Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 13

{211}

regarding his account of this visit:--"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before G.o.d, I lie not." An a.s.severation made in this tone excludes the supposition of inaccuracy or careless vagueness, and the specific statements have all the force of sworn evidence. Instead of being presented "to the Apostles," therefore, and going in and out with them at Jerusalem, we have here the emphatic a.s.surance that, in addition to Peter, Paul saw no one except "James, the Lord's brother." There has been much discussion as to the ident.i.ty of this James, and whether he was an apostle or not, but into this it is unnecessary for us to enter.

Most writers agree at least that he is the same James, the head of the Church at Jerusalem, whom we again frequently meet with in the Pauline Epistles and in the Acts, and notably in the account of the Apostolic council. The exact interpretation to be put upon the expression [------]

has also been the subject of great controversy, the question being whether James is here really called an apostle or not; whether [------]

is to be understood as applying solely to the verb, in which case the statement would mean that he saw no other of the Apostles, but only James;(1) or to the whole phrase, which would express that he had seen no other of the Apostles save James.(2) It is admitted by many of those who think that in this case the latter signification must be adopted that grammatically either interpretation is permissible. Even supposing that

{212}

rightly or wrongly James is here referred to as an Apostle, the statement of the Acts is, in spirit, quite opposed to that of the Epistle; for when we are told that Paul is brought "to the Apostles"

[------], the linguistic usage of the writer implies that he means much more than merely Peter and James. It seems impossible to reconcile the statement, ix. 27, with the solemn a.s.surance of Paul,(1) and if we accept what the Apostle says as truth, and we cannot doubt it, it must be admitted that the account in the Acts is unhistorical.

We arrive at the very same conclusion on examining the rest of the narrative. In the Acts, Paul is represented as being with the Apostles going in and out, preaching openly in Jerusalem, and disputing with the Grecian Jews.(2) No limit is here put to his visit, and it is difficult to conceive that what is narrated is intended to describe a visit of merely fifteen days. A subsequent statement in the Acts, however, explains and settles the point Paul is represented as declaring to King Agrippa, xxvi. 19 f.: "Wherefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision, but first unto those in Damascus, and throughout all the region of Judaea, and to the Gentiles, I was declaring that they should repent

{213}

and turn to G.o.d," &c. However this may be, the statement of Paul does not admit the interpretation of such public ministry. His express purpose in going to Jerusalem was, not to preach, but to make the acquaintance of Peter; and it was a marked characteristic of Paul to avoid preaching in ground already occupied by the other Apostles before him.(1) Not only is the account in Acts apparently excluded by such considerations and by the general tenor of the epistle, but it is equally so by the direct words of the Apostle (i. 22):--"I was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea." It is argued that the term: "churches of Judaea" excludes Jerusalem.(2) It might possibly be a.s.serted with reason that such an expression as "the churches of Jerusalem" might exclude the churches of Judaea, but to say that the Apostle, writing elsewhere to the Galatians of a visit to Jerusalem, and of his conduct at that time, intends, when speaking of the "churches of Judaea," to exclude the princ.i.p.al city, seems to us arbitrary and unwarrantable. The whole object of the Apostle is to show the privacy of his visit and his independence of the elder Apostles. He does not use the expression as a contrast to Jerusalem. Nothing in his account leads one to think of any energetic preaching during the visit, and the necessity of finding some way of excluding Jerusalem from the Apostle's expression is simply thrust upon apologists by the account in Acts. Two pa.s.sages are referred to as supporting the exclusion of Jerusalem from "the churches of Judaea." In John iii. 22, we read: "After

{214}

these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea." In the preceding chapter he is described as being at Jerusalem. We have already said enough about the geographical notices of the author of the fourth Gospel.(1) Even those who do not admit that he was not a native of Palestine are agreed that he wrote in another country and for foreigners. "The land of Judaea," was therefore a natural expression superseding the necessity of giving a more minute local indication which would have been of little use. The second instance appealed to, though more doubtfully,(2) is Heb. xiii. 24: "They from Italy salute you."

