ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER

AND THE ROMAN CITIZEN

BY

W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF THE HUMANITY, ABERDEEN

ORD. MITGLIED D. KAIS. DEUTSCH. ARCHÄOLOG. GESELLSCH. 1884

HON. MEMBER, ATHENIAN ARCHÆOLOG. SOC., 1895; FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY AND FELLOW OF EXETER AND OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD
LEVERING LECTURER IN JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, 1894

TENTH EDITION

HODDER AND STOUGHTON

LONDON MCMVII

To

ANDREW MITCHELL, Esq.,

THE WALK HOUSE, ALLOA

My Dear Uncle,

In my undergraduate days, a residence in Göttingen during the Long
Vacation of 1874 was a critical point in my life.  Then for the first
time, under the tuition of Professor THEODORE BENFEY, I came into close
relations with a great scholar of the modern type, and gained some
insight into modern methods of literary investigation; and my thoughts
have ever since turned towards the border lands between European and
Asiatic civilisation.  That visit, like many other things, I owe to you;
and now I send you the result, such as it is, the best that I can do,
asking that you will allow it to go forth with your name attached to it.

I remain always, your affectionate nephew,

 WILLIAM MITCHELL RAMSAY.

King's college, Aberdeen,

17th September, 1895

PREFACE

WHEN I was honoured by the invitation of Auburn Theological Seminary, I
referred the matter to my friends, Dr.  Fairbairn and Dr.  Sanday, who
knew what were my circumstances and other duties.  On their advice the
invitation was accepted; and it included the condition that the lectures
must be published.  In revising the printed sheets I have felt strongly
the imperfections of the exposition; but I can feel no doubt about the
facts themselves, which seem to stand out so clear and distance, that
one has only to look and write.  Hence I have not withdrawn from any of
the positions maintained in my Church in the Roman Empire before 170
(apart from incidental imperfections). The present work is founded on
the results for which evidence is there accumulated; but, in place of
its neutral tone, a definite theory about the composition of Acts is
here maintained (see p.383 f.). Many references were made, at first, to
pages of that work, and of my Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (1895),
where views here assumed were explained and defended; but they had an
egotistic appearance, and , on the advice of a valued friend, have been
cut out from the proof-sheets.

I use in Acts the canons of interpretation which I have learned from
many teachers (beyond all others from Mommsen) to apply to history; and
I have looked at Paul and Luke as men among men.  My aim has been to
state the facts of Paul's life simply, avoiding argument and controversy
so far as was possible in a subject where every point is controverted.
I have sometimes thought of a supplementary volume of Elucidations of
Early Christian History, in which reasons should be stated more fully.

It is impossible to find anything to say about Acts that has not been
said before by somebody.  Doubtless almost everything I have to say
might be supported by some quotation.  But if a history of opinion about
Acts had been desired, I should not have been applied to.  Where I was
conscious of having learned any special point from any special scholar I
have mentioned his name; but that, of course does not exhaust half my
debt.  The interpretation of one of the great ancient authors is a long
slow growth; one is not conscious where he learned most of his ideas;
and, if he were, their genesis is a matter of no interest or value to
others.  Not merely the writers quoted, but also Schurer, Meyer-Wendt,
Zöckler, Holtzmann, Clemen, Spitta, Zeller, Everett, Paley, Page, and
many others, have taught me; and I thankfully acknowledge my debt.  But
specially Lightfoot, Lewin's Fatsi Sacri, and the two greatest editors
of Acts, Wetstein and Blass, have been constant companions.

Discussions with my wife, and with my friends, Professor W. P. Paterson,
Rev.  A. F. Findlay, and above all, Prof.  Rendel Harris, have cleared
my ideas on many points, beyond what can be distinctly specified.  The
book has been greatly improved by criticisms from Prof.  Rendel Harris,
and by many notes and suggestions from Rev.  A. C. Headlam, which were
of great value to me.  Mr A. Souter, Caius College, Cambridge, has aided
me in many ways, and especially by compiling Index I. But it would be
vain to try to enumerate all my obligations to many friends.

I wish to mention two facts about the genesis of my studies in this
subject: (1) Dr.  Fairbairn proposed to me the subject of "St.  Paul as
a Citizen"long ago; and I long shrank from it as too great and too
difficult; (2) Dr.  Robertson Nicoll (mindful of early acquaintance in
Aberdeen) urged me in 1884 to write, and gave me no peace, until I
published a first article ,Expositor, Oct., 1888.

An apology is due for the variations, often harsh, from the familiar
translation of Acts; but a little insertion or change often saved a
paragraph.

Lectures which I had the honour to give before the Harvard University,
Johns Hopkins University (the Levering Lectures), and Union Seminary,
New York, are worked up in this volume.

ABERDEEN, 23rd September, 1895

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

THERE are many sentences and paragraphs which I should have liked to
rewrite, had it been possible, not in order to alter the views
expressed, but to improve the inadequate expression.

In the new edition, however, it was not possible to introduce any
alterations affecting the arrangement of the printed lines; but some
corrections and improvements have been made through the aid of valued
correspondents and critics, especially Rev.  F. Warburton Lewis, Rev.
G. W. Whitaker, and the Athenaeum reviewer.  Slight, but not
insignificant verbal changes have been made in p.  18, 1.  8, 10, 11;
19, 1.  10; 27, 1.  14; 34, 1.  8; 62, 1.  15; 98, 1.  16; 1455, 1.  5;
146, 1.  6-7; 211, 1.  11; 224, 1.  6; 227, 1.  3; 242, 1.  31; 263, 1.
12; 276, 1.  27; 282, 1.  1(footnote deleted); 307 n.  2 (Matt.  XXVII
24, added); 330 1.  13-14; 363, 1.  5.  The punctuation has been
improved in p.  28, 1.  19, 21; and anobscure paragraph p.  160, 1.  10-
17 has been rewritten.

Besides correcting p.  141, 1.  9, I must apologise for having there
mentioned Dr.  Chase incorrectly.  I intended to cut out his name from
the proof, but left it by accident, while hesitating between two
corrections; and I did not know that it remained on that page, till he
wrote me on the subject.  On p.  27, 1.  14, I quoted his opinion about
the solitary point on which we seem to agree; but, as he writes that my
expression "makes him responsible for what he has never maintained,"I
have deleted the offending words.  He adds, "may I very earnestly ask,
if your work reaches a second edition, that, if you refer to me, you
will give in some conspicuous place a reference to my papers in the
Expositor, that those interested in the subject may have the chance of
seeing what I have really said."See "The Galatia of the Acts,"Expositor,
Dec., 1893, and May, 1894 the title shows deficient geographical
accuracy on the part of my distinguished opponent, for Luke never
mentions "Galatia,"but only "the Galatic Territory,"and there lies one
of the fine points of the problem.  After finishing the Church in the
Roman Empire before 170, I had no thought of troubling the world with
anything further on this subject; but Dr.  Chase's criticism roused me
to renewed work, and then came the Auburn invitation.  With the Galatian
question the date and authorship of Acts are bound up: the more I study,
the more clearly I see that it is impossible to reconcile the "North-
Galatian theory"with the first-century origin and Lukan authorship of
Acts: that theory involves so many incongruities and inconsistencies, as
to force a cool intellect to the view that Acts is not a trustworthy
contemporary authority.  But, on the "South-Galatian theory,"the book
opens to us a fresh chapter in the history and geography of Asia Minor
during the first century.

The form of Index II was suggested, and the details were collected in
great part by Rev.  F. Warburton Lewis (formerly of Mansfield College),
and Indices III and IV were compiled, amid the pressure of his own
onerous duties, by Rev.  F. Wilfrid Osborn, Vice-Principal of the
Episcopal College, Edin burgh; and my warmest gratitude is due for their
voluntary and valuable help.

I add notes on some contested points.

1.  Reading the Agricola berfore a college class in 1893-4, I drew a
parallel between its method and that of Luke in respect of careful
attention to order of events, and inattention to the stating of the
lapse of time; but in each case knowledge acquired from other sources,
and attention to the author's order and method, enable us to fix the
chronology with great accuracy; on p.  18 my lecture on this topic is
summarized in a sentence.

2.  The chronology established in this book is confirmed by the
statement in an oration falsely ascribed to Chrysostom (Vol.  VIII, p.
621, Paris, 1836), that Paul served God thirty-five years and died at
the age of sixty-eight.  As there can be little doubt that his martyrdom
took place about A. D. 67 this fourth century authority (which bears the
stamp of truth in its matter-of fact simplicity) proves that he was
converted in 33 A. D., as wee have deduced from the statements of Luke
and Paul (p.  376, and my article in Expositor, May, 1896). If Paul died
in the year beginning 23rd Sept., 67, his birth was in 1 A.D. (before
23rd Sept.). Now he evidently began public life after the Crucifixion,
but before the death of Stephen; and he would naturally come before the
public in the course of his thirtieth year; therefore his birth falls
later than Passover A.D. 1.

3.  The punctuation of Gal.  II 1-4, for which an argument was advanced
in Expositor, July, 1895, p.  105 ff., is assumed in the free
translation on p.  55.  The view taken my me of Gal.  II 1-14 is
controverted by the high authority of Dr.  Sanday in Expositor, Feb.,
1896, and defended March, 1896.  Mr Vernon Bartlet informs me that Zhan
dates Gal.  II 11-14 between Acts XII 25 and XV 4 (as I do, p.  160),
see Neue Kirchl.  Zft., 1894, p.  435 f.

4.  The phrase "the God"(p.  118, 1.  5) refers, of course to v.  15.

5.  While grateful for the publication of such essays by Lightfoot as
that quoted on p.  199, I cannot hold that great scholar (of whose
spirit in investigation I should be satisfied if I dared hope to have
caught a little) responsible for them in the same way as for works
published by himself.  (1) His lectures were not written out, but in
great part spoken, and the notes taken by pupils are not a sufficient
basis: a slight verbal change in the hurry of writing often seriously
modifies the force of a lecturer's statement: moreover a speaker trusts
to tone for many effects, which it requires careful study to express in
written words.  (2) Even those parts which were written out by himself,
belong to an early stage in his career, and were not revised by himself
in his maturity.  (3) A writer often materially improves his work n
proof: I know that some changes were made on the proofs even of the
Ignatius, his maturest work.  Hencethe reader finds pages in Lightfoot's
finest style side by side with some paragraphs, which it is difficult to
believe that he expressed in this exact form, and impossible to believe
that he would ever have allowed to go forth in print.  The analogy with
Acts I-V (see below, p.  370) is striking.

6.  It seems to me one of the strangest things that almost all
interpreters reject the interpretation which Erasmus's clear sense
perceived to be necessary in XVI 22 (p.  217). Some of the many
difficulties involved in the interpretation that the praetors rent the
clothes of Paul and Silas are exposed by Spitta, Apostelgesch., p.  218
f.  To discuss the subject properly would need a chapter.  It is not
impossible that the title "praetors"may have been even technically
accurate; but I have not ventured to go beyond the statement that it was
at least employed in courtesy.

7.  The short paragraph about the poitarchs should be transferred from
p.  227 to p.  229, 1.  6 ff.

8.  The fact that Paul's friends were permitted free access to him in
Rome and Caesareis (Acts XXVIII 30 and XXIV 23) cannot be taken as a
proof of what would be the case in a convoy, which must have been
governed with strict Roman discipline.  The argument on P. 315 f.  is
consistent with the supposition that Julius learned that the two
attendants of Paul were friends acting as slaves; but their presence in
the convoy was legalized only under the guise of slavery.

9.  My friend and former pupil, Mr.  A. A. G. Wright, sends me a good
note on p.  329, confirming the interpretation (adopted from Smith) of
calavsantes to; skeu'os from the practice of the herring boats in the
Moray Firth; these boats, fitted with a large lug-sail, are a good
parallels to the ancient sailing ships.  In Paul's ship the sailors
"slackened the sail-tackle,"and thus lowered the yard some way, leaving
a low sail, which would exercise less leverage on the hull (p.  328).

ABERDEEN, 25th March, 1896

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

I AM partly glad, partly sorry, to have little change to make in this
edition-glad, because the words printed, however inadequate I feel them
to be, have on the whole, stood the test of further thought and growing
knowledge-sorry, because so few of the faults which must exist have
revealed themselves to me.  On p.  275 a change is made in an important
detail.  The following notes are confirmatory of arguments in the text:-

1.  The examination of the development of Christianity in Phrygia,
contained in Chapters XII and XVII of my Cities and Bishoprics of
Phrygia (Part II, 1897), shows that Christianity spread with marvelous
rapidity at the end of the first and in the second century after Christ
in the parts of Phrygia that lay along the road from Pisidian Antioch to
Ephesus, and in the neighborhood of Iconium, whereas it did not become
powerful in those parts of Phrygia that adjoined North Galatia till the
fourth century.  Further, in a paper printed in Studia Biblica IV, I
have pointed out that Christianity seems to have hardly begun to affect
the district of North Galatia which lies on the side of Phrygia until
the fourth century.  The first parts of North Galatia to feel the
influence was so strong as in some parts of Phrygia.  These facts
obviously are fatal to the theory that St.  Paul's Galatian Churches
were founded in the part of North Galatia adjoining Phrygia.

2.  On p.  43, 1.  1, it should be stated more clearly that Cornelius
was a "God-fearing"proselyte.

3.  On p.  46, 1.  12 ff., the limits are stated beyond which Paul's
work in the eight years (not ten), 35-43, was not carried; and the
rather incautious words on p.  46, 1.  10, do not imply that he was
engaged in continuous work of preaching during that time.  It is
probable that quiet meditation and self-preparation filled considerable
part of these years.  The words of XI 26 (compare Luke II 24) suggest
that he was in an obscure position, and Gal.  I 23 perhaps describes
mere occasional rumors about a personage who was not at the time playing
a prominent part as a preacher, as the Rev.  C. E. C. Lefroy points out
to me in an interesting letter (which prompts this note). But the facts,
when looked at in this way, bring out even more strongly than my actual
words do, that (as is urged on p.  46) Paul was not yet "fully conscious
of his mission direct to the Nations, and that his work is rightly
regarded in Acts as beginning in Antioch.

4.  On p.  212, as an additional example of the use of the aorist
participle, Rev.  F. W. Lewis quotes Heb.  IX 12, eijsh'lqen ejfavpax
eijs ta; a{fia, aijwnivan luvtrwsin eujravmenos, "entered and
obtained."I add from a Phrygian inscription quoted in my Cities and
Bishroprics of Phrygia, Part II, 1897, p.790-

a[stesi d j ejn polloi'sin ijqagenevwn lavce teima;s, levifas kai;
kouvrous oujde;n ajfaurotevrous,

"He was presented with the freedom of many cities, and left sons as good
as himself."

5.  P. 264.  The safe passage of the Jewish pilgrims from the west and
north sides of the Aegean to Jerusalem was ensured by letters of many
Roman officials, especially addressed to the cities of Cos and Ephesus.
It is obvious that these cities lay on the line of the pilgrims'voyage;
and as the pilgrims were the subject of so much correspondence they must
have been numerous, and pilgrim ships must have sailed regularly at the
proper season.

6.  P. 271.  To illustrate the view that Paul used the School of
Tyrannus in the forenoon and no later, Mr.  A. Souter quotes Augustine
Confess., VI, 11,18, antemeridianis horis discipuli occupant (of the
School of Rhetoric at Milan), while the scholars were free in the
afternoon, and Augustine considers that those free hours ought to be
devoted to religion.

7.  I have changed p.  275, 1.  2 ff.  The words of 2Cor.  XII 14; XIII
1, would become, certainly, more luminous and more full of meaning if
there had occurred an unrecorded visit of Paul to Corinth.  The only
time that is open for such a visit is (as Rev.  F. W. Lewis suggests)
after he left Ephesus and went to Troas; and the balance of probability
is that such a visit was made, probably in March, 56 (as soon as the
sailing season began), by ship from Philippi.  The paragraph, XX, 1-4,
is confessedly obscure and badly expressed; and it is probable that, if
the book had been carried to its final stage by the author, both v.  4
would have been added between vv.  1and 2.

8.  P. 341.  Mr.  Emslie Smith, Aberdeen, sends me a valuable note, the
result of personal inspection of St.  Paul's Bay, in which he completely
clears up the difficulty which I had to leave.  It will, I hope, form
the subject of an early article in the Expositor.

9.  P. 389, note 2.  With the words of Eusebius compare the exactly
parallel expression of Aristides, Sebh'ros tw'n ajpo; th's a[nwqen
Frugivas (Vol.  1, p.  505, ed.  Dind.), which means that this Roman
officer belonged to a Jewish family connected with Upper Phrygia (and
also, as we know from other sources, with Ancyra in Galatia), but
certainly does not imply that he was Phrygian by birth or training.  It
is practically certain that a Roman consul, with a career like that of
Severus, must, at the period when he flourisheed, have been educated
nearer to Rome, and probably in the metropolis.  The scion of a Phrygian
family, growing up amid Phrygian surroundings in the early part of the
second century, would not have been admitted to the Roman senatorial
career, as Severus was in his youth.  His family, while retaining its
Phrygian connection, had settled amid strictly Roman surroundings; and
its wealth and influence procured for the heir immediate entry into the
highest career open to a Roman.  The quotation from Aristides shows that
the interpretation of Eusebius's expression given on p.  389 is on the
right lines.  The history of Severus's family in Asia Minor is sketched
in Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Pt.  II, p.  649 f.

CHAPTER I

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

1.  TRUSTWORTHINESS. The aim of our work is to treat its subject as a
department of history and of literature.  Christianity was not merely a
religion, but also, a system of life and action; and its introduction by
Paul amid the society of the Roman Empire produced changes of momentous
consequence, which the historian must study.  What does the student of
Roman history find in the subject of our investigation?  How would an
observant, educated, and unprejudiced citizen of the Roman Empire have
regarded that new social force, that new philosophical system, if he had
studied it with the eyes and the temper of a nineteenth century
investigator?

As a preliminary the historian of Rome must make up his mind about the
trustworthiness of the authorities.  Those which we shall use are:(1) a
work of history commonly entitled the Acts of the Apostles (the title
does not originate from the author), (2) certain Epistles purporting to
be written by Paul.  Of the latter we make only slight and incidental
use; and probably even those who dispute their authenticity would admit
that the facts we use are trustworthy, as being the settled belief of
the Church at a very early period.  It is, therefore, unnecessary to
touch on the authenticity of the Epistles; but the question as to the
date, the composition, and the author of the Acts must be discussed.  If
the main position of this book is admitted, it will furnish a secure
basis for the Epistles to rest on.

Works that profess to be historical are of various kinds and trustworthy
in varying degrees.  (1) There is the historical romance, which in a
framework of history interweaves an invented tale.  Some of the
Apocryphal tales of the Apostles are of this class, springing apparently
from a desire to provide Christian substitutes for the popular romances
of the period.  (2) There is the legend, in which popular fancy, working
for generations, has surrounded a real person and real events with such
a mass of extraneous matter that the historical kernel is hardly
discernible.  Certain of the Apocryphal tales of the Apostles may belong
to this class, and many of the Acta of martyrs and saints certainly do.
(3) There is the history of the second or third rate, in which the
writer, either using good authorities carelessly and without judgment,
or not possessing sufficiently detailed and correct authorities, gives a
narrative of past events which is to a certain degree trustworthy, but
contains errors in facts and in the grouping and proportions, and tinges
the narrative of the past with the colour of his own time.  In using
works of this class the modern student has to exercise his historical
tact, comparing the narrative with any other evidence that can be
obtained from any source, and judging whether the action attributed to
individuals is compatible with the possibilities of human nature.  (4)
There is, finally, the historical work of the highest order, in which a
writer commands excellent means of knowledge either through personal
acquaintance or through access to original authorities.  and brings to
the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic
historical insight into human character and the movement of events.
Such an author seizes the critical events, concentrates the reader's
attention on them by giving them fuller treatment, touches more lightly
and briefly on the less important events, omits entirely a mass of
unimportant details, and makes his work an artistic and idealised
picture of the progressive tendency of the period.

Great historians are the rarest of writers.  By general consent the
typical example of the highest class of historians is Thucydides, and it
is doubtful whether any other writer would be by general consent ranked
along with him.  But all historians, from Thucydides downwards, must be
subjected to free criticism.  The fire which consumes the second-rate
historian only leaves the real master brighter and stronger and more
evidently supreme.  The keenest criticism will do him the best service
in the long run.  But the critic in his turn requires high qualities; he
must be able to distinguish the true from the false; he must be candid
and unbiased and open-minded.  There are many critics who have at great
length stated their preference of the false before the true; and it may
safely be said that there is no class of literary productions in our
century in which there is such an enormous preponderance of error and
bad judgment as in that of historical criticism.  To some of our critics
Herodotus is the Father of History, to others he is an inaccurate
reproducer of uneducated gossip: one writer at portentous length shows
up the weakness of Thucydides, another can see no fault in him.

But, while recognising the risk, and the probable condemnation that
awaits the rash attempt, I will venture to add one to the number of the
critics, by stating in the following chapters reasons for placing the
author of Acts among the historians of the first rank.

The first and the essential quality of the great historian is truth.
What he says must be trustworthy.  Now historical truth implies not
merely truth in each detail, but also truth in the general effect, and
that kind of truth cannot be attained without selection, grouping, and
idealisation.

So far as one may judge from books, the opinion of scholars seems to
have, on the whole, settled down to the conclusion that the author of
Acts belongs either to the second- or the third-rate historians.  Among
those who assign him to the third rate we may rank all those who
consider that the author clipped up older documents and patched together
the fragments in a more or less intelligent way, making a certain number
of errors in the process.  Theories of this kind are quite compatible
with assigning a high degree of trustworthiness to many statements in
the book; but this trustworthiness belongs not to the author of the
work, but to the older documents which he glued together.  Such theories
usually assign varying degrees of accuracy to the different older
documents: all statements which suit the critic's own views on early
Church history are taken from an original document of the highest
character; those which he likes less belong to a less trustworthy
document; and those which are absolutely inconsistent with his views.
are the work of the ignorant botcher who constructed the book.  But this
way of judging, common as it is, assumes the truth of the critic's own
theory, and decides on the authenticity of ancient documents according
to their agreement with that theory; and the strangest part of this
medley of uncritical method is that other writers, who dispute the first
critic's theory of early Church history, yet attach some value to his
opinion upon the spuriousness of .documents which he has condemned
solely on the ground that they disagree with histheory.

The most important group among those who assign the author to the second
rank of historians, consists of them that accept his facts as true,
although his selection of what he should say and what he should omit
seems to them strangely capricious.  They recognise many of the signs of
extraordinary accuracy in his statements; and these signs are so
numerous that'they feel bound to infer that the facts as a whole are
stated with great accuracy by a personal friend of St.  Paul.  But when
they compare the Acts with such documents as the Epistles of Paul, and
when they study the history as a whole, they are strongly impressed with
the inequalities of treatment, and the unexpected and puzzling gaps;
events of great importance seem to be dismissed in a brief and
unsatisfactory way; and, sometimes, when one of the actors (such as
Paul) has left an account of an event described in Acts , they find
difficulty in recognising the two accounts as descriptions of the same
event.  Bishop Lightfoot's comparison of Gal.  II 1-10with Acts XV=rAC
15:1may be quoted as a single specimen out of many: the elaborate
process whereby he explains away the seeming discrepancies would alone
be sufficient, if it were right, to prove that Acts was a second-rate
work of history.  We never feel on firm historical ground, when
discrepancies are cleverly explained away: we need agreements to stand
upon.  Witnesses in a law court may give discrepant accounts of the same
event; but they are half-educated, confused, unable to rise to
historical truth.  But when a historian is compared with the
reminiscences of an able and highly educated actor in the same scenes,
and when the comparison consists chiefly in a laboured proof that the
discrepancies do not amount to positive contradiction, the conclusion is
very near, that, if the reminiscences are strictly honest, the
historian's picture is not of the highest rank.

But there is a further difficulty.  How does it come that a writer, who
shows himself distinctly second-rate in his historical perception of the
comparative importance of events, is able to attain such remarkable
accuracy in describing many of them?  The power of accurate description
implies in itself a power of reconstructing the past, which involves the
most delicate selection and grouping of details according to their truth
and reality, i.e., according to their comparative importance.  Acts , as
Lightfoot pictures it, is to me an inconceivable phenomenon; such a
mixture of strength and weakness, of historical insight and historical
incapacity, would be unique and incredible.  If the choice for an
intelligible theory of Acts lay between Lightfoot's view and that which
is presented in different forms by Clemen, Spitta, and other scholars, I
could only adopt the same point of view as these critics.  Lightfoot,
with all his genius, has here led English scholarship into a cul de sac:
we can make no progress, unless we retrace our steps and try a new path.
But my belief is, that all the difficulties in which Lightfoot was
involved spring from the attempt to identify the wrong events.  In this
attempt he naturally found discrepancies;but by a liberal allowance of
gaps in the narrative of Acts , and the supposition of different points
of view and of deficient information on Luke's part, it was possible to
show why the eye-witness saw one set of incidents, while Acts described-
quite a different set.

The historian who is to give a brief history of a great period need not
reproduce on a reduced uniform scale all the facts which he would
mention in a long history, like a picture reduced by a photographic
process.  If a brief history is to be a work of true art, it must omit a
great deal, and concentrate the reader's attention on a certain number
of critical points in the development of events, elaborating these
sufficiently to present them in life-like and clearly intelligible form.
True historical genius lies in selecting the great crises, the great
agents, and the great movements, inmaking these clear to the reader in
their real nature, in passing over with the lightest and slightest touch
numerous events and many persons, but always keeping clear before the
reader the plan of composition.

The historian may dismiss years with a word, and devote considerable
space to a single incident.  In such a work, the omission of an event
does not constitute a gap, but is merely a proof that the event had not
sufficient importance to enter into the plan.  A gap is some omission
that offends our reason and our sense of harmony and propriety; and
where something is omitted that bears on the author's plan, or where the
plan as conceived by the author does not correspond to the march of
events, but only to some fanciful and subjective view, there the work
fails short of the level of history.

I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any
prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to
justify to the reader.  On the contrary, I began with a mind
unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the
Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.  It did not lie then
in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more
recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts
as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia
Minor.  It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the
narrative showed marvellous truth.  In fact, beginning with the fixed
idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and
never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first-century
conditions,. I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure
and difficult investigations.  But there remained still one serious
objection to accepting it as entirely a first-century work.  According
to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a
path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and
topographically self-contradictory.  It was not possible to bring Paul's
work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the
supposition that an important part of that work was devoted to a
district in the northern part of the peninsula, called Galatia.  It may
appear at first sight a mere topographical subtlety whether Paul
travelled through North Galatia or through Lycaonia; but, when you
consider that any details given of his journeys must be false to the one
side just in proportion as they are true to the other, you will perceive
that, if you try to apply the narrative to the wrong side of the
country, it will not suit the scene, and if it does not suit, then it
must appear to be written by a person ignorant of what he pretends to
know.  The case might be illustrated from our own experience.  Suppose
that an unknown person came to Auburn from New York, and you wished to
find out whether he was an impostor or not.  In our country we are
exposed to frequent attempts at imposition, which can often be detected
by a few questions; and you would probably ask him about his experiences
on his journey from New York to Auburn.  Now suppose you had been
informed that he had come not along the direct road, but by a long
detour through Boston, Montreal, and Toronto, and had thus arrived at
Auburn; and suppose that you by questioning elicited from him various
facts which suited only a route through Schenectady and Utica, you would
condemn the man as an impostor, because he did not know the road which
he pretended to have travelled.  But suppose further that it was pointed
out by some third party that this stranger had really travelled along
the direct road, and that you had been misinformed when you supposed him
to have come by the-round-about way, your opinion as to the stranger's
truthfulness would be instantly affected.  Precisely similar is the case
of Acts as a record of travel; generations and centuries have been
attempting to apply it to the wrong countries.  I must speak on this
point confidently and uncompromisingly, for the facts stand out so clear
and bold and simple that to affect to hesitate or to profess any doubt
as to one's judgment would be a betrayal of truth.

I know the difficulties of this attempt to understand rightly a book so
difficult, so familiar, and so much misunderstood as Acts . It is
probable that I have missed the right turn or not grasped the full
meaning in some cases.  I am well aware that I leave some difficulties
unexplained, sometimes from inability, sometimes from mere omission.But
I am sustained by the firm belief that I am on the right path, and by
the hope that enough of difficulties have been cleared away to justify a
dispassionate historical criticism in placing this great writer on the
high pedestal that belongs to him.

2.  DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN CRITICISM ON ACTS With regard to the
trustworthiness of Acts as a record of events, a change is perceptible
in the tendency of recent criticism.  Setting aside various exceptional
cases, and also leaving out of sight the strictly "orthodox"view, which
accepts Acts as truth without seeking to compare or to criticise (a view
which in its simplicity and completeness needs neither defence nor
examination), we may say that for a time the general drift of criticism
was to conceive the book as a work composed in the second century with
the intention of so representing (or rather misrepresenting) the facts
as to suit the writer's opinion about the Church questions of his own
time.  All theories of this class imply that the atmosphere and
surroundings of the work are of the second-century type; and such
theories have to be rounded on a proof that the details are represented
in an inaccurate way and coloured by second-century ideas.  The efforts
of that earlier school of critics were directed to give the required
proof; and in the attempt they displayed a misapprehension of the real
character of ancient life and Roman history which is often astonishing,
and which has been decisively disproved in the progress of Roman
historical investigation.  All such theories belong to the pre-
Mommsenian epoch of Roman history: they are now impossible for a
rational and educated critic; and they hardly survive except in popular
magazines and novels for the semi-religious order.

But while one is occasionally tempted to judge harshly the assumption of
knowledge made by the older critics where knowledge was at the time
difficult or impossible, it is only fair also to emphatically
acknowledge the debt we owe them for practising in afearless and
independent spirit the right and much-needed task of investigating the
nature and origin of the book.

Warned by the failure of the older theories, many recent critics take
the line that Acts consists of various first century scraps put together
in the book as we have it by a second-century Redactor.  The obvious
signs of vivid accuracy in many of the details oblige these critics to
assume that the Redactor incorporated the older scraps with no change
except such as results from different surroundings and occasional wrong
collocation.  Some hold that the Redactor made considerable additions in
order to make a proper setting for the older scraps.  Others reduce the
Redactor's action to a minimum; Spitta is the most remarkable example of
this class.  In the latter form the Redaction-theory is the diametrical
opposite of the old tendency theories; the latter supposed that the
second century author coloured the whole narrative and put his own views
into every paragraph, while, according to Spitta, the Redactor added
nothing of consequence to his first century materials except some
blunders of arrangement.  The older theories were rounded on the proof
of a uniformity of later style and purpose throughout the book; the
later theories depend on the proof of differences of style between the
different parts.  The old critics were impressed by the literary skill
of the author, while the later critics can see no literary power or
activity in him.  Any argument in favour of the one class of theories
tells against the other; and, if we.  admit (as I think we must admit),
that each view is rounded on a correct but one-sided perception of
certain qualities in this remarkable book, we may fairly say that each
disproves the other.

Certain theorists, and especially Clemen in his extraordinarily
ingenious and bold work Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe, see clearly
that such a bald scissors-and-paste theory as Spitta's is quite
inadequate to explain the many-sided character of this history.  Dr.
Clemen supposes that three older documents, a history of the Hellenistic
Jews, a history of Peter, and a history of Paul, were worked into one
work by a Judaist Redactor, who inserted many little touches and even
passages of considerable length to give a tone favourable to the
Judaising type of Christianity; and that this completed book was again
worked over by an anti-Judaist Redactor II, who inserted other parts to
give a tone unfavourable to the Judaising type of Christianity, but left
the Judaistic insertions.  Finally, a Redactor III of neutral tone
incorporated anew document (VI 1-6), and gave the whole its present form
by a number of small touches.

When a theory becomes so complicated as Clemen's, the humble scholar who
has been trained only in philological and historical method finds
himself unable to keep pace, and toils in vain behind this daring
flight.  We shall not at present stop to argue from examples in ancient
and modern literature, that a dissection of this elaborate kind cannot
be carried out.  Style is seen in the whole rather than in single
sentences, still less in parts of sentences; and a partition between six
authors, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph,
of a work that seemed even to bold and revolutionary critics like Zeller
and Baur in Germany and Renan in France to be a model of unity and
individuality in style, is simply impossible.  Moreover, the plan of
this study is not to argue against other theories, but to set forth a
plain and simple interpretation of the text, and appeal to the
recognised principle of criticism that, where a simple theory of origin
can be shown to hold together properly, complicated theories must give
way to it.

One feature in Dr.  Clemen's theory shows true insight.  No simple
theory of gluing together can exhaust the varied character of the Acts :
a very complex system of junctures is needed to explain its many-
sidedness.  But Dr.  Clemen has not gone far enough.  There is only one
kind of cause that is sufficiently complex to match the many-sided
aspects of the book, and that cause is themany-sided character of a
thoughtful and highly educated man.

Dr.  Clemen seems to assume that every instance where Paul adopts an
attitude of conciliation towards the Jews is added by a Judaistic
Redactor, and every step in his growing estrangement from them is due to
an anti-Judaistic Redactor.  He does not, I venture to think, allow due
scope to the possibility that an historian might record both classes of
incidents in the interests of truth.  It is admitted that a dislocation
occurred in the early Church, and that the contention between the
Judaising and the Universalising (to adopt a convenient designation)
parties was keen for a time.  It is natural that the estrangement should
be gradual; and the historian sets before us a gradual process.  He
shows us Paul acting on the principle that the Jews had the first claim
(XIII 46=rAC 13:46), and always attempting to conciliate them; but he
also shows us that Paul did not struggle against the facts, but turned
his back on the Jews when they rejected him (as their Whole history
proves, even without the evidence of Acts , that they were sure to
do}.It is hard to find a sufficient foundation for Dr.  Clemen's theory
without the preliminary assumption that an early Christian must
necessarily be incapable of taking a broad and unbiased view of history
as: a whole.  Grant that assumption, and his theory is built up with
marvellous skill, patience and ingenuity.

3.  WORKING HYPOTHESIS OF THE INVESTIGATION. Our hypothesis is that Acts
was written by a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the
facts as they occurred, a strong partisan, indeed, but raised above
partiality by his perfect confidence that he had only to describe the
facts as they occurred, in order to make the truth of Christianity and
the honour of Paul apparent.  To a Gentile Christian, as the author of
Acts was, the refusal of the Jews to listen to Paul, and their natural
hatred of him as untrue to their pride of birth, must appear due to pure
malignity; and the growing estrangement must seem to him the fault of
the Jews alone.  It is not my object to assume or to prove that there
was no prejudice in the mind of Luke, no fault on the part of Paul; but
only to examine whether the facts stated are trustworthy, and leave them
to speak for themselves (as.  the author does). I shall argue that the
book was composed by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this
be once established there will be no hesitation in accepting the
primitive tradition that Luke was the author.

