The Acts of the Apostles. William Barclay

passages has been retained throughout. Where the new version differs from the text on which Barclay originally commented, because of the existence of an alternative reading, the variant text is indicated by square brackets. I have made no attempt to guess what Barclay would have said about the NRSV text; his commentary still refers to the Authorized (King James) and Revised Standard Versions of the Bible, but I believe that the inclusive language of the NRSV considerably assists the flow of the discussion.

      For similar reasons, the dating conventions of BC and AD – rather than the more recent and increasingly used BCE (before the common era) and CE (common era) – have been retained. William Barclay took great care to explain the meanings of words and phrases and scholarly points, but it has not seemed appropriate to select new terms and make such explanations on his behalf.

      One of the most difficult problems to solve has concerned monetary values. Barclay had his own system for translating the coinage of New Testament times into British currency. Over the years, these equivalent values have become increasingly out of date, and often the force of the point being made has been lost or diminished. There is no easy way to bring these equivalents up to date in a way that will continue to make sense, particularly when readers come from both sides of the Atlantic. I have therefore followed the only known yardstick that gives any feel for the values concerned, namely that a denarius was a day’s wage for a working man, and I have made alterations to the text accordingly.

      One of the striking features of The Daily Study Bible is the range of quotations from literature and hymnody that are used by way of illustration. Many of these passages appeared without identification or attribution, and for the new edition I have attempted wherever possible to provide sources and authors. In the same way, details have been included about scholars and other individuals cited, by way of context and explanation, and I am most grateful to Professor John Drane for his assistance in discovering information about some of the more obscure or unfamiliar characters. It is clear that readers use The Daily Study Bible in different ways. Some look up particular passages while others work through the daily readings in a more systematic way. The descriptions and explanations are therefore not offered every time an individual is mentioned (in order to avoid repetition that some may find tedious), but I trust that the information can be discovered without too much difficulty.

      Finally, the ‘Further Reading’ lists at the end of each volume have been removed. Many new commentaries and individual studies have been added to those that were the basis of William Barclay’s work, and making a selection from that ever-increasing catalogue is an impossible task. It is nonetheless my hope that the exploration that begins with these volumes of The New Daily Study Bible will go on in the discovery of new writers and new books.

      Throughout the editorial process, many conversations have taken place – conversations with the British and American publishers, and with those who love the books and find in them both information and inspiration. Ronnie Barclay’s contribution to this revision of his father’s work has been invaluable. But one conversation has dominated the work, and that has been a conversation with William Barclay himself through the text. There has been a real sense of listening to his voice in all the questioning and in the searching for new words to convey the meaning of that text. The aim of The New Daily Study Bible is to make clear his message, so that the distinctive voice, which has spoken to so many in past years, may continue to be heard for generations to come.

      Linda Foster

      London

      2001

       INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

       A Precious Book

      In one sense, Acts is the most important book in the New Testament. It is the simple truth that, if we did not possess Acts, we would have no information whatever about the early Church apart from what we could deduce from the letters of Paul.

      There are two ways of writing history. There is the way which attempts to trace the course of events from week to week and from day to day; and there is the way which, as it were, opens a series of windows and gives us vivid glimpses of the great moments and personalities of any period. The second way is the way of Acts.

      We usually speak of the Acts of the Apostles. But the book neither gives nor claims to give an exhaustive account of the acts of the apostles. Apart from Paul, only three apostles are mentioned in it. In Acts 12:2, we are told in one brief sentence that James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod. John appears in the narrative, but never speaks. It is only about Peter that the book gives any real information – and very soon, as a leading player, he passes from the scene. In the Greek, there is no ‘The’ before Acts; the correct title is Acts of Apostolic Men; and what Acts aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits of the heroic figures of the early Church.

       The Writer of the Book

      Although the book never says so, from the earliest times Luke has been held to be its writer. About Luke, we really know very little; there are only three references to him in the New Testament – Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:11. From these, we can say two things with certainty. First, Luke was a doctor; second, he was one of Paul’s most valued helpers and most loyal friends, for he was a companion of Paul in his last imprisonment. We can deduce the fact that he was a Gentile. Colossians 4:11 concludes a list of mentions and greetings from those who are ‘of the circumcision’, that is, from Jews; verse 12 begins a new list, and we naturally conclude that the new list is of Gentiles. So we have the very interesting fact that Luke is the only Gentile author in the New Testament.

      We could have guessed that Luke was a doctor because of his instinctive use of medical words. In Luke 4:35, in telling of the man who had the spirit of an unclean devil, he says: ‘When the demon had thrown him down’ and uses the correct medical word for convulsions. In Luke 9:38, when he draws the picture of the man who asked Jesus: ‘I beg you to look at my son’, he employs the conventional word for a doctor paying a visit to a patient. The most interesting example is in the saying about the camel and the needle’s eye. All three of the writers of what have become known as the synoptic gospels give us that saying (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). For needle, both Mark and Matthew use the Greek raphis, the ordinary word for a tailor’s or a household needle. Luke alone uses belonē, the technical word for a surgeon’s needle. Luke was a doctor, and a doctor’s words came most naturally to his pen.

       The Recipient of the Book

      Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts to a man called Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). We can only guess who Theophilus was. Luke 1:3 calls him ‘most excellent Theophilus’. The phrase really means ‘Your Excellency’ and indicates a man high up in the service of the Roman government. There are three possibilities.

      (1) Just possibly, Theophilus is not a real name at all. In those days, it might well have been dangerous to be Christians. Theophilus comes from two Greek words – theos, which means God, and philein, which means to love. It may be that Luke wrote to someone who loved God, whose real name he did not mention for safety’s sake.

      (2) If Theophilus was a real person, he must have been a high government official. Perhaps Luke wrote to show him that Christianity was a lovely thing and that Christians were good people. Maybe his writing was an attempt to persuade a government official not to persecute Christianss.

      (3) There is a more romantic theory than either of these, based on the facts that Luke was a doctor and that doctors in the ancient days were often slaves. It has been suggested that Luke was the doctor of Theophilus, that Theophilus had been gravely ill, that by Luke’s skill and devotion he was brought back to health, and that in gratitude he gave Luke his freedom. Then, it may be, Luke wanted to show how grateful he was for this gift; and, since the most precious thing he had was the story of Jesus, he wrote it down and sent it to his benefactor.

       Luke’s Aim in Writing Acts

      Anyone who writes a book does so for a reason, and maybe for more than one reason. Let us