We are at a loss to understand how this is supposed to support the interpretation adopted. It is impossible that if Paul went in and out with the Apostles, preached boldly in Jerusalem, and disputed with the h.e.l.lenistic Jews, not to speak of what is added, Acts xxvi. 19 f., he could say that he was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea. There is nothing, we may remark, which limits his preaching to the Grecian Jews.

Whilst apologists maintain that the two accounts are reconcilable, many of them frankly admit that the account in Acts requires correction from that in the Epistle;(3) but, on the other hand, a still greater number of critics prouounce the narrative in the Acts contradictory to the statements of Paul.(4)

{215}

There remains another point upon which a few remarks must be made. In Acts ix. 29 f. the cause of Paul's hurriedly leaving Jerusalem is a plot of the Grecian Jews to kill him. Paul does not in the Epistle refer to any such matter, but, in another part of the Acts, Paul is represented as relating, xxii. 17 f.: "And it came to pa.s.s, that, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I was in a trance and saw him saying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy witness concerning me," &c, &c. This account differs, therefore, even from the previous narrative in the same book, yet critics are agreed that the visit during which the Apostle is said to have seen this vision was that which we are discussing.(1) The writer is so little a historian working from substantial facts that he forgets the details of his own previous statements; and in the account of the conversion of Paul, for instance, he thrice repeats the story with emphatic and irreconcilable contradictions. We have already observed his partiality for visions, and such supernatural agency is so ordinary a matter with him that, in the first account of this visit, he altogether omits the vision, although he must have known of it then quite as much as on the second occasion. The Apostle, in his authentic and solemn account of this visit, gives no hint of any vision, and leaves no suggestion even of that public preaching which is described in the earlier, and referred to in the later, narrative in the Acts.(2) If we

{216}

had no other grounds for rejecting the account as unhistorical this miraculous vision, added as an after-thought, would have warranted our doing so.

Pa.s.sing on now to the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, we find that Paul writes:--"Then, after fourteen years, again I went up to Jerusalem..." [------]. He states the particulars of what took place upon the occasion of this second visit with a degree of minuteness which ought, one might have supposed, to have left no doubt of its ident.i.ty, when compared with the same visit historically described elsewhere; but such are the discrepancies between the two accounts that, as we have already mentioned, the controversy upon the point has been long and active.(1) The Acts, it will be remembered, relate a second visit of Paul to Jerusalem, after that which we have discussed, upon which occasion it is stated (xi. 30) that he was sent with Barnabas to convey to the community, during a time of famine, the contributions of the Church of Antioch. The third visit of the Acts is that (xv.) when Paul and Barnabas are said to have been deputed to confer with the Apostles regarding the

{217}

conditions upon which Gentile converts should be admitted into the Christian brotherhood. The circ.u.mstances of this visit, more nearly than any other, correspond with those described by the Apostle himself in the Epistle (ii. 1 ff.), but there are grave difficulties in the way of identifying them. If this visit be identical with that described Acts xv., and if Paul, as he states, paid no intermediate visit to Jerusalem, what becomes of the visit interpolated in Acts xi. 30? The first point which we must endeavour to ascertain is exactly what the Apostle intends to say regarding the second visit which he mentions. The purpose of Paul is to declare his complete independence from those who were Apostles before him, and to maintain that his Gospel was not of man, but directly revealed to him by Jesus Christ. In order to prove his independence, therefore, he categorically states exactly what had been the extent of his intercourse with the elder Apostles. He protests that, after his conversion, he had neither conferred with flesh and blood nor sought those who had been Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, that he had immediately gone away to Arabia. It was not until three years had elapsed that he had gone up to Jerusalem, and then only to make the acquaintance of Peter, with whom he had remained only fifteen days, during which he had not seen other of the Apostles save James, the Lord's brother. Only after the lapse of fourteen years did he again go up to Jerusalem. It is argued(1) that when Paul says, "he went up again," [------], the word [------] has not the force of [------], and that, so far from excluding any intermediate journey, it merely signifies a