We must face the facts boldly.  If Luke wrote Acts , his narrative
mustagree in a striking and convincing way with Paul's: they
mustconfirm, explain and complete one another.  This is not a case of
two commonplace, imperfectly educated, and not very observant witnesses
who give divergent accounts of certain incidents which they saw without
paying much attention to them.  We have here two men of high
education,one writing a formal history, the other speaking under every
obligation of honour and conscience to be careful in his words: the
subjects they speak of were of the most overpowering interest to both:
their points of view must be very similar, for they were personal
friends, and one was the teacher of the other, and naturally had moulded
to some extent his mind during long companionship.  If ever there was a
case in which striking agreement was demanded by historical criticism
between two classes of documents, it is between the writings of Paul and
of Luke.

There is one subject in particular in which criticism demands absolute
agreement.  The difference of position and object between the two
writers, one composing a formal history, the other writing letters or
making speeches, may justifiably be invoked to account for some
difference in the selection of details.  But in regard to the influence
of the Divine will on human affairs they ought to agree.  Both firmly
believed that God often guided the conduct of His Church by clear and
open revelation of His will; and we should be slow to believe that one
of them attributed to human volition what the other believed to be
ordered by direct manifestation of God (p.  140). We shall try to prove
that there is a remarkable agreement between them in regard to the
actions which they attribute to direct revelation.

Further, we cannot admit readily that peculiarities of Luke's narrative
are to be accounted for by want of information: in his case this
explanation really amounts to an accusation of culpable neglect of a
historian's first duty, for full information was within Luke's reach, if
he had taken the trouble to seek it.  We shall find no need of this
supposition.  Finally, it is hard to believe that Paul's letters were
unknown to Luke; he was in Paul's company when some of them were
written; he must have known about the rest, and could readily learn
their contents in the intimate intercommunication that bound together
the early Churches.  We shall try to show that Luke had in mind the idea
of explaining and elucidating the letters.

In maintaining our hypothesis it is not necessary either to show that
the author made no mistake, or to solve every difficulty.  From them
that start with a different view more may be demanded; but here we are
making a historical and literary investigation.  The greatest historians
of other periods are not above error; and we may admit the possibility
that a first-century historian has made errors.  We shall not make much
use of this proviso; but still the conditions of the investigation must
be clearly laid down.

Again, in almost every ancient writer of any value there remain unsolved
problems by the score.  Where would our philological scholars be, if
every question were satisfactorily disposed of?  The plan and the date
of Horace's longest work, the Art of Poetry, are unsolved and apparently
insoluble; every theory involves serious difficulties; yes that does not
make its authenticity doubtful.  That there remain some difficulties not
explained satisfactorily in Acts does not disprove its first-century
origin.

Further, it is necessary to study every historian's method, and not to
judge him according to whether or not he uses our methods.  For example,
Thucydides makes a practice of putting into the mouths of his character
speeches which they never delivered; no modern historian would do this:
the speeches of Thucydides, however, are the greatest and most
instructive part of his history.  They might be truly called
unhistorical; but the critic who summed up their character in that
epithet would only show his incapacity for historical criticism.
Similarly the critic must study Luke's method, and not judge him
according to whether he writes exactly as the critic considers a history
ought to be written.

Luke's style is compressed to the highest degree; and he expects a great
deal from the reader.  He does not , attempt to sketch the surroundings
and set the whole scene like a picture before the reader; he states the
bare facts that seem to him important, and leaves the reader to imagine
the situation.  But there are many cases in which, to catch his meaning
properly, you must imagine yourself standing with Paul on the deck of
the ship, or before the Roman official; and unless you reproduce the
scene in imagination, you miss the sense.  Hence, though his style is
simple and clear, yet it.  often becomes obscure from its brevity; and
the meaning is lost, because the reader has an incomplete, or a
positively false idea of the situation.  It is always hard to recreate
the remote past; knowledge, imagination, and, above all, sympathy and
love are all needed.  But Asia Minor, in which the scene is often laid,
was not merely little known, but positively wrongly known.

I know of no person except Bishop Lightfoot who has seriously attempted
to test or revise or improve the traditional statements (often, the
traditional blunders) about Asian antiquities as bearing on Acts ; but
the materials were not at his disposal for doing this successfully.  But
it is bad method to found theories of its composition on wrong
interpretations of its meaning: the stock misconceptions should first be
cleared away, and the book studied in relation to the localities and the
antiquities.

Luke was deficient in the sense for time; and hence his chronology is
bad.  It would be quite impossible from Acts alone to get a true idea of
the lapse of time.  That is the fault of his age; Tacitus, writing the
biography of Agricola (about 98 A.D.), makes no chronological statement,
until in the last paragraph he gives a series of statistics.  Luke had
studied the sequence of events carefully, and observes it in his
arrangement minutely, but he often has to carry forward one thread of
his narrative, and then goes back in time to take up another thread; and
these transitions are sometimes rather harsh.  Yet, in respect of
chronology, he was, perhaps, less careless than would appear: see p.
23.

His plan leads him to concentrate attention on the critical steps.
Hence he often passes lightly over a long period of gradual development
marked by no striking incident; and from his bad chronological sense he
gives no measure of the lapse of time implied in a sentence, a clause,
or even a word.  He dismisses ten years in a breathe and devotes a
chapter to a single incident.  His character as an historian, therefore,
depends on his selection of topics.  Does he show the true historian's
power of seizing the great facts, and marking dearly the stages in the
development of his subject?  Now, what impresses me is the sense of
proportion in Acts , and the skill with which a complex and difficult
subject is grouped to bring out the historical development from the
primitive Church (ch.  I-V=rAC 1-5) through the successive steps
associated with four great names, Stephen, Philip, Peter, Paul.  Where
the author passes rapidly over a period or a journey, we shall find
reason to believe that it was marked by no striking feature and no new
foundation.  The axiom from which we start must be that which is assumed
in all literary investigations-preference is to be given to the
interpretation which restores order, lucidity, and sanity to the work.
All that we ask in this place is the admission of that axiom, and a
patient hearing,and especially that the reader, before condemning our
first steps as not in harmony with other incidents, will wait to see how
we can interpret those incidents.

The dominant interpretation rests avowedly on the principle that Acts is
full of gaps, and that "nothing is more striking than the want of
proportion". Those unfortunate words of Bishop Lightfoot are worked out
by some of his successors with that "illogical consistency"which often
leads the weaker disciples of a great teacher to choose his errors for
loving imitation and emphasis.  With such a theory no historical
absurdity is too gross to be imputed to Luke.  But our hypothesis is
that Luke's silence about an incident or person should always be
investigated as a piece of evidence, on the principlethat he had some
reason for his silence; and in the course of this study we shall in
several cases find that omission is a distinct element in the effect of
his narrative.

There is a contrast between the early chapters of Acts and the later.
In the later chapters there are few sentences that do not afford some
test of their accuracy by mentioning external facts of life, history,
and antiquities.  But the earlier chapters contain comparatively few
such details; the subject in them is handled in a vaguer way, with a
less vigorous and nervous grasp; the facts are rarely given in their
local and historical surroundings, and sometimes seem to float in air
rather than to stand on solid ground.

This fundamental difference in handling must be acknowledged; but it can
be fairly attributed to difference of information and of local
knowledge.  The writer shows himself in his later narrative to be a
stranger to the Levant and familiar with the Aegean; he could not stand
with the same confidence on the soil of Syria and Palestine, as on that
of Asia Minor or Greece.  Moreover, he was dealing with an earlier
period; and he had not the advantage of formal historical narratives,
such as he mentions for the period described in his First Book (the
Gospel). Luke was dependent on various informants in the earlier
chapters of Acts (among them Paul and Philip); and he put together their
information, in many cases reproducing it almost verbatim.  Sometimes
the form of his record gives a clue to the circumstances in which he
learned it.  That line of investigation is liable to become subjective
and fanciful; but modern historical investigation always tries to get
behind the actual record and to investigate the ultimate sources of
statements.

4.  THE AUTHOR OF ACTSAND HIS HERO. It is rare to find a narrative so
simple and so little forced as that of Acts . It is a mere uncoloured
recital of the important facts in thebriefest possible terms.  The
narrator's individuality and his personal feelings and preferences are
almost wholly suppressed.  He is entirely absorbed in his work; and he
writes with the single aim to state the facts as he has learned them.
It would be difficult in the whole range of literature to find a work
where there is less attempt at pointing a moral or drawing a lesson from
the facts.  The narrator is persuaded that the facts themselves in their
barest form are a perfect lesson and a complete instruction, and he
feels that it would be an impertinence and even an impiety to intrude
his individual views into the narrative.

It is, however, impossible for an author to hide himself completely.
Even in the selection of details, his personality shows itself.  So in
Acts , the author shows the true Greek feeling for the sea.  He hardly
ever omits to name the harbors which Paul sailed from or arrived at,
even though little or nothing in the way of incident occurred in them.
But on land journeys he confines himself to missionary facts, and gives
no purely geographical information; where any statements of a
geographical character occur, they serve a distinct purpose in the
narrative, and the reader who accepts them as mere geographical
specifications has failed to catch the author's purpose (see p.  205
f.).

Under the surface of the narrative, there moves a current of strong
personal affection and enthusiastic admiration for Paul.  Paul is the
author's hero; his general aim is to describe the development of the
Church; but his affection and his interest turn to Paul; and after a
time his narrative groups itself round Paul.  He is keenly concerned to
show that Paul was in perfect accord with the leaders among the older
Apostles, but so also was Paul himself in his letters.  That is the
point of view of a personal friend and disciple, full of affection, and
jealous of Paul's honour and reputation.

The characterisation of Paul in Acts is so detailed and individualised
as to prove the author's personal acquaintance.  Moreover, the Paul of
Acts is the Paul that appears to us in his own letters, in his ways and
his thoughts, in his educated tone of polished courtesy, in his quick
and vehement temper, in the extraordinary versatility and adaptability
which made him at home in every society, moving at ease in all
surroundings, and everywhere the centre of interest, whether he is the
Socratic dialectician in the agora of Athens, or the rhetorician in its
University, or conversing with kings and proconsuls, or advising in the
council on shipboard, or cheering a broken-spirited crew to make one
more effort for life.  Wherever Paul is, no one present has eyes for any
but him.

Such a view could not have been taken by a second century author.  The
Church in the second century had passed into new circumstances and was
interested in quite different questions.  The catastrophe of the
persecution of Domitian, and the effect produced for the time on the
attitude of the Church by the deliberate attempt to suppress and destroy
it on the part of the imperial government, made a great gulf between the
first century and the second century of Christian history.*Though the
policy of the great emperors of the second century came back to somewhat
milder measures, the Church could not recover the same feeling that Paul
had, so long as Christianity continued to be a proscribed religion, and
a Christian was in theoryat least an outlaw and a rebel.  Many questions
that were evidently vital to the author of Acts were buried in oblivion
during the persecution of Domitian, and could not have been present in
the mind of a later author.  Our view classes Acts with 1 Peter=r1 PE,
intermediate between the Pauline letters and the literature of the last
decade of the century (such as Revelation). Luke shows the same attitude
as Paul, but he aims at proving what Paul feels.

The question must be fairly considered whether Luke had completed his
history.  There is one piece of evidence from his own hand that he had
not completed it, but contemplated a third book at least.  His work is
divided into two books, the Gospeland the Acts , but in the opening line
of the Acts he refers to the Gospel as the First discourse (prw'to"Had
he not contemplated a third book, we expect the term Former
Discourse(provtero") In a marked position like the opening of a book, we
must take the word firststrictly (Note, p.  27).

We shall argue that the plan of Acts has been obscured by the want of
the proper climax and conclusion, which would have made it clear, and
also that the author did not live to put the final touches to his second
book.  Perhaps we may thus account for the failure of chronological
data.  In Book I there are careful reckonings of dates (in one case by
several different eras) at the great steps of the narrative.  In Book II
there are no such calculations (except the vague "under Claudius"in XI
28, in itself a striking contrast to "the fifteenth year of
Tiberius,"Luke III 1=rLK 3:1). Tacitus, as we saw, appends the dates to
his Agricola: Luke incorporates his dates, but they have all the
appearance of being put into an already finished narrative.  If other
reasons prove that Acts wants the finishing touches, we may reckon among
the touches that would have been added certain calculations of
synchronism, which would have furnished a chronological skeleton for the
narrative.

If the work was left incomplete, the reason, perhaps,. lay in the
author's martyrdom under Domitian.

5.  THE TEXTS OF ACTS. It was my wish to take no notice here of
differences of reading, but simply to follow Westcott and Hort (except
in two impossible cases, XI 20,=rAC 11:20XII 25=rAC 12:25). This,
however, proved impracticable; for there are some cases in which over-
estimate of the two great MSS. (the Sinaitic and the Vatican) has led to
the adoption of a reading that obscures history.  In several places I
have been driven back on the Received Text and the Authorised Version,
and in others the Bezan Text either contains or gives the clue to the
original text; and wherever the Bezan Text is confirmed by old-Versions
and by certain Greek MSS., it seems to me to deserve very earnest
consideration, as at least pointing in the direction of an original
reading subjected to wide-spread corruption.

It is universally admitted that the text of Acts was exposed to very
careless or free handling in the second century.  This came about in
various ways, for the most part unintentionally, but partly by
deliberate action.  At that time great interest was taken in gathering
from trustworthy sources supplementary information, beyond what was
contained in the Gospels and Acts . Eusebius, III 39, quotes a passage
from Papias describing his eager inquiries after such information from
those who had come into personal relations with the Apostles, and
another, V 20, from Irenaeus, describing how Polycarp used to tell of
his intercourse with John and the rest that had seen the Lord.  Now
there was a natural tendency to note on the margin of a MS. additional
information obtained on good authority about incidents mentioned in the
text; and there is always a danger that such notes may be inserted in
the text by a copyist, who takes them for parts accidentally omitted.
There is also a certain probability that deliberate additions might be
made to the text (as deliberate excisions are said to have been made by
Marcion). The balance of evidence is, on the whole, that Mark XVI 9-20
is a later composition, designed to complete a narrative that had all
the appearance of being defective.  Again, explanatory notes on the
margin of a MS. are often added by a reader interested in the text;
there is no doubt that in some books such glosses have crept into the
text through the errors of the copyist; and there are on our view three
such cases at least in the generally accepted text of Acts .

But, beyond this, when translations were made into Syriac and Latin (the
former certainly, the later probably, as early as the middle of the
second century), the attention of scholars was necessarily directed to
the difficulties in interpretation of the text, with its occasional
archaic expressions, obscure words, and harsh constructions; and the
practical usefulness of a simplified and modernised text was thus
suggested.  Tatian's Harmony of the Four Gospels, and Marcion's doctored
editions, show how attempts were made from different points of view and
in different ways to adapt the sacred narrative for popular use: Tatian
changed the order, Marcion altered the text by excision or worse.  Thus
the plan of a simplified text was quite in keeping with the custom of
the second century; and the Bezan Text seems to be of that kind.  As a
whole it is not Lukan: it has a fatal smoothness, it loses the rather
harsh but very individual style of Luke, and it neglects some of the
literary forms that Luke observed.  But it has a high value for several
reasons: (1) it preserves with corruptions a second-century witness to
the text, and often gives valuable, and sometimes conclusive, evidence
of readings; (2) it shows what view was held as to the meaning of
various passages in the second century; (3) it adds several pieces of
information which probably rest on good evidence, though they were not
written by Luke.  Thus we can often gather from the Bezan comment what
was the original reading commented on; and it vindicates the great MSS.
in XVI 12 against Dr.  Hort's conjecture.  It reveals to us the first
beginnings of Pauline legend (p.  106); and in this respect it stands on
much the same level as the original text of the Acta of Paul and Thelka,
where also it is hard to distinguish where history ends and romance
begins.  With the help of these two authorities, combined with early
Christian inscriptions (which begin only about 190, but give
retrospective evidence), we can recover some faint idea of the
intellectual life of the second-century Christians in Asia Minor and
North Syria.

The Bezan Text will, indubitably, afford much study and some discoveries
in the future.  Its explanatory simplifications often show the influence
of the translations which first suggested the idea of a simplified text.
When the need for an explanation arose in connection with a rendering in
Latin, or in Syriac, the simplification took a Latin or Syriac colour;
but this was consciously adopted as a simplification, and not through
mere blundering.

While the Bezan Text has gone furthest from the original Lukan Text,
there is no MS. which has not suffered seriously from the various causes
of depravation.  Several of the errors that have affected the two great
MSS. look like changes made intentionally in order to suit a mistaken
idea of the meaning of other passages; but there is always a possibility
that in these cases an editor was making a choice between varieties of
reading . that had been produced unintentionally.  Only in the Bezan
Text can we confidently say that deliberate alterations were made in the
text.  I believe that the Bezan Reviser made many skillful changes in
passages relating to Asia Minor and some foolish changes inEuropean
passages.  In some of these cases, the view remains open that the Bezan
reading is the original; but evidence is as yet not sufficient to give
certainty.  The home of the Revision is along the line of intercourse
between Syrian Antioch and Ephesus, for the life of the early Church lay
in intercommunication, but the Reviser was connected with Antioch, for
he inserts "we"in XI 28.=rAC 11:28

Note.  to;n prw'ton lovgon.  The commentators universally regard this as
an example of the misuse of prw'to"; but they give no sufficient proof
that Luke elsewhere misused that word.  In Stephen's speech (VII 12) the
adverb prw'ton misused for provteron occurs, but a dispassionate
consideration of the speeches in Acts must convince every reader that
they are not composed by the author, but taken verbatim from other
authorities (in this case from Philip at Caesareia, XXI 8). Blass, p.
16, points out with his usual power, that the character and distinction
of the comparative and superlative degrees was decaying in the Greek of
the N.T., and that in many adjectives one of the two degrees played the
part of both.  But such changes do not affect all words simultaneously;
and the distinction between provtero" and prw'to" might be expected to
last longer than that between most other pairs.  We observe that Paul
uses both, and distinguishes them correctly (though he blurs the
distinction in other words): to; provteron as the former of two visits
Gal.  IV 13, th;n protevran ajnastroqhvn Eph.  IV 22.  Blass, with the
grammarian's love for making absolute rules, conjectures the last
example away, in order to lay down the law that the adjective provtero"
is not employed in N.T.; but we follow the MSS., and find in them the
proof that the distinction was only in process of decay, and that the
pair provtero"-prw'to" still survived among the more educated writers in
N.T. So long as Paul could distinguish provtero" and prw'to", there is a
probability that Luke would not utterly confuse them; and the fact that
John uses prw'to" in the most glaring way for provtero" has no bearing
on Luke, who was a far better master of Greek.  We find several
instances where Luke uses prw'to" correctly: in Acts XII 10 there were
obviously three gates and three wards to pass (Peter was allowed to pass
the first and the second, being taken presumably as a servant; but no
servant would be expected to pass beyond the outermost ward at night,
and a different course was needed there): in Luke II 2 a series of
census are contemplated as having occurred, p.  386: in Luke XI 26 the
man is described as passing through several stages: cp.  XIII 30, XIV
18, XVI 5, XIX 16, XX 29.  And, if there survived in Luke the slightest
idea of any difference between comparative and superlative, the opening
of a book is the place where we should expect to find the difference
expressed.  We conclude, then, that the use of prw'to" there is more
easily reconcilable with the plan of three books, than of two; but
certainty is not attainable, as provtero" does not actually occur in his
writings.

CHAPTER. II.

THE ORIGIN OF ST. PAUL

1.  PAUL'S NATIONALITY. In the growth of Christianity we observe that
all the threads of development which had been formed in the life of the
great races of older history are gathered together into one complex
whole.  Hence we have just the same assurance of the truth of
Christianity that we have of the trustworthiness of earlier history: the
earlier works into the later, the later grows out of the earlier, in
such a way that all must be taken together.  The correspondence is in
itself a guarantee of truth.  Each exists for the other: each derives
its full comprehensibility from the other.  We must accept the general
outline of early history as a whole, or we must reject it as a whole on
the plea of insufficient evidence.  There is not a fact of early
history, whether Christian or pre-Christian, which is not susceptible of
being disputed with a fair show of rational and logical argument: the
evidence is nowhere such as would convince a man whose mind is made up
against the trustworthiness of ancient history.  Let any one test the
evidence for any point in regard to the battles of Salamis or of
Marathon; and he will find that everywhere he is reduced to a balance of
evidence, and frequently to a balance so delicate that no one can feel
any assured confidence on the point.  Yet our confidence in the general
facts regarding each battle and its results is not, as a rule, affected
by our uncertainty as to the details.  Doubtless there will always be
some who argue that the trustworthiness of the whole must be
proportionate to the trustworthiness of the parts, and conclude that,
where all details are so uncertain, the whole is unworthy of study; and
those who cannot see-or rather feel-for themselves the fallacy of the
argument will not be convinced by any reasoning that can be adduced.
But for those who do not adopt the extreme agnostic position, there is
no other logical position except that of accepting the.  general scheme
of ancient history, in which Christianity is the crowning factor that
gives unity and rational plan to the whole.

The life of Paul partakes of the uncertainty that envelopes all ancient
history.  As regards every detail we shall find ourselves in the
position of balancing evidence; as to almost every detail we shall find
ourselves amid a bewildering variety of opposite opinion and assertion
among modern scholars of every school and shade; and, strangest of all,
in regard to two or three points where there exists the nearest approach
to a general agreement between all the various schools, we shall find
ourselves unable to agree.  Owing to the peculiar character of the
evidence, we shall find it best to begin in the middle of Paul's life
and study the events of the years 44 to 61, and thereafter to sketch in
outline the first half of his life.

At present, however, we must emphasise the complex influences amid which
Paul grew up.  According to the law of his country, he was first of all
a Roman citizen.  That character superseded all others before the law
and in the general opinion of society; and placed him amid the
aristocracy of any provincial town.  In the first century, when the
citizenship was still jealously guarded, the civitas may be taken as a
proof that his family was one of distinction and at least moderate
wealth.  It also implies that there was in the surroundings amid which
he grew up, a certain attitude of friendliness to the Imperial
government (for the new citizens in general, and the Jewish citizens in
particular, were warm partisans of their protector, the new Imperial
regime), and also of pride in a possession that ensured distinction and
rank and general respect in Tarsus.  As a Roman, Paul had a nomen and
prænomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave his family
civitas; but Luke, a Greek, had no interest in Roman names.  Paulus, his
cognomen, was not determined by his nomen: there is no reason to think
he was an Æmilius (as some suggest). Paul was, in the second place, a
"Tarsian, a citizen of a distinguished city"(XXI 39, IX 11). He was not
merely a person born in Tarsus, owing to the accident of his family
being there: he had a citizen's rights in Tarsus.  We may confidently
assume that Paul was careful to keep within demonstrable law and custom,
when he claimed to be a Tarsian citizen in describing himself to the
Tribune.  According to the strict interpretation of the Roman law, the
civitas superseded all other citizenship, but this theoretical
exclusiveness was op- posed to the Imperial spirit; and it is clear that
Roman cives in a provincial city commonly filled the position of high-
class citizens, and even had magistracies pressed upon them by general
consent.  Now, if Paul's family had merely emigrated to Tarsus from
Judea some years before his birth, neither he nor his father would have
been "Tarsians,"but merely "residents"(incolæ). It is probable, but not
certain, that the family had been planted in Tarsus with full rights as
part of a colony settled there by one of the Seleucid kings in order to
strengthen their hold on the city.  Such a re-foundation took place at
Tarsus, for the name Antiocheia was given it under Antiochus IV (175-164
B.C.). The Seleucid kings seem to have had a preference for Jewish
colonists in their foundations in Asia Minor.  Citizenship in Tarsus
might also have been presented to Paul's father or grandfather for
distinguished services to the State; but that is much less probable.

In the third place, Paul was "a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews ". The
expression is a remarkable one.  It is used not to a Jewish audience,
but to a Greek Church (Phil.  III 5), and it is similar to a familiar
expression among the Greeks: "a priest sprung from priests"is a term
commonly applied to members of the great sacerdotal families which play
so important a part in the society of Asian cities.  He was a Jew at
least as much as he was a Tarsian and a Roman, as regards his early
surroundings; and it is obvious that the Jewish side of his nature and
education proved infinitely the most important, as his character
developed.  But it is a too common error to ignore the other sides.
Many interpreters seem to think only of his words, XXII 3, "I am a Jew
born in Tarsus,"and to forget that he said a few moments before, "I am a
Jew, a Tarsian, a citizen of no mean city". To the Hebrews he emphasises
his Jewish character, and his birth in Tarsus is added as an accident:
but to Claudius Lysias, a Greek-Roman, he emphasises his Tarsian
citizenship (after having told of his Roman citizenship). Now, there is
no inconsistency between these descriptions of himself.  Most of us have
no difficulty in understanding that a Jew at the present day may be a
thoroughly patriotic English citizen, and yet equally proud of his
ancient and honourable origin.  In the extraordinarily mixed society of
the Eastern provinces, it was the usual rule in educated society that
each man had at least two nationalities and two sides to his character.
If we would clearly understand the society in which Paul worked, and the
mission of Rome to make the idea of cosmopolitanism and universal
citizenship a practical reality-an idea that had been first conceived by
the Stoic philosophy in its attempt to fuse Greek and oriental thought
into a unified system-we must constantly bear in mind that double or
even triple character, which was so common.

To the Hebrew of that period it was specially easy to preserve the
Hebraic side of his life along with his Greek citizenship; for the
Jewish colony in a Seleucid city preserved as a body its double
character.  It was not merely a part of the city, whose members were
citizens, but it was also recognised by the Seleucid Empire and
afterwards by the Roman Empire as "the Nation of the Jews in that city".
Thus arose a strange and often puzzling complication of rights, which
caused much heart-burning and jealousy among the non-Jewish citizens of
the city, and which was at last terminated by the action of Vespasian in
A.D. 70, when he put an end to the legal existence of a "Jewish
nation,"and resolved the Jews into the general population of the Empire.

From this wide and diversified training we may understand better Paul's
suitability to develop the primitive Judaic Church into the Church of
the Roman World (for beyond that he never went in practice, though in
theory he recognised no limit short of universal humanity), his
extraordinary versatility and adaptability (which evidently impressed
Luke so much, p.  22), and his quickness to turn the resources of
civilisation to his use.  The Jew in his own land was rigidly
conservative; but the Jew abroad has always been the most facile and
ingenious of men.  There are no stronger influences in education and in
administration than rapidity and ease of travelling and the postal
service; Paul both by precept and example impressed the importance of
both on his Churches; and the subsequent development of the Church was
determined greatly by the constant intercommunication of its parts and
the stimulating influence thereby produced on the whole.

2.  PAUL'S FAMILY. If Paul belonged to a family of wealth and position,
how comes it that in great part of his career (but not in the whole, p.
312) he shows all the marks of poverty, maintaining himself by his own
labour, and gratefully acknowledging his indebtedness to the
contributions of his Philippian converts, in Rome, in Corinth, and twice
in Thessalonica (Phil.  IV 15, II Cor.  XI 9; see p.  360)? It was not
simply that he voluntarily worked with his hands in order to impress on
his converts the dignity and duty of labour, for he conveys the
impression, II Cor.  XI 8 f., I Thess.  II 9, that he had to choose
between accepting help from his'converts, and making his own living.
But it often happens in our own experience that a member of a rich
family is in a position of poverty.  It would be enough simply to accept
the fact; but, as Paul in his later career is found in a different
position, and as the same conjecture about his poverty must arise in
every one's mind, we may glance for a moment at the relations in which
Paul would stand to his own family after his conversion.

The relations between Paul and his family are never alluded to by
himself, and only once by Luke, who tells how his sisters son saved his
life in Jerusalem by giving private information of the secret conspiracy
against him, XXIII 16.  How could this young man get immediate
information about a conspiracy, which was concocted by a band of
zealots, and arranged in private with the high priests and elders?  In
absolute secrecy lay the sole hope of success; and the conspiracy must
therefore have been imparted only to a few, and probably only the
leaders of the extreme Jewish party were aware of it.  We must, I think,
infer that the nephew acquired his information in the house of some
leading Jew (to which he had access as belonging to an influential
family), and that he was himself not a Christian, for in the heated
state of feeling it may be taken as practically certain that a Christian
would not have had free and confidential entry to the house of one of
the Jewish leaders.  But, further, if Paul's nephew were trusted with
such a secret, it must have been assumed that he was hostile to Paul.

Now, as Paul himself says, he had been brought up in strict Judaic
feeling, not as a Sadducee, accepting the non-Jewish spirit, but as a
Pharisee; and we must infer that the spirit of his family was strongly
Pharisaic.  The whole history of the Jews shows what was likely to be
the feeling among his parents and brothers and sisters, when he not
merely :became a Christian, but went to the Gentiles.  Their pride was
outraged; and we should naturally expect that such a family would regard
Paul as an apostate, a foe to God and the chosen race, and a disgrace to
the family; his own relatives might be expected.  to be his most bitter
enemies.  Looking at these probabilities, we see a special force in
Paul's words to the Philippians, III 8, that he had given up all for
Christ, "for whom I suffered the loss of all things and do count them
but refuse". These emphatic words suit the mouth of one who had been
disowned by his family, and, reduced from a position of wealth and
influence in his nation to poverty and, contempt.

Perhaps it is some terrible family scene that made Paul so keenly alive
to the duty owed by a father to his children.  Probably nothing in
family life makes a more awful and lasting impression on a sensitive
mind than a scene where a respected and beloved parent makes a demand
beyond what love or duty permits, and tries to enforce that demand by
authority and threats.  If Paul had to face such a scene, we can
appreciate the reason why he lays so much stress on the duty of parents
to respect their children's just feelings: "ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath; but bring them up in the education and admonition of
the Lord"(VI 4): "fathers, provoke not your children, lest they lose
heart"(Col.  III 21). Not every person would think this one of the most
important pieces of advice to give his young societies in Asia Minor.
But, according to our conjecture, Paul had good cause to know the harm
that parents may do bynot reasonably considering their children's
desires and beliefs.  At the same time he strongly emphasises in the
same passages the duty of children to obey their parents, and sets this
before the duty of parents to their children.  That also is
characteristic of one who had been blameless as touching all the
commandments (Phil.  III 6), and who therefore must have gone to the
fullest extreme.  in compliance with his father's orders before he
announced that he could comply no further.

3.  PERSONALITY. While Luke is very sparing of personal details, he
gives us some few hints about Paul's physical characteristics as bearing
on his moral influence.  As an orator, he evidently used a good deal of
gesture with his hands; for example, he enforced a point to the Ephesian
Elders by showing them "these hands"(XX 34). When he addressed the
audience at Pisidian Antioch, or the excited throng of Jews in
Jerusalem, he beckoned with the hand; when he addressed Agrippa and the
distinguished audience in the Roman governor's hail, he "stretched forth
his hand". This was evidently a characteristic and hardly conscious
feature of his more impassioned oratory; but, when more quiet and simple
address was suitable (as in the opening of his speech to the Ephesian
EIders, before the emotion was wrought up), or when a purely
argumentative and restrained style was more likely to be effective (as
in addressing the critical and cold Athenian audience, or the Roman
procurator's court), no gesture is mentioned.  On the other hand, in the
extreme excitement at Lystra he "rent his garments"; and in the jailor's
critical situation, XVI 28, Paul called out with a loud voice.  Wherever
any little fact is mentioned by Luke, we can always observe some special
force in it, and such details must have had real importance, when an
author so brief and so impersonal as Luke mentions them; and they are
very rare in him.  Alexander tried to obtain a hearing from the Ephesian
mob by such a gesture; and the din, as they howled like a lot of
dervishes, is set before us strongly by the fact that speaking was
impossible and gesture alone could be perceived.  Peter, when he
appeared to his astonished friends in Mary's house after his escape,
beckoned to them to make no noise that might attract attention and
betray his presence.  Otherwise such gestures are mentioned only where
the hand is stretched out to aid or to heal or to receive help.

Two of the most remarkable instances of Paul's power over others are
prefaced by the statement that Paul "fixed his eyes on"the man (XIII 9,
XIV 9, cp.  XXIII 1); and this suggests that his fixed, steady gaze was
a marked feature in his personality, and one source of his influence
over them that were brought into relations with him.  Luke frequently
notes this trait.  Peter tells that he fixed his gaze on the heavenly
vision, XI 6; and he fixed his eyes on the lame man, III 4.  Stephen
turned his fixed gaze towards heaven, and saw it open to disclose the
vision of glory to him.  In these cases the power of the eye is strongly
brought out.  The same trait is alluded to where intense astonishment or
admiration is involved, as when the bystanders gazed at Peter and John
after they had healed the lame man, or Stephen's auditors stared on him
as they saw his face suffused with glory, or the disciples gazed upwards
as Jesus was taken away from them, or Cornelius stared at .the Angel.
In the third Gospel, IV 20, the stare of the congregation in Nazareth at
Jesus, when He first spoke in the synagogue after His baptism, suggests
that a new glory and a new consciousness of power in Him were perceived
by them.  The power which looks from the eyes of an inspired person
attracts and compels a corresponding fixed gaze on the part of them that
are brought under his influence; and this adds much probability to the
Bezan reading in III 3, where the fixed gaze of the lame man on Peter
seems to rouse the power that was latent in him.  The Greek word is
almost peculiar to Luke, and occurs chiefly in Acts . Elsewhere in N.T.
it is used only by Paul in II Cor.  III 7, 13; and it has often seemed
to me as if there were more of Lukan feeling and character in II Cor.
than in any other of Paul's letters.  A consideration of these passages
must convince every one that the action implied by the word
(ajtenivzein) is inconsistent with weakness of vision: in fact, Paul
says that the Jews could not gaze fixedly on the glory of Moses'face,
implying that their eyes were not strong enough.  The theory which makes
Paul a permanent sufferer in his eyes, unable to see distinctly persons
quite near him, and repulsive to strangers on account of their hideous
state (Gal.  IV 13 f.), is hopelessly at variance with the evidence of
Luke.  In that word, as he uses it, the soul looks through the eyes.

