly the secretary and adviser of any joint-stock company, but especially of an insurance company; and it is now applied specifically to one who makes those calculations as to the probabilities of human life, on which the practice of life assurance and the valuation of reversionary interests, deferred annuities, &c., are based. The first mention of the word in law is in the Friendly Societies Act of 1819, where it is used in the vague sense, "actuaries, or persons skilled in calculation,'' but it has received still further recognition in the Friendly Societies Act of 1875 and the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870. The word has been used with precision since the establishment of the "Institute of Actuaries of Great Britain and Ireland'' in 1848. The Quarterly Journal, Charter of Incorporation, and by-laws of this society may be usefully consulted for particulars as to the requirements for membership (see also ANNUITY). The registrar in the Lower House of Convocation is also called the actuary.
ACUMINATE (from Lat. acumen, point), sharpened or pointed, a word used principally in botany and ornithology, to denote the narrowing or lance-shaping of a leaf or of a bird's feather into a point, generally at the tip, though sometimes (with regard to a leaf) at the base. The poet William Cowper used the word to denote sharp and keen despair, but other authors, Sir T. Browne, Bacon, Bulwer, &c., use it to explain a material pointed shape.
ACUNA, CHRISTOVAL DE (1597—c.1676), Spanish missionary and explorer, was born at Burgos in 1597. He was admitted a Jesuit in 1612, and afterwards sent on mission work to Chile and Peru, where he became rector of the college of Cuenca. In 1639 he accompanied Pedro Texiera in his second exploration of the Amazon, in order to take scientific observations, and dtaw up a report for the Spanish government. The journey lasted ten months; and on the explorer's arrival in Peru, Acuna prepared his narrative, while awaiting a ship for Europe. The king of Spain, Philip IV., received the author coldly, and it is said even tried to suppress his book, fearing that the Portuguese, who had just revolted from Spain (1640), would profit by its information. After occupying the positions of procurator of the Jesuits at Rome and censor (calificador) of the Inquisition at Madrid, Acuna returned to South America, where he died, probably soon after 1675. His Nuevo Descubrimiento del Gran Rio de las Amazonas was published at Madrid in 1641; French and English translations (the latter from the French, appeared in 1682 and 1698.
ACUPRESSURE (from Lat. acus, a needle, and premere, to press), the name given to a method of restraining haemorrhage, introduced by Sir J. Y. Simpson, the direct pressure of a metallic needle, either alone or assisted by a loop of wire, being used to close the vessel near the bleeding point.
ACUPUNCTURE (from Lat. acus, a needle, and pungere, to prick), a form of surgical operation, performed by pricking the part affected with a needle. It has long been used by the Chinese in cases of headaches, lethargies, convulsions, colics, &c. (See SURGERY.)
ADABAZAR, an important commercial town in the Khoja Ili sanjak of Asia Minor, situated on the old military road from Constantinople to the east and connected by a branch line with the Anatolian railway. Pop. 18,000 (Moslems, 10,000; Christians, 8000). It was founded in 1540 and enlarged in 1608 by the settlement in it of an Armenian colony. There are silk and linen industries, and an export of tobacco, walnut-wood, cocoons and vegetables for the Constantinople market. Imports are valued at L. 80,000 and exports at
See V. Cuinet, Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1890—1900).
ADAD, the name of the storm-god in the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon, who is also known as Ramman ("the thunderer''). The problem involved in this double name has not yet been definitely solved. Evidence seems to favour the view that Ramman was the name current in Babylonia, whereas Adad was more common in Assyria. To judge from analogous instances of a double nomenclature, the two names revert to two different centres for the cult of a storm-god, though it must be confessed that up to the present it has been impossible to determine where these centres were. A god Hadad who was a prominent deity in ancient Syria is identical with Adad, and in view of this it is plausible to assume—-for which there is also other evidence —that the name Adad represents an importation into Assyria from Aramaic districts. Whether the same is the case with Ramman, identical with Rimmon, known to us from the Old Testament as the chief deity of Damascus, is not certain though probable. On the other hand the cult of a specific storm-god in ancient Babylonia is vouched for by the occurrence of the sign Im—the "Sumerian'' or ideographic writing for Adad-Ramman —as an element in proper names of the old Babylonian period. However this name may have originally been pronounced, so much is certain,—-that through Aramaic influences in Babylonia and Assyria he was identified with the storm-god of the western Semites, and a trace of this influence is to be seen in the designation Amurru, also given to this god in the religious literature of Babylonia, which as an early name for Palestine and Syria describes the god as belonging to the Amorite district.