{218}

repet.i.tion of what had been done before, and might have been used of any subsequent journey. Even if this were so, it is impossible to deny that, read with its context, [------] is used in immediate connection with the former visit which we have just discussed. The sequence is distinctly marked by the [------] "then," and the adoption of the preposition [------]--which may properly be read "after the lapse of,"(1)--instead of [------], seems clearly to indicate that no other journey to Jerusalem had been made in the interval. This can be maintained linguistically; but the point is still more decidedly settled when the Apostle's intention is considered. It is obvious that his purpose would have been totally defeated had he pa.s.sed over in silence an intermediate visit. Even if, as is argued, the. visit referred to in Acts xi. 30 had been of very brief duration, or if he had not upon that occasion had any intercourse with the Apostles, it is impossible that he could have ignored it under the circ.u.mstances, for by so doing he would have left the retort in the power of his enemies that he had, on other occasions than those which he had enumerated, been in Jerusalem and in contact with the Apostles. The mere fact that a visit had been unmentioned would have exposed him to the charge of having suppressed it, and suspicion is always ready to a.s.sign unworthy motives. If Paul had paid such a hasty visit as is suggested, he would naturally have mentioned the fact and stated the circ.u.mstances, whatever they were. These and other reasons convince the majority of critics that the Apostle here enumerates all the visits which he had paid to Jerusalem since his conversion.(2) The visit referred to in Gal. ii. 1 ff.

{219}

must be considered the second occasion on which the Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem.

This being the case, can the visit be identified as the second visit described in Acts xi. 30? The object of that journey to Jerusalem, it is expressly stated, was to carry to the brethren in Jerusalem the contributions of the Church of Antioch during a time of famine; whereas Paul explicitly says that he went up to Jerusalem, on the occasion we are discussing, in consequence of a revelation, to communicate the Gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles. There is not a word about contributions. On the other hand, chronologically it is impossible that the second visit of the Epistle can be the second of the Acts.

There is some difference of opinion as to whether the fourteen years are to be calculated from the date of his conversion,(1) or from the previous journey.(2) The latter seems to be the more reasonable supposition, but in either case it is obvious that the ident.i.ty is excluded. From various data,--the famine under Claudius, and the time of Herod Agrippa's

{220}

death,--the date of the journey referred to in Acts xi. 30 is a.s.signed to about a.d. 45. If, therefore, we count back fourteen or seventeen years, we have as the date of the conversion, on the first hypothesis, a.d. 31, and on the second, a.d. 28, neither of which of course is tenable. In order to overcome this difficulty, critics(1) at one time proposed, against the unanimous evidence of MSS., to read instead of [------] in Gal. ii. 1, [------] "after four years;" but this violent remedy is not only generally rejected, but, even if admitted for the sake of argument, it could not establish the ident.i.ty, inasmuch as the statements in Gal. ii. 1 ff. imply a much longer period of missionary activity amongst the Gentiles than Paul could possibly have had at that time, about which epoch, indeed, Barnabas is said to have sought him in Tarsus, apparently for the purpose of first commencing such a career;a certainly the account of his active ministry begins in the Acts only in Ch. xiii. Then, it is not possible to suppose that, if such a dispute regarding circ.u.mcision and the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision as is sketched in Gal. ii. had taken place on a previous occasion, it could so soon be repeated, Acts xv., and without any reference to the former transaction. Comparatively few critics, therefore, have ventured to maintain that the second visit recorded in the Epistle is the same as the second mentioned in the Acts (xi. 30), and in modern times the theory is almost entirely abandoned. If, therefore, it be admitted that Paul mentions all the journeys which he had made to Jerusalem up to the time at which he wrote, and that his second visit was not the second visit

{221}

of the Acts, but must be placed later, it follows clearly upon the Apostle's own a.s.surance that the visit mentioned in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, cannot have taken place and is unhistorical, and this is the conclusion of the majority of critics,(1) including many apologists, who, whilst suggesting that, for some reason, Barnabas may alone have gone to Jerusalem without Paul, or otherwise deprecating any imputation of conscious inaccuracy to the author, still substantially confirm the result that Paul did not on that occasion go to Jerusalem, and consequently that the statement is not historical. On the other hand, it is suggested that the additional visit to Jerusalem is inserted by the author with a view to conciliation, by representing that Paul was in constant communication with the Apostles and community of Jerusalem, and that he acted with their approval and sympathy. It is scarcely possible to observe the peculiar variations between the narratives of the Acts and of Paul without feeling that the author of the former deliberately sacrifices the independence and individuality of the great Apostle of the Gentiles.