The word twice occurs in the Third Gospel, once in a passage peculiar to
Luke, and once when the servant maid stared at Peter and recognised him,
where her fixed gaze is not mentioned by Matthew or Mark.

CHAPTER III.

THE CHURCH IN ANTIOCH

 1.THE GENTILES IN THE CHURCH. (XI 19) THEY THEN THAT WERE SCATTERED
THROUGH THE TRIBULATION THAT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF STEPHEN TRAVELLED
(i.e., made missionary journeys) AS FAR AS PHŒNICE AND CYPRUS AND
ANTIOCH, SPEAKING .THE WORD TO JEWS AND NONE SAVE JEWS. (20) BUT THERE
WERE SOME OF THEM, MEN OF CYPRUS AND CYRENE, WHO WHEN THEY ARE COME TO
ANTIOCH, USED TO SPEAK TO GREEKS ALSO, GIVING THE GOOD NEWS OF THE LORD
JESUS. (21) AND THE HAND OF THE LORD WAS WITH THEM, AND A GREAT NUMBER
THAT BELIEVED TURNED UNTO THE LORD.

When Acts was written, the Church of Antioch was only about fifty years
old, but already its beginning seems to have been lost in obscurity.  It
had not been founded, it had grown by unrecorded and almost unobserved
steps.  In the dispersion of the primitive Churchat Jerusalem, during
the troubles ensuing on the bold action of Stephen, certain Cypriote and
Cyrenaic Jews, who had been brought up in Greek lands and had wider
outlook on the world than the Palestinian Jews, came to Antioch.  There
they made the innovation of addressing not merely Jews but also Greeks.
We may understand here (1) that the words used imply successful
preaching and the admission of Greeks to the Christian congregation, and
(2) that such an innovation took place by slow degrees, and began in the
synagogue, where Greek proselytes heard the word.  The Cypriote and
Cyrenaic Jews began pointedly to include these Greeks of the synagogue
in their invitations, and thus a mixed body of Jews and Greeks
constituted the primitive congregation of Antioch; but the Greeks had
entered through the door of the synagogue (see pp.  62, 85, 156).

In verses 19-21=rAC 11:19-21the narrative for the moment goes back to a
time earlier than X and XI 1-18, and starts a new thread of history from
the death of Stephen (VII 60=rAC 7:60). That event was a critical one in
the history of the Church.  The primitive Church had clung to Jerusalem,
and lived there in a state of simplicity and almost community of goods,
which was an interesting phase of society, but was quite opposed to the
spirit in which Jesus had said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the
Gospel to the whole creation". For the time it seemed that the religion
of Christ was stagnating into a sociological experiment.  Stephen's
vigour provoked a persecution, which dispersed itinerant missionaries
over Judea and Samaria (VIII 1-4=rAC 8:1-4), first among whom was Philip
the colleague of Stephen.  New congregations of Christians were formed
in many towns (VIII 14=rAC 8:14, 25=rAC 8:25, 40=rAC 8:40, IX 31,
32,=rAC 9:31-3235,42,X 44); and it became necessary that, if these were
to be kept in relation with the central body in Jerusalem, journeys of
survey should be made by delegates from Jerusalem.  The first of these
journeys was made by Peter and John, who were sent to Samaria, when the
news that a congregation had been formed there by Philip reached
Jerusalem (VIII 14=rAC 8:14).This may be taken as a specimen of many
similar journeys, one of which is recorded (IX 32 f.=rAC 9:32) on
account of the important development that took place in its course.  It
appears from Acts that Peter was the leading spirit in these journeys of
organisation, which knit together the scattered congregations in Judea
and Samaria.  Hence the first great question in the development of the
Church was presented to him, viz., whether Hebrew birth was a necessary
condition for entrance into the kingdom of the Messiah and membership of
the Christian Church.  That question must necessarily be soon forced on
the growing Church; for proselytes were not rare, and the Christian
doctrine, which was preached in the synagogues, reached them.  It was
difficult to find any justification for making the door of the Church
narrower than the door of the synagogue, and there is no record that any
one explicitly advocated the view that Christianity should be confined
to the chosen people, though the condition and regulations on which non-
Jews should be admitted formed the subject of keen controversy in the
following years.

According to Acts , this great question was first presented definitely
to Peter in the case of a Roman centurion named Cornelius; and a vision,
which had appeared to him immediately before the question emerged,
determined him to enter the house and thesociety of Cornelius, and set
forth to him the good news, on the principle that "in every nation he
that feareth God and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him"(X
35=rAC 10:35). Peter's action was immediately confirmed by the
communication of Divine grace to the audience in Cornelius's house; and,
though it was at first disputed in Jerusalem, yet Peter's defence was
approved of by general consent.

But this step, though an important one, was only the first stage in a
long advance that was still to be made.  Cornelius was a proselyte; and
Peter in his speech to the assembly in his house laid it down as a
condition of reception into the Church that the non-Jew must approach by
way of the synagogue (X 35=rAC 10:35), and become "one that fears God".

Without entering on the details of a matter which has been and still is
under discussion, we must here allude to the regulations imposed on
strangers who wished to enter into relations with the Jews.  Besides the
proselytes who came under the full Law and entered the community of
Moses, there was another class of persons who wished only to enter into
partial relations with the Jews.  These two classes were at a later time
distinguished as "Proselytes of the Sanctuary"and "of the Gate"; but in
Acts the second class is always described as "they that fear God"* The
God-fearing proselytes were bound to observe certain ceremonial
regulations of purity in order to be permitted to come into any
relations with the Jews; and it is probable that these rules were the
four prohibitions enumerated in XV 28, to abstain from the flesh of
animals sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from animals strangled,
and from marriage within the prohibited degrees (many of which were not
prohibited by Greek or Roman law). These prohibitions stand in close
relation to the principles laid down in Leviticus XVII, XVIII, for the
conduct of strangers dwelling among the Israelites; and it would appear
that they had become the recognised rule for admission to the synagogue
and for the first stage of approximation to the Jewish communion.  They
stand on a different plane from the moral law of the Ten Commandments,
being rules of purity.

While no one, probably, urged that the Church should be confined to born
Hebrews, there was a party in the Church which maintained that those non
-Jews who were admitted should be required to conform to the entire "Law
of God ": this was the party of "champions of the circumcision,"* which
played so great a part in the drama of subsequent years.  This party was
silenced by Peter's explanation in the case of Cornelius, for the
preliminary vision and the subsequent gift of grace could not be gain-.
said.  But the main question was not yet definitely settled; only an
exceptional case was condoned and accepted.

The Church Of Antioch then was in a somewhat anomalous condition.  It
contained a number of Greeks, who were in the position of "God-fearing
proselytes,"but had not conformed to the entire law; and the question
was still unsettled what was their status in the Church.

2.  THE COMING OF BARNABAS AND THE SUMMONING OF SAUL. (XI 22) AND THE
REPORT CONCERNING THEM CAME TO THE EARS OF THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM; AND
THEY SENT FORTH BARNABAS AS FAR AS ANTIOCH: (23) WHO WHEN HE WAS COME,
AND HAD SEEN THE GRACE OF GOD, WAS GLAD; AND HE EXHORTED THEM ALL THAT
WITH PURPOSE OF HEART THEY SHOULD CLEAVE UNTO THE LORD (24) (FOR HE WAS
A GOOD MAN, AND FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND OF FAITH); AND MUCH PEOPLE
WAS ADDED UNTO THE LORD. (25) AND HE WENT FORTH TO TARSUS TO SEEK FOR
SAUL; (26) AND WHEN HE HAD FOUND HIM, HE BROUGHT HIM UNTO ANTIOCH. AND
IT CAME TO PASS THAT EVEN FOR A WHOLE YEAR THEY MET IN THE ASSEMBLY, AND
TAUGHT MUCH PEOPLE; AND THAT THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED "CHRISTIANS"FIRST
IN ANTIOCH.

As in previous cases, an envoy was sent from the Church in Jerusalem to
survey this new congregation, and judge of its worthiness; and Barnabas
was selected for the purpose.  The same test that had been convincing in
the case of Cornelius satisfied Barnabas in Antioch: he saw the grace of
God.  Then he proceeded to exhort and encourage them, which he was
qualified to do because the Divine Spirit was in him.  Sparing as Luke
is of words, he feels bound to state that Barnabas was qualified by
grace for the work (see p.  174). The result of his course of
ministration* was a great increase to the congregation.

Mindful of his former short experience of Saul, Barnabas bethought
himself that he was well suited to the peculiar circumstances of the
Antiochian congregation: and he accordingly went to Tarsus, and brought
Saul back with him to Antioch.  This journey must apparently have been
made in the early months of A.D. 43; and the rest of that year was spent
by the two friends in Antioch.  The date shows that the early stages of
Christian history in Antioch were slow.  The congregation must have
grown insensibly, and no marked event occurred, until the attention of
the Church in Jerusalem was called to its existence.  The one important
fact about it was that it came into existence in this peculiar way.  But
with the advent of Barnabas and Saul, its history enters on a new phase.
It became the centre of progress and of historical interest in the
Church.

It lies in Luke's style to give no reason why Barnabas summoned Saul to
Antioch.  This historian records the essential facts as they occurred;
but he does not obtrude on the reader his own private conception as to
causes or motives.  But we cannot doubt that Barnabas, who became Saul's
sponsor at Jerusalem (IX 27), and related to the Apostles the
circumstances of his conversion, knew that God had already called him
"to preach Him among the Gentiles"(Gal.  I 16), and recognised that this
congregation of the Gentiles was the proper sphere for Saul's work.  We
find in Barnabas's action the proof of the correctness of Paul's
contention in Epist.  Gal., that his aim as an Apostle had been directed
from the first towards the Gentiles; his sphere was already recognised.

As we shall see later, Paul must have spent nearly eight years at
Tarsus.  Why are these eight years a blank?  Why were they such a
contrast to the crowded hours of the period that was just beginning?  On
our hypothesis as to the meaning of Luke's silence, we conclude that
Paul was still not fully conscious of the full meaning of his mission;
he was still bound in the fetters of Judaic consistency, and acted as if
the door of the synagogue was the portal through which the Nations must
find their way into the Church.  He had not yet learned, or at least he
had not yet so fully shaken himself free from the prejudices of
education and tradition as to act on the knowledge, that God "had opened
a door of faith unto the nations"(XIV 27, p.  85).

A point in Luke's style here deserves note.  He has mentioned in IX 30
that Saul was sent away to Tarsus; and he now takes up the thread from
that point, saying that Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek for Saul.  He
implies that the reader must understand Tarsus to have been Saul's head-
quarters during the intervening period.  Not merely.  does XI 25 require
one to look back, but also IX 30 requires one to look forward; each is
the complement of the other, and the two together hit off a long period
during which no critical event had to be recorded.  The same period,
together with the following year in Antioch, is described by Paul
himself, Gal.  I 21, 22: "Then I came into the climes of Syria and
Cilicia: and I continued to be unknown by face to the churches of Judea,
but they only heard say, 'He that once persecuted us now preacheth the
faith'". Paul and Luke complete each other, and make up a picture of
over ten years of quiet work within the range of the synagogue and its
influence.

The words of v.  25 seem harsh until one takes them as a direct backward
reference to IX 30, and as implying a statement about the intervening
period.  The Bezan Commentator, not catching the style of Luke, inserts
an explanatory clause, "hearing that Saul is in Tarsus,"which rounds off
the sense here by cutting away the necessity of finding in XI 25 the
completion of a period of history whose beginning is recorded in IX 30.

The term "Christians"attests that the congregation became a familiar
subject of talk, and probably of gossip and scandal, in the city; for
obviously the name originated Outside the brotherhood.  The Brethren,
then, were talked of in popular society as "they that are connected with
Christos": such a title could not originate with the Jews, to whom "the
Christ"was sacred.  The name Christos therefore must have been the most
prominent in the expressions by which the Greek Brethren described or
defined their faith to their pagan neighbours.  The latter, doubtless,
got no clear idea of what this Christos was: some took Christos as one
of the strange gods whom they worshipped (XVII 18); others took him as
their leader (p.  254). In any case the name belongs to popular slang.

In accordance with the tendency of popular language to find some meaning
for strange words, the strange term Christos was vulgarly modified to
Chrêstos, the Greek adjective meaning "good, useful,"which seemed to
popular fancy a more suitable and natural name for a leader or a deity.
"Chrêstians"was the form in which the name was often used; and it occurs
in inscriptions.

3.  THE ANTIOCHIAN COLLECTION FOR THE POOR OF JERUSALEM. (XI 27 A) AND
AT THIS PERIOD THERE CAME DOWN FROM JERUSALEM PROPHETS TO ANTIOCH. (28A)
AND THERE STOOD UP ONE OF THEM, AGABUS BY NAME, AND SIGNIFIED BY THE
SPIRIT THAT THERE SHOULD BE GREAT FAMINE OVER ALL THE WORLD; WHICH CAME
TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF CLAUDIUS. (29A) AND THE DISCIPLES ACCORDING TO.
THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARRANGED TO SEND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF TO
THE BRETHREN SETTLED IN JUDEA. (30A) AND THIS TOO THEY DID, AND
DESPATCHED the relief TO THE ELDERS BY THE HAND OF BARNABAS AND SAUL.
(XII 25A) AND BARNABAS AND SAUL FULFILLED THE MINISTRATION OF RELIEF,
AND RETURNED FROM JERUSALEM BRINGING AS COMPANION JOHN SURNAMED MARK.

Luke's brief statement about the famine is declared by Dr.  Schurer to
be unhistorical, improbable, and uncorroborated by other evidence.*
Opinions differ widely; for the famine seems to me to be singularly well
attested, considering the scantiness of evidence for this period.
Suetonius alludes to assiduæ sterilitates causing famine- prices under
Claudius, while Dion Cassius and Tacitus speak of two famines in Rome,
and famine in Rome implied dearth in the great corn-growing countries of
the Mediterranean; Eusebius mentions famine in Greece, and an
inscription perhaps refers to famine in Asia Minor.* Thus wide-spread
dearth over the Roman world is fully attested independently; beyond the
Roman world our evidence does not extend.  Dr.  Schurer seems to require
a distinct statement that a famine took place in the same year all over
Europe, Asia, and Africa.  But that is too hard on Luke, for he merely
says that famine occurred over the whole (civilised) world in the time
of Claudius: of course the year varied in different lands.

The great famine in Palestine occurred probably in A.D. 46.  The
commentators as a rule endeavour, by straining Josephus, or by quoting
the authority of Orosius, to make out that the famine took place in 44,
and even that it occasioned the persecution by Herod.

The eagerness to date the famine in 44 arises from a mistake as to the
meaning and order of the narrative of Acts . Between XI 30 and XII 25
there is interposed an account of Herod's persecution and his miserable
death, events which belong to the year 44; and it has been supposed that
Luke conceives these events as happening while Barnabas and Saul were in
Jerusalem.  But that is not the case.  Luke describes the prophecy of
Agabus, and the assessment imposed by common arrangement on the whole
congregation in-proportion to their individual resources.  Then he adds
that this arrangement was carried out and the whole sum sent to
Jerusalem.  The process thus described was not an instantaneous
subscription.  The money was probably collected by weekly contributions,
for the congregation was not rich, and coin was not plentiful in Syrian
cities.  This collection would take a considerable time, as we gather
both from the analogy of the later Pauline contribution (p.  288), and
from the fact that the famine was still in the future, and no necessity
for urgent haste existed.  The arrangements were made beforehand in full
reliance on the prophecy; but there is no reason to think that the money
was used until the famine actually began, and relief was urgently
needed.  The manner of relief must, of course, have been by purchasing
and distributing corn, for it would have shown criminal incapacity to
send gold to a starving city; and the corn would not be given by any
rational person, until the famine was at its height.  When Sir Richard
Wallace relieved the distress in Paris after the siege, he did not
content himself with telegraphing money from London, nor yet with
distributing gold to the starving people in Paris.  He brought food and
gave it.  As he did, so we may be sure did the Antiochian delegates do;
and no rational person will suppose that the corn was brought to
Jerusalem until the famine was actually raging.  But in a land where
transport was difficult, preparations took time; and Luke states at the
outset the genera] course of the preparations which the Divine
revelation aroused.

Thereafter, before describing the actual distribution of relief in
Jerusalem, the author's method requires him to bring down the general
narrative of events in Jerusalem and Judaea to the point when the famine
began; and then at last he mentions the actual administering of the
relief.  He, therefore, tells about the persecution of Herod (which took
place near the time when Agabus prophesied), and about Herod's death;
and then at last he mentions the execution of the Antiochian design and
the return of the delegates to their own city.

As thus interpreted, Luke's chronology harmonises admirably with
Josephus.  Agabus came to Antioch in the winter of 43-44; and in the
early part of 44 Herod's persecution occurred, followed by his death,
probably in the autumn.  In 45 the harvest was probably not good, and
provisions grew scarce in the country; then, when the harvest of 46
failed, famine set in, and relief was urgently required, and was
administered by Barnabas and Saul.  It is an interesting coincidence
that relief was given liberally in Jerusalem by Queen Helena (mother of
Izates, King of Adiabene), who bought corn in Egypt and figs in Cyprus,
and brought them to Jerusalem for distribution.  She came to Jerusalem
in 45, and her visit lasted through the season of famine; she had a
palace in Jerusalem.  The way in which she imparted relief to the
starving people illustrates the work that Barnabas and Saul had to
perform.

The service in Jerusalem must have occupied Barnabas and Saul for.  a
considerable time.  They acted as administrators (diavkonoi) of the
relief; and it becomes evident how much is implied in the words of XI
29, XII 25 from the comparison of VI 1 "the daily ministration"of food
to the poor.  The same term (diakoniva) that is used in these casesis
applied (with lovgou understood) to the steady constant work of a
missionary or an apostle, XX 24, XXI 19, I 17,25, VI 4.  The Antiochian
delegates did not merely act as carriers of money; they stayed in
Jerusalem through the famine and acted as providers and distributors,
using all the opportunity of encouraging and comforting the distressed
that was thus afforded.  In this way Saul's second visit to Jerusalem
was an important moment in the development of the Church, and is related
as such by Luke: it united far-distant parts of the Church at a great
crisis; it gave to the poor in Jerusalem the sense of brotherhood with
the Antiochian brethren, and to the Antiochian congregation that
consciousness of native life and power which comes only from noble work
nobly done.  But for this end it was necessary that the work should be
done from first to last by the Antiochian congregation, and that every
starving disciple in Jerusalem should realise that he owed his relief to
his brethren at Antioch.  Great part of the effect would have been lost,
if the delegates had merely handed a sum of money to the leaders in
Jerusalem to distribute; and the author, who is so sparing of words,
does not fail to assure us that the two delegates "completed the
ministration"before they returned to Antioch.

It must be noticed that only the Elders at Jerusalem are here mentioned,
whereas in XV Paul and Barnabas were sent to the Apostles and Elders.
The marked difference may probably be connected with the author's
conception of the appropriate duties of each.  In XV, when a matter of
conduct and principle was in question, the Apostles were primarily
concerned; but when it was a matter of the distribution of food, the
Apostles were not concerned, for it was right that they should not
"serve tables,"but "continue in the ministry of the word"(VI 2-4). It
would have been quite natural to say that the contributions were sent to
the congregation, or to the Brethren, in Jerusalem; and it is apparent
that here the Elders represent the congregation of Jerusalem as
directors of its practical working, while in XV the Apostles and Elders
represent the Church in every aspect.  The omission of the Apostles in
XI 29 commonly explained on other grounds, not very honourable to them.
Even Lightfoot says: "the storm of persecution had broken over the
Church of Jerusalem."One leading Apostle had been put to death; another,
rescued by a miracle, had fled for his life.  It is probable that every
Christian of rank had re-tired from the city.  No mention is made of the
Twelve; the salutations of the Gentile Apostles are received by 'the
Elders'. They arrived charged with alms for the relief of the poor
brethren of Jerusalem.  Having deposited these in trustworthy hands,
they would depart with all convenient speed.  But Luke expressly says
that the administration of the relief was performed in detail by the two
Antiochian delegates (XII 25); and one can only marvel that Light-foot
ever stooped to the idea that they sneaked into the city and sneaked out
hastily again, leaving the poor without a single "Christian of rank"to
minister to them.  Nor is there any good reason to think that the
Apostles all fled from Jerusalem, and left the disciples to look after
themselves.  It was not men like that who carried Christianity over the
empire within a few years.  Such an act of cowardice should not be
attributed to the Apostles without distinct evidence; and here the
evidence tells in the opposite direction: (1) at the far more serious
persecution following the death of Stephen, "all scattered abroad except
the Apostles"(VIII 1): (2) it is implied that "James and the
Brethren"were in Jerusalem, when Peter escaped from prison and retired
(XII 17); and immediately after, Herod went away and the persecution was
at an end.  The author of Acts evidently had the impression that the
guidance of affairs rested with the Apostles in Jerusalem; and they are
conceived by him as being there permanently, except when absent on a
special mission.

It is not mere accidental collocation, that immediately on the return of
Barnabas and Saul comes the record of the flourishing state of the
Church in Antioch, with its band of prophets and teachers (XIII 1): the
result of their noble work in Jerusalem was apparent in the fuller and
more perfect manifestation of Divine power and grace to the Church in
Antioch.

Further, when Paul had founded a group of new churches in the four
provinces, Galatia, Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, he, as the crowning act of
organisation, instituted a general collection among them for the poor at
Jerusalem; and arranged that representatives should go up along with
himself to Jerusalem bearing the money.  His object was both to
strengthen the separate congregations by good work, and to strengthen
the whole Church by bringing its scattered parts into personal relations
of service and help.  We cannot doubt that it was his experience of the
immense effect produced by the first Divinely ordered contribution which
led Paul to attach such importance and devote so much trouble to the
organisation of the second general contribution; and he uses the same
word to indicate the management of the second fund that Luke uses of the
first (diakonei'n, II Cor.  VIII 19).*

The preceding notes have shown how much is contained in the brief record
of Luke: all the main points in the execution of the scheme of relief
are touched in the few words XI 29, 30, XII 25.  But we are not reduced
to this single account of the mission to Jerusalem.  Paul, in writing to
the Galatians, also mentions it; his reason for alluding to it lay in
certain incidental and unessential facts that occurred at Jerusalem; but
he tells enough to show what was the primary object of the visit.  In
describing his intercourse with the older Apostles, he mentions his
second visit to Jerusalem in the following terms (I expand the concise
language of Paul to bring out the close-packed meaning):-

(Gal.  II 1) THEN IN THE FOURTEENTH YEAR after it pleased God to call
me, I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM WITH BARNABAS, AND TOOK TITUS ALSO AS A
COMPANION. (2) NOW I may explain that I WENT UP ON AN ACCOUNT OF A
REVELATION (which shows how completely my action was directly guided by
the Divine will, and how independent it was of any orders or
instructions from the Apostles). AND I COMMUNICATED TO THEM WITH A VIEW
TO CONSULTATION THE GOSPEL WHICH I CONTINUE PREACHING AMONG THE
GENTILES, BUT I did so PRIVATELY TO THOSE WHO WERE RECOGNISED AS THE
LEADING SPIRITS, not publicly to the whole body of Apostles; since the
latter course would have had the appearance of consulting the official
governing body, as if I felt it a duty to seek advice from them; whereas
private consultation was a purely voluntary act.  MY PURPOSE IN THIS
CONSULTATION WAS TO CARRY WITH ME THE LEADING SPIRITS OF THE CHURCH,
SINCE MISUNDERSTANDING OR WANT OF COMPLETE APPROVAL ON THEIR PART MIGHT
ENDANGER OR FRUSTRATE MY EVANGELISTIC WORK WHETHER IN THE FUTURE OR THE
PAST, if doubt or dispute arose as to the rights of my converts to full
membership in the Church without further ceremony.  (3) NOW, as I have
touched on this point, I may mention parenthetically that NOT EVEN WAS
MY COMPANION TITUS, GREEK AS HE WAS, REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO CIRCUMCISION,
much less was the general principle laid down that the Jewish rite was a
necessary preliminary to the full membership of the Church.  (4)
FURTHER, THE OCCASION of my consulting the leading Apostles WAS BECAUSE
OFCERTAIN INSINUATING FALSE BRETHREN, WHO ALSO CREPT INTO OUR SOCIETY IN
AN UNAVOWED WAY TO ACT THE SPY ON OUR FREEDOM (WHICH WE FREE CHRISTIANS
CONTINUE ENJOYING THROUGHOUT MY MINISTRY), IN ORDER TO MAKE US SLAVES to
the ritual which they count necessary.  (5) BUT NOT FOR AN HOUR DID WE
YIELD TO THESE FALSE BRETHREN BY COMPLYING WITH THEIR IDEAS, OR
EXPRESSING AGREEMENT WITH THEM; AND OUR FIRMNESS THEN WAS INTENDED TO
SECURE THAT THE GOSPEL IN ITS TRUE FORM SHOULD CONTINUE IN LASTING
FREEDOM FOR YOU to enjoy.  (6) BUT FROM THE RECOGNISED LEADERS-HOW
DISTINGUISHED SOEVER WAS THEIR CHARACTER IS NOT NOW THE POINT; GOD
ACCEPTETH NOT MAN'S PERSON-THE RECOGNISED LEADERS, I SAY, IMPARTED NO
NEW INSTRUCTION TO ME; (7) BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, PERCEIVING THAT I
THROUGHOUT MY MINISTRY AM CHARGED SPECIALLY WITH THE MISSION TO FOREIGN
(NON-JEWISH) NATIONS AS PETER IS WITH THE JEWISH MISSION-(8) FOR HE THAT
WORKED FOR PETER TO THE APOSTOLATE OF THE CIRCUMCISION WORKED ALSO FOR
ME TO BE THE MISSIONARY TO THE GENTILES-(9) AND PERCEIVING from the
actual facts THE GRACE THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN ME, THEY, JAMES AND CEPHAS
AND JOHN, THE RECOGNISED PILLARS OF THE CHURCH, GAVE PLEDGES TO ME AND
TO BARNABAS OF A JOINT SCHEME OF WORK, OURS TO BE DIRECTED TO THE
GENTILES, WHILE THEIRS WAS TO THE JEWS. (10) ONE CHARGE ALONE THEY GAVE
US, TO REMEMBER THE POOR brethren at Jerusalem.  A DUTY WHICH AS A
MATTER OF FACT I atthat time MADE IT MY SPECIAL OBJECT TO PERFORM.

As is pointed out elsewhere in full detail, the concluding sentence
defines the object which Paul carried out in Jerusalem: other events
were incidental.  This journey, therefore, is declared in Epist.  Gal.
to have been made according to revelation, and in Acts the exact
circumstances of the revelation are narrated; the object of the visit is
described in Acts as being to relieve the distress of the poor brethren
in Jerusalem, and in Epist.  Gal.  Paul says he directed his attention
specially to helping the poor brethren; another purpose is said in
Epist.  Gal.  to have been achieved on this journey, v.  3, but Paul
immediately adds that this other purpose was carried out as a mere
private piece of business, and implies thereby that it was not the
primary or official purpose of the journey.

How graceful and delicate is the compliment which the older Apostles
paid to Paul!  "the only advice and instruction which we have to give is
that you continue to do what you have been zealously doing,"so they
spoke at the conclusion of his visit.  And in what a gentlemanly spirit
does Paul refer to that visit!  His object is to prove to the Galatians
that, on his visits to Jerusalem, he received nothing in the way of
instruction or commission from the older Apostles; and to do this he
gives an account of his visits.  When he comes to the second visit he
might have said in the tone of downright and rather coarse candour, "So
far from receiving on this occasion, I was sent .by Divine revelation to
be the giver". But not even in this hot and hasty letter does he swerve
from his tone of respect and admiration, or assume in the slightest
degree a tone of superiority to Peter and James.  The facts are all
there to show the real situation; but they are put so quietly and
allusively (the revelation in verse 2, the object in verse 10), as to
avoid all appearance of boasting in what was really a very legitimate
cause of satisfaction; and even of self-gratulation.  It is precisely
because on his second visit Paul was so obviously not the recipient,
that he appeals to it with such perfect confidence as proving his
independence.

Here as everywhere we find that Acts supplements and explains the
incidents and arguments used by Paul in his letter.  And we see that the
influence which we have just ascribed to the visit in promoting the
unity and solidarity of the whole Church is fully confirmed by Paul in
verse 9; it resulted in a formal recognition by the older Apostles of
the co-ordinate Apostolate of the two Antiochian delegates.

The same party in the Church which had criticised Peter's conduct to
Cornelius, was discontented with the conduct of Barnabas and Saul to
their companion, Titus; but in the circumstances their discontent did
not take public action, though it was so apparent as to put Saul on his
guard, and once more they seem to have acquiesced in an exceptional
case, as they did in that of Cornelius.  But it was now becoming evident
that two distinct and opposed opinions existed in the Church, and were
likely to come to open conflict; and Saul privately satisfied himself
that the leaders were in agreement with himself on the subject of
difference.

But why is Acts silent about this?  Simply because it never came to an
open discussion, and therefore did not reach the proper level of
importance.  Luke confines himself to the great steps in development.
Nor is it strange that Titus is not mentioned by Luke.  In carrying the
relief to Jerusalem, it is obvious that Barnabas and Saul must have had
assistants.  The work was one of considerable magnitude, and involved a
good deal of organisation.  We may gather from Luke that the two envoys
were entrusted with the management; but the whole details of purchase,
transport, and distribution lie outside of his conception and plan.  The
essential fact for his purpose was that relief was sent by the
congregation in Antioch (XI 30), and its distribution personally carried
out by Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem (XII 25); and he tells us no more.
In his letter Paul says that Titus was privately selected associate and
not an official; and we may confidently add that he was one of the
assistants who were needed to carry out the work described in Acts (see
also the omission is made on p.  170.

The only strange fact in reference to Titus, is that he nowhere appears
in Acts ; and that is equally hard to explain on every theory.  Clearly
he played a considerable part in the early history of the Church (as
Luke himself did); and, on our hypothesis of Luke's historical insight
and power of selecting and grouping details, the complete omission of
Titus's name must be intentional, just as the silence about Luke is
intentional.  A suggestion to explain the omission is made on p.  390.

The situation on this visit is strikingly different from that described
in Acts XV as existing at the next visit (see Chap.  VII). Paul has here
private communications with the three leading Apostles in prudent
preparation against future difficulties.  In the later stage, public
meetings to hear the recital of his and Barnabas's experiences among the
Gentiles are followed by a formal Council, in which "the leading
Apostles stand forth as the champions of Gentile liberty".

We find ourselves obliged to regard this visit as more important than is
generally believed.  Canon Farrar, who may be quoted as a clear and
sensible exponent of the accepted view, calls it "so purely an episode
in the work of St.  Paul, that in the Epistle to the Galatians he passes
it over without a single allusion ". According to our view, if it had
been a mere episode without influence on the development of the Church,
Luke would have passed it unmentioned; but it was a step of great
consequence in the development of the Antiochian congregation and of the
Church as a whole; and therefore it required a place in this history.

The wonderful revelation described by Paul himself in his second letter
to the Corinthians XII 2-4 took place in the fourteenth year before A.D.
56, when that letter was written; and therefore probably occurred in 43
or 44.  This brings us near the period when Agabus came to Antioch; but
all speculation is barred by the description: he "heard unspeakable
words which it is not lawful for man to utter". Another revelation,
however, can with certainty be ascribed to this visit, and, specially,
to its concluding days.

4.  THE RETURN FROM JERUSALEM TO ANTIOCH. (XXII 17) WHEN I HAD RETURNED
TO JERUSALEM, AND WHILE I PRAYED IN THE TEMPLE, I FELL INTO A TRANCE,
(18) AND SAW HIM SAYING UNTO ME, "MAKE HASTE, AND GET THEE QUICKLY OUT
OF JERUSALEM; BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE OF THEE TESTIMONY CONCERNING
ME". (19) AND I SAID, "LORD, THEY THEMSELVES KNOW THAT I IMPRISONED AND
BEAT IN EVERY SYNAGOGUE THEM THAT BELIEVED ON THEE: (20) AND WHEN THE
BLOOD OF STEPHEN THY WITNESS WAS SHED, I ALSO WAS STANDING BY, AND
CONSENTING, AND KEEPING THE: GARMENTS OF THEM THAT SLEW HIM (and
therefore they must see that some great thing has happened to convince
me)". (21) AND HE SAID UNTO ME, "DEPART: FOR I WILL SEND THEE FORTH FAR
HENCE UNTO THE NATIONS ".

Let us clearly conceive the probable situation at that time.  In the
famine-stricken city it is not to be supposed that Barnabas and Saul
confined their relief to professing Christians, and let all who were not
Christians starve.  Christian feeling, ordinary humanity, and policy (in
the last respect Paul was as little likely to err as in the others),
alike forbade an absolute distinction.  The Antiochian delegates must
have had many opportunities of siding their Jewish brethren, though they
addressed their work specially to their Brethren in the Church; and the
result must have been that they occupied a position of peculiar
advantage for the time, not merely in the Church (where the respect and
honour paid them shines through Gal.  II 1-10), but also in the city as
a whole.  Now it was part of Paul's missionary method not to insist
where there was no opening, and not to draw back where the door was
open.  It might well seem that the remarkable circumstances of his
mission to Jerusalem, the revelation by which it was ordered, and the
advantage it secured to him in the city, were the opening of a door
through which he might powerfully influence his own people.  The thought
could not fail to occur to Paul; and the remarkable incident described
in XXII 17-21 shows that it was in his mind.

This incident is usually assigned to the first visit which Paul paid to
Jerusalem after his conversion.  But he does not say or even imply that
it was his first visit; and we must be guided by the suitability of the
circumstances mentioned to the facts recorded about the various visits.
Now Luke gives a totally different reason for his departure from
Jerusalem at the first visit: he attributes it to the prudence of the
Brethren, who learned that a conspiracy was made to slay him, and wished
both to save him and to avoid the general danger that would arise for
all, if persecution broke out against one.  The revelation of XXII 18,
to which Paul attributes his departure, suits the first visit very
badly; but such discrepancy does not count for much with the modern
interpreters, orthodox and "critical"alike, who, having achieved the
feat of identifying the second visit of Gal.  II 1-10 with the third
visit of Acts XV (pp.  59, 154 f.), have naturally ceased to expect
agreement between Luke and Paul on such matters.  Accordingly, Lightfoot
actually quotes the discrepancy between XXII 18 f.  and IX 29 . to
illustrate and defend the discrepancy between Gal.  II 2 and Acts XV 4.