The Babylonian storm-god presents two aspects in the hymns, incantations and votive inscriptions. On the one hand he is the god who, through bringing on the rain in due season, causes the land to become fertile, and, on the other hand, the storms that he sends out bring havoc and destruction. He is pictured on monuments and seal cylinders with the lightning and the thunderbolt, and in the hymns the sombre aspects of the god on the whole predominate. His association with the sun-god, Shamash, due to the natural combination of the two deities who alternate in the control of nature, leads to imbuing him with some of the traits belonging to a solar deity. In Syria Hadad is hardly to be distinguished from a solar deity. The process of assimilation did not proceed so far in Babylonia and Assyria, but Shamash and Adad became in combination the gods of oracles and of divination in general. Whether the will of the gods is determined through the inspection of the liver of the sacrificial animal, through observing the action of oil bubbles in a basin of water or through the observation of the movements of the heavenly bodies, it is Shamash and Adad who, in the ritual connected with divination, are invariably invoked. Similarly in the annals and votive inscriptions of the kings, when oracles are referred to, Shamash and Adad are always named as the gods addressed, and their ordinary designation in such instances is bele biri, "lords of divination.'' The consort of Adad-Ramman is Shala, while as Amurru his consort is called Aschratum. (See BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN RELIGION.) (M. JA.)
ADAGIO (Ital. ad agio, at ease), a term in music to indicate slow time; also a slow movement in a symphony, sonata, &c., or an independent piece, such as Mozart's pianoforte "Adagio in B minor.''
ADAIR, JOHN (d. 1722), Scottish surveyor and map-maker of the 17th century. Nothing is known of his parentage, birthplace or early life. His name first came before the public in 1683, when a prospectus was published in Edinburgh entitled An Account of the Scottish Atlas, stating that "the Privy Council of Scotland has appointed John Adair, mathematician and skilfull mechanick, to survey the shires.'' In 1686 an act of tonnage was passed in Adair's favour. He was then employed on a survey of the Scottish coast and two years later was made a fellow of the Royal Society. Two other acts of tonnage were passed for Adair, one in 1695 and the other in 1705. In 1703 he published the first part of his Description of the Sea Coasts and Islands of Scotland, for the use of seamen. The second part never appeared. He is thought to have died in London about the end of 1722. He must have lost a considerable amount of money in the execution of his work, and in 1723 some remuneration was made to his widow by the government. Some of his work is preserved in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh and in the King's Library of the British Museum, London.
ADALBERON, or ASCELIN (d. 1030 or 1031), French bishop and poet, studied at Reims and became bishop of Laon in 977. When Laon was taken by Charles, duke of Lorraine, in 988, he was put into prison, whence he escaped and sought the protection of Hugh Capet, king of France. Winning the confidence of Charles of Lorraine and of Arnulf, archbishop of Reims, he was restored to his see; but he soon took the opportunity to betray Laon, together with Charles and Arnulf, into the hands of Hugh Capet. Subsequently he took an active part in ecclesiastical affairs, and died on the 19th of July 1030 or 1031. Adalberon wrote a satirical poem in the form of a dialogue dedicated to Robert, king of France, in which he showed his dislike of Odilo, abbot of Cluny, and his followers, and his objection to persons of humble birth being made bishops. The poem was first published by H. Valois in the Carmen panegyricum in laudem Berengarii (Paris, 1663), and in modern times by J. P. Migne in the Patrologia Latina, tome cxli. (Paris, 1844). Adalberon must not be confounded with his namesake, Adalberon, archbishop of Reims (d. 988 or 989).
See Richer, Historiarum Libri III. et IV., which appears in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores. Band iii. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826—1892); A. Olleris, OEuvres de Gerbert pape sous le nom de Sylvestre II. (Paris, 1867); Histoire litteraire de la France, tome vii. (Paris, 1865-1869).
ADALBERT, or ADELBERT (c. 1000-1072), German archbishop, the most famous ecclesiastic of the 11th century, was the son of Frederick, count of Goseck, a member of a noble Saxon family. He was educated for the church, and began his clerical career at Halberstadt, where he attained to the dignity of provost. Having attracted the notice of the German king, Henry III., Adalbert probably served as chancellor of the kingdom of Italy, and in 1045 was appointed archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, his province including the Scandinavian countries, as well as a larger part of North Germany. In 1046 he accompanied Henry to Rome, where he is said to have refused the papal chair; and in 1052 he was made legate by Pope Leo IX., and given the right to nominate bishops in his province. He sought to increase the influence of his archbishopric, sent missionaries to Finland, Greenland and the Orkney Islands, and aimed at making Bremen a patriarchal see for northern Europe, with twelve suffragan bishoprics. He consolidated and increased the estates of the church, exercised the powers of a count, denounced simony and initiated financial reforms. The presence of this powerful and active personality, who was moreover a close friend of the emperor, was greatly resented by the Saxon duke, Bernard II., who regarded him as a spy sent by Henry into Saxony. Adalbert, who wished to free his lands entirely from the authority of the duke, aroused further hostility by an attack on the privileges of the great abbeys, and after the emperor's death in 1056 his lands were ravaged by Bernard. He took a leading part in the government of Germany during the minority of King Henry IV., and was styled patronus of the young king, over whom he appears to have exercised considerable influence. Having accompanied Henry on a campaign into Hungary in 1063, he received large gifts of crown estates, and obtained the office of count palatine in Saxony. His power aroused so much opposition that in 1066 the king was compelled to assent to his removal from court. In 1069 he was recalled by Henry, when he made a further attempt to establish a northern patriarchate, which failed owing to the hostility of the papacy and the condition of affairs in the Scandinavian kingdoms. He died at Goslar on the 16th or 17th of March 1072, and was buried in the cathedral which he had built at Bremen. Adalbert was a man of proud and haughty bearing, with large ideas and a strong, energetic character. He made Bremen a city of importance, and it was called by his biographer, Adam of Bremen, the New Rome.
See Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammenburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, edited by J. M. Lappenberg, in the Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores. Band vii. (Hanover and Berlin, 1826-1892); C. Grunhagen, Adalbert Erzbischof von Hamburg und die Idee eines Nordischen Patriarchats (Leipzig, 1854).
ADALBERT (originally VOYTECH), (c. 950-997), known as the apostle of the Prussians, the son of a Bohemian prince, was born at Libice (Lobnik, Lubik), the ancestral seat near the junction of the Cidlina and the Elbe. He was educated at the monastery of Magdeburg; and in 983 was chosen bishop of Prague. The extreme severity of his rule repelled the Bohemians, whom he vainly strove to wean from their national customs and pagan rites. Discouraged by the ill-success of his ministry, he withdrew to Rome until 993, when, in obedience to the command 0f the pope, he returned to his own people. Finding little amendment, however, in their course of living, he soon afterwards went again to Rome, and obtained permission from the pope to devote himself to missionary labours, which he carried on chiefly in North Germany and Poland. While preaching in Pomerania (997) he was assassinated by a heathen priest.
See U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age, Bio.-Bibl. (1905); Bolland, Acta Sanctorum, April 23; H. G. Voigt, Adalbert von Prag (1898), a thoroughly exhaustive monograph.
ADALIA (med. Antaliyah; the crusaders' Satalia), the ancient Attalia (q.v.), the largest seaport on the south coast of Asia Minor, though in point of trade it is now second to Mersina. The unsuitability of the harbour for modern steamers, the bad anchorage outside and the extension of railways from Smyrna have greatly lessened its former importance as an emporium for west central Anatolia. It is not connected by a chaussee with any point outside its immediate province, but it has considerable importance as the administrative capital of a rich and isolated sanjak. Adalia played a considerable part in the medieval history of the Levant. Kilij Arslan had a palace there. The army of Louis VII. sailed thence for Syria in 1148, and the fleet of Richard of England rallied there before the conquest of Cyprus. Conquered by the Seljuks of Konia, and made the capital of the province of Tekke, it passed after their fall through many hands, including those of the Venetians and Genoese, before its final occupation by the Ottoman Turks under Murad II. (1432). In the 18th century, in common with most of Anatolia, its actual lord was a Dere Bey. The family of Tekke Oglu, domiciled near Perga, though reduced to submission in 1812 by Mahmud II., continued to be a rival power to the Ottoman governor till within the present generation, surviving by many years the fall of the other great Beys of Anatolia. The records of the Levant (Turkey) Company, which maintained an important agency here till 1825, contain curious information as to the local Dere Beys. The present population of Adalia, which includes many Christians and Jews, still living, as in the middle ages, in separate quarters, the former round the walled mina or port, is about 25,000. The port is served by coasting steamers of the local companies only. Adalia is an extremely picturesque, but ill-built and backward place. The chief thing to see is the city wall, outside which runs a good and clean promenade. The government offices and the houses of the better class are all outside the walls.
See C. Lanckoronski, Villes de la Pamphylie et de La Pisidie, i. (1890). (D.G.H.)
ADAM, the conventional name of the first created man according to the Bible.
1. The Name.—-The use of "Adam'' (mem kamatz daleth kamatz aleph) as a proper name is an early error. Properly the word adam designated man as a species; with the article prefixed (Gen. ii. 7, 8, 16, iv. 1; and doubtless il. 20, iii. 17) it means the first man. Only in Gen. iv. 25 and v. 3-5 is adam a quasi-proper name, though LXX. and Vulgate use "Adam'' (Adam) in this way freely. Gen. ii. 7 suggests a popular Hebrew derivation from adamah, "the ground.'' Into the question whether the original story did not give a proper name which was afterwards modified into "Adam'' —-important as this question is—-we cannot here enter.
2. Creation of Adam.—For convenience, we shall take "Adam'' as a symbol for "the first man,'' and inquire first, what does tradition say of his creation? In Gen. ii. 4b-8 we read thus: -"At the time when Yahweh-Elohim1 made earth and heaven,—earth was as yet without bushes, no herbage was as yet sprouting, because Yahweh-Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and no men were there to till the ground, but a stream2 used to go up from the earth, and water all the face of the ground,—-then Yahweh-Elohim formed the man of dust of the ground,3 and blew into his nostrils breath of life,4 and the man became a living being. And Yahweh-Elohim planted a garden5 in Eden, eastward; and there he put the man whom he had formed.'' (See Eve.)
How greatly this simple and fragmentary tale of Creation differs from that in Gen. i. 1-ii. 4a (see COSMOGONY) need hardly be mentioned. Certainly the priestly writer who produced the latter could not have said that God modelled the first man out of moistened clay, or have adopted the singular account of the formation of Eve in ii. 21-23. The latter story in particular (see Eve) shows us how childlike was the mind of the early men, whose God is not "wonderful in counsel'' (Isa. xxviii. 29), and fails in his first attempt to relieve the loneliness of his favourite. For no beast however mighty, no bird however graceful, was a fit companion for God's masterpiece, and, apart from the serpent, the animals had no faculty of speech. All therefore that Adam could do, as they passed before him, was to name them, as a lord names his vassals. But here arises a difficulty. How came Adam by the requisite insight and power of observation? For as yet he had not snatched the perilous boon of wisdom. Clearly the Paradise story is not homogeneous.
