Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 12

abolition of ancient legal prescriptions was thus introduced into Christendom.

We have, however, fortunately one test of the historical value of this whole episode, to which we have already briefly referred, but which we must now more closely apply. Paul himself, in his Epistle to the Galatians, narrates the particulars of a scene between himself and Peter at Antioch, of which no mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles, and we think that no one can fairly consider that episode without being convinced that it is utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that the vision which we are now examining can ever have appeared to Peter, or that he can have played the part attributed to him in the conversion and baptism of uncirc.u.mcised Gentiles. Paul writes: "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circ.u.mcision, and the other Jews also joined in his hypocrisy."(1) It will be remembered that, in the case of Cornelius, "they of the circ.u.mcision" in Jerusalem, at the head of whom was James, from whom came those "of the circ.u.mcision" of whom Peter was afraid at Antioch, contended with Peter for going in "to men uncirc.u.mcised and eating with them,"(2) the very thing which was in question at Antioch. In the Acts, Peter is represented as defending his conduct by relating the divine vision under the guidance of which he acted, and the author states as the result that, "When they heard these things they held their peace and glorified G.o.d, saying: Then to the Gentiles also G.o.d gave repentance

{197}

unto life."(1) This is the representation of the author of the vision and of the conversion of Cornelius, but very different is Peter's conduct as described by the Apostle Paul, very dissimilar the phenomena presented by a narrative upon which we can rely. The "certain who came from James" can never have heard of the direct communication from Heaven which justified Peter's conduct, and can never have glorified G.o.d in the manner described, or Peter could not have had any reason to fear them; for a mere reference to his vision, and to the sanction of the Church of Jerusalem, must have been sufficient to reconcile them to his freedom.

Then, is it conceivable that after such a vision, and after being taught by G.o.d himself not to call any man or thing common or unclean, Peter could have acted as he did for fear of them of the circ.u.mcision? His conduct is convincing evidence that he knew as little of any such vision as those who came from James. On the other hand, if we require further proof it is furnished by the Apostle Paul himself. Is it conceivable that, if such an episode had ever really occurred, the Apostle Paul would not have referred to it upon this occasion? What more appropriate argument could he have used, what more legitimate rebuke could he have administered, than merely to have reminded Peter of his own vision? He both rebukes him and argues, but his rebuke and his argument have quite a different complexion; and we confidently affirm that no one can read that portion of the Epistle to the Galatians without feeling certain that, had the writer been aware of such a divine communication--and we think it must be conceded without question that, if it had taken place, he

{198}

must have been aware of it(1)--he would have referred to bo direct and important an authority. Neither here nor in the numerous places where such an argument would have been so useful to the Apostle does Paul betray the slightest knowledge of the episode of Cornelius. The historic occurrence at Antioch, so completely ignored by the author of the Acts, totally excludes the mythical story of Cornelius.(2)

There are merely one or two other points in connection with the episode to which we must call attention. In his address to Cornelius, Peter says: "Of a truth I perceive that G.o.d is no respecter of persons"

[------]. Now this is not only a thoroughly Pauline sentiment, but Paul has more than once made use of precisely the same expression. Rom. ii.

11. "For there is no respect of persons with G.o.d "[------], and, again, Gal. ii. 6,"

G.o.d respecteth no man's person," [------].(3) The author of the Acts was certainly acquainted with the epistles of Paul, and the very manner in which he represents Peter as employing this expression betrays the application of a sentiment previously in his mind, "Of a truth I perceive," &c. The circ.u.mstance confirms what Paul had already said.(4) Then, in the defence of his conduct at Jerusalem, Peter is represented as saying: "And I remembered the word of the Lord,

1 Indeed the reference to this case, supposed to be made by Peter himself, in Paul's presence, excludes the idea of ignorance, if the Acts be treated as historical.

4 Compare further x. 35 ff. with Rom. ii. iii., &o. The sentiments and even the words are Pauline.

{199}

how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit."(l) Now these words are by all the Gospels put into the mouth of John the Baptist, and not of Jesus,(2) but the author of the Acts seems to put them into the mouth of Jesus at the beginning of the work,(3) and their repet.i.tion here is only an additional proof of the fact that the episode of Cornelius, as it stands before us, is not historical, but is merely his own composition.