Again, the reasoning of XXII 20, 21, is not suitable to the first visit.
Paul argues that circumstances make him a peculiarly telling witness to
the Jews of the power of Jesus: and the reply is that Jesus will send
him far hence to the Nations.  Now, the first visit was followed, not by
an appeal to the Nations, but by many years of quiet uneventful work in
Cilicia and Antioch, within the circle of the synagogue and its
influence.  But this revelation points to the immediate "opening of a
door of belief to the Nations"; and that did not take place until Paul
went to Paphos and South Galatia (XIV 27, pp.  41, 85).

To place this revelation on the first visit leads to hopeless
embarrassment, and to one of those discrepancies which the orthodox
historians, like Lightfoot, labour to minimise, while the critical
historians naturally and fairly argue that such discrepancies prove Acts
to be not the work of Paul's pupil and friend, but a work of later
origin.  On this point I can only refer to what is said on p.  15; on
the principle there laid down, we cannot connect XXII 17 f.  withIX 28
f.

On the other hand this revelation suits excellently the state of
matters.  which we have just described at the conclusion of the second
visit.  Paul was tempted by the favourable opportunity in Jerusalem; and
his personal desire always turned strongly towards his Jewish brethren
(Rom.  IX 1-5). He prayed in the temple: he saw Jesus: he pleaded with
Jesus, representing his fitness for this work: and he was ordered to
depart at once, "for I will send thee forth far hence to the Nations".
Thereupon he returned to Antioch; and in a few days or weeks a new
revelation to the Antiochian officials sent him on his mission to the
West, and opened the door of belief to the Nations.

One objection to this view is likely to be made.  Many infer from XXII
18 that the visit was short.  But there is no implication as to the
duration of the visit.  The words merely show that Paul was thinking of
a longer stay, when the vision bade him hasten away forthwith.  The
second visit, according to Lightfoot's supposition, was even shorter
than the first, but on our view it began when the failure of harvest in
46 turned scarcity into famine, and it probably lasted until the
beginning of 47.  Our reference of XXII 17 to the second visit is
corroborated by the reading of the two great uncial MSS. in XII 25,
"returned to Jerusalem": this seems to be an alteration made
deliberately by an editor, who, because these passages referred to the
same visit, tampered with the text of XII 25 to bring it into verbal
conformity with XXII 17.

5.  THE MISSION OF BARNABAS AND SAUL. (XIII 1) NOW THERE WAS AT ANTIOCH,
CONNECTED WITH "THE CHURCH,"l A BODY OF PROPHETS AND TEACHERS, BARNABAS,
SYMEON (SURNAMED NIGER), AND LUCIUS (HE OF CYRENE), WITH MANAËN (FOSTER-
BROTHER OF HEROD THE TETRARCH) AND SAUL. (2) AS THESE WERE: LEADING A
LIFE OF RELIGIOUS DUTIES AND FASTS, THE: HOLY SPIRIT SAID, "SEPARATE ME
BARNABAS AND SAUL FOR THE WORK WHEREUNTO I HAVE CALLED THEM". (3) THEN
THEY (i.e., the Church) HELD A SPECIAL FAST, AND PRAYED, AND LAID THEIR
HANDS UPON THEM, AND GAVE THEM LEAVE TO DEPART.

A new stage in the development of the Antiochian Church is here marked.
It was no longer a mere "congregation"; it was now "the Church"in
Antioch; and there was in it a group of prophets and teachers to whom
the grace of God was given.

There is indubitably a certain feeling that a new start is made at this
point; but it is only through blindness to the style of a great
historian that some commentators take this as the beginning of a new
document.  The subject demanded here a fresh start, for a great step in
the development of the early Church was about to be narrated, "the
opening of a door to the Gentiles"(XIV 27). The author emphasised this
step beyond all others, because he was himself a Gentile; and the
development of the Church through the extension of Christian influence
was the guiding idea of his historical work.

Probably the variation between the connecting particles (kaivv and te)
marks a distinction between three prophets, Barnabas, Symeon and Lucius,
and two teachers, Manaen and Saul.  In Acts VI 5, the list of seven
deacons is given without any such variation; and it seems a fair
inference that the variation here is intentional.* The distinction
between the qualifications required in prophets and in teachers is
emphasised by Paul in I Cor.  XII 28.  As regards Barnabas and Saul
their difference in gifts and qualifications appears clearly in other
places.  Everywhere Saul is the preacher and teacher, Barnabas is the
senior and for a time the leader on that account.

There is a marked distinction between the general rule of life in v.  2,
and the single special ceremony in v.  3.  An appreciable lapse of time
is implied in 2: after the two envoys returned from Jerusalem, the
regular course of Church life went on for a time and, so long as
everything was normal, the historian finds nothing to relate.  The
prophets and teachers had regular duties to which their energies were
devoted; and they practised in their life a certain regular rule of
fasting.  They were not like the Elders, who were chosen as
representative members of the congregation; they were marked out by the
Divine grace as fitted for religious duties in the congregation.  The
"work"in v.  2 is defined in the subsequent narrative (XIII 41, XIV 26,
XV 3, 38, etc.)  as preaching the Gospel in new regions outside of the
province Syria and Cilicia, in which there already existed Christian
communities.

What is the subject in v.  3?  It cannot be the five officials just
mentioned, because they cannot be said to lay their hands on two of
themselves.  Evidently some awkward change of subject takes place; and
the simplest interpretation is that the Church as a whole held a special
service for this solemn purpose.  Codex Bezæ makes all clear by
inserting the nominative "all"(pavnte"); and on our view this well-
chosen addition gives the interpretation that was placed in the second
century on a harsh and obscure passage.  Similarly in XV 2 it is meant
that the congregation appointed the delegates to Jerusalem; and the
reader is expected to supply the nominative, though it has not occurred
in, the immediately preceding sentence.  It seemed to the author so
obvious that such action was performed by universal consent, that he did
not feel any need to express the nominative.  Such a way of thinking was
possible only at a very early time.  During the second century (if not
even earlier) the action of officials began to supersede that of the
whole congregation in such matters; and, when even a beginning had been
made, it could no longer be assumed as self-evident that such actions as
XIII 3, XV 2, were performed by the congregation; and the writer would
necessarily express the nominative.  The Bezan Reviser belonged to the
period when the change had begun and the need of expressing the
nominative was felt; but he lived before the time when official action
had regularly superseded that of the congregation, for in that case he
would have taken the officials in this case to be the agents (as many
modern commentators understand the passage).

What was the effect of the public ceremony described in v.  3 ? The high
authority of Lightfoot answers that it constituted Barnabus and Saul as
Apostles.  He acknowledges that Saul's "conversion may indeed be said in
some sense to have been his call to the Apostleship.  But the actual
investiture, the completion of his call, took place some years later at
Antioch (Acts XIII 2)."He considers that Barnabas and Saul were only
prophets before this, and did not become Apostles until they were
elevated to that rank by their "consecration to the office"at Antioch
(Ed.  Galat.  p.  96).

Our view, on the contrary, is that Barnabas and Saul were Apostles
before this.  The Apostle was always appointed by God and not by the
Church.  The proof of Apostleship lay in the possession of apostolic
message and powers, conversion of others and performance of signs.  It
is an historical anachronism to attribute to this period such belief in
the efficacy of a Church-ceremony.  Moreover, in XXII 17, 21, and XXVI
17, Paul claims to have been an Apostle from his conversion, and
represents his work in Cilicia and Syria as an Apostolate.  In Gal.  I
he declares that his message came direct from God at his conversion.
Further, there is no sign in XIII 2, 3, that this "consecration"by the
Church was more efficacious than the original Divine call: the ceremony
merely blessed Barnabas and Saul for a special work, which was
definitely completed in the next three years.  In XIV 26 the work for
which they had been committed to the grace of God in XIII 2 is declared
to be fulfilled; and they returned to their ordinary circle of duties in
the Church at Antioch.

The last word in verse 3 should not be "sent them away"(as in the
Authorised and Revised Versions). The Spirit sent them away (verse 4);
and the Church released them from their regular duties and bade them
"God-speed". The Greek verb (ajpevlusan, like the Latin dimittere) is
used of the superior giving his visitor leave to depart (for a visitor
in the East is considered to be paying his respects, and does not
presume to depart without formal permission to go), or of a host
allowing his guests to depart, or of a commanding officer giving
soldiers honourable dismissal after their term of service.  The correct
rendering of this term will prove important at a later stage (p.  155).

Note.  Date of the famine.  Orosius VII 6 puts it in the fourth year of
Claudius, which began January 25, A.D. 44.  But Orosius's dates at this
point are put one year too early owing to a mistake in adapting to
Claudius's years a series of events arranged in his authority according
to a different system of chronology; this kind of mistake is known to
have been frequently made by ancient chroniclers, and is proved in
Orosius's case by the fact that he assigns to the tenth year of Claudius
a famine at Rome which Tacitus Ann.  XII 43 places in A.D. 51 We
therefore take Orosius as an authority for dating the commencement of
the famine in 45.  Josephus mentions the famine as having occurred while
Tiberius Alexander was procurator of Judea; and there is general
agreement that Alexander's administration lasted from 46 to 48: though
the time when it began was not absolutely certain, July 45 is the
earliest admissible date, and 46 is far more probable: his predecessor
Cuspius Fadus was sent by Claudius in 44, and a good deal occurred
during his office.  But Josephus also mentions the famine in connection
with Queen Helena's arrival in 45.  Helena, however, seems to have
remained a considerable time, and Josephus's words are in perfect accord
with our view that scarcity began with a bad harvest in 45.

In the preceding chapter, Lightfoot's view is quoted according to his
edition of Gal.=rGAL, where he says that Barnabas and Saul had come to
Jerusalem and returned to Antioch before Herod's death.  Since the
chapter was in type, I notice that in a posthumous essay "printed from
lecture notes"he dates the famine 45; but that seems hardly consistent
with his edition, and as he republished his edition without change
throughout his life, it must represent his mature opinion.  Perhaps he
means that Paul and Barnabas brought the famine-money to Jerusalem a
year or more before the famine began, which we cannot accept as a
natural or a useful procedure.

CHAPTER IV.

THE MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF BARNABAS AND SAUL

1 CYPRUS AND SALAMIS. (XIII 4) THEY ACCORDINGLY, BEING SENT FORTH BY THE
HOLY SPIRIT, CAME DOWN TO the harbour SELEUCEIA, AND THENCE SAILED AWAY
TO CYPRUS; (5) AND WHEN THEY REACHED SALAMIS THEY BEGAN TO PROCLAIM THE
WORD OF GOD IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS; AND THEY HAD JOHN ALSO AS A
SUBORDINATE. (6) AND THEY MADE A missionary PROGRESS THROUGH THE WHOLE
ISLAND UNTIL they reached PAPHOS.

The harbour is mentioned, according to Luke's common custom (XIV 25,
XVIII 18, XVI 11). When he has once mentioned the harbour of any city,
he omits it on a subsequent occasion (cp.  XX 6 with XVI 11). The
failure to name the harbour of Berea is remarkable (XVII 14); doubtless
there is some reason for it.

As they were able to make the harbour of Salamis, on the south coast,
they were not impeded by westerly winds, which commonly blew throughout
the summer (see p.  298). With such winds, they would have run for the
Cilician coast, and worked along it westward with the aid of land
breezes and the current (p.  299), till they could run across to the
north coast of Cyprus, as Barnabas had to do on his next journey (if the
Periodoi Barnabæ can be trusted). But they probably started on the
opening of the sailing season (March 5).

John Mark is brought before the reader's notice here in a curiously
incidental way.  He came with Barnabas and Saul from Antioch (see XII
25); why should he not be mentioned at the outset?  A superficial view
might see want of method in this apparently haphazard reference to the
third traveller.  But surely the object is to emphasise the secondary
character of John Mark, in view of what was to happen in Pamphylia: he
was not essential to the expedition; he had not been selected by the
Spirit; he had not been formally delegated by the Church of Antioch; he
was an extra hand, taken by Barnabas and Saul on their own
responsibility.  This obviated the criticism that the delegation
consisted of three persons, and that Mark's retirement from Pamphylia
was fatal to the official and representative character of the rest of
the mission-a criticism which may probably have been actually used in
the subsequent rather bitter controversy described in XV. This might
have been formally and.  expressly set forth at an earlier stage; but
the historian briefly expresses it by saying nothing about John Mark
until he appears incidentally as a supernumerary and subordinate.  The
silence is singularly expressive, and therefore carefully calculated.

There must have been a large Jewish colony in Salamis, with more
synagogues than one.  Cypriote Jews are often mentioned in Acts IV 36,
XI 20, XXI 16); and Barnabas himself was a Cypriote.  The practice of
Saul always had been to go first to the synagogues; and up to the
present time there is no reason to think that he had directly addressed
the Gentiles except as hearers in the synagogue.

His procedure here is exactly as at Damascus, where he proceeded to
preach in the synagogues immediately after his conversion (IX 20). It
was right that the first offer should be addressed to the Jews (XIII
46). Moreover he was always sure of a good opening for his Gentile
mission among the "God-fearing,"who formed part of his audience in every
synagogue.

In v.  6 how briefly the work of a considerable period is summed up!
Four Greek words (dielqovnte" o{lhn th;n nh'son) contain all that is
said about a missionary journey throughout the island.  We understand
from this brevity that there was no important fact for the historian's
purpose.  The passage is a typical one: the same formula occurs with
slight variations in many later parts of the narrative; and in this
first case its meaning is specially clear, so that it throws its light
on all the subsequent examples (which is, of course, intended by the
historian). Doubtless the process which has just been described at
Salamis is intended to apply everywhere.  In each city where there was a
settlement of Jews, the missionaries preached in the synagogue.

Further, the Cypriote Jews were not unfavourable to the new teaching.
The influence and example of Barnabas were naturally effective with his
fellow-countrymen.  Moreover, the Word had already been preached in
Cyprus not long after Stephen's martyrdom XI 19=rAC 11:19, and converts
had been made.  There was therefore a small audience ready to listen to
the travelling preachers in several, perhaps in all, of the Cyprian
cities.  Finally, the doctrine that was preached was probably not such
as to rouse strong feeling among the Jews; and, so long as the Gentiles
were not specially appealed to and set on an equality with the Jews, the
early Pauline teaching is not said to have caused more ill-will than the
preaching of the older Apostles.

But we may also probably make some negative inferences.  There was no
specially marked effect; no sign of the Divine guidance or power was
manifested; and the address was made only through the synagogues and
nowhere directly to the Gentiles.  These are the points on which the
historian always lays special stress; signs of the Divine power were the
guarantee of Paul's Divine mission, and the steps by which Paul turned
more and more decidedly to the Gentiles marked the stages in history as
Luke conceived it.

We conclude, then, that thesilence observed with regard to the Cyprian
evangelisation is not due to mere ignorance on the part of the historian
or to want of authorities, but to deliberate plan.  On the scale on
which his work was planned, and his incidents selected, there was
nothing more to say.

The Apostles are said to have made a preaching tour through the whole
island.  In a writer so sparing of words as Luke, the addition of the
word "whole"is important.  We cannot press it so far as to suppose that
they went through every place in the island.  Its force may probably be
best seen by supposing it were omitted: in that case the Greek
(dielqovntes th;n nh'son a[cri Pavfou) would permit the interpretation
that after landing at Salamis they went along the direct road to Paphos,
preaching at convenient places.  The word "whole"is probably intended to
bring out clearly that they made a complete tour of the Jewish
communities in the island, preaching in each synagogue.

2.  PAPHOS. (XIII 6=rAC 13:6) AND WHEN THEY HAD GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE
ISLAND UNTO PAPHOS, THEY FOUND A CERTAIN MAN, MAGlAN, PROPHET OF LIES,
JEW, BY NAME BAR-JESUS, (7=rAC 13:7) WHO WAS IN THE COMPANY OF THE
PROCONSUL, SERGIUS PAULUS, A MAN OF UNDERSTANDING. THE PROCONSUL
SUMMONED TO HIS PRESENCE BARNABAS AND SAUL, AND SOUGHT *TO HEAR THE WORD
OF GOD. (8=rAC 13:8) AND THERE STOOD FORTH AGAINST THEM THE MAGlAN,
ETOIMAS (Son Of the Ready), FOR SO IS THIS NAME TRANSLATED, SEEKING TO
DIVERT THE PROCONSUL FROM THE FAITH. (9=rAC 13:9) BUT SAUL, OTHERWISE
PAUL, FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, LOOKED FIXEDLY AT HIM, (10=rAC 13:10)
AND SAID, "O FULL OF ALL GUILE AND ALL VILLANY, THOU SON OF THE DEVIL,
THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WILT THOU NOT CEASE TOPERVERT THE RIGHT
WAYS OF THE LORD? (11=rAC 13:11) AND NOW, BEHOLD THE HAND OF THE LORD IS
UPON THEE, AND THOU SHALT BE BLIND, NOT SEEING THE SUN FOR A SEASON."AND
IMMEDIATELY THERE FELL ON HIM A MIST AND A DARKNESS; AND HE WENT ABOUT
SEEKING SOME TO LEAD HIM BY THE HAND. (12=rAC 13:12) THEN THE PROCONSUL,
WHEN HE SAW WHAT WAS DONE, BELIEVED, BEING STRUCK TO THE HEART AT THE
TEACHING OF THE LORD.

We notice, first, the accuracy of the title proconsul, applied to the
governor of Cyprus.  The remarkable incident that follows is connected
with a definite individual, who is named and characterised.  He was
Sergius Paulus, a man of ability.*f11A Greek inscription of Soloi*f12on
the north coast of Cyprus is dated "in the proconsulship of Paulus,"who
probably is the same governor that played a part in the strange and
interesting scene now to be described.

The order and style of narrative adopted in this incident is noteworthy
in itself, and instructive in regard to the author's plan and his
conception of history.  He directs the reader's attention first to the
prominent figure round whom the incident is centred: "in Paphos they
found a certain Bar-jesus ". Nothing is said about the length of
residence in Paphos, nor about the conduct of the missionaries in the
earlier part of their visit.  Before anything else is mentioned about
Paphos, Bar-jesus is named, and then it is explained who he was and how
the missionaries came in contact with him.  The order of narrative does
not follow the order of time, but is guided by the special interest felt
by the .author, i.e., he seizes first the detail or the personage that
is most important in his eyes.

If we attempt, to follow the order of development in time, the incident
might be thus described.  The missionaries came to Paphos.  There they
began preaching in the synagogues as they had done in other cities.
They soon acquired notoriety and were talked about through the city; and
the report about these strangers who were teaching a new kind of
philosophy reached the Roman governor's ears.  The governor was a highly
educated man, interested in science and philosophy; and his attention
was caught by the report of the two strangers, who were giving public
teaching in rhetoric and moral philosophy (p.  271).

Travellers of that class were well known at the time.  Those who aimed
at high rank and fame as teachers of philosophy often travelled through
the great cities of the Empire, giving public demonstrations of their
skill: thus they became famous, and were accepted finally in some of the
great universities as established teachers and Professors of Philosophy
or Morals.

The governor, Sergius Paulus, then invited or commanded a Roman
proconsul's invitation was equivalent to a command-the two travellers to
his court, and sought to hear a specimen of their skill and a
demonstration of their philosophy on the subject which, as he had been
informed, was their favourite topic, the nature of God and His action
towards human beings.  The exposition which they gave seemed to him
striking and excellent; and the marked effect which it produced on him
was apparent to all who were in his train (who in Roman language would
be termed his comites). Among these was a Jew, Etoimas Bar-jesus by
name, a man skilled in the lore and the uncanny arts and strange powers
of the Median priests or . On v.  6=rAC 13:6see p.  115.

It is often said that the governor was "under the influence of"the
Magian; implying the view that the mind of Sergius Paulus was dominated
by Bar-jesus, but that the Roman, deeply impressed by the way in which
Paul seemed to overpower the Magian, recognised the new master as more
powerful than the old, and thus passed under the influence of a better
teacher.  This account seems to me not to be consistent with the text,
and to give a far too unfavourable conception of the governor's
character; while it certainly conveys rather a vulgar idea of the way in
which Paul's teaching first affected the Roman world.  According to the
conception of Luke's method as a historian, which guides us in this
attempt to realise the facts, the words of Acts require a different
interpretation.  The author, who is singularly delicate, concise, and
appropriate in his use of language, would not have praised Sergius
Paulus as "a man of understanding,"when describing the relation in which
the Magian stood to him, if he had understood that the Roman was "under
the influence of"the false prophet.  Either we must say that the author
scatters his words heedlessly on the page, or we must understand that
these words of praise coming at that precise point exclude any idea of
weak submission to the strong personality of the Magian.  Moreover the
Greek words express the simple fact that the Magian was one of the train
of comiteswho always accompanied a Roman governor.  Some of these were
personal friends who came with him from Rome, others were young Romans
of rank who thus gained an insight into administrative life (which as
yet they were too young to enter on), others were in official attendance
on the governor, and others were provincials, men of letters or of
scientific knowledge or of tastes and habits that rendered them
agreeable or useful to the great man.

There is also no reason to think that the Magian was an inmate of the
proconsul's house.  The words do not imply that; and the facts in no way
suggest it.

3.  THE MAGIAN AND THE APOSTLE. To us the Roman governor is the
prominent figure in this scene; and his attitude towards the new
teaching is what interests us most.  But in the estimation of Luke, the
Magian is the most important character, next to Paul; and therefore the
reader's attention is directed first upon him.  His prominence is
perhaps due to different estimate of historical importance: ancient
views on this subject differ from modern.  But is it not more probable
that Luke is justified in his view?  It is clear that the Magian was
here the representative of a System and a religion; and that his
discomfiture was in itself a wide-reaching triumph.  He is Commonly said
to be a magician, a mere "Jewish impostor"; and he is compared to the
modern gipsy teller of fortunes.  Such comparisons, while having a
certain element of truth, are misleading, and give a false idea of the
influence exerted on the Roman world by Oriental personages like this
Magian.  The Magian represented in his single personality both the
modern fortune-teller and the modern man of science; and he had a
religious as well as a merely superstitious aspect to the outer world.

No strict line could then be drawn between lawful honourable
scrutinising of the secret powers of Nature and illicit attempts to pry
into them for selfish ends, between science and magic, between chemistry
and alchemy, between astronomy and astrology.  The two sides of
investigation passed by hardly perceptible degrees into one another: and
the same man might be by times amagician, by times the forerunner of
Newton and Thomson (Lord Kelvin). It was not possible in the infancy of
knowledge to know where lay the bounds between the possible and the
impossible, between the search for the philosopher's stone or the elixir
of life and the investigation of the properties of argon or the laws of
biology.  It was not possible then: he would be rash who would say that
it is possible now.  A writer may venture on many prophecies about the
future of science today, for which he would have been ridiculed as an
impostor or a dreamer twenty years ago; and doubtless there are things
he must not say now, which will be said soon.

It is certain that the priests of some Eastern religions possessed very
considerable knowledge of the powers and processes of nature; and that
they were able to do things that either were, or seemed to be,
marvellous.  Which of these alternatives was trueis a point on which
individual judgments will vary widely; but ray own experience makes me
believe that, sofar as influence over human or animal nature and life
was concerned, their powers were wonderful.  It is natural that the
Magian's knowledge and powers should have made him a striking and
interesting personality; and a person like the proconsul, keenly
interested in nature and philosophy, would enjoy his society.

The influence of this Eastern religion-one nature with many varieties-
was widely spread; and it was inevitable that the new religion, which
was strongly opposed to its methods of dominating itsvotaries and
crushing their personality and individuality, should often be brought in
collision with its teachers.  Bar-jesus represented the strongest
influence on the human will that existed in the Roman world, an
influence which must destroy or be destroyed by Christianity, if the
latter tried to conquer the Empire.  Herein lies the interest of this
strange scene; and we cannot wonder that to Luke, familiar with the
terrible power of that religion, the Magian seemed the prominent figure
round whom the action moved.

At Philippi, and at Ephesus also, collisions took place between the two
influences, of slavery and of freedom for the human mind; but neither
was so impressive as this at Paphos.

It is characteristic of the simple and natural evolution of the
incidents, that no calculation of these great issues is represented as
influencing the drama.  Human action is swayed for the most part by
trivial motives; and the Magian here was actuated chiefly by the fear of
losing his prominent place in the governors train.  His position as
friend and associate (amicus and comes were the technical terms to
denote his position) of the governor was an honourable one, gratifying
at once to ambition, to vanity, and to worse passions.  In this position
he could learn a great deal about people and events.  In the East it is
always believed that the governor's friend may influence his judgment;
and every suppliant, every litigant, and every criminal tries to
propitiate or to bribe the friend.  We cannot tell in what proportion
the more noble and the baser motives were mixed in the Magian's mind;
but they all lie on the surface of the situation, and each had doubtless
some effect on him.  He saw in the new teachers mere rivals trying to
supplant him; and human nature could not accept defeat without a
struggle.

Another point of method to note in the narrative is that no reason is
stated for the Magian's opposition.  It is a general rule throughout
Acts that facts alone are stated, and causes left to the reader to
gather from the facts: the author sees the causes so clearly that he
does not think of stating them.  In this case he even omits part of the
sequence of facts: he does not say that the Apostles expounded their
views, but leaves the reader to understand that the proconsul's desire
was obeyed; and the words of verses 8, 10 ("seeking to turn aside the
proconsul from the faith,"and "pervert the right ways of the Lord")
imply that the exposition was made.  Then we may be certain that the
Magian would not so far violate politeness and the respect due to the
proconsul as to interrupt them, unless he had seen that a marked effect
was produced on the governor's mind; and he interfered from fear that,
if he did not put the strangers down or turn them into ridicule, they
might supplant himself in the governors society.

This view of the situation lies implicit in the text; and it is put
explicitly by the Bezan Reviser, who makes.  Bar-jesus "stand forth in
opposition to them, seeking to divert the proconsul from the faith,
because he was listening with much pleasure to them". If the added words
are a gloss, they are inserted with great skill and judgment.  But to me
they appear to be an addition, inserted to make the narrative simpler
and easier: the author, as usual, left the reason unstated.

4.  SAUL, OTHERWISE PAUL. The name Paul, here applied for the first time
by the historian to the person whom he has hitherto called Saul, has
given rise to much discussion and many theories.  We shall not begin by
theorising as to the names of this individual, but by inquiring what was
the meaning of that very common formula, "Saul, otherwise Paul"in the
society of the Eastern provinces; and shall then apply the results to
this case.

The custom which was thus expressed seems to have originated in the
bilingual governments and countries of the later centuries B.C. (or, at
least, to have become common and familiar then). At that time Greece had
gone forth to conquer the East; and a varnish of Greek culture was
spread over many non-Greek races, affecting the richer and the educated
classes of the natives, but hardly reaching the mass of the people.
Then it was the fashion for every Syrian, or Cilician, or Cappadocian,
who prided himself on his Greek education and his knowledge of the Greek
language, to bear a Greek name; but at the same time he had his other
name in the native language, by which he was known among his countrymen
in general.  His two names were the alternative, not the complement, of
each other; and the situation and surroundings of the moment, the rôle
which he was playing for the time being, determined which name he was
called by.  In a Greek house he played the Greek, and bore the Greek
name: in a company of natives, he was the native, and bore the native
name.  He did not require both to complete his legal designation, as a
Roman required both nomen and prænomen.  His Greek name, taken alone,
was a full legal designation in a Greek court.

This has an obvious bearing on the case of Saul, otherwise "Paul". In
the earlier part of this book he has been a Jew among Jews; and we have
seen only his Hebrew name.  Nothing has hitherto transpired to show that
he was anything but "Hebrew sprung from Hebrews". In Cyprus he went
through the country city by city, synagogue by synagogue: and he was the
Jew in all.  But here he is in different surroundings: he stands in the
hall of the proconsul, and he answers the questions of the Roman
official.  The interview, doubtless, began, as all interviews between
strangers in the country still begin, with the round of questions: What
is your name?  (or who are you?  ) Whence come you?  What is your
business?  The type is seen in the question of the Cyclops to Ulysses
(Odyssey IX 252): "Strangers, who are ye?  Whence sail ye over the wet
ways?  On some trading enterprise, or at adventure do ye rove?  "

To these questions how would Saul answer?  After his years of recent
life as a Jew, filled with the thought of a religion that originated
among Jews, and was in his conception the perfected form of Jewish
religion, did he reply: "My name is Saul, and I am a Jew from Tarsus"?
First, let us see what he himself says as to his method of addressing an
audience (I Cor.  IX 20 f.), "to the Jews I made myself as a Jew that I
might gain Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law (though
not myself under the law); to them that are without the law as without
the law; I am become all things to all men; and I do all for the
Gospel's sake". We cannot doubt that the man who wrote so to the
Corinthians replied to the questions of Sergius Paulus, by designating
himself as a Roman, born at Tarsus, and named Paul.  By a marvellous
stroke of historic brevity, the author sets before us the past and the
present in the simple words: "Then Saul, otherwise Paul, fixed his eyes
on him and said"

The double character, the mixed personality, the Oriental teacher who
turns out to be a freeborn Roman, would have struck and arrested the
attention of any governor, any person possessed of insight into
character, any one who had even an average share of curiosity.  But to a
man with the tastes of Sergius Paulus, the Roman Jew must have been
doubly interesting; and the orator or the preacher knows how much is
gained by arousing such an interest at the outset.

Coming forward in this character and name, Paul was taking a momentous
step, the importance of which was fully marked in the narrative.  In the
first place, he was taking the leading place and guiding the tone of the
interview instead of being, as heretofore, the subordinate following
Barnabas.  Hence in the narrative we find that Barnabas introduced Saul
to the Apostles; Barnabas brought Saul to Antioch; Barnabas and Saul
carried the Antiochian aims to Jerusalem; Barnabas and Saul brought back
John Mark with them from Jerusalem; Barnabas was first and Saul last in
the body of prophets and teachers of the Church at Antioch; Barnabas and
Saul were selected by the Spirit; and Barnabas and Saul were invited to
the proconsul's presence.  But now Paul took this new departure, and
Paul and his company sailed away from Paphos to Pamphylia; Paul and
Barnabas addressed the Gentiles in Antioch; Paul and Barnabas disputed
with the Judaising party on their return to Syrian Antioch; and
henceforth the regular order places Paul first.  There are only two
exceptions to this rule, and these serve to bring out its true character
more clearly.

(1) In the Council at Jerusalem, and in the letter of the Apostles and
Elders, XV 12, 25, the order is Barnabas and Paul; but there we are
among Jews, who follow the order of seniority and Jewish precedence.
The only surprising thing here is that they use the name Paul, not the
Hebrew Saul.  We can only infer from that that the Greek-speaking Jews
generally used the name Paul (compare p.  169), and that the historian's
use of the name Saul in the earlier part of this narrative was
deliberately chosen to emphasise the contrast between Paul's earlier and
his later manner.

(2) In the episode where the two Apostles were worshipped at Lystra,
Barnabas is named first as Zeus the chief god, and Paul next as Hermes
the messenger.  But the same qualities which mark out Paul to us as the
leader, marked him out to the populace of Lycaonia as the agent and
subordinate.  The Western mind regards the leader as the active and
energetic partner; but the Oriental mind considers the leader to be the
person who sits still and does nothing, while his subordinates speak and
work for him.  Hence in the truly Oriental religions the chief god sits
apart from the world, communicating with it through his messenger and
subordinate.  The more statuesque figure of Barnabas was therefore taken
by the Orientals as the chief god, and the active orator, Paul, as his
messenger, communicating his wishes to men.  Incidentally, we may notice
both the diametrical antithesis of this conception of the Divine nature
to the Christian conception, and also the absolute negation of the
Oriental conception in Christ's words to His Disciples, "whosoever would
become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be
first among you shall be your servant"(Matt.  XX 26).

How delicate is the art which by simple change in the order of a
recurring pair of names, and by the slight touch at the critical.
moment, "Saul, otherwise Paul,"suggests and reveals this wide-reaching
conception in Luke's mind of historical development!

In the second place, when Paul thus came forward under his new aspect
and personality, he was inaugurating a new policy.  He was appealing
direct for the first time to the Græco-Roman world as himself a member
of that world.  This is put plainly in XIV 27 as the great innovation
and the great fact of the journey: as soon as Paul and Barnabas returned
to Syrian Antioch, they made a report to the assembled Church "of all
things that God had done with them, and how He had opened a door of
faith unto the Gentiles". The first Stage in the admission of the
Gentiles to the Christian Church was taken long before this journey.
But the full implication of the Apostolate to the Gentiles was not even
by Paul himself realised for many years.  The second stage was achieved
on this journey, and the historian fixes the psychological moment
precisely at the point where the Apostles faced the Magian in the
presence of the proconsul of Cyprus.  Amid the conflict of the two
religions before the Roman governor, Paul stepped forward in his
character of citizen of the Empire; and his act was followed by that
transport of power, which attested the grace that was given to the bold
innovator, and the Divine approval and confirmation of his step.  On
former occasions the grace that was evident in Antioch confirmed the
high character of the Antiochian Brotherhood in the eyes of Barnabas
(Acts XI 23, and the grace that was given Paul had justified his
apostolate in the eyes of James, Peter and John (Gal II 9).

Such is the situation in which we stand when we transport ourselves in
thought to the time and the country where the events took place, and
take the few brief words of Luke in the sense which they bore to the men
of his time.  But now let us turn from this picture to see what is made
of the scene by the critic, who sits in his study and writes as if the
men of this book were artificial figures and not real human beings.
Weizsäcker, one of the most distinguished of modern German scholars,
finds in this delicacy of language nothing but a sign of double
authorship.  The late author, he says, used two earlier authorities, one
of whom employed the name Saul, while the other designated the Apostle
as Paul, and by a mere conjecture he puts the change at this point.
Weizsäcker emphasises this view that the point was selected by an
arbitrary conjecture, and that any other point might have been chosen
equally well.  It might almost seem that, in a statement like this, the
learned professor is taking his fun off us, and is experimenting to see
how much the world will accept at the mouth of a deservedly famous
scholar without rebelling.