3. How the Animals were named.—-Some moderns, e.g. von Bohlen, Ewald, Driver (in Genesis, p. 55, but cp. p. 42), have found in ii. 19, 20 an early explanation of the origin of language. This is hardly right. The narrator assumes that Adam and Eve had an innate faculty of speech.6 They spoke just as the birds sing, and their language was that of the race or people which descended from them. Most probably the object of the story is, not to answer any curious question (such as, how did human speech arise, or how came the animals by their names?), but to dehort its readers or hearers from the abominable vice referred to in Lev. xviii. 23.7 There may have been stories in circulation like that of Ea-bani (sec. 8), and even such as those of the Skidi Pawnee, in which "people'' marry animals, or become animals. Against these it is said (ver. 20b) that "for Adam he found no helper (qualified) to match him.''
4. Three Riddles.—-Manifold are the problems suggested by the Eden-story (see EDEN; PARADISE). For instance, did the original story mention two trees, or only one, of which the fruit was taboo? bn iii. 3(cp. vv. 6, 11) only "the tree in the midst of the garden'' is spoken of, but in ii. 9 and iii. 22 two trees are referred to, the fruit of both of which would appear to be taboo. To this we must add that in ii. 17 "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'' appears to have the qualities of a "tree of life,'' except indeed to Adam. This passage seems to give us the key to the mystery. There was only one tree whose fruit was forbidden; it might be called either "the tree of life'' or "the tree of knowledge,'' but certainly not "the tree of knowledge of good and evil.'' 8 The words "life'' and "knowledge'' (= "wisdom'') are practically equivalent; perfect knowledge (so primitive man believed) would enable any being to escape death (an idea spiritualized in Prov. iii. 18).
Next, which of the trees is the "tree of life''? Various sacred trees were known to the Semitic peoples, such as the fig-tree (cp. iii. 7), which sometimes appears, conventionalized, as a sacred tree.9 But clearly the tree referred to was more than a "sacred tree''; it was a tree from whose fruit or juice, as culture advanced, some intoxicating drink was produced. The Gaokerena of the Iranians 10 is exactly parallel. At the resurrection, those who drink of the life-giving juice of this plant will obtain "perfect welfare,'' including deathlessness. It is not, however, either from Iran or from India that the Hebrew tree of life is derived, but from Arabia and Babylonia, where date-wine (cp. Enoch xxiv. 4) is the earliest intoxicant. Of this drink it may well have been said in primitive times (cp. Rig Veda, ix. 90. 5, of Soma) that it "cheers the heart of gods'' (in the speech of the vine, Judg. ix. 13). Later writers spoke of a "tree of mercy,'' distilling the "oil of life,'' 11 i.e. the oil that heals, but 4 Esdr. ii. 12 (cp. viii. 53) speaks of the "tree of life,'' and Rev. xxii. 2 (virtually) of "trees of life,'' whose leaves have a healing virtue (cp. Ezek. xlvii. 12). The oil-tree should doubtless be grouped with the river of oil in later writings (see PARADISE). Originally it was enough that there should be one tree of life, i.e. that heightened and preserved vitality.
A third enigma—-why no "fountain of life''? The references to such a fountain in Proverbs (xiii. 14, &c.) prove that the idea was familiar,12 and in Rev. xxii. 1 we are told that the river of Paradise was a "river of water of life'' (see PARADISE). The serpent, too, in mythology is a regular symbol of water. Possibly the narrator, or redactor, desired to tone down the traces of mythology. Just as the Gathas (the ancient Zoroastrian hymns) omit Gaokerena, and the Hebrew prophets on the whole avoid mythological phrases, so this old Hebrew thinker prunes the primitive exuberance of the traditional myth.