The great ma.s.s of critics agree in declaring that the

{222}

second visit described in the Epistle is identical with the third recorded in the Acts (xv.), although a wide difference of opinion exists amongst them as to the historical value of the account contained in the latter. This general agreement renders it unnecessary for us to enter at any length into the arguments which establish the ident.i.ty, and we shall content ourselves with very concisely stating some of the chief reasons for this conclusion. The date in both cases corresponds, whilst there are insuperable chronological objections to identifying the second journey of the Epistle with any earlier or later visit mentioned in Acts. We have referred to other reasons against its being placed earlier than the third visit of Acts, and there are still stronger objections to its being dated after the third. It is impossible, considering the object of the Apostle, that he could have pa.s.sed over in silence such a visit as that described Acts xv., and the only alternative would be to date it later than the composition of the Epistle, to which the narrative of the Acts as well as all other known facts would be irreconcilably opposed. On the other hand, the date, the actors, the cause of dispute, and probably the place (Antioch) in which that dispute originated, so closely correspond, that it is incredible that such a coincidence of circ.u.mstances should again have occurred.

"Without antic.i.p.ating our comparison of the two accounts of this visit, we must here at least remark that the discrepancies are so great that not only have apologetic critics, as we have indicated, adopted the theory that the second visit of the Epistle is not the same as the third of the Acts, but is identical with the second (xi. 30), of which so few particulars are given, but

{223}

some, and notably Wieseler,(1) have maintained it to have been the same as that described in Acts xviii. 21 ff., whilst Paley and others(2) have been led to the hypothesis that the visit in question does not correspond with any of the visits actually recorded in the Acts, but is one which is not referred to at all in that work. These

{224}

theories have found very little favour, however, and we mention them solely to complete our statement of the general controversy. Considering the fulness of the report of the visit in Acts xv. and the peculiar nature of the facts stated by the Apostle himself in his letter to the Galatians, the difficulty of identifying the particular visit referred to is a phenomenon which cannot be too much considered. Is it possible, if the narrative in the Acts were really historically accurate, that any reasonable doubt could ever have existed as to its correspondence with the Apostle's statements? We may here at once say that, although many of the critics who finally decide that the visit described in Acts xv. is the same as that referred to in the second chapter of the Epistle argue that the obvious discrepancies and contradictions between the two accounts may be sufficiently explained and reconciled, this is for very strong reasons disputed,1 and the narrative in the Acts, when tested by the authentic statements of the Apostle, p.r.o.nounced inaccurate and unhistorical.

It is only necessary to read the two accounts in order to understand the grounds upon which even apologists like Paley and Wieseler feel themselves compelled

{225}

to suppose that the Apostle is describing transactions which occurred during some visit either unmentioned or not fully related in the Acts, rather than identify it with the visit reported in the fifteenth chapter, from which it so essentially differs. A material difference is not denied by any one, and explanations with a view to reconciliation have never been dispensed with. Thiersch, who has nothing better than the usual apologetic explanations to offer, does not hesitate to avow the apparent incongruities of the two narratives. "The journey," he says, "is the same, but no human ingenuity can make out that also the conference and the decree resulting from it are the same."(1) Of course he supposes that the problem is to be solved by a.s.serting that the Apostle speaks of the private, the historian of the public, circ.u.mstances of the visit. All who maintain the historical character of the Acts must of course more or less thoroughly adopt this argument, but it is obvious that, in doing so, they admit on the one hand the general discrepancy, and on the other, if successful in establis.h.i.+ng their position, they could do no more than show that the Epistle does not absolutely exclude the account in the Acts. Both writers profess to describe events which occurred during the same visit; both record matters of the highest interest closely bearing on the same subject; yet the two accounts are so different from each other that they can only be rescued from complete antagonism by complete separation. Supposing the author of the Acts to be really acquainted with the occurrences of this visit, and to have intended to give a plain unvarnished account of them, the unconscious ingenuity with which he has omitted the important facts mentioned by Paul and