Mr.  Lewin states better than almost any other the force of this passage
when he says: "The dropping of the Jewish, and the adoption of a Roman
name, was in harmony with the great truth he was promulgating-that
henceforth the partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down".
Hethen asks, "Why is not the name of Paul introduced when he first left
Antioch to commence his travels?"  and after he has in a rather
hesitating way suggested some quite unsuitable occasions as possible for
the change, he rightly concludes, "It occurs more naturally immediately
after-wards when Saul stands forth by himself and becomes the principal
actor"The marvels described in Acts concern my present purpose only in
so far as they bear upon the historical effect of the narrative.  In
themselves they do not add to, but detract from its verisimilitude as
history.  They are difficulties; but my hope is to show first that the
narrative apart from them is stamped as authentic, second that they are
an integral part of it.  To study and explain them does not belong to
me.  Twenty years ago I found it easy to dispose of them; but now-a-days
probably not even the youngest among us finds himself able to maintain
that we have mastered the secrets of nature, and determined the limits
which divide the unknown from the impossible.  That Paul believed
himself to be the recipient of direct revelations from God, to be guided
and controlled in his plans by direct interposition of the Holy Spirit,
to be enabled by the Divine power to move the forces of nature in a way
that ordinary men cannot, is involved in this narrative.  You must make
up your own minds to accept or to reject it, but you cannot cut out the
marvellous from the rest, nor can you believe that either Paul or this
writer was a mere victim of hallucinations.  To the men of that age only
what was guaranteed by marvellous accompaniments was true; to us unusual
accompaniments tend to disprove truth.  The contrast between the ages is
himmelweit.

The marvellous is indissolubly interwoven-for good or for bad-with this
narrative, and cannot be eliminated.  Do the marvellous adjuncts
discredit the rest of the narrative, or does the vividness and accuracy
of the narrative require us to take the marvels with the rest and try to
understand them?  Every one must answer the question for himself.

CHAPTER V.

FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA

1.  PAMPHYLIA. (XIII 13) AND PAUL AND HIS COMPANY SET SAIL FROM PAPHOS
AND CAME TO PERGA IN the province PAMPHILIA. AND JOHN DEPARTED FROM
THEM, AND RETURNED TO JERUSALEM; (14) BUT THEY WENT ACROSS FROM PERGA
AND ARRIVED AT PISIDIAN ANTIOCH.

The phrase "Perga of Pamphylia"is not intended to distinguish this Perga
from others (cp.  XXI 39): there was no other city of the same name.
Nor is it a mere piece of geographical information: this historian has
no desire .to teach the reader geography.  The sense is "they proceeded
to Pamphylia, to the special point Perga"; and the intention is to
define their next sphere of work as being Pamphylia.  This sense would
have naturally been understood by every one, were it not that no
missionary work was actually done in Pamphylia, for the next fact
mentioned is that John left the party, and the others went on to
Pisidian Antioch; and the conclusion has sometimes been drawn hastily
that Pamphylia had never been contemplated as a mission-field, and was
merely traversed because it lay between Cyprus and Antioch.  But the
plain force of the words must be accepted here, for it lies in the
situation that Pamphylia was the natural continuation of the work that
had been going on, first in Syria and Cilicia for many years, and next
in Cyprus.  They went to Pamphylia to preach there, and, as they did not
actually preach there, something must have occurred to make them change
their plan.  Further, the reason for this change of plan must have been
merely a temporary one, for they preached in Pamphylia on their return
journey.

We are justified in connecting with this change of plan the one fact
recorded about the missionary party in Pamphylia: John left them in
circumstances that made a deep and painful impression on Paul, and
remained rankling in his mind for years (XV 38). The historian places
together in a marked way the departure of John and the onward journey of
the others without preaching in Pamphylia.  Now, as we have seen, it
does not lie in this historian's manner to state reasons; he rarely says
that one event was the cause of another, but merely states the facts
side by side, and leaves the reader to gather for himself the causal
connection between them.

Other reasons, which need not be repeated here, point to the same
conclusion, that a change of plan was the reason why John abandoned the
expedition.  He conceived that the new "proposal was a departure from
the scheme"with which they had been charged, "carrying their work into a
region different in character and not contemplated by the Church".

Further, we observe that the country between Perga and Pisidian Antioch
is not mentioned; the journey is not even summed up briefly as the
Cyprian journey between Salamis and Paphos was described (XIII 6): it is
simply said that "they went across (the intervening mountain lands of
Taurus) to Antioch,"as in XVIII 27 Apollos "conceived the intention to
go across (the intervening Ægean Sea) to Achaia". On our hypothesis that
the narrative is singularly exact in expression, and that the slightest
differences are significant, we gather that the journey to Antioch was a
mere traversing of the country without preaching, with the view of
reaching Antioch.  On the other hand, it is stated that the return
journey some years later from Antioch to Perga was a preaching journey,
though no marked effects are recorded on it.

Again, it is a rule in this historian's clear and practical style, that
when Paul is entering (or intending, even though unsuccessfully, to
enter) a new field of missionary enterprise, the field is defined (as in
v.4); and the definition usually takes the form of a Roman provincial
district.  This will become apparent as the narrative proceeds, and the
inferences that can be drawn from the form of definition or absence of
definition in each case will illustrate and give precision to the rule.
It is, I believe, a fair inference from the want of any indication of a
wider sphere that when the travellers went to Pisidian Antioch, they had
not in mind a wider field of work than the city: they went to Pisidian
Antioch and not to the province Galatia, in which it was included.

The name is rightly given as Pisidian Antioch in the great MSS.; the
form "Antioch of Pisidia"is a corruption.  Besides other reasons,
Antioch was not considered by Luke to be in Pisidia (p.  124).

The facts, then, which can be gathered from the narrative of Acts are
these.  Paul and his companions came to Perga with the view of
evangelising the next country on their route, a country similar in
character to and closely.  connected in commerce and racial type with
Cyprus and Syria and Cilicia.  For some reason the plan was altered, and
they passed rapidly over the Pamphylian lowlands and the Pisidian
mountain-lands to Antioch, postponing the evangelisation of these
districts till a later stage of their journey.  They went to Antioch for
some reason which concerned only that city, and did not contemplate as
their object the evangelisation of the province to which it belonged.
John, however, refused to participate in the changed programme,
presumably because he disapproved of it.  His refusal seems to have been
felt as a personal slight by Paul, which suggests that the change of
plan was in some way caused by Paul.  What then was the reason?  Is any
clue to it given in any other part of Acts or in the words of Paul
himself?

In passing from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the travellers passed from
the Roman province Pamphylia to the Roman province Galatia, and the rest
of their journey lay in Galatia until they returned to Perga.  Now, we
possess a letter written by Paul to the Churches of Galatia, in which he
says: "Ye know that it was by reason of physical infirmity that I
preached the Gospel unto you on the first-of-my-two visits; and the
facts of my bodily constitution which were trying to you were not
despised nor rejected by you, but ye received me as a messenger of God".
We learn, then, from Paul himself that an illness (we may confidently
say a serious illness) was the occasion of his having originally
preached to the churches of Galatia.  The words do not necessarily imply
that the illness began in Galatia; they are quite consistent with the
interpretation that the illness was the reason why he came to be in
Galatia and had the opportunity of preaching there; but they imply that
the physical infirmity lasted for some considerable time, and was
apparent to strangers, while he was in Galatia.

Here we have a reason, stated by Paul himself, which fully explains all
the curious phenomena of the text of Acts . Paul had a serious illness
in Pamphylia, and on that account he left Perga and went to Antioch.  It
is unnecessary to repeat the argument that this is in perfect agreement
with the known facts.  Any constitutional weakness was liable to be
brought out by "the sudden plunge into the enervating atmosphere of
Pamphylia"after the fatigue and hardship of a journey on foot through
Cyprus, accompanied by the constant excitement of missionary work,
culminating in the intense nervous strain of the supreme effort at
Paphos.  The natural and common treatment for such an illness is to go
to the higher ground of the interior; and the situation of Antioch
(about 3600 ft.  above the sea, sheltered by mountains on the north and
east, and overlooking a wide plain to the south and south-west), as well
as its Jewish population, and commercial connection with the Pamphylian
coast-cities, made it a very suitable place for Paul's purpose.

But why then did the historian not state this simple fact?  It lies out
of his purpose and method to notice such personal details.  He states in
the briefest possible form the essential facts of the evangelisation of
the world; and everything else he passes over as of ephemeral nature.
We are dealing with a first century, and not a nineteenth century
historian,-one who had not the eager desire to understand causes and
reasons which characterises the present day, one who wrote for a public
that was quite satisfied with a statement of facts without a study of
causes.  There is too much tendency to demand from the first century
writers an answer to all the questions we should like to put.

Moreover, Luke passes very lightly over the sufferings and the dangers
that Paul encountered; many he omits entirely, others he mentions
without emphasising the serious nature of the case (p.  279 f.).

It is plain that Paul at the moment felt deeply wounded.  The journey
which he felt to be absolutely necessary in the interests of future work
was treated by Mark as an abandonment of the work; and his sensitive
nature would consider Mark's arguments, plausible as they were in some
respects, as equivalent to a declaration of want of confidence.  But
that feeling, though it lasted for some years, was not of the permanent
nature which would put it on the same plane as the facts recorded by
Luke.  Who can think that Paul would have desired permanent record of
his illness and Mark's desertion?  And his desire on a matter personal
to himself would be Luke's law.

2.THE "THORN IN THE FLESH". The character of the Pamphylian country, not
merely in its modern half-cultivated condition, but at all times, must
have been enervating and calculated to bring out any latent weakness of
constitution.  Now it is a probable and generally accepted view that the
"physical weakness,"which was the occasion why Paul preached to the
Galatians, was the same malady which tormented him at frequent
intervals.  I have suggested that this malady was a species of chronic
malaria fever; and, in view of criticisms, it is necessary to dwell on
this point; for I have incurred the blame of exaggerating an ephemeral
attack.  The question is put whether such an illness "could reasonably
have called forth their contempt and loathing.*

A physical weakness, which recurs regularly in some situation that one
is regularly required by duty to face, produces strong and peculiar
effect on our human nature.  An attentive student of mankind has caught
this trait and described it clearly in one of the characters whom his
genius has created.  I quote from Charles Reade's description of a
clergyman engaged in warfare against the barbarity of prison discipline,
upon whom every scene of cruelty which he had often to witness produced
a distressing physical effect, sickness and trembling.  "His high-tuned
nature gave way.  He locked the door that no one might see his weakness;
and, then, succumbing to nature, he fell first into a sickness and then
into a trembling, and more than once hysterical tears gushed from his
eyes in the temporary prostration of his spirit and his powers.  Such
are the great.  Men know their feats, but not their struggles.  The
feeling of shame at this weakness is several times described in the
course of the narrative (It is Never too Late to Mend); and, when at
last nature, on the verge of a more serious physical prostration, ceased
to relieve itself in this painful way, "he thanked Heaven for curing him
of that contemptible infirmity, so he called it". Yet that weakness did
not prevent the sufferer from facing his duty, but only came on as a
consequence; and it could be hidden within the privacy of his chamber.
Let the reader conceive the distress and shame of the sufferer, if the
weakness had prostrated him before his duty was finished, and laid him
helpless before them all when he required his whole strength.  Surely he
would have "besought the Lord that it might depart from"him, and
regarded it as "a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him"(II Cor.  XII 7,
8).

Now, in some constitutions malaria fever tends to recur in very
distressing and prostrating paroxysms, whenever one's energies are taxed
for a great effort.  Such an attack is for the time absolutely
incapacitating: the sufferer can only lie and feel himself a shaking and
helpless weakling, when he ought to be at work.  He feels a contempt and
loathing for self, and believes that others feel equal contempt and
loathing.

Charles Reade's hero could at least retire to his room, and lock the
door, and conceal his weakness from others; but, in the publicity of
Oriental life, Paul could have no privacy.  In every paroxysm, and they
might recur daily, he would lie exposed to the pity or the contempt of
strangers.  If he were first seen in a Galatian village, or house, lying
in the mud on the shady side of a wall for two hours shaking like an
aspen leaf, the gratitude that he expresses to the Galatians, because
they "did not despise nor reject his infirmity,"was natural and
deserved.

Fresh light is thrown on this subject by an observation of Mr.  Hogarth,
my companion in many journeys.  In publishing a series of inscriptions
recording examples of punishment inflicted by the God on those who had
approached the sanctuary in impurity, he suggests that malarial fever
was often the penalty sent by the God.  The paroxysms, recurring
suddenly with overpowering strength, and then passing off, seemed to be
due to the direct visitation of God.  This gives a striking effect to
Paul's words in Gal.  IV 14, "you did not despise nor reject my physical
infirmity, but received me as an angel of God": though the Galatians
might have turned him away from their door as a person accursed and
afflicted by God, they received him as God's messenger.  The obvious
implication of this passage has led many to the view that Paul's malady
was epilepsy, which was also attributed to the direct visitation of God.

A strong corroboration is found in the phrase: "a stakein the
flesh,"which Paul uses about his malady (II Cor.  XII 7)- That is the
peculiar headache which accompanies theparoxysms: within my experience
several persons, innocentof Pauline theorising, have described it as
"like a red-hotbar thrust through the forehead". As soon as fever con-
neeted itself with Paul in my mind, the "stake in the flesh"impressed me
as a strikingly illustrative metaphor; and theoldest tradition on the
subject, quoted by Tertullian andothers, explains the"stake in the flesh
"as headache.

The malady was a "messenger of Satan". Satan seemsto represent in
Pauline language any overpowering obstacleto his work, an obstacle which
it was impossible to struggleagainst: so Satan prevented him from
returning to Thessalonica, in the form of an ingenious obstacle, which
made his return impossible for the time (p.  230). Thewords "messenger
sent to buffet me,"imply that it camefrequently and unexpectedly,
striking him down with the power of the Enemy.

The idea that the malady was an affection of the eyes, resulting from
blinding at his conversion, seems inadequate in itself, unsuitable to
his own words, and contradicted bythe evidence as to the power of his
eyes (p.  38).

Paul describes the malady as sent to prevent him from "being exalted
overmuch by reason of the exceedinggreatness of the revelations"which
had been granted tohim; and he clearly implies that it came later than
thegreat revelation, when "he was caught up even to the
thirdheaven"about 43 A.D. (p.  60). The malady certainly didnot begin
long before this journey; and the attack in Pam-phylia may perhaps have
been the first

3.  THE SYNAGOGUE IN PISIDIAN ANTIOCH. (XIII 13) JOHN DEPARTED FROM THEM
AND RETURNED TO JERUSALEM; (14) BUT THEY WENT ACROSS FROM PERGA AND
ARRIVED AT PISIDIAN ANTIOCH. AND THEY WENT INTO THE SYNAGOGUE ON THE
SABBATH DAY, AND SAT DOWN; (15) AND AFTER THE READING OF THE LAW AND THE
PROPHETS, THE ARCHISYNAGOGOI SENT TO THEM SAYING, "GENTLEMEN, BRETHREN,
IF THERE IS IN YOU A WORD OF ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE PEOPLE, SAY ON". (16)
AND PAUL STOOD UP AND MADE A GESTURE WITH HIS HAND AND SPOKE ( (42) AND
AS THEY WENT OUT, THEY BESOUGHT THAT THESE WORDS MIGHT BE SPOKEN TO THEM
THE NEXT SABBATH. (43) NOW, WHEN THE SYNAGOGUE BROKE UP, MANY OF THE
JEWS AND OF THE GOD-FEARING PROSELYTES FOLLOWED PAUL AND BARNABAS: WHO,
SPEAKING TO THEM, URGED THEM TO CONTINUE IN THE GRACE OF GOD. (44) AND
THE NEXT SABBATH ALMOST THE WHOLE CITY WAS GATHERED TOGETHER TO HEAR THE
WORD OF GOD. (45) BUT WHEN THE JEWS SAW THE MULTITUDES, THEY WERE FILLED
WITH JEALOUSY, AND CONTRADICTED THE THINGS WHICH WERE SPOKEN BY PAUL,
AND BLASPHEMED. (46) AND PAUL AND BARNABAS SPAKE OUT BOLDLY AND SAID,
"IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE WORD OF GOD SHOULD FIRST BE SPOKEN TO YOU.
SEEING YE THRUST IT FROM YOU, AND JUDGE YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF ETERNAL
LIFE, LO, WE TURN TO THE GENTILES.". . . (48) AND AS THE GENTILES HEARD
THIS, THEY WERE GLAD AND GLORIFIED THE WORD OF GOD: AND AS MANY AS WERE
ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED. (49) AND THE WORD OF THE LORD WAS
SPREAD ABROAD THROUGHOUT ALL THE REGION.( 50) BUT THE JEWS URGED ON THE·
DEVOUT WOMENOF HONOURABLE ESTATE, AND THE CHIEF MEN OF THE CITY, AND
STIRRED UP A PERSECUTION AGAINST PAUL AND BARNABAS, AND CAST THEM OUT OF
THEIR BORDERS. (51) BUT THEY SHOOK OFF THE DUST OF THEIR FEET AGAINST
THEM, AND CAME UNTO ICONIUM. (52) AND THE DISCIPLES WERE FILLED WITH JOY
AND WITH THE HOLY GHOST.

The route between Perga and Pisidian Antioch, with its perils of rivers,
perils of robbers, and the later legend connected with the journey
across the Pisidian mountains by the city which still bears the
Apostle's name, is described elsewhere, and need not here detain us.

The usual punctuation of vv.  13, 14, seems to arise from the idea that
Paul's sermon was delivered on the first Sabbath after he reached
Antioch.  So, Conybeare and Howson say, "a congregation came together at
Antioch on the Sabbath which immediately succeeded the arrival of Paul
and Barnabas". It seems, however, not possible that such powerful effect
as is described in v.  44 should have been produced on the whole city
within the first ten days after they arrived in Antioch.  Moreover, when
Paul's teaching had become more definite and pronounced, he preached
three successive Sabbaths to the Jews at Thessalonica (p.  228), and it
seems implied that the rupture took place there unusually soon; hence,
at this time, when he had been preaching for years in the Jewish
synagogues of Cilicia, Syria and Cyprus, it is improbable that the
quarrel with the Jews of Antioch took place on the second Sabbath.

But, when the passage is properly punctuated, there remains nothing to
show that Paul's speech was delivered on his first Sabbath in Antioch.
Nothing is said as to the first days of the Apostles'stay in the city.
We are to understand, according to the rule already observed (p.  72
f.), that the usual method was pursued, and that some time passed before
any critical event took place.  As at Paphos, the fame of the new
teachers gradually spread through the city.  The historian gives an
address to the synagogue with an outline of the teaching which produced
this result; the address delivered on a critical Sabbath, after feeling
had already been moved for some time, may well have remained in the
memory or in the manuscript diary of some of the interested hearers, and
thus been preserved.  We make it part of our hypothesis that Luke took
his task as a historian seriously, and obtained original records where
he could.

Paul's address to the assembled Jews and proselytes was doubtless
suggested by the passages, one from the Law, one from the Prophets,
which were read before he was called to speak.  It has been conjectured
that these passages were Deut.  I and Isaiah I, . which in the
Septuagint Version contain two marked words employed by Paul: the
Scriptures were probably read in Greek in this synagogue of Grecised
Jews (see pp.  84, 169). Deut.  I naturally suggests the historical
retrospect with which Paul begins; and the promise of remission of sins
rises naturally out of Isaiah I 18.  Dean Farrar mentions that "in the
present list of Jewish lessons, Deut.  I-III 22 and Isaiah I 1-22 stand
forty-fourth in order". That list is of decidedly later origin; but
probably it was often determined by older custom and traditional ideas
of suitable accompaniment.

The climax of the address passed from the historical survey (with its
assurance of unfailing Divine guidance for the Chosen People) to the
sending of Jesus, who had been slain by the rulers of Jerusalem
("because they knew Him not, nor the voices of the prophets which are
read every Sabbath,"v.  27), but whom God had raised from the dead.
Then follow the promise and the peroration-

(XIII 38) BE IT KNOWN UNTO YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, THAT THROUGH THIS
MAN IS PROCLAIMED UNTO YOU REMISSION OF SINS; (39) AND BY HIM EVERY ONE
THAT BELIEVETH IS JUSTIFIED FROM ALL THINGS, FROM WHICH YE COULD NOT BE
JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES. (40) BEWARE, THEREFORE, LEST THAT COME
UPON YOU, WHICH IS SPOKEN IN THE PROPHETS; "BEHOLD, YE DESPISERS, AND
WONDER, AND PERISH; FOR I WORK A WONDER IN YOUR DAYS".

This outspoken declaration that the Judaic system was superseded by a
higher message from God is not said to have hurt the feelings of the
Jews who were present.  Paul was invited to continue his discourse on
the following Sabbath; many of the audience, both Jews and proselytes,
followed the Apostles from the synagogue; and both Paul and Barnabas
addressed them further, and emphasised the effect of the previous
address.

There must have been something in the situation or in the supplementary
explanations given by Paul and Barnabas, which made his words specially
applicable to the Gentiles; and a vast crowd of the citizens gathered to
hear Paul on the following week.  Paul's address on this occasion is not
given.  It was in all probability addressed pointedly to the
Antiochians, for violent opposition and contradiction and jealousy were
roused among the Jews.  We may fairly infer that the open door of belief
for the whole world irrespective of race was made a prominent topic; for
the passion which animated the Jewish opposition is said to have been
jealousy.  The climax of a violent scene was the bold declaration of
Paul and Barnabas that they "turned to the Gentiles, since the Jews
rejected the Gospel".

In this scene the same fact that was observed at Paphos came out
prominently.  The eager interest and the invitation of the general
population stimulated Paul; and his ideas developed rapidly.  The first
thoroughly Gentile congregation separate from the synagogue was
established at Pisidian Antioch.  Where he saw no promise of success, he
never persisted; but where "a door was opened unto him,"he used the
opportunity (I Cor.  XVI 9, II Cor.  II 12). The influence attributed to
the women at Antioch, v.  50, is in perfect accord with the manners of
the country.  In Athens or in an Ionian city, it would have been
impossible (p.  252).

4.  THE CHURCH AT PISIDIAN ANTIOCH. The deep impression that had already
been produced on the general population of Antioch was intensified when
the preaching of Paul and Barnabas began to be addressed to them
directly and exclusively.  The effect was now extended to the whole
Region.  This term does not indicate the lands immediately around the
fortifications of Antioch, and belonging to that city.  The free
population of those lands were citizens of Antioch; and the term
"city,"according to the ancient idea, included the entire lands that
belonged to it, and not the mere space covered by continuous houses and
a fortified wail.  "A city was not walls, but men;"and the saying had a
wider and more practical meaning to the ancients than is generally taken
from it in modern times.  The phrase that is here used, "the whole
Region,"indicates some distinct and recognised circle of territories.

Here we have a fact of administration and government.  assumed in quiet
undesigned fashion:Antioch was the centre of a Region.  This is the kind
of allusion which affords to students of ancient literature a test of
accuracy, and often a presumption of date.  I think that, if we put this
assumption to the test, we shall find (1) that it is right, (2) that it
adds a new fact, probable in itself but not elsewhere formally stated,
about the Roman administration of Galatia, (3) that it explains and
throws new light on several passages in ancient authors and
inscriptions.  Without discussing the subject too elaborately, we may
point out the essentials.

My friend Prof.  Sterrett, of Amherst, Massachusetts, has discovered and
published an inscription of Antioch, which speaks of a "regionary
centurion"(eJkatontavrchn rJegewnavrion), evidently a military official
charged with certain duties (probably in the maintenance of peace and
order) within a certain Regio of which Antioch was the centre.

Partly to guard against a possible objection, partly to show how much
may depend on accuracy in a single letter, it may be added that Prof.
Sterrett in publishing this inscription makes a conjectural alteration,
which would deprive us of the help that the inscription gives.  He
prints (l)egewnavrion but this is an arbitrary change in violation of
his own copy.

Thus we have epigraphic authority to prove that Antioch under the Roman
administration was the centre of a Region.  Further, we can determine
the extent and the name of that Region, remembering always that in a
province like Galatia, where evidence is lamentably scanty, we must
often be content with reasonable probability, and rarely find such an
inscription as Prof.  Sterrett's to put us on a plane of demonstrated
certainty.

It is natural in the administration of so large a province as Galatia,
and there are some recorded proofs, that a certain number of distinct
Regiones (or cw'rai) existed in Southern Galatia.  To quote the exact
names recorded, we have Phrygia or Frugiva cwvra,Isauria or j jIsaurikh;
(cwvra), Pisidia, Lycaonia or Galatikh; cwvra (with th'" Lukanoivas
understood, denoting the Roman part of Lycaonia in contrast with
Lycaonia Antiochiana or jAntiocianh; cwvra the part of Lycaonia ruled by
King Antiochus). There can be no doubt that Pisidian Antioch (strictly
"a Phrygian city towards Pisidia") was the centre of the Region called
Phrygia in inscriptions enumerating the parts of the province, and "the
Phrygian Region of (the province) Galatia"in Acts XVI 6, or "the
Phrygian Region"XVIII 23.  This central importance of Antioch was due to
its position as a Roman Colony, which made it the military and
administrative centre of the country.

Thus, without any formal statement, and without any technical term, but
in the course of a bare, simple and brief account of the effects of
Paul's preaching, we find ourselves unexpectedly (just as Paul and
Barnabas found themselves unintentionally) amid a Roman provincial
district, which is moved from the centre to the extremities by the new
preaching.  It is remarkable how the expression of Luke embodies the
very soul of history (p.  200).

A certain lapse of time, then, is implied in the brief words of v.  49.
The process whereby the whole region was influenced by the Word must
have been a gradual one.  The similar expression used in XIX 10 may
serve as a standard of comparison: there, during a period of two years
in Ephesus, "all they which dwelt in Asia heard the Word". The sphere of
influence is immensely wider in that case; but the process is the same.
Persons from the other cities came to Antioch as administrative centre,
the great garrison city, which was often visited by the Roman governor
and was the residence of some subordinate officials: they came for law-
suits, for trade, for great festivals of the Roman unity (such as that
described in the Acta of Paul and Thekla).* In Antioch they heard of the
new doctrine; some came under its influence; the knowledge of it was
thus borne abroad over the whole territory; probably small knots of
Christians were formed in other towns.

How long a period of time is covered by v.  49 we cannot tell with
certainty; but it must be plain to every one that the estimate of the
whole residence at Antioch as two to six months, is, as is elsewhere
said, a minimum.

It may be observed that in the Antiochian narrative a period of some
weeks is passed over in total silence, then thirty-three verses are
devoted to the epoch-making events of two successive Sabbaths, and then
another considerable period is summed up in v.  49.

The action by which Paul and Barnabas were expelled from Antioch has
been fully described elsewhere.  The expulsion was inflicted by the
magistrates of the city, and was justified to their minds in the
interests of peace and order.  It was not inflicted by officials of the
province, and hence the effect is expressly restricted by the historian
to Antiochion territory.  Slight as the details are, they suit the
circumstances of the time perfectly.

A slight addition made in Codex Bezæ at this point presents some
features of interest.  In the Approved Text the Jews "roused
persecution"against the Apostles; but in the Codex they roused "great
affliction and persecution" The additional words are not characterised
by that delicate precision in the choice of terms which belongs to Luke.
"Affliction"(qlivyi")refers more to the recipient,
"persecution"(diwgmovs) to the agent; hence the "to rouse persecution"is
a well-chosen phrase, but "to rouse affliction "is not.  The words of
Codex Bezæ have been added under the influence of the enumeration of his
sufferings given by Paul in II Cor.  XI 23 (cp.  II Tim.  III 11). The
disproportion between that list and the references to physical
sufferings in Acts led to a series of additions, designed to bring about
a harmony between the two authorities.

In the additions of this kind made to Codex Bezæ we have the beginnings
of a Pauline myth.  There is nothing in which popular fancy among the
early Christians showed itself so creative as the tortures of its
heroes.  The earliest Acta of martyrs contain only a moderate amount of
torture, such in kind as was inseparable from Roman courts of justice;
as time passed, these tortures seemed insufficient, and the old Acta
were touched up to suit what the age believed must have taken place.
Where we possess accounts of a martyrdom of different dates, the older
are less filled with sufferings than the later.  A similar process of
accretion to Acts was actually beginning, but was checked by the
veneration that began to regard its text as sacred.

Luke passes very lightly over Paul's sufferings: from II Tim.  III 11,
we see that he must have endured much.  He was three times beaten with
the rods of lictors before A.D. 56 (II Cor.  XI 25). Now, since the
Roman governors whom he met were favourable to him, these beatings must
have taken place in "colonies,"whose magistrates were artended by
lictors.  It is probable that the persecution which is mentioned in
Antioch, and hinted .at in Lystra, included beating by lictors.  It is
noteworthy that the magistrates of these two cities are not expressly
mentioned, and therefore there was no opportunity for describing their
action.  The third beating by lictors was in Philippi, also a colony.

Similarly it can hardly be doubted that some of the five occasions on
which Paul received stripes from the Jews were in the Galatian cities,
where some Jews were so active against him.

5.  ICONIUM. (XIV 1) AND IT CAME TO PASS IN ICONIUM AFTER THE SAME
FASHION as in Antioch THAT THEY ENTERED INTO THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE JEWS
AND SO SPAKE THAT A GREAT MULTITUDE, BOTH OF JEWS AND OF GREEKS,
BELIEVED. (2) BUT THE DISAFFECTED AMONG THE JEWS STIRRED UP AND
EXASPERATED THE MINDS OF THE GENTILES AGAINST THE BRETHREN. (4) AND THE
POPULACE WAS DIVIDED; AND PART HELD WITH THE JEWS AND PART WITH THE
APOSTLES. (5) AND WHEN THERE WAS MADE AN ONSET BOTH OF THE GENTILES AND
OF THE JEWS WITH THEIR RULERS, TO ENTREAT THEM SHAMEFULLY, AND TO STONE
THEM, (6) THEY BECAME AWARE OF IT, AND FLED INTO LYCAONIA.

According to the reading of the MSS., the narrative of these incidents
is obscure; and it is hard to believe that the text is correct.  In v.
1 the great success of the preaching is related, while in v.  2 the
disaffected Jews rouse bitter feeling against the Apostles (the aorists
implying that the efforts were successful). Then in v.  3 we are
astonished to read, as the sequel of the Jewish action, that the
Apostles remained a long time preaching boldly and with marked success:
and finally, in v.  4, the consequences of the Jewish action are set
forth.  It is therefore not surprising that the critics who look on Acts
as a patchwork have cut up this passage.  It must be conceded that
appearances in this case are in their favour, and that the correctness
and originality of the narrative can hardly be defended without the
supposition that some corruption has crept into it; but the great
diversity of text in the various MSS. and Versions is, on ordinary
critical principles, a sign that some corruption did take place at a
very early date.

The close relation of vv.  2 and 4 is patent; and Spitta's hypothesis of
a primitive document containing vv.  1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, gives a clear and
excellent narrative.  Only, in place of his improbable theory that v.  3
is a scrap from an independent and complete narrative, I should regard
it as an early gloss, similar to the many which have crept into the
Bezan Text.  The emphasis laid on the marvel at Lystra, which perhaps
implies that it was the first sign of special Divine favour in the
Galatian work (p.  115), may corroborate this view to some extent.
Marvels and tortures are the two elements which, as time goes on, are
added to the story of every saint and martyr; the Bezan Text of this
passage shows a further addition of the same type (p.  113), and is
distinguished by numerous additions telling of the Divine intervention
in Paul's work.  All such additions, probably, grew in the popular
belief, and then became attached as true facts to the original text.

The Bezan Text of 2, 3, is a good example of its character as a
modernised and explanatory edition of an already archaic and obscure
text.  The discrepancy between v.  2 and v.  3 called for some remedy,
which was found in the supposition that there were two tumults in
Iconium: on this supposition v.  2 was interpreted of the first tumult,
and a conclusion, "and the Lord soon gave peace,"was tacked on to it.
The narrative then proceeds, after the renewed preaching of v.  3, to
the second tumult of vv.  4, 5 (p.113). The double tumult lent itself
well to the growing Pauline myth, which sought to find occasion for the
sufferings and persecutions of II Cor.  XI.

But, if there were two stages in the Iconian narrative in its original
uncorrupted form, we might reasonably argue from the words "in the same
way (as at Antioch),"that the two stages were (1) successful preaching
in the synagogue, brought to a conclusion by the jealousy and
machinations of the Jews; (2) Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentile
population exclusively and were remarkably successful among them.  But
conjectural alteration of the text would be required to elicit that
meaning; and we cannot spend more time here on this passage.

It is to be noted that no effect on the Region around Iconiurm is
mentioned.  According to our hypothesis we must recognise the difference
from the narrative at Antioch, where the wide-spread effect is
emphasised so strongly.  The difference is natural, and the reason is
clear, when we consider the difference between the two cities: Antioch
was the governing centre of a wide Region which looked to it for
administration, whereas Iconium was a comparatively insignificant town
in the Region round Antioch.

Again, when Paul and Barnabas went from Antioch to Iconium, they were
not going to a new district, but to an outlying city of the same
district; hence there is no definition of their proposed sphere of duty.
They were expelled from Antioch, and they came to Iconium.  The case was
very different when they found it expedient to leave Iconium.  They then
had to cross the frontier to a new Region of the same province, which
began a few miles south and east from Iconium.  The passage to a new
Region and a new sphere of work is clearly marked in the text.

6.  THE CITIES OF LYCAONIA. (XIV 6) Paul and Barnabas FLED UNTO THE
CITIES OF LYCAONIA, LYSTRA AND DERBE, AND THE SURROUNDING REGION; (7)
AND THERE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN PREACHING THE GOSPEL.

The expression used in XIV 6 is remarkable (p.  90): "they fled into
Lycaonia, especially to the part of it which is summed up as the cities,
Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding Region". To understand this we
must bear in mind that the growth of cities in Central and Eastern Asia
Minor was connected with the spread of Greek civilisation; and in the
primitive pre-Greek condition of the country there were no cities
organised according to the Greek system, and hardly any large
settlements, except the governing centres, which were, however, Oriental
towns, not Greek cities.  Now, in v.  6 a Region comprising part of
Lycaonia is distinguished from the rest as consisting of two cities and
a stretch of cityless territory (i.e., territory organised on the native
pre-Greek village system).

Here, as in XIII 14, we have one of those definite statements, involving
both historical and geographical facts, which the student of ancient
literature pounces upon as evidence to test accuracy and date.  Is the
description accurate?  If so, was it accurate at all periods of history,
or was it accurate only at a particular period?  To these questions we
must answer that it was accurate at the period when Paul visited
Lycaonia; that it was accurate at no other time except between 37 and 72
A.D.; and that its only meaning is to distinguish between the Roman part
of Lycaonia and the non-Roman part ruled by Antiochus.  It is
instructive as to Luke's conception of Paul's method, and about Luke's
own ideas on the development of the Christian Church, that he should
here so pointedly define the Roman part of Lycaonia as the region to
which Paul went and where he continued preaching.