5. The Serpent.—-The keen-witted, fluently speaking serpent gives rise to fresh riddles. How comes it that Adam's ruin is effected by one of those very "beasts of the field'' which he had but lately named (ii. 19), that in speech he is Adam's equal and in wisdom his superior? Is he a pale form of the Babylonian chaos-dragon, or of the serpent of Iranian mythology who sprang from heaven to earth to blight the "good creation''? It is true that the serpent of Eden has mythological affinities. In iii. 14, 15, indeed, he is degraded into a mere typical snake, but iii. 1-5 shows that he was not so originally. He is perhaps best regarded, in the light of Arabian folk-lore, as the manifestation of a demon residing in the tree with the magic fruit.13 He may have been a prince among the demons, as the magic tree was a prince among the plants. Hence perhaps his strange boldness. For some unknown reason he was ill disposed towards Yahweh Elohim (See iii. 3b), which has suggested to some that he may be akin to the great enemy of Creation. To Adam and Eve, however, he is not unkind. He bids them raise themselves in the scale of being by eating the forbidden fruit, which he declares to be not fatal to life but an opener of the eyes, and capable of equalizing men with gods (iii. 4, 5). To the phrase "ye shall be as gods'' a later writer may have added "knowing good and evil,'' but "to be as gods'' originally meant "to live the life of gods—wise, powerful, happy.'' The serpent was in the main right, but there is one point which he did not mention, viz. that for any being to retain this intensified vitality the eating of the fruit would have to be constantly renewed. Only thus could even the gods escape death.14
6. The Divine Command broken.—-The serpent has gone the right way to work; he comprehends woman's nature better than Adam comprehends that of the serpent. By her curiosity Eve is undone. She looks at the fruit; then she takes and eats; her husband does the same (iii. 6). The consequence (ver. 7) may seem to us rather slight: "they knew (became sensible) that they were naked, and sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles (aprons).'' But the real meaning is not slight; the sexual distinction has been discovered, and a new sense of shame sends the human pair into the thickest shades, when Yahweh-Elohim walks abroad. The God of these primitive men is surprised: "Where art thou?'' By degrees, he obtains a full confession—-not from the serpent, whose speech might not have been edifying, but from Adam and Eve. The sentences which he passes are decisive, not only for the human pair and the serpent, but for their respective races. Painful toil shall be the lot of man; subjection and pangs that of woman.15 The serpent too (whose unique form preoccupied the early men) shall be humiliated, as a perpetual warning to man—who is henceforth his enemy—-of the danger of reasoning on and disobeying the will of God.
7. Versions of the Adam-story.—Theologians in all ages have allegorized this strange narrative.16 The serpent becomes the inner voice of temptation, and the saying in iii. 15 becomes an anticipation of the final victory of good over evil—a view which probably arose in Jewish circles directly or indirectly affected by the Zoroastrian eschatology. But allegory was far from the thoughts of the original narrators. Another version of the Adam-story is given by Ezekiel (xxviii. 11-19), for underneath the king of Tyre (or perhaps Missor)17 we can trace the majestic figure of the first man. This Adam, indeed, is not like the first man of Gen. ii.-iii., but more iike the "bright angel'' who is the first man in the Christian Book of Adam (i. 10; Malan, p. 12). He dwells on a glorious forest-mountain (cp. Ezekiel xxxi. 8, 18), and is led away by pride to equalize himself with Elohim (cp. xxviii. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 4), and punished. And with this passage let us group Job xv. 7, 8, where Job is ironically described as vying with the first man, who was "brought forth before the hills'' (cp. Prov. viii. 25) and "drew wisdom to himself'' by "hearkening in the council of Elohim.'' No reference is made in Job to this hero's fall. The omission, however, is repaired, not only in Ezek. xxviii. 16, but also in Isa. xiv. 12-15, where the king, whose name is given in the English Bible as "Lucifer'' (or margin, "day-star''), "son of the morning,'' and who, like the other king in Ezekiel, is threatened with death, is a copy of the mythical Adam.
The two conceptions Of the first man are widely different. The passages last referred to harmonize with the account given in Gen. i. 26, for "in our image'' certainly suggests a being equal in brightness and in capacities to the angels—-a view which, as we know, became the favourite one in apocryphal and Haggadic descriptions of the Adam before the Fall. And though the priestly writer, to whom the first Creation-story in its present form is due, says nothing about a sacred mountain as the dwelling-place of the first-created man, yet this mountain belongs to the type of tradition which the passage, Gen. i. 26-28, imperfectly but truly represents. The glorious first man of Ezekiel, and the god-like first men of the cosmogony (cp. Ps. viii. 5) who held the regency of the earth,18 require a dwelling-place as far above the common level of the earth as they are themselves above the childlike Adam of the second creation-narrative (Gen. ii.). On this sacred mountain, see COSMOGONY.
8. Origin of the Adam-story—-That the Hebrew story of the first man in both its forms is no mere recast of a Babylonian myth, is generally admitted. The holy mountain is no doubt Babylonian, and the plantations of sacred trees, one of which at least has magic virtue, can be paralleled from the monuments (see EDEN). But there is no complete parallel to the description of Paradise in Gen. ii., or to the story of the rib, or to that of the serpent. The first part of the latter has definite Arabian affinities; the second is as definitely Hebrew. We may now add that the insertion of iii. 7 (from "were opened'') to 19—-a passage which has probably supplanted a more archaic and definitely mythological passage—-may well have been the consequence of the change in the conception of the first man referred to above. Still there are four Babylonian stories which may serve as partial illustrations of the Hebrew Adam-story.