The whole of this narrative, with its complicated series of miracles, is evidently composed to legitimate the free reception into the Christian Church of Gentile converts and, to emphasize the importance of the divine ratification of their admission, Peter is made to repeat to the Church of Jerusalem the main incidents which had just been fully narrated. On the one hand, the previous Jewish exclusiveness both of Peter and of the Church is displayed, first, in the resistance of the Apostle, which can only be overcome by the vision and the direct order of the Holy Spirit, and by the manifest outpouring of the Spirit upon the Centurion and his household; and second, in the contention of them of the circ.u.mcision, which is only overcome by an account of the repeated signs of divine purpose and approval. The universality of the Gospel could not be more broadly proclaimed than in the address of Peter to Cornelius. Not the Jews alone, "but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him." Pauline principles are thus antic.i.p.ated and, as we have pointed out, are expressed almost in the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(4) The Jews who go with

{200}

Peter were astonished because that on the Gentiles also had been poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit,(1) and the Church of Jerusalem, on hearing of these things, glorified G.o.d that repentance unto life had been given to the Gentiles. It is impossible that the admission of the Gentiles to the privileges of the Church could be more prominently signified than by this episode, introduced by prodigious miracles and effected by supernatural machinery. Where, however, are the consequences of this marvellous recognition of the Gentiles? It does not in the slightest degree preclude the necessity for the Council, which we shall presently consider; it does not apparently exercise any influence on James and the Church of Jerusalem; Peter, indeed, refers vaguely to it, but as a matter out of date and almost forgotten; Paul, in all his disputes with the emissaries of the Church of Jerusalem, in all his pleas for the freedom of his Gentile converts, never makes the slightest allusion to it; it remains elsewhere unknown and, so far as any evidence goes, utterly without influence upon the primitive church.(2) This will presently become more apparent; but already it is clear enough to those who will exercise calm reason that it is impossible to consider this narrative with its tissue of fruitless miracles as a historical account of the development of the Church.

CHAPTER VII. PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES

We have now arrived at the point in our examination of the Acts in which we have the inestimable advantage of being able to compare the narrative of the unknown author with the distinct statements of the Apostle Paul.

In doing so, we must remember that the author must have been acquainted with the Epistles which are now before us, and supposing it to be his purpose to present a certain view of the transactions in question, whether for apologetic or conciliatory reasons or for any other cause, it is obvious that it would not be reasonable to expect divergencies of so palpable a nature that any reader of the letters must at once too clearly perceive such contradictions. When the Acts were written, it is true, the author could not have known that the Epistles of Paul were to attain the high canonical position which they now occupy, and might, therefore, use his materials more freely; still a certain superficial consistency it would be natural to expect. Unfortunately, our means of testing the statements of the author are not so minute as is desirable, although they are often of much value, and seeing the great facility with which, by apparently slight alterations and omissions, a different complexion can be given to circ.u.mstances regarding which no very

{202}

full details exist elsewhere, we must be prepared to seize every indication which may enable us to form a just estimate of the nature of the writing which we are examining.

In the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul relates particulars regarding some important epochs of his life, which likewise enter into the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The Apostle gives an account of his own proceedings immediately after his conversion, and of the visit which about that time he paid to Jerusalem; and, further, of a second visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later, and to these we must now direct our attention. We defer consideration of the narrative of the actual conversion of Paul for the present, and merely intend here to discuss the movements and conduct of the Apostle immediately subsequent to that event. The Acts of the Apostles represent Paul as making five journeys to Jerusalem subsequent to his joining the Christian body. The first, ix. 26 ff., takes place immediately after his conversion; the second, xi. 30, xii. 25, is upon an occasion when the Church at Antioch are represented as sending relief to the brethren of Judaea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, during a time of famine; the third visit to Jerusalem, xv. 1 ff., Paul likewise pays in company with Barnabas, both being sent by the Church of Antioch to confer with the Apostles and Elders as to the necessity of circ.u.mcision, and the obligation to observe the Mosaic law in the case of Gentile converts; the fourth, xviii. 21 ff, when he goes to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila, "having shaved his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow;" and the fifth and last, xxi. 15 ff, when the disturbance took place in the temple which led to his arrest and journey to Rome.