{226}

eliminated the whole of the Apostle's individuality would indeed be as remarkable as it is unfortunate. But supposing the Apostle Paul to have been aware of the formal proceedings narrated in the Acts, characterized by such unanimity and liberal Christian feeling, it would be still more astonis.h.i.+ng and unfortunate that he has not only silently pa.s.sed them over, but has conveyed so singularly different an impression of his visit.(1) As the Apostle certainly could not have been acquainted with the Acts, his silence regarding the council and its momentous decree, as well as his ignorance of the unbroken harmony which prevailed are perfectly intelligible. He of course only knew and described what actually occurred. The author of the Acts, however, might and must have known the Epistle to the Galatians, and the ingenuity with which the tone and details of the authentic report are avoided or transfigured cannot be ascribed to mere accident, but must largely be attributed to design, although also partly, it may be, to the ignorance and the pious imagination of a later age. Is it possible, for instance, that the controversy regarding the circ.u.mcision of t.i.tus, and the dispute with Peter at Antioch, which are so prominently related in the Epistle, but present a view so different from the narrative of Acts, can have been undesignedly omitted? The violent apologetic reconciliation which is effected between the two accounts is based upon the foregone conclusion that the author of the canonical Acts, however he may seem to deviate from the Apostle, cannot possibly contradict him or be

1 "Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of cross lights. The narratives of St. Luke and St. Paul only then cease to conflict, when we take into account the different positions of the writers and the different objects they had in view." Lightfoot, St Paul's Ep. to the Gal., p. 294.

{227}

in error; but the preceding examination has rendered such a position untenable, and here we have not to do with a canonized "St. Luke," but with an unknown writer whose work must be judged by the ordinary rules of criticism.

According to the Acts, a most serious question is raised at Antioch.

Certain men from Judaea came thither teaching: "Except ye have been circ.u.mcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved." After much dissension and disputation the Church of Antioch appoint that Paul and Barnabas, "and certain others of them" shall go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this question. The motive of the journey is here most distinctly and definitely described. Paul is solemnly deputed by the church to lay before the mother Church of Jerusalem a difficult question, upon the answer to which turns the whole future of Christianity. Paul's account, however, gives a very different complexion to the visit:--"Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking t.i.tus also with me. But I went up according to revelation [------] and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," &c. Paley might well say:--"This is not very reconcilable."(1) It is argued,(2) that the two

{228}

statements may supplement each other; that the revelation may have been made to the Church of Antioch and have led to the mission; or that, being made to Paul, it may have decided him to undertake it. If however, we admit that the essence of truth consists not in the mere letter but in the spirit of what is stated, it seems impossible to reconcile these accounts. It might be granted that a historian, giving a report of events which had occurred, might omit some secret motive actuating the conduct even of one of the princ.i.p.al persons with whom he has to do; but that the Apostle, under the actual circ.u.mstances, and while protesting: "Now the things which I am writing unto you, behold, before G.o.d, I lie not!" should altogether suppress the important official character of his journey to Jerusalem, and give it the distinct colour of a visit voluntarily and independently made [------], is inconceivable. As we proceed, it will become apparent that the divergence between the two accounts is systematic and fundamental; but we may here so far antic.i.p.ate as to point out that the Apostle explicitly excludes an official visit not only by stating an "inward motive," and omitting all mention of a public object, but by the expression:--"and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who," &c. To quote Paley's words: "If by 'that Gospel,' he meant the immunity of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know not what else it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should communicate that privately, which was the subject of his public message;"(1) and

{229}

we may add, how he should so absolutely alter the whole character of his visit. In the Acts, he is an amba.s.sador charged with a most important mission; in the Epistle, he is Paul the Apostle, moved solely by his own reasons again to visit Jerusalem. The author of the Acts, however, who is supposed to record only the external circ.u.mstances, when tested is found to do so very imperfectly, for he omits all mention of t.i.tus, who is conjectured to be tacitly included in the "certain others of them,"