The first is contained in a fragment of a cosmogony in Berossus, now confirmed in the main by the sixth tablet of the Creation-epic. It represents the creation of man as due to one of the inferior gods who (at Bel's command) mingled with clay the blood which flowed from the severed head of Bel (see COSMOGONY). The three others are the myths of Adapa,19 Ea-bani and Etana. As to Adapa, it may be mentioned here that Fossey has shown reason for holding that the true reading of the name is Adamu. It thus becomes plausible to hold that "Adam'' in Gen. ii.-iii. was originally a proper name, and that it was derived from Babylonia. More probably, however, this is but an accidental coincidence; both adam and adamu may come from the same Semitic root meaning "to make.'' Certainly Adamu (if it is not more convenient to write "Adapa'') was not regarded as the progenitor of the human race, like the Hebrew Adam. He was, however, certainly a man—one of those men who were not, of course, rival first-men, but were specially created and endowed. Adamu or Adapa, we are told, received from his divine father the gift of wisdom,20 but not that of everlasting life. He had a chance, however, of obtaining the gift, or at least of eating the food and drinking the water which makes the gods ageless and immortal. But through a deceit practised upon him by his divine father Ea, he supposed the food and drink offered to him on a certain occasion by the gods to be "food of death,'' "water of death,'' just as Adam and Eve at first believed that the fruit of the magic tree would produce death (Gen. iii. 4, 5).
The second story is that of Ea-bani,21 who was formed by the goddess Arusu (=the mother-goddess Ishtar) of a lump of clay (cp. Gen. ii. 7). This human creature, long-haired and sensual, was drawn away from a savage mode of life by a harlot, and Jastrow, followed by G. A. Barton, Worcester and Tennant, considers this to be parallel to the story which may underlie the account of the failure of the beasts, and the success of the woman Eve, as a "help-meet'' for Adam. This, however, is most uncertain.
The third is that of Etana.22 Here the main points are that Etana is induced by an eagle to mount up to heaven, that he may win a boon from the kindly goddess Ishtar. Borne by the eagle, he soared high up into the ether, but became afraid. Downward the eagle and his burden fell, and in the epic of Gilgamesh we find Etana in the nether world. According to Jastrow, this attempted ascension was an offence against the gods, and his fall was his punishment. We are not told, however, that Etana had the impious desire of Ezekiel's first man, and if he fell, it was through his own timidity (contrast Ezek. xxviii. 16). But certainly the myth does help us to imagine a story in which, for some sin against the gods, some favoured hero was hurled down from the divine abode, and such a story may some day be discovered.
To these illustrations it is unsafe to add the scene on a cylinder preserved in the British Museum, representing two figures, a man (with horns) and perhaps a woman, both clothed, on either side of a fruit-tree, towards which they stretch out their hands.23 For the meaning of this is extremely problematical. Some better monumental illustration may some day be found, for it is clear that the Babylonian sacred literature had much to tell of offences against the gods in the primeval age.
The student may naturally ask, Whence did the Israelites (a comparatively young people) obtain the original myth? It is most probable that they obtained it through the mediation either of the Canaanites or of the North Arabians. Babylonian influence, as is now well known, was strongly felt for many centuries in Canaan, and even the cuneiform script was in common use among the high officials of the country. When the Israelites entered Canaan, they would learn myths partly of Babylonian origin. North Arabian influence must also have been strong among the Israelites, at least while they sojourned in North Arabia. From the Kenites, at any rate, they may have received, not only a strong religious impulse, but a store of tales of the primitive age, and these stoties too may have been partly influenced by Babylonian traditions. We must allow for stages of development both among the Israelites and among their tutors.
9. Biblical References to the Adam-story.—-It is remarkable how little influence the Adam-story has had on the earlier parts of the Old Testament. The garden of Eden is referred to in Isa. li. 3, Ezek. xxxvi, 35. Joel ii. 5; cp. Ezek. xxviii. 13, xxxi. 8, 9, 16, 18, all of which are later. And it is mostly in the "humanistic'' book of Proverbs that we find allusions to the "tree of life'' (Prov. iii. 18, xi. 30, xiii. 12, xv. 4), and to the "fountain of life''—perhaps (see sec. 4) an omitted portion of the old Paradise story (Prov. x. 11, xiii. 14, xiv. 27, xvi. 22),—the only other Biblical reference (apart from Rev. xxi. 6) being in that exquisite passage, Ps. xxxvi. 9. One can hardly be surprised at this. The Adam-story is plainly of foreign origin, and could not please the greater pre-exilic prophets. In late post-exilic times, however, foreign tales, even if of mythical origin, naturally came into favour, especially as religious symbols. If even now philosophers and theologians cannot resist the temptation to allegorize, how inevitable was it that this course should be pursued by early Jewish theologians!
10. Incipient Reflexion on the Story.—Let us give some instances of this. In Enoch lxix. 6 we find the story of Eve's temptation read in the light of that of the fallen angels (Gen. vi. 1, 2, 4) who conveyed an evil knowledge to men, and so subjected mankind to mortality. Evidently the writer fears culture. Elsewhere eating the fruit of the "tree of wisdom'' is given as the cause of the expulsion of the human pair. In the Wisdom of Solomon (x. 1, 2) we find another view. Here, as in Ezekiel, the first man is pre-eminently wise and strong; though he transgressed, wisdom rescued him, i.e. taught him repentance (cp. Life of Adam and Eve, sec. sec. 1-8). Elsewhere (ii. 24; cp. Jos. Ant. i. 1, 4) death is traced to the envy of the devil, still implying an exalted view of Adam. It is held that, but for his sin, Adam would have been immortal. Clearly the Jewish mind is exposed to some fresh foreign influences. As in the Talmud and the Jerusalem Targum, the serpent has even become the devil, i.e. Satan. The period of syncretism has fully come, and Zoroastrianism in particular, more indirectly than directly, is exercising an attractive power upon the Jews. For all that, the theological thinking is characteristically Jewish, and such guidance as Jewish thinkers required was mainly given by Greek culture. On this subject see further EVE, sec. 5.