{203}

The circ.u.mstances and general character of these visits to Jerusalem, and more especially of that on which the momentous conference is described as having taken place, are stated with so much precision, and they present features of such marked difference, that it might have been supposed there could not have been any difficulty in identifying, with certainty, at least the visits to which the Apostle refers in his letter, more especially as upon both occasions he mentions important particulars which characterised those visits. It is a remarkable fact, however, that, such are the divergences between the statements of the unknown author and of the Apostle, upon no point has there been more discussion amongst critics and divines from the very earliest times, or more decided difference of opinion. Upon general grounds, we have already seen, there has been good reason to doubt the historical character of the Acts. Is it not a singularly suggestive circ.u.mstance that, when it is possible to compare the authentic representations of Paul with the narrative of the Acts, even apologists perceive so much opening for doubt and controversy?

The visit described in the ninth chapter of the Acts is generally(1) identified with that which is mentioned in the first chapter of the Epistle. This unanimity, however, arises mainly from the circ.u.mstance that both writers clearly represent that visit as the first which Paul paid to Jerusalem after his conversion, for the details of the two narratives are anything but in agreement with each other. Although, therefore, critics are forced to agree as to the bare ident.i.ty of the visit, this harmony is immediately disturbed on examining the two accounts, and whilst the one party find the statements in the Acts

1 There have, however, been differences of opinion also regarding this.

{204}

reconcilable with those of Paul, a large body more or less distinctly declare them to be contradictory, and unhistorical.(1) In order that the question at issue may be fairly laid before the reader, we shall give the two accounts in parallel columns. [------]

{205}

Now, it is obvious that the representation in the Acts of what Paul did after his conversion differs very widely from the account which the Apostle himself gives of the matter. In the first place, not a word is said in the former of the journey into Arabia; but, on the contrary, it is excluded, and the statement which replaces it directly contradicts that of Paul. The Apostle says that after his conversion: "Immediately(l) [------] I conferred not with flesh and blood," but "went away into Arabia," The author of the Acts says that he spent "some days" [------] with the disciples in Damascus, and "immediately"

[------] began to preach in the synagogues. Paul's feelings are so completely misrepresented that, instead of that desire for retirement and solitude which his

{206}

words express,(1) he is described as straightway plunging into the vortex of public life in Damascus. The general apologetic explanation is, that the author of the Acts either was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or that, his absence there having been short, he did not consider it necessary to mention it There are no data for estimating the length of time which Paul spent in Arabia, but the fact that the Apostle mentions it with so much emphasis proves not only that he attached considerable weight to the episode, but that the duration of his visit could not have been unimportant. In any case, the author of the Acts, whether ignorantly or not, boldly describes the Apostle as doing precisely what he did not. To any ordinary reader, moreover, his whole account of Paul's preaching at Damascus certainly excludes altogether the idea of such a journey, and the argument that it can be. inserted anywhere is purely arbitrary. There are many theories amongst apologists, however, as to the part of the narrative in Acts, in which the Arabian journey can be placed. By some it is a.s.signed to a period before he commenced his active labours, and therefore before ix. 20,(2) from which the.words of the author repulse it with singular clearness; others intercalate it with even less reason between ix. 20 and 21;(3) a few discover some indication of it in the [------] of ver. 22,(4) an expression, however, which refuses to be forced into such service; a greater number place it in the[------] of ver. 23,(5) making that elastic phrase embrace this as well

{207}

as other difficulties till it snaps under the strain. It seems evident to an unprejudiced reader that the [------] are represented as pa.s.sed in Damascus.(1) And, lastly, some critics place it after ix. 25, regardless of Paul's statement that from Arabia he returned again to Damascus, which, under the circ.u.mstances mentioned in Acts, he was not likely to do, and indeed it is obvious that he is there supposed to have at once gone from Damascus to Jerusalem. These attempts at reconciliation are useless. It is of no avail to find time into which a journey to Arabia and the stay there might be forcibly thrust. There still remains the fact that so far from the Arabian visit being indicated in the Acts, the [------] of ix. 20, compared with the [------] of Gal. i. 16, positively excludes it, and proves that the narrative of the former is not historical.(2)

There is another point in the account in Acts which further demands attention. The impression conveyed by the narrative is that Paul went up to Jerusalem not very long after his conversion. The omission of the visit to Arabia shortens the interval before he did so, by removing causes of delay, and whilst no expressions are used which imply a protracted stay in Damascus, incidents are introduced which indicate that the purpose of the writer was to represent the Apostle as losing no time after his conversion before a.s.sociating himself with the elder

3 We shall not discuss the indication given in 2 Cor. xi. 32 of the cause of his leaving Damascus, although several contradictory statements seem to be made in it.