In modern expression we might call this district Roman Lycaonia; but
that would not be true to ancient usage.  Territory subject to Rome was
not termed ager Romanus (p.  347), but was designated after the province
to which it was attached; and this district was Galatica Lycaona,
because it was in the province Galatia.  It was distinguished from
"ang265 Lycaonia Antiochiana," which was ruled by King Antiochus.

Such was official usage; but we know the capriciousness of popular
nomenclature, which often prefers someother name to the official
designation.  The inhabitants of the Roman part spoke of the other as
"the Antiochian Region"(jAntiociznh; cwvra), and the people of the
latter spoke of the Roman part as the Galatic Region (Galatikh; cwvra)
It was unnecessary for persons who were living in the country to be more
precise.  Now this Region of Roman or Galatic Lycaoniais three times
mentioned in Acts.  (1) In XIV 7 it is defined by enumerating its parts;
and as Paul goesto it out of Phyrgia, it is necessary to express that he
went into Lycaonia: the advice which the Iconians gave him would be to
go into Lycaonia.  (2) In XVI 1-3 the writer does not sum up the
district as a whole, for his narrative requires a distinction between
the brief visit to Derbe and the long visit to Lystra.  (3) In XVIII 23,
as he enters the Roman Region from the "Antiochian Part,"the writer uses
the name which Paul would use as he was entering it, and calls it "the
Galatic Region". This is characteristic of Acts : it moves amid the
people, and the author has caught his term in many a case from the mouth
of the people.  But this is done with no subservience to vulgar usage;
the writer is on a higher level of thought, and he knows how to select
those popular terms which are vital and powerful, and to reject those
which are vulgar and inaccurate: he moves among the people, and yet
stands apart from them.

The subsequent narrative makes it clear that Paul visited only Lystra
and Derbe.  Why, then, should the author mention that Paul proceeded "to
Lystra and Derbe and the Region in which they lie"? The reason lies in
his habit of defining each new sphere of work according to the existing
political divisions of the Roman Empire.

It is characteristic of Luke's method never formally to enunciate Paul's
principle of procedure, but simply to state the facts and leave the
principle to shine through them; and here it shines clearly through
them, for he made the limit of Roman territory the limit of his work,
and turned back when he came to Lystra.  He did not go on to Laranda,
which was probably a greater city than Derbe at the time, owing to its
situation and the policy followed by King Antiochus.  Nor did he go to
the uncivilised, uneducated native villages or towns of Roman Galatia,
such as Barata.

Accordingly, the historian in the few words (XIV 6, 7) assumes and
embodies the principle which can be recognised as guiding Paul's action,
viz., to go to the Roman world, and especially to its great cities.
There is no more emphatic proof of the marvellous delicacy in expression
that characterises the selection of words in Acts ,-a delicacy that can
spring only from perfect knowledge of the characters and actions
described.

But the passage, not unnaturally, caused great difficulties to readers
of the second century, when the bounds of Galatia had changed, and the
remarkable definition of XIV 6 had become unintelligible.  It was then
gathered from these words that some preaching took place in "the region
round about,"and the explanation was found in the later historical fact
(which we may assume unhesitatingly as true), that converts of Paul
carried the new religion over the whole region.  This fact, got from
independent knowledge, was added to the text, and thus arose the
"Western"Text, which appears with slight variations in different
authorities.  In Codex Bezæ the result is as follows (alterations being
in italics):-

"(4) AND THE POPULACE remained divided, SOME TAKING PART WITH THE JEWS,
AND SOME WITH THE APOSTLES, cleaving to them through the ward of God.
(5) And again the Jews, along with the Gentiles, roused perucution far
the second time, and having stoned them they cast them out of the city;
(6) and fleeing tiny came into Lycaonia, to a certain city called
LYSTRA, AND DERBE, AND THE whole SURROUNDING REGION; (7) AND THEY WERE
THERE ENGAGED IN PREACHING, and the entire population was moved at the
teaching; but Paul and Barnabas continued in Lystra."

In this text the Pauline myth has been considerably developed.  The
disciples cling to the Apostles, are persecuted with them, accompany
their flight, and preach in the surrounding Region, while Paul and
Barnabas spent their time at Lystra.  But the enlarged text moves in the
atmosphere of the second century.  It gives us an idea of the
difficulties besetting the study of Acts even then, owing to the changes
that had occurred in the surroundings of the events narrated; and it
shows that these difficulties were not ignored and the text accepted as
inspired and above comprehension, but facts of history were applied to
explain the difficulties.

In v.  8 we observe the marked emphasis laid on the real physical
incapacity of the lame man.  ThoughLuke, as a rule, carries brevity even
to the verge ofobscurity, here he reiterates in three successive
phrases,with growing emphasis, that the man was really lame.  The three
phrases are like beats of a hammer: there is nofine literary style in
this device, but there is real force, whicharrests and compels the
readers attention.  Luke uses the triple beat in other places for the
same purpose, e.g.  XIII 6,"Magian, false prophet, Jew,"and XVI 6, 7
(according to the true text, p.  196).

The author therefore attached the utmost mportanceto this point.  The
man was no mendicant pretender, but one whose history from infancy was
well known.The case could not be explained away: it was an incontestable
proof of the direct Divine power workingthrough Paul and guaranteeing
his message to theGalatic province as of Divine origin.  The sign has
extreme importance in the author's eyes as a proof thatPaul carried the
Divine approval in his new departurein Galatia, and we can better
understand its mportance he had to record in his eyes if it were the
first which on distinct evidence (p.  108); but he attributes to it
noinfluence in turning the people to Christianity.  The result was only
to persuade the populace that the deifieswhom they worshipped had
vouchsafed to visit theirpeople; and at Malta the same result followed
fromthe wonders which Paul wrought.  The marvels recorded in Acts are
not, as a rule, said to have been efficaciousin spreading the new
religion; the marvel at Philippicaused suffering and imprisonment; to
the raising of Eutychus no effect is ascribed.  The importance of these
events lies rather in their effect on the mind of the Apostles
themselves, who accepted them as an encouragement and a confirmation of
their work.  But the teaching spread by convincing the minds of the
hearers (XIII 12).

The Bezan Text adds several details which have theappearance of truth.
The most important is that the lame man was "in the fear of God,"i.e.,
he was a pagan of Lystra who had been attracted to Judaism before he
came under Paul's influence: after some time Paul recognised him as a
careful hearer (h[kouen, corrupted h[kousen in the Bezan Text) and a
person inclined towards the truth.  Several other authorities give the
same statement at different points and in varying words; and it
therefore has the appearance of a gloss that has crept into the text in
varying forms.  It has however all the appearance of a true tradition
preserved in the Church; for the idea that he was a proselyte is not
likely to have grown up falsely in a Gentile congregation, nor is it
likely to have lasted long in such a congregation, even though true.  It
is therefore a very early gloss.

8.  THE APOSTLES AS GODS. (11) AND THE MULTITUDE, SEEING WHAT PAUL DID,
LIFTED UP THEIR LIFTED IP THEIR VOICE IN THE LYCAONIAN TONGUE, SAYING,
"THE GODS HAVE TAKEN THE FORM OF MEN AND HAVE COME DOWN TO US"; (12) AND
THEY CALLED BARNABAS ZEUS, AND PAUL HERMES.

Accepted Text

Bezan Text.

(13) AND THE PRIEST OF ZEUS, THE GOD BEFORE THE CITY BROUGHT OXEN AND
GARLANDS TO THE GATES, AND INTENDED TO OFFER SACRIFICE ALONG WITH THE
MULTITUDES. (14) AND HEARING, THE APOSTLES BARNABAS AND PAUL RENT THEIR
GARMENTS AND RAN HASTILY OUT AMONG THE CROWD, (15) SHOUTING AND SAYING,
"SIRS, WHAT IS THIS YE DO? WE ALSO ARE MEN OF LIKE NATURE TO YOU,
BRINGING YOU THE GLAD NEWS TO TURN FROM THESE VAIN ONES TO GOD THE
LIVING, WHICH MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND EVERYTHING
IN THEM.

(13) AND THE PRIESTS OF THE GOD, "ZEUS BEFORE THE CITY"BROUGHT OXEN AND
GARLANDS TO THE GATES, AND INTENDED TO MAKE SACRIFICE BEYOND the usual
ritual ALONG WITH THE MULTITUDES. (14) AND HEARING, THE APOSTLES
BARNABAS AND PAUL RENT THEIR GARMENTS AND RAN HASTILY OUT AMONG THE
CROWD, (15) SHOUTING AND SAYING, "SIRS, WHAT IS THIS YE DO? WE ARE MEN
OF LIKE NATURE TO YOU, BRINGING YOU THE GLAD NEWS OF THE GOD, THAT YOU
MAY TURN FROM THESE VAIN ONES TO THE GOD, THE LIVING, WHICH MADE THE
HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND EVERYTHING IN THEM.

(16) WHO IN THE BYGONE GENERATIONS LEFT ALL NATIONS TO GO IN THEIR OWN
WAYS. (17) AND YET HE LEFT NOT HIMSELF WITHOUT WITNESS, IN THAT HE DID
GOOD, GIVING YOU FROM HEAVEN RAINS AND FRUITFUL SEASONS, FILLING YOUR
HEARTS WITH FOOD AND GLADNESS."(18) AND, SAYING THIS, THEY SCARCE
RESTRAINED THE MULTITUDES FROM DOING SACRIFICE UNTO THEM.

In v.  12 the Accepted Text contains a gloss, which is rightly omitted
in one old Latin Version (Fl.).

Paul is here the Messenger of the Supreme God (p.  84): he says in Gal.
IV 14, "ye received me as a Messenger of God". The coincidence, as Prof.
Rendel Harris points out, is interesting.

The Bezan Text has in several details the advantage of local accuracy-
the plural "priests,"the title "Zeus before the city,"the phrase "the
God,"the "extra-sacrifice". Dr.  Blass rejects the Bezan reading
"priests"on the ground that there was only one priest of a single god;
but there was regularly a college of priests at each of the great
temples of Asia Minor.  The "God before the city"had in almost every
case been seated in his temple when there was no city; and he remained
in his own sacred place after civilisation progressed and a Greek or
Roman city was rounded in the neighbourhood.  According to the Bezan
Text the proposed sacrifice was an extra beyond the ordinary ritual
which the priests performed to the God.  This sense of ejpiquvein does
not occur elsewhere, but seems to lie fairly within the meaning of the
compound.

Dr.  Blass, who is usually so enthusiastic a supporter of the Western
Text, rejects these three variations; but they add so much to the
vividness of the scene, that one cannot, with him, regard them as mere
corruptions.

In Asia Minor the great God was regularly termed by his worshippers "the
God"; and Paul, who introduces the Christian God to his Athenian
audience as "the Unknown God,"whom they have been worshipping, might be
expected to use the familiar term "the God"to the Lystran crowd.  Here,
probability favours the originality of the Bezan Text.

There remain some serious difficulties in this episode: Dr.  Blass
rejects the idea of some commentators that the sacrifice was prepared at
the gates of the temple; and explains that the priests came from the
temple before the city to the gates of the city.  But in that case Lukan
usage would lead us to expect puvlh.  (cp.  IX 24, XVI 13), rather than
pulwvn (cp.  X 17, XII 13, 14). Another difficulty occurs in v.  14.
Dr.  Blass's explanation is that the Apostles had gone home after
healing the lame man, and there heard what was going on and hurried
forth from their house.  This explanation is not convincing.  Probably a
better knowledge of the localities might make the narrative clearer:it
has been for years a dream of mine to make some excavations at Lystra,
in the hope of illustrating this interesting episode.  One suggestion,
however, may be made.  The college of priests probably prepared their
sacrifice at the outer gateway of the temple-grounds, because, being no
part of the ordinary ritual, it could not be performed on one of the
usual places, and because they wished the multitudes to take part;
whereas sacrifice at the city-gates seems improbable for many reasons.
Then as the day advanced, the Apostles, who were continuing their
missionary work, heard that the priests and people were getting ready to
celebrate the Epiphany of the Gods; and they hurried forth from the city
to the temple.

The use of the Lycaonian language shows that the worshippers were not
the Roman coloni, the aristocracy of the colony, but the natives, the
less educated and more superstitious part of the population (incolæ, p.
218).

9.  DERBE. (XIV 19) AND THERE CAME JEWS FROM ANTIOCH AND ICONIUM; AND
THEY PERSUADED THE MULTITUDES AND STONED PAUL AND DRAGGED his body OUT
OF THE CITY, CONSIDERlNG THAT HE WAS DEAD. (20) BUT, WHEN THE DISCIPLES
ENCIRCLED HIM, HE STOOD UP AND WENT INTO THE CITY; AND ON THE MORROW HE
WENT FORTH WITH BARNABAS TO DERBE. (21) AND THEY PREACHED THE GLAD NEWS
TO THAT CITY AND MADE MANY DISCIPLES.

It is interesting to observe the contrast between the emphasis of XIV 8
and the cautiousness of statement in XIV 19.  The writer considered that
there was full evidence as to the real condition of the lame man; but
all that he can guarantee in XIV 19 is that his persecutors considered
Paul to be dead; and beyond that he does not go.  As usual, he simply
states the facts, and leaves the reader to judge for himself.  A writer
who tried to find marvels would have found one here, and said so.

In Derbe nothing special is recorded: the same process went on as in
previous cases.  Here on the limits of the Roman province the Apostles
turned.  New magistrates had now come into office in all the cities
whence they had been driven; and it was therefore possible to go back.

10.  ORGANISATION OF THE NEW CHURCHES. (XIV 21) THEY RETURNED TO LYSTRA
AND TO ICONIUMANDTO ANTIOCH, (22) CONFIRMING THE SOULS OFTHEDISCIPLES,
EXHORTING THEM TO CONTINUE INTHEFAITH, AND THAT THROUGH MANY
TRIBULATIONS WE MUST ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. (23) AND WHEN THEY
HAD APPOINTED FOR THEM ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH, AND HAD PRAYED WITH
FASTING, THEY COMMENDED THEM TO THE LORD, ON WHOM THEY HAD BELIEVED.

On the return journey the organisation of the newly rounded churches
occupied Paul's attention.  It is probable that, in his estimation, some
definite organisation was implied in the idea of a church; and until the
brotherhood in a city was organised, it was not in the strictest sense a
church.  In this passage we see that the fundamental part of the Church
organisation lay in the appointment of EIders (presbuvteroi). In XIII 1
we found that there were prophets and teachers in .the Antiochian
church; here nothing is said about appointing them, but the reason
indubitably is that prophets and teachers required Divine grace, and
could not be appointed by men: they were accepted when the grace was
found to have been given them.

Paul used the word Bishops (ejpivskopoi) as equivalent to Elders.  This
is specially clear in XX, where he summoned the Ephesian Elders, v.  17,
and said to them: "the Holy Spirit hath made you Bishops," verse 28.  It
is therefore certain that the "Bishops and Deacons"at Philippi (Phil.  I
1) are the Elders and Deacons, who were the constituted officials of the
Church.  The Elders are also to be understood as "the
rulers"(proistavmenoi) at Rome and Thessalonica (Rom XII 8, I Thess.  V
12). Both terms, Elders and Bishops, occur in the Epistles to Titus and
Timothy; but it is plain from Tit.  I 5-7 that they are synonymous.

It is clear,therefore, that Paul everywhere instituted Elders in his new
Churches; and on our hypothesis as to the accurate and methodical
expression of the historian, we are bound to infer that this first case
is intended to be typical of the way of appointment followed in all
later cases.  When Paul directed Titus (I 5) to appoint Elders in each
Cretan city, he was doubtless thinking of the same method which he
followed here.  Unfortunately, the term used (ceirotonhvsante") is by no
means certain in meaning; for, though originally it meant to elect by
popular vote, yet it came to be used in the sense to appoint or
designate (e.g., Acts X 41). But it is not in keeping with our
conception of the precise and often pragmatically accurate expression of
Luke, that he should in this passage have used the term
ceirotonhvsante", unless he intended its strict sense.  If he did not
mean it strictly, the term is fatally ambiguous, where definiteness is
specially called for.  It must, I think, be allowed that the votes and
voice of each congregation were considered; and the term is obviously
used in that way by Paul, II Cor.  VIII 19.

It is also apparent that a certain influence to be exercised by himself
is implied in the instructions given to Titus (I 5); but those
instructions seem only to mean that Titus, as a sort of presiding
officer, is to instruct the people what conditions the person chosen
must satisfy, and perhaps to reject unsuitable candidates.  Candidature,
perhaps of a merely informal character, is implied in I Tim.  III 1;
but, of course, if election has any scope at all, candidature goes along
with it.

The procedure, then, seems to be not dissimilar to Roman elections of
magistrates, in which the presiding magistrate subjected all candidates
to a scrutiny as to their qualifications, and had large discretion in
rejecting those whom he considered unsuitable.

Finally, it is stated in XX 28 that the Holy Spirit made men Bishops;
but this expression is fully satisfied by what may safely be assumed as
the final stage of the appointment, viz.  the Bishops elect were
submitted to the Divine approval at the solemn prayer and fast which
accompanied their appointment.  This meeting and rite of fasting, which
Paul celebrated in each city on his return journey, is to be taken as
the form that was to be permanently observed (cp.  XIII 3).

The use of the first person plural in v.  22 is not personal, but
general; Paul impressed on them the universal truth that "we
Christians"can enter the kingdom of God by no other path than that of
suffering.  At the same-time the author, by using the first person,
associates himself with the principle, not as one of the audience at the
time, but as one who strongly realised its truth.  This is one of the
few personal touches in Acts ; and we must gather from it that, at the
time when he was writing, the principle was strongly impressed on him by
circumstances.  I can understand this personal touch, in comparison with
the studious suppression of personal feelings and views throughout Acts
, in no other way than by supposing that Luke was composing this history
during a time of special persecution.  On that supposition the
expression is luminous; but otherwise it stands in marked contrast to
the style of Acts . Now evidence from a different line of reasoning
points to the conclusion that Luke was writing this second book of his
history under Domitian, the second great persecutor (Ch.  XVII).

11.  PISIDIA AND PAMPHYLIA. (XIV 24) AND HAVING MADE A MISSIONARY
JOURNEY THROUGH PISIDIA, THEY CAME INTO PAMPHYLIA; (25) AND AFTER HAVING
SPOKEN THE WORD IN PERGA, THEY CAME DOWN TO the harbour ATTALEIA; (26)
AND FROM THENCE THEY SAILED AWAY TO ANTIOCH, WHENCE THEY HAD BEEN
COMMITTED TO THE GRACE OF GOD FOR THE WORK WHICH THEY FULFILLED. (27)
AND REACHING ANTIOCH, AND HOLDING A MEETING OF THE CHURCH, THEY
PROCEEDED TO ANNOUNCE ALL THAT GOD DID WITH THEM, AND THAT HE OPENED TO
THE NATIONS THE GATE OF BELIEF (See p.  85).

Next, the journey goes on from Antioch (v.  21), leadingfirst into
Pisidia, a Region of the province Galatia, andthen into the province
Pamphylia.  It is clearly implied,that Pisidian Antioch was not in
Pisidia; and, strange asthat seems, it is correct (p.  104). Any Church
founded in Pisidia would rank along with those founded in Galatic
Phrygia and Galatic Lycaonia as one of "the Churches of Galatia"; but
neither Pisidia nor Pamphylia plays any further part in early Christian
Hstory.There was, how-ever, a Pauline tradition at Adada.

Attaleia seems to be mentioned here solely as the port of departure
(though they had formerly sailed direct up the Cestrus to Perga). Not
catching Luke's fondness for details connected with the sea and harbours
(p.  20), the Bezan Reviser reads: "they came down to Attaleia, giving
them the good news".

12.  THE CHURCHES. In Lukan and Pauline language two meanings are found
of the term Ecclesia.  It means originally simply "an assembly"; and, as
employed by Paul in his earliest.  Epistles, it may be rendered "the
congregation of the Thessalonians". It is then properly construed with
the genitive, denoting the assembly of this organised society, to which
any man of Thessalonica may belong if he qualifies for it.  The term
Ecclesia originally implied that the assembled members constituted a
self-governing body like a free Greek city (povli"). Ancient religious
societies were commonly organised on the model of city organisation.
The term was adopted in the Septuagint, and came into ordinary use among
Grecian Jews.

Gradually Paul's idea of "the Unified Church"became definite; and, with
the true philosophic instinct, he felt the need of a technical term to
indicate the idea.  Ecclesia was the word that forced itself on him.
But in the new sense it demanded a new construction; it was no longer
"the church of the Thessalonians,"but "the Church in Corinth"; and it
was necessarily singular, for there was only one Church.

The new usage grew naturally in the mind of a statesman, animated with
the instinct of administration, and gradually coming to realise the
combination of imperial centralisation and local home rule, which is
involved in the conception of a self-governing unity, the Universal
Church, consisting of many parts, widely separated in space.  Each of
these parts must govern itself in its internal relations, because it is
distant from other parts, and yet each is merely a piece carved out of
the homogeneous whole, and each finds its justification and perfect
ideal in the whole.  That was a conception analogous to the Roman view,
that every group of Roman citizens meeting together in a body (coventus
Civium Romanorum) in any part of the vast Empire formed a part of the
great conception "Rome,"and.  that such a group was not an intelligible
idea, except as a piece of the great unity.  Any Roman citizen who came
to any provincial town where such a group existed was forthwith a member
of the group; and the group was simply a fragment of "Rome,"cut off in
space from the whole body, but preserving its vitality and self-identity
as fully as when it was joined to the whole, and capable of re-uniting
with the whole as soon as the estranging space was annihilated.  Such
was the Roman constitutional theory, and such was the Pauline theory.
The actual working of the Roman theory was complicated by the numberless
imperfect forms of citizenship, such as the provincial status (for the
provincials were neither Romans nor foreigners; they were in the State
yet not of the State), and other points in which mundane facts were too
stubborn; and it was impeded by failure to attain full consciousness of
its character.  The Pauline theory was carried out with a logical
thoroughness and consistency which the Roman theory, could never attain
in practice; but it is hardly doubtful that, whether or not Paul himself
was conscious that the full realisation of his idea could only be the
end of a long process of growth and not the beginning, his successors
carried out his theory with a disregard of the mundane facts of national
and local diversity that produced serious consequences.  They waged
relentless war within the bounds of the Empire against all provincial
distinctions of language and character, they disregarded the force of
associations and early ties, and aimed at an absolute uniformity that
was neither healthy nor attainable in human nature.  The diversities
which they ejected returned in other ways, and crystallised in Christian
forms, as the local saints who gradually became more real and powerful
in the religious thought and practice of each district than the true
Christian ideas; and, as degeneration proceeded, the heads of the Church
acquiesced more and more contentedly in a nominal and ceremonial unity
that had lost reality.

As is natural, Paul did not abandon the old and familiar usage of the
term Ecclesia, when the new and more technical usage developed in his
mind and language.  The process is apparent in Gal.  I 13, where the new
sense occurs, though hardly as yet, perhaps,with full consciousness and
intention.  Elsewhere in that letter the term is used in the old sense,
"the Churches of Galatia ". In I Cor.  I 2 the new sense of Ecclesia is
deliberately and formally employed.  The term Ecclesia is used in Acts
in both these ways, and an examination of the distinction throws some
light on the delicacy of expression in the book.  It occurs in the
plural.  sense of "congregations"or "every congregation"in XIV 23, XV
41, XVI 5.In each of these eases it is used about Paul's work in the
period when he was employing the term in its earlier sense; and there is
a fine sense of language in saying at that period that Paul went over
the congregations which he had rounded in Syria and Cilicia and in
Galatia.  In all other cases (in the Eastern Text at least), Luke uses
Ecclesia in the singular, in some cases markedly in the sense of the
Unified Church (e.g., IX 31), in some cases as "the Church in
Jerusalem"(VIII 1), and in some cases very pointedly,."the Church in so
far as it was in Jerusalem"or "in Antioch"(XI 22, XIII 1); and in some
cases where the sense "congregation"might be permitted by the context,
the sense of "the Church"gives a more satisfactory meaning.  The author,
therefore, when he speaks in his own person, stands on the platform of
the developed Paulineusage, and uses Ecclesia in the sense of "the
single Unified Church,"but where there is a special dramatic
appropriateness in employing the earlier Pauline term to describe Paul's
work, he employs the early term.

An exception occurs to this rule, in an addition of the Bezan Text,
according to which Apollos went to Achaia and contributed much to
strengthening the congregations (tai'" ejkklhsivai"). We have here not
the original words of Luke, but an addition (as I believe, trustworthy
in point of fact) made by a second century Reviser, imitating passages
like XV 41, XVI 5, Gal.  I 2, 22.  This case stands in close analogy to
IX 31, where many authorities have (Codex Bezæ is defective) "the
Ecclesiai throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria,"but the
singular is used in the Accepted Text founded on the great MSS.

Note 1.  Date.  On our view this journey began in March 47, and ended
about July or August 49.

Note 2.  Declension of Lystra.  The variation in the declension of the
word Lystra * is sometimes taken as a sign that the author employed two
different written authorities (in one of which the word was declined as
feminine singular and in the other as neuter plural), and followed them
implicitly, using in each case the form employed in the authority whom
he was following at the moment.  This suggestion has convinced neither
Spitta nor Clemen, who both assign XVI 1-3 to one author.  Only the most
insensate and incapable of compilers would unawares use the double
declension twice in consecutive sentences.  The author, whoever he was
and whenever he lived, certainly considered that the proper declension
of the name was Luvstroi", Luvstran; and the only question is this: was
that variation customary in the Lystran Greek usage?  If it was
customary, then its employment in Acts is a marked proof of first-hand
local knowledge, and if it was not customary, the opposite.  We have
unfortunately no authorities for the Lystran usage: the city name occurs
in the inscriptions only in the nominative case, Lustra.  It is certain
that many names in Asia Minor, such as Myra, etc., occur both in
feminine singular and in neuter plural; but there is no evidence as to
any local usage appropriating certain cases to each form.  Excavations
on the site may yield the needed evidence to test the accuracy of this
detail.

One indirect piece of evidence may be added.  Myra is an analogous name.
Now the local form of accus.  was Muvran for the Turkish Dembre comes
from th;n Mbra(n)i.e.  (eij") th;n Muvran.  [It is most probable that in
XXVII 5 Muvran (or Muvrran) should be read, not Muvra.] I know no
evidence as to the local form of the dative; but the genitive appears as
Muvrwn in the signatures of bishops.

Incidentally we notice that the name of the city is spelt Lustra, not
Lystra (like Prymnessos), on coins and inscriptions.  That is an
indication of Latin tone, and of the desire to make the city name a
Latin word.  People who called their city Lustra would have
distinguished themselves pointedly from the Lycaonians, the subjects of
King Antiochus and mentioned in that way on his coins.

CHAPTER VI.

ST. PAUL IN GALATIA

1.  THE IMPERIAL AND THE CHRISTIAN POLICY When Paul passed out of
Pamphylia into Galatia, he went out of a small province, which was cut
off from the main line of historical and political development, into a
great province that lay on that line.  The history of Asia Minor at that
time had its central motive in the transforming and educative process
which the Roman imperial policy was trying to carry out in the country.
In Pamphylia that process was languidly carried out by a governor of
humble rank; but Galatia was the frontier province, and the immense
social and educational changes involved in the process of romanising an
oriental land were going on actively in it.  We proceed to inquire in
what relation the new Pauline influence stood to the questions that were
agitating the province.

What, then, was the character of Roman policy and the line of
educational advance in the districts of Galatic Phrygia and Galatic
Lycaonia; and what were the forces opposing the Roman policy?

The aim of Roman policy may be defined as the unification and education
in Roman ideas of the province; and its general effect may be summed up
under four heads, which we shall discuss in detail, comparing in each
case the effect produced or aimed at by the Church.  We enumerate the
heads, not in order of importance, but in the order that best brings out
the relation between Imperial influence and Church influence: (1)
relation to Greek civilisation and language: (2) development of an
educated middle class: (3)growth of unity over the Empire: (4) social
facts.

(1) The Roman influence would be better defined as "Græco-Roman ".
Previous to Roman domination, the Greek civilisation, though fostered in
the country by the Greek kings of Syria and Pergamos, who had
successively ruled the country, had failed to affect the people as a
body; it had been confined to the coast valleys of the Hermus, Cayster,
Mæander and Lycus, and to the garrison cities rounded on the great
central plateau by the kings to strengthen their hold on the country.
These cities were at the same time centres of Greek manners and
education; their language was Greek; and, in the midst of alien tribes,
their interests naturally coincided with those of the kings who had
rounded them.

The Roman Government, far from being opposed to Greek influence, acted
in steady alliance with it.  It adopted the manners of Greece, and even
recognised the Greek language for general use in the Eastern provinces.
Rome was so successful, because she almost always yielded to the logic
of facts.  The Greek influence was, on the whole, European and Western
in character; and opposed to the oriental stagnation which resisted
Roman educative efforts.  Rome accepted the Greek language as her ally.
Little attempt was made to naturalise the Latin language in the East;
and even the Roman colonies in the province of Galatia soon ceased to
use Latin except on state occasions and in a fewformal documents.  A
Græco-Roman civilisation using the Greek language was the type which
Rome aimed at establishing in the East.

The efforts of Rome to naturalise Western culture in Asia Minor were
more successful than those of the Greek kings had been; but still they
worked at best very slowly.  The evidence of inscriptions tends to show
that the Phrygian language was used in rural parts of the country during
the second and even the third century.  In some remote and rustic
districts it persisted even until the fourth century, as Celtic did in
parts of North Galatia.

The Christian influence was entirely in favour of the Greek language.
The rustics clung longest to Paganism, while the Greek-speaking
population of the cities adopted Christianity.  It is not probable that
any attempt was made to translate the Christian sacred books into
Phrygian or Lycaonian; there is not even any evidence that
evangelisation in these languages was ever attempted.  The Christians
seem to have been all expected to read the Scriptures in Greek.  That
fact was sufficient to put the Church, as regards its practical effect
on society, on the same side as the romanising influence; and the effect
was quite independent of any intentional policy.  The most zealous enemy
of the imperial Antichrist was none the less effective in aiding the
imperial policy by spreading the official language.  In fact,
Christianity did far more thoroughly what the emperors tried to do.  It
was really their best ally, if they had recognised the facts of the
case; and the Christian Apologists of the second century are justified
in claiming that their religion was essentially a loyal religion.

(z) The Empire had succeeded in imposing its languages on the central
districts of Asia only so far as education spread.  Every one who wrote
or read, wrote and read Greek; but those who could do neither used the
native language.  Hence inscriptions were almost universally expressed
in Greek, for even the most illiterate, if they aspired to put an
epitaph on a grave, did so in barbarous (sometimes unintelligible)
Greek; the desire for an epitaph was the first sign of desire for
education and for Greek.

In education lay the most serious deficiency of the imperial policy.
Rome cannot be said to have seriously attempted to found an educational
system either in the provinces or in the metropolis.  "The education
imparted on a definite plan by the State did not go beyond instituting a
regular series of amusements, some of a rather brutalising
tendency"(Church in R.E., p.  360). And precisely in this point,
Christianity came in to help the Imperial Government, recognising the
duty of educating, as well as feeding and amusing, the mass of the
population.  The theory of universal education for the people has never
been more boldly and thoroughly stated than by Tatian (ibid.  p.  345).
"The weak side of the Empire-the cause of the ruin of the first Empire
was the moral deterioration of the lower classes: Christianity, if
adopted in time, might have prevented this result."

Now, the classes where education and work go hand in hand were the first
to come under the influence of the new religion.  On the one hand the
uneducated and grossly superstitious rustics were unaffected by it.  On
the other hand, there were "not many wise, not many mighty, not many
noble"in the Churches of the first century, i.e., not many professional
teachers of wisdom and philosophy, not many of the official and
governing class, not many of the hereditarily privileged class.  But the
working and thinking classes, with the students, if not the Professors,
at the Universities, were attracted to the new teaching; and it spread
among them with a rapidity that seemed to many modern critics incredible
and fabulous, till it was justified by recent discoveries.  The
enthusiasm of the period was on the side of the Christians; its
dilettantism, officialism, contentment and self-satisfaction were
against them.

In respect of education Christianity appears as filling a gap in the
imperial policy, supplementing, not opposing it-a position which, though
it earns no gratitude and often provokes hatred, implies no feeling of
opposition in the giver.

(3) Again, the main.  effort of Roman policy was directed towards
encouraging a sense of unity and patriotism in the Empire.  It
discouraged the old tribal and national divisions, which kept the
subject population in their pre-Roman associations, and substituted new
divisions.  Patriotism in ancient time was inseparable from religious
feeling, and Roman policy fostered a new imperial religion in which all
its subjects should unite, viz., the worship of the divine majesty of
Rome incarnate in human form in the series of the emperors and
especially in the reigning emperor.  Each province was united in a
formal association for this worship: the association built temples in
the great cities of the province, held festivals and games, and had a
set of officials, who were in a religious point of view priests and in a
political point of view, officers of the imperial service.  Everything
that the imperial policy did in the provinces during the first century
was so arranged as to encourage the unity of the entire Roman province;
and the priests of the imperial religion became by insensible degrees a
higher priesthood, exercising a certain influence over the priests of
the other religions of the province.  In this way a sort of hierarchy
was created for the province and the empire as a whole; the reigning
emperor being the religious head, the Supreme Pontiff of the State, and
a kind of sacerdotal organisation being grouped under him according to
the political provinces.

As time passed, gradually the Christian Church grouped itself according
to the same forms as the imperial religion, -not indeed through
conscious imitation, but because the Church naturally arranged its
external form according to the existing facts of communication and
interrelation.  In Pisidian Antioch a preacher had unique opportunities
for affecting the entire territory whose population resorted to that
great centre (p.  105). So Perga was a centre for Pamphylia, Ephesus for
Asia.  But the direct influence of these centres was confined to the
Roman district or province.  In this way necessarily and inevitably the
Christian Church was organised around the Roman provincial metropolis
and according to the Roman provincial divisions.

The question then is, when did this organisation of the Church begin?  I
can see no reason to doubt that it began with Paul's mission to the
West.  It grew out of the circumstances of the country, and there was
more absolute necessity in the first century than later, that, if the
Church was organised at all, it must adapt itself to the political facts
of the time, for these were much stronger in the first century.  The
classification adopted in Paul's own letters of the Churches which he
rounded is according to provinces, Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, and Galatia.
The same fact is clearly visible in the narrative of Act,: it guides and
inspires the expression from the time when the Apostles landed at Perga.
At every step any one who knows the country recognises that the Roman
division is implied.  There is only one way of avoiding this conclusion,
and that is to make up your mind beforehand that the thing is
impossible, and therefore to refuse to admit any evidence for it.