11. Growth of a Theology.—-Let us now turn to the Apocalypses of Baruch and of Ezra (both about 70 A.D.). Different views are here expressed. According to one (xvii. 3, xix. 8, xxiii. 4) the sin of Adam was the cause of physical death; according to another (liv. 15, lvi. 6), only of premature physical death, while according to a third (xlviii. 42, 43) it is spiritual death which is to be laid to his account. Of these three views, it is only the second which harmonizes with Gen. ii.-iii. In one of the two passages which express it we are also told that each member of thc human race is "the Adam of his own soul.'' Adam, like Satan in Ecclus. xxi; 27, has become a psychological symbol. Truly, a worthy development of the seed-thoughts of the original narrator, and (must we not add?) entirely opposed to any doctrine of Original Sin.
In 4 Ezra, too, we find no real endorsement of such a doctrine. It is true, not only physical death (iii. 7), but spiritual, is traced to the act of Adam (iii. 21, 22, iv. 30, 31, vii. 118-121). But two modifying facts should be noticed. One is that Adam is said to have had from the first a wicked heart, owing to which he fell, and his posterity likewise, into sin and guilt. All men have the same seed of evil in them that Adam had; they sin and die, like him. The other is that, according to iii. 7-12, there are at least two ages of the world. The first ended with the Flood, so that any consequences of Adam's sin were, strictly speaking, of limited duration. The second began with righteous Noah and his household, "of whom came all righteous men.'' It was the descendants of these who "began again to do ungodliness more than the former ones.'' Doubtless the problem of evil is most imperfectly treated, even from the writer's point of view. But it would be cruel to pick holes in a writer whose thinking, like that of St Paul, is coloured by emotion.
At this point we might well make more than a passing reference to St Paul (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45, 47), whose doctrine of sin is evidently of mixed origin. But we cannot find space for this here. In compensation let it be mentioned that in Rev. xii. 9 (cp. xx. 2) the "great dragon,'' who persecuted the woman "clothed with the sun,'' is identified with "the old serpent, that is called the Devil and Satan.'' The identification is incorrect. But it may be noticed here that the phrase "the old serpent'' sheds some light on the Pauline phrases "the first man Adam'' and "the last Adam'' (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). The underlying idea is that the new age (that of the new heaven and earth) will be opened by events parallel to those which opened the first age. As the old serpent deceived man of old, so shall it be again. And as at the head of the first age stands the first Adam, whose doings affected all his descendants to their harm, so at the head of the second shall stand the second Adam, whose actions shall be potent for good. There is reason to suspect that the expression "the second Adam'' is the coinage either of St Paul or of some one closely connected with him (as Prof. G. F. Moore has shown), for there is no proof that such terms as "the last,'' or "the second Adam,'' were generally current among the Jews.
12. Jewish Legends.—-The parallelism between the first and second Adam in 1 Cor. xv. 45 is a parallelism of contrast. Jewish legends, however, suggest another sort of parallelism. The Haggadah gives the most extravagant descriptions of the glory of Adam before his fall. The most prominent idea is that being in the image of God—the God whose essence is light—he must have had a luminous body (like the angels). "I made thee of the light,'' says God in the Book of Adam and Eve (Malan, p. 16), "and I willed to bring children of light from thee.'' Similarly in Baba batra, 58a, we read, "he was of extraordinary beauty and sun-like brightness.'' So glorious was he that even the angels were commanded through Michael to pay homage to Adam. Satan, disobeying, was cast out of heaven; hence his ill-will towards Adam (Life of Adam and Eve, sec. sec. 13-17; cp. Koran, xvii. 63, xx. 115, xxxviii. 74).
It only remains to give due honour to one of the most beautiful of legends, that of the deliverance of Adam's spirit from the nether world by the Christ, the earliest form of which is a Christian interpolation in Apoc. Moses, sec. 42 (cp. Malan, Adam and Eve, iv. 15, end). We may compare a partly parallel passage in sec. 37, where the agent is Michael, and notice that such legendary developments were equally popular among Jews and Christians.
AUTHORITIES— On the apocryphal Books of Adam, see Hort, Dict. of Chr. Biography, i. 37 ff. In English we have Malan's translation of the Ethiopic Book of Adam (1882), and Issaverden's translation of another Book of Adam from the Armenian (Venice, 1901). In German, see Fuchs's translations in Kautzsch's Die Apokryphen, ii. 506 ff. For full bibliography see Schurer, Gesch. des jud. Folkes, ed. 3, iii. 288 f. On Jewish and Mahommedan legends, see Jewish Cyclopaedia, "Adam.'' On the belief in the Fall, see Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin (1903). (T. K. C.)