{208}

Apostles and obtaining their recognition of his ministry; and this view, we shall see, is confirmed by the peculiar account which is given of what took place at Jerusalem. The Apostle distinctly states, i. 18, that three years after his conversion he went up to visit Peter.(1) In the Acts he is represented as spending "some days" [------] with the disciples, and the only other chronological indication given is that, after "many days" [------], the plot occurred which forced him to leave Damascus. It is argued that [------] is an indefinite period, which may, according to the usage of the author(2) indicate a considerable s.p.a.ce of time, and certainly rather express a long than a short period.(3) The fact is, however, that the instances cited are evidence, in themselves, against the supposition that the author can have had any intention of expressing a period of three years by the words [------]. We suppose that no one has ever suggested that Peter staid three years in the house of Simon the tanner at Joppa (ix. 43); or, that when it is said that Paul remained "many days" at Corinth after the insurrection of the Jews, the author intends to speak of some years, when in fact the [------]

contrasted with the expression (xviii. 11): "he continued there a year and six months," used regarding his stay previous to that disturbance, evidently reduces the "yet many days" subsequently spent there to a very small compa.s.s. Again, has any one ever suggested that in the

1 "The 'straightway' of ver. 16 leads to this conclusion: 'At first I conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only after the lapse of three years that I went to Jerusalem.'"

Lightfoot, Oalatians, p. 83.

3 "The difference between the vague 'many days' of the Acts and the definite 'three years' of the Epistle is such as might be expected from the circ.u.mstances of the two writers." Lightfoot, lb., p. 89, note 3.

{209}

account of Paul's voyage to Rome, where it is said (xxvii. 7) that, after leaving Myrra "and sailing slowly many days" [------], they had scarcely got so far as Cnidus, an interval of months, not to say years, is indicated? It is impossible to suppose that, by such an expression, the writer intended to indicate a period of three years.(1) That the narrative of the Acts actually represents Paul as going up to Jerusalem soon after his conversion, and certainly not merely at the end of three years, is obvious from the statement in ver. 26, that when Paul arrived at Jerusalem, and was a.s.saying to join himself to the disciples, all were afraid of him, and would not believe in his conversion. The author could certainly not have stated this, if he had desired to imply that Paul had already been a Christian, and publicly preached with so much success at Damascus, for three years.(3) Indeed, the statements in ix.

26 are irreconcilable with the declaration of the Apostle, whatever view be taken of the previous narrative of the Acts. If it be a.s.sumed that the author wishes to describe the visit to Jerusalem as taking place three years after his conversion, then the ignorance of that event amongst the brethren there and their distrust of Paul are utterly inconsistent and incredible; whilst if, on the other hand, he represents the Apostle as going to Jerusalem with but little delay in Damascus, as we contend he does, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the Acts, whilst thus giving a narrative consistent with itself,

{210}

distinctly contradicts the deliberate a.s.sertions of the Apostle. It is absolutely incredible that the conversion of a well-known persecutor of the Church (viii. 3 ff.), effected in a way which is represented as so sudden and supernatural, and accompanied by a supposed vision of the Lord, could for three years have remained unknown to the community of Jerusalem. So striking a triumph for Christianity must have been rapidly circulated throughout the Church, and the fact that he who formerly persecuted was now zealously preaching the faith which once he destroyed must long have been generally known in Jerusalem, which was in such constant communication with Damascus.

The author of the Acts continues in the same strain, stating that Barnabas, under the circ.u.mstances just described, took Paul and brought him to the Apostles [------], and declared to them the particulars of his vision and conversion, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus.(1) No doubt is left that this is the first intimation the Apostles had received of such extraordinary events. After this, we are told that Paul was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. Here again the declaration of Paul is explicit, and distinctly contradicts this story both in the letter and the spirit. He makes no mention of Barnabas. He states that he went to Jerusalem specially with the view of making the acquaintance of Peter, with whom he remained fifteen days; but he emphatically says:--"But other of the Apostles saw I not, save [------] James, the Lord's brother;" and then he adds the solemn declaration