The issue of events showed that the Empire had made a mistake in
disregarding so completely the existing lines of demarcation between
tribes and races in making its new political provinces.  For a time it
succeeded in establishing them, while the energy of the Empire was still
fresh, and its forward movement continuous and steady.  But the
differences of tribal and national character were too great to be
completely set aside; they revived while the energy of the Empire
decayed during the second century.  Hence every change in the bounds of
the provinces of Asia Minor from 138 onwards was in the direction of
assimilating them to the old tribal frontiers; and at last in 295 even
the great complex province Asia was broken up after 428 years of
existence, and resolved into the old native districts, Lydia, Caria,
Phrygia, etc.; and the moment that the political unity was dissolved
there remained nothing of the Roman Asia.  But the ultimate failure of
the Roman policy must not blind us to the vigour and energy with which
that policy was carried out during the first century.  "Asia"and
"Galatia"were only ideas, but they were ideas which the whole efforts of
Roman government aimed at making into realities.

(4) There was another reason why the power of the new religion was
necessarily thrown on the side of the Roman policy.  Greek civilisation
was strongly opposed to the social system that was inseparably connected
with the native religion in all its slightly varying forms in different
localities.  The opposition is.  as old as the landing of the earliest
Greek emigrants on the Asian coasts: the colonists were the force of
education, and progress and freedom, the priests arrayed against them
the elements that made for stagnation and priest-ridden ignorance and
slavery.  Throughout Greek history the same opposition constantly
appears.  The Phrygian religion was always reckoned as the antithesis of
Hellenism.  That is all a matter of history, one might say a commonplace
of history.  But the same opposition was necessarily developed in the
Romanisation of the provinces of Asia Minor.  The priests of the great
religious centres were inevitably opposed to the Roman policy; but their
power was gone, their vast estates had become imperial property, and
their influence with the population was weakened by the growth of the
Greek spirit.  This subject might be discussed at great length; but I
must here content myself with referring to the full account of the
districts in my Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia.

In this conflict there can be no doubt on which side the Christian
influence must tell.  When we consider the social system which was
inculcated as a part of the native religion, it is evident that every
word spoken by Paul or Barnabas must tell directly against the prevalent
religion, and consequently on the side of the Roman policy.  It is true
that in moral tone the Greek society and religion were low, and
Christianity was necessarily an enemy to them.  But Greek religion was
not here present as the enemy.  The native religion was the active
enemy; and its character was such that Greek education was pure in
comparison, and the Greek moralists, philosophers, and politicians
inveighed against the Phrygian religion as the worst enemy of the Greek
ideals of life.  Greek society and life were at least rounded on
marriage; but the religion of Asia Minor maintained as a central
principle that all organised and settled social life on the basis of
marriage was an outrage on the free unfettered divine life of nature,
the type of which was found in the favourites of the great goddesses,
the wild animals of the field and the mountains.  The Greek and Roman
law which recognised as citizens only those born from the legitimate
marriage of two citizens had no existence in Phrygian cities.

Thus in Galatia the Græco-Roman education, on the side of freedom,
civilisation and a higher social morality, was contending against the
old native religious centres with their influential priestly colleges,
on the side of ignorance, stagnation, social anarchy, and enslavement of
the people to the priests.  Christian influence told against the latter,
and therefore in favour of the former.

In all these ways Christianity, as a force in the social life of the
time, was necessarily arrayed on the side of the Roman imperial policy.
"One of the most remarkable sides of the history of Rome is the growth
of ideas which found their realisation and completion in the Christian
Empire.  Universal citizenship, universal equality of rights, universal
religion, a universal Church, all were ideas which the Empire was slowly
working out, but which it could not realise till it merged itself in
Christianity."  "The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting
the religion which offered it the possibility of completing its
organisation."

With the instinctive perception of the real nature of the case that
characterises the genius for organisation, Paul from the first directed
his steps in the path which the Church had to tread.  He made no false
step, he needed no tentatives before he found the path, he had to
retract nothing (except perhaps the unsuccessful compromise embodied in
the Decree of the Apostolic Council, pp.  172, 182). It is not necessary
to assert or to prove that he consciously anticipated all that was to
take place; but he was beyond all doubt one of those great creative
geniuses whose policy marks out the lines on which history is to move
for generations and even for centuries afterwards.

It is apparent how far removed we are from a view, which has been widely
entertained, "that there was an entire dislocation and discontinuity in
the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the
Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not
anathemarised"; and that this anti-Pauline tendency found in "Papias a
typical representative". Like Lightfoot, whose summary we quote, we must
reject that view.  We find in the epitaph of the second-century Phrygian
saint, Avircius Marcellus, a proof of the deep reverence retained in
Asia Minor for St.  Paul: when he travelled, he took Paul everywhere
with him as his guide and companion.

These considerations show the extreme importance of the change of plan
that led Paul across Taurus to Pisidian Antioch.  So far as it is right
to say that any single event is of outstanding importance, the step that
took Paul away from an outlying corner and put him on the main line of
development at the outset of his work in Asia Minor, was the most
critical step in his history.  It is noteworthy that the historian, who
certainly understood its importance, and whose sympathy was deeply
engaged in it, does not attribute it to Divine suggestion, though he
generally records the Divine guidance in the great crises of Paul's
career; and it stands in perfect agreement with this view, that Paul
himself, when he impresses on the Galatian Churches in the strongest
terms his Divine commission to the Gentiles, does not say that the
occasion of his going among them was the Divine guidance, but expressly
mentions that an illness was the cause why he preached among them at
first.

Now, every reader must be struck with the stress that is laid, alike by
Paul and by Luke, throughout their writings, on the Divine guidance.
They both find the justification of all Paul's innovations on missionary
enterprise in the guiding hand of God.  We demand that there should be a
clear agreement in the occasions when they discerned that guidance; and
in this case the South Galatian theory enables us to recognise a marked
negative agreement.

Further, there is evidently a marked difference between the looser way
of talking about "the hand of God"that is common in the present day, and
the view entertained by Paul or Luke.  Where a great advantage results
from a serious illness, many of us would feel it right to recognise and
acknowledge the "guiding hand of God"; but it is evident that, when Luke
or Paul uses such language as "the Spirit suffered them not,"they refer
to some definite and clear manifestation, and not to a guidance which
became apparent only through the results.  The superhuman element is
inextricably involved in Luke's history and in Paul's letters.

All that has just been said is, of course, mere empty verbiage, devoid
of any relation to Paul's work and policy in Galatia, if the Churches of
Galatia were not the active centres of Roman organising effort, such as
the colonies Antioch and Lystra, or busy trading cities like Claud-
Iconium and Claudio-Derbe, but Pessinus and some villages in the
wilderness of the Axylon (as Professor Zôckler has quite recently
maintained). Lightfoot saw the character of Paul's work, and supposed
him to have gone to the great cities of North Galatia, and specially the
metropolis Ancyra; but the most recent development of the North-Galatian
theory denies that Paul ever saw the Roman central city.

2.  THE JEWS IN ASIA AND SOUTH GALATIA. In Cyprus, Barnabas and Saul had
confined themselves within thecircle of the synagogue, until Paul
stepped forth from it to address the Roman proconsul.  In entering
Galatia Paul was passing from Semitic surroundings into a province where
Greek was the language of all even moderately educated persons, and
where Græco-Roman manners and ideas were being actively disseminated and
eagerly assimilated by all active and progressive and thoughtful
persons.  How then did Paul, with his versatility and adaptability,
appear among the Galatians, and in what tone did he address them?

At first he adhered to his invariable custom of addressing such audience
as was found within the synagogue.  There was a large Jewish population
in the Phrygian district of Galatia, as well as in Asian Phrygia (which
Paul entered and traversed at a later date XIX 1). According to Dr.
Neubauer (Géographie du Talmud, p.  315), these Jews had to a
considerable extent lost connection with their country, and forgotten
their language; and they did not participate in the educated philosophy
of the Alexandrian Jews: the baths of Phrygia and its wine had separated
the Ten Tribes from their brethren, as the Talmud expresses it: hence
they were much more readily converted to Christianity; and the Talmud
alludes to the numerous converts.

It is much to be desired that this distinguished scholar should discuss
more fully this subject, which he has merely touched on incidentally.
The impression which he conveys is different from that which one is apt
to take from the narrative in Acts ; and one would be glad to have the
evidence on which he relies stated in detail.  But my own epigraphic
studies in Phrygia lead me to think that there is much in what Dr.
Neubauer has said; and that we must estimate Luke's account from the
proper point.  Luke was profoundly interested in the conflict between
Paul and the Judaising party; and he recounts with great detail the
stages in that conflict.  That point of view is natural in one who had
lived through the conflict, before the knot was cut by the destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; but, though short, the struggle was far more
severe than later scholars, who see how complete was Paul's triumph, are
apt to imagine.  Even to a writer of the second century, the conflict
with the Judaisers could not have bulked largely in Church history.  But
to Luke that conflict is the great feature in the development of the
Church.  Hence he emphasises every point in the antagonism between Paul
and the Judaisers; and his readers are apt to leave out of notice other
aspects of the case.  The Jews of Pisidian Antioch are not represented
as opposed to Paul's doctrines, but only to his placing the Gentiles on
an equality with themselves (p.  101, XIII 45=rAC 13:45). A great
multitude of the Iconian Jews believed (XIV 1=rAC 14:1). The few Jews of
Philippi seem to have been entirely on Paul's side: they were probably
to a great extent settlers who had come, like Lydia, in the course of
trade with Asia Minor.  In Berea the Jews in a body were deeply
impressed by Paul's preaching.  In Thessalonica, however, the Jews were
almost entirely opposed to him; and in Corinth it was nearly as bad,
though the archisynagogos followed him.  In Corinth the Jewish colony
would certainly be in close and direct communication with Syria and
Palestine by sea, more than with the Phrygian Jews of the land road; and
it is probable that the same was the case in Thessalonica, though no
facts are known to prove it.

From the recorded facts, therefore, it would appear that the Jews in
central Asia Minor were less strongly opposed to Pauline Christianity
than they were in Palestine.  Further, the Asian and Galatian Jews had
certainly declined from the high and exclusive standard of the
Palestinian Jews, and probably forgotten Hebrew.  In Lystra we find a
Jewess married to a Greek, who cannot have come into communion with the
Jews, for the son of the marriage was not submitted to the Jewish law
(XVI 1-3=rAC 16:1-3). The marriage of a Jewess to a Gentile is a more
serious thing than that of a Jew, and can hardly have come to pass
except through a marked assimilation of these Jews to their Gentile
neighbours.  In Ephesus the sons even of distinguished priests practised
magic, and exorcised demons in the name of Jesus (XIX 14=rAC 19:14); and
Dr.  Schürer has shown that gross superstitions were practised by the
Jews of Thyatira.  There seems, therefore, to be no real discrepancy
between the evidence of Luke and Dr.  Neubauer's inference about the
Phrygian Jews from the Talmud.

Naturally the approximation between Jews and Gentiles in Phrygia had not
been all on one side.  An active, intelligent, and prosperous minority
like the Jews must have exercised a strong influence on their
neighbours.  Evidence to that effect is not wanting in inscriptions (see
Cities and Bishoprics, Chap.  XIV); and we may compare the readiness
with which the Antiochians flocked to the synagogue, XIII 43-4=rAC 13:43
-44, and at a later time yielded to the first emissaries of the
Judaising party in the Church (Gal.  I 6=rGAL 1:6). The history of the
Galatian Churches is in the closest relation to their surroundings (p.
183).

3.  TONE OF PAUL'S ADDRESS TO THE GALATIAN AUDIENCES. The only recorded
sermon of Paul in Galatia was delivered in the synagogue at Antioch (p.
100). Thereafter he "turned to the Gentiles,"and appealed direct to the
populace of the city.  Now Paul was wont to adapt himself to his hearers
(p.  82). Did he address the people of Antioch as members of a nation
(Phrygians, or, as Dr.  Zôckler thinks, Pisidians), or did he regard
them as members of the Roman Empire?  We cannot doubt that his teaching
was opposed to the native tendency as one of mere barbarism and
superstition; and that he regarded them as members of the same Empire of
which he was a citizen.  Moreover, the Antiochians claimed to be a Greek
foundation of remote time by Magnesian settlers: that is, doubtless, a
fiction (of a type fashionable in the great cities of Phrygia), but it
showsthe tendency to claim Greek origin and to regard national
characteristics as vulgar.  Finally, Antioch was now a Roman colony, and
its rank and position in the province belonged to it as the
representative of old Greek culture and modern Roman government amid
uncultured rustic Pisidians and Phrygians.  But some North Galatian
theorists resolutely maintain that Paul could never appeal to its
population as "men of the province Galatia,"but only as "Pisidians".

We possess a letter which Paul addressed to the Galatian Churches; but
it was addressed to congregations which had existed for five years or
more, and was written on a special occasion to rebuke and repress the
Judaising tendency: it moves in a series of arguments against that
tendency, and gives us little information as to the line Paul would take
in addressing for the first time a pagan audience in one of the Galatian
cities (see Ch.  VIII=rAC 8:1).

In writing to the Corinthian Church Paul mentions that he had adopted a
very simple way of appealing to them, and that his simple message was by
some persons contrasted unfavourably with the more philosophical style
of Apollos and the more ritualistic teaching of the Judaising
Christians.  But it is apparent (see p.  252) that Paul made a new
departure in this respect at Corinth; and we must not regard too
exclusively what he says in that letter.  Though the main elements of
his message were the same from first to last (Gal.  III 1=rGAL 3:1, I
Cor.  II 2=r1 CO 2:2), yet it is natural and probable that there should
be a certain degree of development in his method; and in trying to
recover the tone in which he first appealed to his Galatic audiences, we
are carried back to a period in his careerearlier than any of his extant
letters.

The passages in Acts that touch the point are the address to his
worshippers at Lystra, the speech before the Areopagus at Athens, and,
at a later time, the account which the Town-clerk at Ephesus gave of his
attitude as a preacher.

The Town-clerk of Ephesus reminded the rioters that Paul had not been
guilty of disrespect, either in action or in language, towards the
patron and guardian goddess of the city.  Chrysostom in the fourth
century remarks that this was a false statement to suit the occasion and
calm the riot; it seemed to him impossible that Paul should refrain from
violent invective against the false goddess, for the later Christians
inveighed in merciless terms against the Greek gods, and (as every one
who tries to understand ancient religion must feel) the Apologists from
the second century onwards give a one-sided picture of that religion,
describing only its worst features, and omitting those germs of higher
ideas which it certainly contained.  But we cannot suppose with
Chrysostom that the clerk misrepresented the facts to soothe the popular
tumult.  The effect of his speech depended on the obviousness of the
facts which he appealed to; and it would defeat his purpose, if his
audience had listened to speeches in which Paul inveighed against the
goddess.  If this speech is taken from real life, the clerk of Ephesus
must be appealing to well-known facts (see p.  281 f.).

Next we turn to the speech at Athens.  So far was Paul from inveighing
against the objects of Athenian veneration that he expressly commended
the religious feelings of the people, and identified the God whom he had
come to preach with the god whom they were blindly worshipping.  He did
not rebuke or check their religious ideas, but merely tried to guide
them; he distinctly set forth the principle that the pagans were
honestly striving to worship "the God that made the world and all things
therein"(p.  251 f.).

In this speech Paul lays no emphasis on the personality of the God whom
he sets forth: "what ye worship in ignorance, this set I forth unto
you,"and "we ought not to think that the Divine natureis like unto gold
or silver or stone, graven by art and device of man". The popular
philosophy inclined towards Pantheism, the popular religion was
Polytheistic; but Paul starts from the simplest platform common to both
there exists some- thing in the way of a Divine nature which the
religious try to please and the philosophers try to understand.  That is
all he seeks as a hypothesis to start from.  At Athens the speech was
more philosophical in tone, catching the spirit of a more educated
populace.  At Lystra it was more simple, appealing to the witness they
had of the God "who gives from heaven rain and fruitful seasons, filling
your hearts with gladness". But the attitude is the same in both cases.
"God who made the heaven and the earth in the generations gone by
suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways"; and "we bring you
the good news that you should repent". That is the same tone in which at
Athens he said, "The times of ignorance God overlooked; but now He
commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent"

There is one condition, however, on which Paul insisted from the first,
at Athens and at Lystra and everywhere.  The worship of idols and images
was absolutely pernicious, and concealed from the nations the God whom
they were groping after and trying to find: they must turn from these
vain and dead gods to the God that lives.  Hence the riot at Ephesus was
got up by the tradesmen who made images of the Goddess Artemis in her
shrine, and whose trade was threatened when the worship of images was
denounced.  But the denunciation of images was a commonplace of Greek
philosophy; and the idea that any efficacy resided in images was widely
regarded among the Greeks as a mark of superstition unworthy of the
educated man.  Paul stands here on the footing of the philosopher, not
contravening the State laws by introducing new gods, but expounding to
the people the true character of the living God whom they are seeking
after.

Such was the way in which Paul introduced his Good Tidings to the
peoples of the province Galatia.  From this he went on .step by step,
and his method is summed up by himself, Gal.  III 1, =rGAL 3:1"Christ
had been placarded before their eyes". Now was the opportunity granted
them; "through this Man is proclaimed remission of sins"(XIII 38=rAC
13:38). But if they despised the opportunity they must beware (XIII 40-
1=rAC 13:40-41), "inasmuch as He hath appointed a day in the which He
will judge the world"(XVII 31=rAC 17:31).

Paul's teaching thus was introduced to his pagan audiences in the
language of the purest and simplest theology current among educated men.
He started from those thoughts which were familiar to all who had
imbibed even the elements of Greek education.  But even in the more
advanced stage of his teaching he did not cut it off from the philosophy
of the time.  He never adopted that attitude of antagonism to philosophy
which became customary in the second century, springing from the changed
circumstances of that period.  On the contrary, he says (Col.  IV 5-
6=rCOL 4:5-6, cf.Eph.  V 16=rEPH 5:16): "Regulate with wisdom your
conduct towards the outside world, making your market to the full from
the opportunity of this life.  Let your conversation be always gracious,
seasoned with the salt and the refinement of delicacy, so as to know the
suitable reply to make to every individual."As Curtius says, with his
own grace and delicacy of perception, the Attic salt is here introduced
into the sphere of Christian ethics.  Polished courtesy of address to
all, was valued by Paul as a distinct and important element in the
religious life; and he advised his pupils to learn from the surrounding
world everything that was worthy in it, "making your market fully from
the occasion"(a thought very inadequately expressed in the English
Version, "redeeming the time,"Col.  IV 6=rCOL 4:6). But it is in Phil.
IV 8=rPHP 4:8that his spirit is expressed in the fullest and most
graceful and exquisite form, "whatsoever is true, whatsoever is holy,
whatsoever is just, whatsoever is pure, whatsoever is courteous,
whatsoever is of fine expression, all excellence, all merit, take
account of these,"wherever you find these qualities, notice them,
consider them, imitate them.

It is not the Jew who speaks in these and many other sentences; it is
the educated citizen of the Roman world attuned to the most gracious and
polished tone of educated society.  We can faintly imagine to ourselves
the electrical effect produced by teaching like this on the population
of the Galatian cities, on a people who were just beginning to rise from
the torpor of oriental peasant life and to appreciate the beauty of
Greek thought and the splendour of Roman power.  They found in Paul no
narrow and hard bigot to dash from their lips the cup of education; they
found one who guided into the right channel all their aspirations after
culture and progress, who raised them into a finer sphere of thought and
action, who showed them what wealth of meaning lay in their simple
speculations on the nature of God, who brought withintheir grasp all
that they were groping after.  We can imagine how sordid and beggarly
were the elements that Jewish ritual had to offer them in comparison;
and we can appreciate the tone of Paul's letter to them, where his
argument is to recall to their minds the teaching which he had given
them on his former visit, to contrast with this freedom and graciousness
and progress which he offered them the hard cut and dry life of Jewish
formalism, and to ask who had bewitched them into preferring the latter
before the former.1f16

It is remarkable that, alike at Lystra and Athens, there is nothing in
the reported words of Paul that is overtly Christian, and nothing (with
the possible exception of "the man whom he hath ordained") that several
Greek philosophers might not have said.  That is certainly not
accidental; the author of Acts must have been.  conscious of it; and it
is a strong proof of their genuineness: no one would invent a speech for
Paul, which was not markedly Christian.  That remarkable omission is
explained by some commentators in the speech at Athens (e.g., Meyer-
Wendt) as due to the fact that the speech was not completed; and yet
they acknowledge that the speech is a rounded whole, and that all the
specially Pauline ideas are touched in it.  To look for an addition
naming the Saviour is to ignore the whole character of the speech and
the scene where it was delivered.

The same mark of genuineness occurs in the central episode of the
romance of Thekla, when we disentangle the tale of her trials at
Pisidian Antioch from the incongruous and vulgar additions by which it
is disfigured.  In the beautiful story as it was originally written,
probably in the latter part of the first century, Thekla appeared to the
mass of the Antiochian populace to be a devotee of "the God,"bound by a
rule of service given her by direct Divine command; and she commanded
their sympath, in so far as she represented their own cause; whereas, if
she had been seen to be severing herself absolutely from their life and
their religion, their sympathy would be incredible.  In this character
lies the proof of its early date: the episode in its original form is
contrary to the tone of the second century.

Incidentally we notice what an anachronism it is to suppose that the
attitude attribbuted in Acts to Paul could have been conceived by a
second-century author!  The tone of these speeches is of the first
century, and not of the time when the Apologists were writing.  In the
first century Christianity and the cerrent philosophy alike were
disliked andreqressed by the Flavian emperors, as favouring the spirit
of unrest and dissatisfaction.  But during the second, the Inperial
Government and the popular philosophy were in league against the
increasing power of the Church; and the tone of the speeches in
incredible in a composition of that time.

.

CHAPTER VII.

THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL

1 ORIGIN OF THE COUNCIL. (XIV 27=rAC 14:27) WHEN PAUL AND BARNABAS WERE
COME TO ANTIOCH AND HAD GATHERED THE CHURCH TOGETHER, THEY REHEARSED ALL
THINGS THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM, AND HOW THAT HE HAD OPENED A DOOR OF
BELIEF UNTO THE NATIONS. (28=rAC 14:28) AND THEY TARRIED NO LITTLE TIME
WITH THE DISCIPLES. (XV 1=rAC 15:1) AND CERTAIN PERSONS CAME DOWN FROM
JUDEA, AND TAUGHT THE BRETHREN, THAT "EXCEPT YE BE CIRCUMCISED, AFTER
THE CUSTOM OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED". (2=rAC 15:2) AND WHEN PAUL AND
BARNABAS HAD NO SMALL DISSENSION AND QUESTIONING WITH THEM, THEY
(i.e.,the Brethren) APPOINTED THAT PAUL AND BARNABAS AND CERTAIN OTHER
OF THEM SHOULD GO UP TO JERUSALEM ABOUT THIS QUESTION. (3=rAC 15:3)
THEY, THEREFORE, BEING BROUGHT ON THEIR WAY BY THE CHURCH, PASSED
THROUGH BOTH PHŒNICE AND SAMARIA, DECLARING THE CONVERSION OF THE
NATIONS; AND THEY CAUSED GREAT JOY UNTO ALL

THE BRETHREN.

A considerable lapse of time isimplied in v.28=rAC 14:28, during which
Paul and Barnabas resumed their former duties at Antioch (III 1=rAC
3:1). Luke, as usual, states the lapse of time very vaguely, and it is
impossible to estimate from his words the interval between Paul's return
and the arrival of the envoys from Jerusalem (V 1=rAC 5:1). If v.28=rAC
14:28includes only that interval, the Apostolic Council cannot have
occurred before A.D. 50; but if, as is more likely (p.  256), v.28=rAC
14:28refers to the whole residence of Paul at Antioch before and after
the Council, then probably the Council took place in the end of 49.

A difficulty (which is described in §2) occurred at Antioch as to the
obligation of the Gentile members of the Church to come under the full
ceremonial regulations of the Jewish Law; and it was resolved to send
delegates to the governing body of the Church in Jerusalem about this
question.  We cannot doubt that this resolution was acquiesced in by
Paul; probably he even proposed it.  Now, the resolution clearly
involved the recognition that Jerusalem was the administrative centre of
the Church; and this is an important point in estimating Paul's views on
administration.  With the vision of a statesman and organiser, he saw
that the Church as a unified and organised body must have an
administrative centre, and that a Church of separate parts could not be
unified without such a centre, which should be not a governor over
subordinates, but the head among equals; and his whole history shows
that he recognised Jerusalem as necessarily marked out for the centre.
Hence he kept before the attention of his new foundations their relation
and duty to Jerusalem; and he doubtless understood the solitary
injunction given him by the older Apostles on his second visit to
Jerusalem (p.  57), as involving a charge to remember that duty.

Moreover, he had already communicated privately with the recognised
leaders in.  Jerusalem, and knew that their sentiments agreedwith his
own; and he must have been fully alive to the great step in organisation
which would be made, if Antioch set the example of referring such a
question to authoritative decision in Jerusalem at a meeting where it
was represented by delegates.

In the mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem it is noteworthy that
the Divine action plays no part.  The Church in Antioch resolved, and
the Church sent them to Jerusalem, escorting them on their way.  This is
not accidental, but expresses the deliberate judgment of Paul and of
Luke.  The action that led up to the Council in Jerusalem and the
ineffective Decree did not originate in Divine revelation.

The accepted view is different.  There is a practically universal
agreement among critics and commentators of every shade of opinion that
the visit described as the third in Acts XV=rAC 15:1 is the one that
Paul describes as the second in Gal.  II 1-10.=rGAL 2:1-10 Scholars who
agree in regard to scarcely any other point of early Christian history
are at one in this.  Now, Paul says in his letter to the Galatians that
he made his second visit in accordance with revelation.  Lightfoot tries
to elude the difficulty of identifying this second visit by revelation
with the third visit without revelation recorded in Acts XV: he says
(Gal., p.  125), "here there is no contradiction.  The historian
naturally records the external impulse which led to the mission: the
Apostle himself states his inward motive."He quotes "parallel cases
which suggest how the one motive might supplement the other". But the
parallels which he quotes to support his view seem merely to prove how
improbable it is.  (1) He saysthat in Acts XIII 2, 4=rAC 13:2-4,
Barnabas and Paul were sent forth by the Holy Spirit through a direct
command; while in XIII 3 they are sent away by the Church of Antioch.
But that is not the proper force of XIII 3=rAC 13:3(p.  67 f.): the
Church merely gave Barnabas and Saul freedom from their duties and leave
to depart, while the Spirit "sent them out". In XV 3,=rAC 15:3on the
contrary, the Church is said to have initiated and completed the action.
(2)

He founds another parallel on the mistaken idea that XXII 17=rAC
22:17and IX 29 f.=rAC 9:29refer to the same visit (p.  62).

The journey to Jerusalem occupied some time; for in Phœnice and in
Samaria the envoys took the opportunity of "describing in detail the
turning of the Nations to God". Here, evidently, the newly accomplished
step, "the opening of the door of faith to the Nations,"is meant.  The
recital of the circumstances and results of the new step caused great
joy.  Now, Luke pointedly omits Judea; and his silence is, as often
elsewhere, eloquent: the recital would cause no joy in Judea.
Accordingly, we are not to suppose thatthe joy was merely caused by
sympathy with the spread of Christianity, in which the Judean Brethren
would doubtless rejoice as much as any.  The joy of the people of
Phœnice and Samaria was due to the news of free acceptance of Gentile
converts: Paul, as he went, preached freely to all and invited all.
When he did this in Phœnice and Samaria, it follows that he had been
doing the same in Antioch since his return from Galatia: the door which
had once been opened, XIV 27=rAC 14:27, remained permanently open.

2.  THE DISPUTE IN ANTIOCH. The new departure in Galatia and Antioch-the
opening of the door of faith to the Nations-forced into prominencethe
question of the relations of Gentile to Jewish Christians.

There had already been some prospect that this question would be opened
up during Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (p.  56 f.); but for the
moment the difficulty did not become acute.  The older Antiochian
converts, as we have seen, had all entered through the door of the
synagogue; and had necessarily accepted certain prohibitions as a ruleof
life.  But the newly rounded Galatian Churches contained large numbers
who had joined Paul directly, without any connection with the synagogue;
in the face of Luke's silence on such a crucial point we cannot think
that Paul imposed on them any preliminary conditions of compliance with
Jewish rules; and, if so, we must understand that the same
interpretation of "the open door"characterised his action in Antioch,
Phœnice and Samaria.

The Jews who had been settled for generations in the cities of Syria and
Asia Minor had lost much of their exclusiveness in ordinary life (p.
143). Moreover, the development of events in Antioch had been gradual;
and no difficulty seems to have been caused there at first by this last
step.  We learn from Paul himself (Gal.  II 12 f.=rGAL 2:12) that even
Peter, already prepared to some extent by his own bold action in the
case of Cornelius, had no scruple in associating freely with the
Antiochian Christians in general.  But the Jews of Jerusalem were far
more rigid and narrow; and when some ofthem came down on a mission to
Antioch from the Church in Jerusalem, they were shocked by the state of
things which they found there.  They could not well take the ground that
one Christian should not associate with another; they put their argument
in a more subtle form, and declared that no one could become in thefull
sense a member of the Church, unless he came under the Jewish Law, and
admitted on his body its sign and seal: the Nations could be received
into the Church, but in the reception they must conform to the Law (XV
2=rAC 15:2). The question, it must be clearly observed, was not whether
non-Jews could be saved, for it was admitted by all parties that they
could, but how they were saved: did the path of belief lie through the
gate of the Law alone, or was there a path of belief that did not
leadthrough that gate?  Had God made another door to Himself outside of
the Law of Moses?  Had He practically set aside that Law, and declared
it of no avail, by admitting as freely them that disregarded it as them
that believed and followed it?

When the question was put in this clear and logical form, we can well
believe that Jews as a rule shrank from all the consequences that
followed from free admission of the Nations.  We can imagine that some
who had answered practically by associating with the GentileChristians,
repented of their action when its full consequences were brought before
them.  Only rare and exceptional natures could have risen unaided above
the prejudices and the pride of generations, and have sacrificed their
Law to their advancing experience.  The record confirms what we see to
be natural in the circumstances.  Paul stood immovably firm; and he
carried with him, after some wavering, the leaders (but not the mass) of
the Jewish Christians.  This point requires careful study.

The occasion of the dissension at Antioch is thus described by our three
authorities,-Luke, the Apostles at Jerusalem, and Paul himself.

Acts XV 1.=rAC 15:1

Acts XV 24.=rAC 15:24

Gal.  II 12.=rGAL 2:12

CERTAIN PERSONS CAME DOWN FROM JUDEA AND TAUGHT THE BRETHREN, THAT "IF
YE BE NOT CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED

WE HAVE HEARD THAT CERTAIN PERSONS WHICH WENT FORTH FROM US HAVE
TROUBLED YOU WITH WORDS, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS [AND (as v.  28=rAC 14:28
implies) LAYING ON YOU GREATER BURDEN THAN THE FOUR NECESSARY POINTS OF
RITUAL].

BEFORE THAT CERTAIN PERSONS CAME FROM JAMES, PETER USED TO EAT WITH THE
GENTILES; BUT, WHEN THEY CAME, HE BEGAN TO DRAW BACK AND SEPARATE
HIMSELF, FEARING THE CHAMPIONS OF CIRCUMCISION. (14=rGAL 2:14) BUT I
SAID UNTO CEPHAS BEFORE THEM ALL, "HOW COMPELLEST THOU THE NATIONS TO
CONFORM TO JEWISH CEREMONIAL? "

It is noteworthy that Luke used the vague expression that "persons came
down from Judea,"which is made more definite in v.  24=rAC 14:24: the
champions of circumcision who caused the dissension in Antioch had come
on a mission from the Apostles in Jerusalem.  Luke pointedly avoids any
expression that would connect the leading Apostles with the action of
these emissaries.  They had been sent from Jerusalem: but in v.  24=rAC
14:24 the Apostles disclaim all responsibility for their action.  While
Luke gives all the materials for judging, the substitution of Judea for
Jerusalem in his narrative is very significant of his carefulness in the
minutiœof expression.  Itis in no sense incorrect (it puts the general
name of the whole land in place of the city name), and it guards against
a probable misconception in the briefest way.