1 The English Bible gives "the LORD GOD.'' This, however, does not adequately represent the Hebrew.
2 See commentaries of Gunkel and Cheyne. As in v.10, the oceanstream is meant. (See EDEN.)
3 A widely spread mythic representation. (Cp. COSMOGONY.)
4 See an illustration from Naville's Book of the Dead (Egyptian) in Jewish Cyclopaedia, i. 174a.
5 Or park. (See PARADISE.)
6 The later Jews, however, supposed that before the Fall the animals could speak, and that they had all one language (Jubilees, iii. 28; Jos. Antiquities, i. I, 4).
7 Cheyne, Genesis and Exodus, referring to Dorsey, Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee, pp. 280 ff.
8 "Good and evil'' may be a late marginal gloss. See further Ency. Bib. col. 3578, and the commentaries (Driver leaves the phrase); also Jastrow, Relig. of. Bab. and Ass. p. 553; Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, p. 242.
9 See illustration in Toy's Ezekiel (Sacred Books of the Old Testament), p. 182.
10 Gaokerena is the mythic white haoma plant (Zendavesta, Vendidad, xx. 4; Bundahish, xxvii. 4). It is an idealization of the yellow haoma of the mountains which was used in sacrifices (Yasna, x. 6-10). It corresponds to the soma plant Asclepias acida of the ancient Aryans of India. On the illustrative value of Gaokerena see Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, pp. 400-439.
11 See Life of Adam and Eve (apocryphal), sec. sec. 36, 40; Apocal. Mos. sec. 9; Secrets of Enoch, viii. 7, xxii. 8, 9. "Oil of life,'' in a Bab. hymn, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, ed. 3, p. 526.
12 Cp. the Bab. myths of Adapa and of the Descent of Ishtar.
13 W. R. Smith, Relig. of Semites, pp. 133, 442; Ency. Bib., "Serpent,''
14 Note the food and drink of the gods in the Babylonian Adapa (or Adamu?) myth.
15 The mortality of man forms no part of the curse (cp. iii. 19, "dust thou art'').
16 See H. Schultz, Alttest. Theologie, ed. 4, pp. 679 ff., 720; Driver, Genesis, p. a4.
17 See Cheyne, Genesis and Exodus.
18 The "fair shepherd'' Yima of the Avesta (Vend. ii.), the first man and the founder of civilization to the Iranians,though not like the Yama of the Vedas.
19 See Jastrow, Rel. of Bab. and Ass. pp. 548-554; R. J. Harper, in Academy, May 30, 1891; Jensen, Keilinschr. Bibliothek, vi. 93 ff.
20 The wisdom was probably to qualify him as a ruler. It is too much to say with Hommel that "Adapa is the archetype of the Johannine Logos.''
21 Jastrow, op. cit. p. 474 ff.; Jensen, Keil. Bibl. vi. 120 ff.
22 Jastrow, p. 522 f.; Jensen, vi. 112 ff.
23 See Smith and Sayce, Chaldaean Genesis, p. 88; Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? p. 90; Babel and Bible, Eng. trans., p. 56, with note on pp. 114-118; Zimmern, Die Keilinschr. und das A.T., ed. 3, p. 529; Jeremias, Das Alte Test. im Lichte d. Alten Orient. pp. 104-106.
ADAM OF BREMEN, historian and geographer, was probably born in Upper Saxony (at Meissen, according to one tradition) before 1045. He came to Bremen about 1067-1068, most likely on the invitation of Archbishop Adalbert, and in the 24th year of the latter's episcopate (1043?-1072); in 1069 he appears as a canon of this cathedral and master of the cathedral school. Not long after this he visited the king of Denmark, Sweyn Estrithson, in Zealand; on the death of Adalbert, in 1072, he began the Historia Hammaburgenisis Ecclesiae, which he finished about 1075. He died on the 12th of October of a year unknown, perhaps 1076. Adam's Historia—-known also as Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, Bremensium praesulum Historia, and Historia ecclesiastica—is a primary authority, not only for the great diocese of Hamburg-and-Bremen, but for all North German and Baltic lands (down to 1072), and for the Scandinavian colonies as far as America. Here occurs the earliest mention of Vinland, and here are also references of great interest to Russia and Kiev, to the heathen Prussians, the Wends and other Slav races of the South Baltic coast, and to Finland, Thule or Iceland, Greenland and the Polar seas which Harald Hardrada and the nobles of Frisia had attempted to explore in Adam's own day (before 1066). Adam's account of North European trade at this time, and especially of the great markets of Jumne at the mouth of the Oder, of Birka in Sweden and of Ostrogard (Old Novgorod?) in Russia, is also of much value. His work, which places him among the first and best of German annalists, consists of four books or parts, and is compiled partly from written records and partly from oral information, the latter mainly gathered from experience or at the courts of Adalbert and Sweyn Estrithson. Of his minor informants he names several, such as Adelward, dean of Bremen, and William the Englishman, "bishop of Zealand,'' formerly chancellor of Canute the Great, and an intimate of Sweyn Estrithson. The fourth (perhaps the most important) book of Adam's History, Variously entitled Libellus de Situ Daniae et reliquarum quae trans Daniam sunt regionum, Descriptio Insularum Aquilonis, &c., has often been considered, but wrongly, as a separate work.