The incidents described in Gal.  II 11-14 =rGAL 2:11-14are not usually
referred to this period; and it is therefore advisable to elicit from
the words of Paul the precise situation as he conceives it.  Certain
persons had come to Antioch from James: James, the head of the Church in
Jerusalem, here stands alone as "the local representative"of that Church
(to borrow a phrase from Lightfoot, Ed.  Gal., p.  365).These persons
had found in Antioch a situation that shocked them, and they expressed
their disapproval so strongly and effectively, that Peter shrank from
continuing the free intercourse with Gentile Christians which he had
been practising.  What do we learn from the context as to their
attitude?  They are styled "they of the circumcision"; and this phrase
(as distinguished from the mere general expression of disagreement and
dislike used about persons of the same class in Gal.  II 4) implies that
they actively championed that cause against Peter.  The exact form of
the argument which moved Peter is not stated explicitly by Paul in his
hurried and impassioned narrative; but we gather what it was from the
terms of his expostulation with Peter.  He said to him in public: "how
compellest thou the Nations to Judaise?  "The words have no force unless
Peter, convinced by the Judaistic envoys, had begun to declare that
compliance with the Law was compulsory, before Gentiles could become
members of the Church fully entitled to communion with it.  Accordingly,
the situation described in (Gal.  II 11-14 =rGAL 2:11-14is that which
existed in Antioch after Paul's return from the Galatian Churches.  In
the first part of his letter to the Galatians, Paul recapitulates the
chief stages in the development of the controversy between the Judaising
party in the Church, the premonitory signs on his second visit to
Jerusalem, and the subsequent open dispute with Peter in Antioch.  The
dispute occurred after Paul's second, but before his third, visit to
Jerusalem, i.e., either between Acts XII 25=rAC 12:25 and XIII 1=rAC
13:1, or between XIV 26=rAC 14:26 and XV 4=rAC 15:4.  Now in XV 1=rAC
15:1(cp.  v.  24=rAC 14:24) envoys from James caused strife in Antioch;
and we can hardly think that envoys also came from James after XII
25=rAC 12:25, and caused exactly similar strife, which was omitted by
Luke but recorded in Gal.  II 12=rGAL 2:12.  When the question was put
distinctly in all its bearings and consequences before Peter, he was
unable to resist the argument that Christians ought to observe the Law,
as Christ had done, and as the Twelve did.  On one or two occasions,
indeed, Christ had been taunted with permitting breaches of the Law; but
His actions could be so construed only by captious hypercriticism.  It
is quite clear that Peter and the older Apostles did not for a time
grasp the full import of Christ's teaching on this subject: the actual
fact that He and they were Jews, and lived as such, made more impression
on them than mere theoretical teaching.  Barnabas, even, was carried
away by the example of Peter, and admitted the argument that the Gentile
Christians ought "to live as do the Jews". Paul alone stood firm.  The
issue of the situation is not described by Paul; he had now brought down
his narrative to the situation in which the Galatian defection arose;
and his retrospect therefore came to an end, when he reached the
familiar facts (p.  185 f.). We must estimate from the context the
general argument and what was the issue.  Obviously, the rebuke which
Paul gavemust have been successful in the case of Peter and Barnabas;
the immediate success of his appeal to their better feelings constitutes
the whole force of his argument to the Galatians.  The power of his
letter to them lies in this, that the mere statementof the earlier
stages of the controversy is sufficient to show the impregnability of
his position and the necessity of his free and generous policy: the
narrow Judaising tyranny was self-condemned; Peter was wholly with him,
and so was Barnabas; but the victory had been gained, not by listening
to the older Apostles, but by obeying "the good pleasure of God, who
called me by His grace to preach Him among the Gentiles". If the
hesitation of Peter and Barnabas had resulted in an unreconciled
dispute, the force of Paul's argument is gone: he has urged at great
length that the older Apostles were in agreement with him, and accepted
him as the Apostle called to the Foreign Mission, as they were to the
Jewish Mission; and, as the climax of his argument for equality of
privilege, he says: "Peter and even Barnabas wavered for a moment from
their course, when the gravity of its consequences, viz., the
supersession of the Judaic Law, was set plainly before them by some of
their friends; but I pointed out Peter's error in one brief appeal from
his present wavering to his own past action". From this analysis we see
that the issue of the situation implied in Gal.  II 11-14=rGAL 2:11-14
is described in Acts XV 2=rAC 15:2, 7:=rAC 15:7Barnabas joined Paul in
combating the Judaising party, and Peter championed the cause in
emphatic and noble terms at the subsequent Council in Jerusalem.  That
follows naturally on the interrupted narrative of the Epist.le: the
history as related in Acts completes and explains the Epist.le, and
enables us to appreciate the force of Paul's argument and its
instantaneous effect on the Galatian Churches.

It is an interesting point, that Peter used at the Council the argument
in favour of freedom with which Paul had pressed him in Antioch.  Paul
said to him, "In practice thou, a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles; how
then compellest thou the Gentiles to act according to the Jewish Law?
"Struck with this argument, Peter puts it in a more general form to the
Council,

"Why put a yoke on them which neither we nor our fathers could bear?
"It is true to nature that he should employ to others the argument that
had convinced himself.

It must, however, be confessed that while Galatians leads up excellently
to Acts, and gains greatly in force from the additional facts mentioned
there, Acts is silent about the facts narrated in Galatians.  The
eyewitness's narrative gains from the historian and stands out in new
beauty from the comparison; but here Acts seems to lose by being brought
into juxtaposition with the narrative of the eye-witness.  To our
conception the omission of all reference to the wavering of Barnabas and
Peter appears almost like the sacrifice of historic truth, and certainly
loses a picturesque detail.  But thedifference of attitude and object, I
think, fully explains the historian's selection amid the incidents of
the controversy.  For him picturesque details had no attraction; and the
swerving of all the Jews except Paul from the right path seemed to him
an unessential fact, like hundreds and thousands of others which he had
to leave unnoticed.  The essential fact which he had to record was that
the controversy raged, and that Paul and Barnabas championed the cause
of freedom.

But, it may be objected, Barnabas had wavered, and it is not accurate to
represent him as a champion along with Paul.  We reply that Paul does
not make it clear how far Barnabas had gone with the tide: the matter
was one of tendency, more than of completeseparation.  Peter began to
withdraw and separate himself 1f17from familiar communion with the
Gentile Christian: the resident Jews joined him in concealing their real
sentiment and their ordinary conduct towards the non-Jewish members of
the Church: even Barnabas was carried off his feet by the tide of
dissembling.  These words would be correct, if Barnabas had merely
wavered, and been confirmed by Paul's arguments in private.  Paul's
public rebuke was not addressed to Barnabas, but only to Peter.  There
is a certain difficulty in the record; but I confess that, after trying
honestly to give full emphasis to the difficulty, I see no reason why we
should not, as the issue of the facts in Gal.  II 11-14=rGAL 2:11-
14conceive Barnabas to have come forward as a thorough-going advocate of
the Pauline doctrine and practice.

Moreover, the difficulty remains, and becomes far more serious, on the
ordinary view that the incidents of Gal.  II 11-14occurred after the
Council in Jerusalem.  According to that view, Barnabas, when delegates
came from Jerusalem (Acts XV 2, 24=rAC 15:24), resisted them
strenuously, represented the cause of freedom as an envoy to Jerusalem,
and obtained an authoritative Decree from the Apostles disowning the
action of the delegates, and emphatically condemning it as "subverting
your souls"thereafter delegates came again from James, the same Apostle
that had taken the foremost part in formulating the recent Decree;1f18
but this time Barnabas, instead of resisting, weakly yielded to their
arguments.

Worse, almost, is the conduct of Peter in that view.  When the ease came
up before the Council to be considered in all its bearings and solemnly
decided, he, "after there had been much discussion"(in which we may be
sure that the consequences were fully emphasised by the Judaising
party), appeared as the most outspoken advocate of freedom, and declared
that "we must not demand from them what we ourselves have been unable to
endure"Shortly after the Council (onthat view), Peter went to Antioch
and put in practice the principle of freedom for which he had contended
at the Council.  But "certain persons came from James"the same Apostle
that had supported him in the Council; these persons reopened the
controversy; and Peter abandoned his publicly expressed conviction,
which in a formal letter was declared with his approval to be the word
of the Holy Spirit.

We are asked to accept as a credible narrative this recital of
meaningless tergiversation, which attributes to Peter and to Barnabas,
not ordinary human weakness and inability to answer a grave issue at the
first moment when it is presented to them, but conduct devoid of reason
or sanity.  Who can wonder that many who are asked to accept this as
history, reply that one of the two authors responsible for the two
halves of the recital has erred and is untrustworthy?  For the truth of
history itself one must on that theory distrust one of the two
documents.  That is not the faith, that is not the conduct, which
conquered the world!  The only possible supposition would be that the
Apostles were men unusually weak, ignorant, and inconstant, who
continually went wrong, except where the Divine guidance interposed to
keep them right.  That theory has been and is still held by some; but it
removes the whole development of Christianity out of the sphere of
history into the sphere of the supernatural and the marvellous, whereas
the hypothesis on which this investigation is based is that it was a
process intelligible according to ordinary human nature, and a proper
subject for the modern historian.

It is true that Peter once before denied his own affirmed principles,
but that was when he was younger, when he was a mere pupil, when a
terrible strain was put on him; but this denial is supposed to have been
made when he was in the maturity of his power, after he had experienced
the quickening sense of responsibility as a leader of the Church for
many years, and after his mind and will had been enlarged and
strengthened at the great Pentecost (see p.  365).

Further, according to the view stated by Lightfoot, the feeble action of
Peter and Barnabas in Antioch produced lasting consequences: it "may
have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which
shortly afterwards led to their separation.  From this time forward they
never appear again associated together."If it was so serious, the total
omission of it by Luke becomes harder to understand and reconcile with
the duty of a historian; whereas, if it was (as we suppose) a mere
hesitation when the question was first put explicitly, it was not of
sufficient consequence to demand a place in his history.

Peter's visit to Antioch was not of the same character as his visits to
Samaria and other Churches at an earlier time, in which he was giving
the Apostolic approval to the congregations established there.  The
first visit of Barnabas to Antioch, followed by theAntiochian delegation
toJerusalem (XI 28,=rAC 11:28XII 25=rAC 12:25), and

the recognition of Paul and Barnabas as Apostles (Gal.  II 9), had
placed Antioch on a recognised and independent basis (XIII 1=rAC 13:1).
In Luke's view, therefore, as in

Paul's, Peter's visit was not a step in the development of the Church in
Antioch, as Barnabas's had been.

3.  THE COUNCIL. (XV 4=rAC 15:4) AND WHEN THEY WERE COME TO JERUSALEM,
THEY WERE RECEIVED BY THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS, AND
THEY REHEARSED ALL THINGS THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM. (5=rAC 15:5) BUT
THERE ROSE UP CERTAIN OF THE SECT OF THE PHARISEES WHO BELIEVED, SAYING,
"IT IS NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE THEM, AND TO CHARGE THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF
MOSES". (6=rAC 15:6) AND THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS WERE GATHERED
TOGETHER TO CONSIDER OF THIS MATTER. (7=rAC 15:7) AND WHEN THERE HAD
BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION, PETER ROSE AND SPOKE. (12=rAC 15:12) AND ALL THE
MULTITUDE KEPT SILENCE; AND THEY HEARKENED UNTO BARNABAS AND PAUL, WHO
REHEARSED WHAT SIGNS AND WONDERS GOD HAD WROUGHT AMONG THE NATIONS BY
THEM. (13=rAC 15:13) AND AFTER THEY HAD CEASED, JAMES SPOKE.

At Jerusalem there occurred in the first place a general meeting of the
Church as a whole to receive and welcome the delegates.  The Apostles
and the Elders are specified as taking part in the meeting; and the
separate article before each name implies distinct action

of each body.  At this meeting the delegates explained the circumstances
which had caused their mission; and the extreme members of the Judaising
party, who are described here as Pharisees, stated their view forthwith.

A mark of the developed situation since Paul's last visit must be noted
in v.  4=rAC 15:4.  Paul and Barnabas now expound in a formal and public
way all their missionary experience; but on their previous visit, Paul
privately submitted to the leaders of the Church his views as to
missionary enterprise.

Thereupon, a special meeting of the Apostles and the Elders was held to
consider the matter, and a long discussion took place.  Peter delivered
a speech in favour of complete freedom for the new converts; and the
effect which he produced was shown by the patienthearing accorded to
Barnabas and to Paul, as they recounted the proofs of Divine grace and
Divine action in the test that God was with them.  Thus, the course of
the meeting was very similar to the discussion that followed after the
conversion ofCornelius (XI 1-18=rAC 11:1-18). The general sense was
clearly against the claim of the extreme Judaistic party (called "them
of the circumcision"XI 2,=rAC 11:2Gal.  II 12=rGAL 2:12).

But, while the champions of circumcision were clearly in the minority,
apparently a decided feeling was manifest in favour of some concessions
to the Jewish feeling and practice: the Nations were to be received into
the Church, but the widened Church was not to be apart from and
independent of the old Jewish community: it was to be "a rebuilding of
the tabernacle of David". To render possible a real unanimity of
feeling, the Nations must accept the fundamental regulations of purity.
The chairman's speech summed up the sense of the meeting in a way that
was universally accepted.  James, the recognised head of the Church in
Jerusalem, said:-

(XV 14=rAC 15:14) SYMEON HATH REHEARSED HOW FIRST GOD TOOK CARE TO
GATHER FROM AMONG THE NATIONS A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME. (15=rAC 15:15) AND
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS: AS IT IS WRITTEN, (16=rAC
15:16) "I WILL BUILD AGAIN THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, (17=rAC 15:17) THAT
THE RESIDUE OF MEN MAY SEEK AFTER THE LORD, AND ALL THE NATIONS, OVER
WHOM MY NAME IS PRONOUNCED,"SAITH THE LORD, .WHO MAKETH THESE THINGS
(18=rAC 15:18) KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME.1f19(19=rAC 15:19)
WHEREFORE MY VOICE IS THAT WE TROUBLE NOT THEM WHICH FROM AMONG THE
NATIONS TURN TO GOD; (20=rAC 15:20) BUT SEND INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM TO
ABSTAIN FROM THE POLLUTIONS OF IDOLS AND FROM MARRIAGE WITHIN THE
DEGREES FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW, AND FROM WHAT IS STRANGLED, AND FROM the
use ofBLOOD as food.  (21=rAC 15:21) FOR MOSES FROM ANCIENT GENERATIONS
HATH IN EVERY CITY THEM THAT PREACH HIM, AS HE IS READ IN THE SYNAGOGUES
EVERY SABBATH.

James grounds his advice for partial conformity on the fact, v.  21=rAC
15:21, that the Mosaic Law had already spread widely overthe cities of
the empire, and that the existing facts which facilitated intercourse
between Jews and "God-fearing"pagans should be continued.

He grounds his advice for freedom from the rest of the Law on the
declared will of God, first by prophecy in time long past, and
afterwards by revelation to Peter, that the Nations should be admitted
to the tabernacle of David, from which he infers that their own duty is
to make admission easy.

Incidentally we observe that James used the Septuagint Version, quoting
loosely from Amos IX 11, 12,=rAM 9:11-12a passage where the telling
point for his purpose occurs only in the Greek and not in the Hebrew
Version.

Another point of development since Paul's second visit to Jerusalem must
be noticed here.  On the second visit, as Paul declares, the recognised
leaders in Jerusalem gave him no advice and no instruction, except to
remember the poverty of the brethren there.  It would.  be hard to put
that in more emphatic terms than he uses (p.  56). But on the
thirdvisit, the delegates bring a question for settlement, and receive
from the recognised leaders in Jerusalem an authoritative response,
giving a weighty decision in a serious matter of practical work.  a
decision that would have been epoch-making, if it had been permanently
carried into effect.  On the second visit the difficulty could be
foreseen; between the second and third visit it became acute; at the
third visit it was settled in a way that was a distinct rebuff to the
Judaising party, but notacomplete triumph for the party of freedom.  It
would not be honest to use the words of Gal.  II 10 =rGAL 2:10about the
visit described in Acts XV=rAC 15:1

Another contrast between the second and the third visit must be
observed.  The Church sent forth several delegates along with Paul and
Barnabas on the third journey; but on the second they were the sole
delegates.  The common view, which identifies the second visit of Gal.
II 1-10 =rGAL 2:1-10with the third visit of Acts XV=rAC 15:1, is
defended by its supporters on the ground that Titus, who went along with
Paul (Gal.  II 1=rGAL 2:1), was one of the additional delegates
mentioned, XV 2.=rAC 15:2 This argument sins against the facts.  In Gal.
II 1=rGAL 2:1Titus is defined as a subordinate, and not as one of the
delegates;*we have no reason to think that any subordinates went up to
the Council, whereas it was necessary for the work of the second visit
to use assistants.  Moreover, wemay be certain that, if Paul did take
any subordinates with him to the Council, he was too prudent and
diplomatic to envenom a situation already serious and difficult by
taking.  an uncircumcised Greek with him.  It was different on a later
visit, when the authoritative decree had decided against circumcision,
or on an earlier visit, before the question was raised; but when that
question was under discussion, it would have been a harsh and heedless
hurt to the susceptibilities of the other party, to take Titus with him;
and Paul never was guilty of such an act.  The example of Timothy shows
how far he went about this time in avoiding any chance of hurting Jewish
feeling.

4.  THE DECREE. (XV 22=rAC 15:22) THEN IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE APOSTLES
AND ELDERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, TO CHOOSE MEN OUT OF THEIR COMPANY,
AND SEND THEM TO ANTIOCH WITH PAUL AND BARNABAS, namely, JUDAS CALLED
BARSABBAS, AND SILAS, CHIEF MEN AMONG THE BRETHREN. (23=rAC 15:23) AND
THEY SENT A LETTER BY THEIR MEANS: "THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS
[BRETHREN]*f21UNTO THE BRETHREN WHICH ARE OF THE NATIONS IN ANTIOCH AND
SYRIA AND CILICIA, GREETING. (24=rAC 15:24) FORASMUCH AS WE HAVE HEARD
THAT CERTAIN WHICH WENT OUT FROM US HAVE TROUBLED YOU WITH WORDS,
SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS; TO WHOM WE GAVE NO COMMANDMENT; (25=rAC 15:25) IT
SEEMED GOOD UNTO US, HAVING COME TO ONE ACCORD, TO CHOOSE OUT MEN AND
SEND THEM UNTO YOU WITH OUR BELOVED BARNABAS AND PAUL, (26=rAC 15:26)
MEN THAT HAVE HAZARDED THEIR LIVES FOR THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST. (27=rAC 15:27) WE HAVE SENT THEREFORE JUDAS AND SILAS, WHO
THEMSELVES ALSO SHALL TELL YOU THE SAME THINGS BY WORD OF MOUTH. (28=rAC
15:28) FOR IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND TO US, TO LAY UPON YOU
NO GREATER BURDEN THAN THESE NECESSARY THINGS. (29=rAC 15:29) THAT YE
ABSTAIN FROM THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS, AND FROM BLOOD, AND FROM THINGS
STRANGLED, AND FROM MARRIAGE WITHIN THE DEGREES; FROM WHICHYE KEEP
YOURSELVES, IT SHALL BE WELL WITH YOU. FARE YE WELL."

The Decree is, as Lightfoot says, a compromise.  On the one hand the
extreme Judaising party is entirely disowned and emphatically condemned,
as "subverting the souls"of the Gentiles.  But, on the other hand, part
of the Law is declared to be obligatory; and the word selected is very
emphatic (ejpavnagkes). If this word be taken in its full sense, the
Decree lacks unity of purpose and definiteness of principle; it passes
lamely from side to side.  Now it seems impossible to suppose that Paul
could have accepted a Decree which declared mere points of ritual to be
compulsory; and one of them he afterwards emphatically declared to be
not compulsory (I Cor.  VIII 4 f.=r1 CO 8:4). But those who had listened
to the speeches of Peter and James, and were familiar with the situation
in which the question had emerged, were prepared to look specially at
the exordium with its emphatic condemnation of the Judaising party; and
thereafter, doubtless, they took the concluding part as a
recommendation, and regarded the four points as strongly advised in the
interests of peace and unity.

But the real power of a law lies in its positive enactment; and most
people would look only to what the Decree ordered.  Now, whether or not
the last sentences mustbear the sense, they certainly maynaturally bear
the sense, that part of the Law was absolutely compulsory for salvation,
and that the Nations were released from the rest as a concession to
their weakness: "we lay on you no greater burden than these necessary
conditions". This seemed to create two grades of Christians: a lower
class of weaker persons, who could not observe the whole Law, but only
the compulsory parts of it, and a higher class, who were strong enough
to obey the whole Law.  The Gentile Christians were familiar in the
pagan religions with distinctions of grade; for stages of initiation
into the Mysteries existed everywhere.  It was almost inevitable that a
Decree, which lays down no clear and formal principle of freedom, should
in practice be taken as making a distinction between strong and weak,
between more and less advanced Christians; and it is certain that it was
soon taken in that sense.

The question is often asked, why this letter was not addressed also to
the Churches of Galatia; and several answers are suggested.  But the
answer which seems obvious from our point of view is that the letter was
addressed only to those who asked the question.  The provincial
organisation of the Church began through the compulsion of circumstances
(p.  135): there must either be a provincial organisation or no
organisation.  The principle, when it has been once stated, is self-
evident.  Circumstances made Antioch the centre of the Church in the
province Syria and Cilicia; and the address of this letter attests the
recognition of that fact and its consequences.

Hence, when Paul went forth on his next journey, he did not communicate
the Decree to the Churches in Syria and Cilicia, XV 41=rAC 15:41,
because they had already received it, when it was first sent out.  But,
when he and Silas reached Galatia, "they delivered them the decrees for
to keep, which had been ordained of the Apostles and Elders,"XVI 4.  But
the Bezan Reviser, not understanding this delicate distinction,
interpolated the statement in XV 41=rAC 15:41, that Paul and Silas
"delivered the instructions of the Apostles and EIders".

5.  THE RETURN TO ANTIOCH. (XV 30=rAC 15:30) SO THEY, BEING SET FREE TO
DEPART, CAME DOWN TO ANTIOCH; AND HAVING GATHERED THE MULTITUDE
TOGETHER, THEY DELIVERED THE LETTER. (31=rAC 15:31) AND WHEN THEY HAD
READ IT, THEY REJOICED AT THE ENCOURAGEMENT. (32=rAC 15:32) AND JUDAS
AND SILAS ON THEIR OWN ACCOUNT ALSO, INASMUCH AS THEY WERE PROPHETS,
ENCOURAGED THE BRETHREN AT GREAT LENGTH, AND CONFIRMED THEM. (33=rAC
15:33) AND AFTER THEY HAD SPENT SOME TIME, THEY WERE SET FREE BY THE
BRETHREN TO DEPART IN PEACE TO THEM THAT SENT THEM FORTH; (34=rAC 15:34)
But it pleased Silas to abide there still.  (35=rAC 15:35) AND PAUL AND
BARNABAS TARRIED IN ANTIOCH, TEACHING AND PREACHING THE WORD OF THE
LORD, WITH MANY OTHERS ALSO. (36=rAC 15:36) AND AFTER CERTAIN DAYS PAUL
SAID . . .

As in XI 24=rAC 11:24, so here, v.  32=rAC 15:32, the qualification of
Judas and Silas for exhorting the congregation is carefully stated.
Luke lays such evident stress on proper qualification, that he seems to
have considered Divine gifts necessary in any one that was to address a
congregation (p.  45).

After the Council, Paul and Barnabas returned to their ordinary duties
in Antioch, where the number of qualified prophets and teachers was now
larger than in XIII 1=rAC 13:1.  They remained there a short time (v.
36=rAC 15, cp.  IX 19=rAC 9:19, 23=rAC 9:23). The second journey began
probably in the spring of the year 50.

At some period v.34=rAC 15:34was deliberately omitted from the next,
from the mistaken idea that v.  33=rAC 15:33, declared the actual
departure of Judas and Silas: but the officials of the Church in Antioch
(the Elders?  ) simply informed Judas and Silas that their duties were
concluded and they were free to return home, and Silas did not avail
himself of the permission.  Considering how XII 25=rAC 12:25 prepares
the way for XIII 5=rAC 13:5, we must hold that XV 34 =rAC 15:34is
genuine and prepares for XV 40=rAC 15:40; and the fact that the Bezan
Reviser found 34=rAC 15:34 is the text and added to it the comment "and
Judas went alone,"constitutes a distinct proof of its genuineness.  It
is not that any difficulty need be found in Paul selecting Silas from
Jerusalem, for Barnabas here takes Mark from Jerusalem (XIIl 13=rAC
13:13). But it is one of the points of Luke's style to furnish the
material for understanding a new departure, and the very marked
statement that Silas voluntarily remained, when his official duty was
declared to be at an end, makes the next event much more intelligible
(p.  176). There is in the sequence of thought 33-4=rAC 15:33-34a
certain harshness (characteristic of Luke when he wants to draw
attention to a point); and this led to the omission of 34=rAC 15:34in
the great MSS. and by many modern editors.

6.  THE SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS. (xv 36=rAC 15:36) AND AFTER
SOME DAYS PAUL SAID UNTO BARNABAS, "LET US RETURN NOW AND VISIT THE
BRETHREN IN EVERY CITY WHEREIN WE PROCLAIMED THE WORD OF THE LORD, HOW
THEY FARE". (37=rAC 15:37) AND BARNABAS WAS MINDED TO TAKE WITH THEM
JOHN ALSO, WHO WAS CALLED MARK. (38=rAC 15:38) BUT PAUL THOUGHT NOT GOOD
TO TAKE WITH THEM HIM THAT WITHDREW FROM THEM FROM PAMPHYLIA AND WENT
NOT WITH THEM TO THE WORK. (39=rAC 15:39) AND THERE AROSE A SHARP
CONTENTION, SO THAT THEY PARTED ASUNDER ONE FROM THE OTHER; AND BARNABAS
TOOK MARK WITH HIM, AND SAILED AWAY UNTO CYPRUS; (40=rAC 15:40) BUT PAUL
CHOSE SILAS AND WENT FORTH, BEING COMMENDED BY THE BRETHREN TO THE GRACE
OF THE LORD: AND HE WENT THROUGH SYRIA AND CILICIA, CONFIRMING THE
CHURCHES.

Barnabas here passes out of this history.  The tradition, as stated in
the apocryphal Periodoi Barnabœ, a very late work, was that he remained
in Cyprus till his death; and the fact that Mark reappears at a later
stage without Barnabas, is in agreement.  At any rate his work, wherever
it was carried on, did not, in Luke's estimation, contribute to work out
the idea of the organised and unified Church.  That idea was elaborated
in Paul's work; and the history is guided by Paul's activity from the
moment when he began to be fully conscious of the true nature of his
work.  Others contributed to the earlier stages, but, as it proceeded,
all the other personages became secondary, and Paul more and more the
single moving genius.

The choice of Silas was, of course, due to his special fitness for the
work, which had been recognised during his ministration in Antioch.
Doubtless he had shown tact and sympathy in managing the questions
arising from the relations of the Gentile Christians to the Jews.  His
sympathies had also been shown by his preferring to remain in the mixed
and freer congregation in Antioch, when he had been at liberty to return
to Jerusalem.

The name Silas is a familiar diminutive of Silvanus; and the full and
more dignified form is employed in the superscription of the two letters
to the Thessalonians.  Silvanus is a Latin name; and Silas is implied in
XVI 37=rAC 16:37 to have been a Roman citizen.  It may, however, be
looked on as certain that he was a Hebrew, for only a Hebrew would have
been a leading man among the

Brethren at Jerusalem (XV 22=rAC 15:22). His double character,

Hebrew and Roman, was in itself a qualification for a coadjutor of Paul;
and, doubtless, the Roman side of his character caused that freedom from
narrow Judaistic prejudice which shines through his action.

It appears from the term employed in v.  40=rAC 15:40 that Silas took
the place of Barnabas, not of Mark.  The latter was a mere unofficial
companion in every case, as is shown by the word used.*f22The verbs in
the next few verses are all singular; though it is clear that Silas is
concerned in many of the actions.  The singular was preferred by Luke
because certain of the actions were special to Paul, the choosing of
Silas and of Timothy.  There is a decided harshness in the narrative
that follows, owing to the variation between the singular and the
plural.  At some points in the action Paul monopolises the author's
attention; and probably the expression, harsh though it be
grammatically, corresponds to the facts.  At the opening of the journey
Paul alone is the subject: now at the opening the new comrade was
untrained to the work.  After a time the plural begins, XVI 4, and,
wherever travelling is described, it is employed; but, when the
direction given to missionary work is alluded to, Silas disappears, and
Paul alone is the subject, XVII 2.=rAC 17:2

CHAPTER VIII.

HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA

1.  THE VISIT OF PAUL AND SILAS. (XVI 1) AND HE CAME ALSO TO DERBE AND
TO LYSTRA; AND BEHOLD A CERTAIN DISCIPLE WAS THERE NAMED TIMOTHY, THE
SON OF A JEWESS WHICH BELIEVED; BUT HIS FATHER WAS A GREEK. (2) THE SAME
HAD A GOOD REPUTATION AMONG THE BRETHREN THAT WERE IN LYSTRA AND
ICONIUM. (3) HIM WOULD PAUL HAVE TO GO FORTH WITH HIM; AND HE TOOK AND
CIRCUMCISED HIM BECAUSE OF THE JEWS THAT WERE IN THOSE PARTS, FOR THEY
ALL KNEW THAT HIS FATHER WAS A GREEK. (4) AND AS THEY WERE PASSING
THROUGH THE CITIES, THEY in each DELIVERED THEM THE DECREES FOR TO KEEP,
WHICH HAD BEEN ORDAINED OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS THAT WERE AT
JERUSALEM. (5) THE CHURCHES THEN WERE STRENGTHENED IN THE FAITH, AND
INCREASED IN NUMBER DAILY. (6) AND THEY MADE A MISSIONARY PROGRESS
THROUGH THE PHRYGIAN REGION OF the province GALATIA (the Phrygo-Galatic
Region.)

In v.  1 it is implied that Derbe and Lystra are a pair, constituting a
district (p.  110). The work of this journey is divided according to
districts: (1) Syria and Cilicia, a single Roman province; (2) Derbe and
Lystra, a region of the province Galatia, which is here indicated by its
two cities as the most convenient way, because in one.  of them a
considerable halt had to be described; (3) the Phrygian region of the
province Galatia; (4) Asia, where preaching was forbidden, was traversed
transversely to its northwestern point after an unsuccessful effort to
enter the province Bithynia for missionary purposes.  Between Cilicia
and Derbe the great realm of Antiochus is omitted from the narrative, as
being a non-Roman territory and out of Paul's plans.

Derbe and Lystra are grouped together as a Region, but the author dwells
only on Lystra.  The only reason why they are grouped together and
separated from the districts that precede and follow, lies in the Roman
classification, which made them a group.  But in order to mark that
Lystra alone is referred to in the sequel, the historian repeats the
preposition before it: "he came to Derbe and to Lystra".

In v.  2 Lystra and Iconium are grouped together as the district where
Timothy was well known.  It is implied that he was not known at Derbe.
This again is true to the facts of commerce and intercourse.  Lystra is
much nearer Iconium than it is to Derbe; and geographically, Lystra goes
along with Iconium, while Derbe goes with Laranda and that part of
Lycaonia.  Neither blood nor Roman classification could prevent commerce
from running in its natural channels (XIV 19). The nearest city to
Iconium was Lystra, and the nearest to Lystra was Iconium; and the
relations between them must always be close.

The historian is careful to add in this case, as he does about the Seven
Deacons (VI 3), about Cornelius (X 22, cp.2), and as Paul does about
Ananias (XXII 12), and as is implied in I 21, that Timothy had so lived
as to bear a good character in the district where he was known.  It is
not meant that Paul went about taking the opinion of Lystra and Iconium
about Timothy, any more than it is meant in X 22 that Cornelius's
messengers went collecting evidence about him all over Palestine: we may
be sure that in such a selection Paul depended on his own insight,
guided perhaps by Divine approval.  The author adds this information
about the good repute of Timothy, because he considered good repute one
of the conditions of appointment to any office however humble in the
Church.  He is interested in all questions of organisation, and we may
compare what he says about the qualification of preachers (pp.  45,
174). As a point of literary style we note that the event of a new and
important character is marked by an unusually detailed account of him.

We infer from the expression that in vv.  1-3 Paul and Silas have not
gone beyond Lystra; and that it is a misconception to think that in v.
2 Paul is in Iconium.  At Lystra Paul felt that, along the route which
he intended to take, the Jews knew Timothy's father to be a Greek: he
was going along a frequented route of trade, on which were colonies of
Jews in communication with each other, for there can be no doubt that
his plan was to go by Iconium and Antioch into Asia.  The opinion has
sometimes been held that at this point Paul abandoned the visitation of
his Churches as contemplated in XV 36; and that "the fact that God put
this companion in his way served as a warning to him to go direct from
Lykaonia to a new mission-field"(see Weiss's note on XVI 2). But, on the
contrary, our view is that, when Luke records any deliberately formed
intention on Paul's part, he leaves us to understand that it was carried
out, if no intimation to the contrary is given (p.  342); and that
Timothy here was taken as companion for the route as first planned, to
fill the place of John Mark on the previous journey.  There seems no
reason to think (as Blass does) that one or more subordinates
accompanied Paul from Syrian Antioch.  It is not improbable that Paul,
owing to previous experience, thought of Timothy as a companion even
before he left Antioch.

Paul then proceeded on his intended route through the Phrygian Region of
the province, whose two cities visited on the previous journey were
Iconium and Pisidian Antioch.  The cities are not specially named, as
nothing striking or important occurred in either.  It is implied that no
Church had been rounded on the former journey in Pisidia or Pamphylia;
and hence Paul had no Churches to review and confirm there.  The
reference to Pisidia (a Region of the province Galatia) in XIV 24 does
not suggest that any success was attained there; and we may find in the
list of I Peter I 1 a clear proof that there was no Church in Pamphylia
at a date considerably later.  That list is clearly intended to exhaust
the Church in Asia Minor; and it mentions every province except Lycia
and Pamphylia (which, therefore, did not yet contain any Churches, and
seem to have long resisted Christianity), and Cilicia, which was part of
Syria.  The list, incidentally, shows that already in the first century
a certain coherence was perceptible between the various Churches of Asia
Minor, as distinguished from Syria and Cilicia.  That springs naturally
from the political conditions, and it grew stronger as time passed,
until the two divisions became the patriarchates of Constantinople and
of Antioch.

At this point Luke inserts an account of Paul's action in the cities
through which he was making his way.  It is in his style to put this
account near the beginning and expect the reader to apply it in all
subsequent cases (p.  72). It does not apply to Cilicia (p.  173), and
could not therefore be given sooner.  In each city Paul and Silas
delivered the Decree, and urged the Gentile converts to observe the
necessary points of Jewish ritual; and everywhere the congregations were
vigorous and growing.  We cannot mistake the emphasis laid by the
historian on Paul's loyal determination to carry out the Apostolic
Decree.  and his anxiety to go as far as was honestly possible in the
way of conciliating the Jews: that is in keeping with his view that the
entire blame for the rupture between Paul and the Jews lay with the
latter.  But, if Paul was so anxious at this time to recommend the
Decree to his converts, why does he never refer to it in any of his
subsequent letters, even where he touches on points that were formally
dealt with in the Decree, and why does he give advice to the Corinthians
about meat offered to idols, which certainly strains the Decree to the
utmost, if it be not actually inconsistent with it?  The explanation
lies in the immediate consequences of his action in the Galatian
Churches.

2.  THE DESERTION OF GALATIANS. Soon after Paul left the province
Galatia, there came to it missionaries of the Judaising party, who
taught the Galatian Churches to take that view of the Apostolic Decree
which we have described on p.  172 f.  They pointed out that Paul
himself recognised the principle that circumcision was needed for the
higher grade of Christian service; for when he selected Timothy for a
position of responsibility in the Church, he, as a preliminary,
performed the rite on him; and they declared that thereby he was, in
effect, "preaching circumcision"(Gal.  V 11). Further, they threw doubt
on his sincerity in this act; and insinuated that he was reluctantly
complying with necessity, in order to "conciliate and ingratiate himself
with"the mass of the Church (see Lightfoot on Gal.  I 10). Above all
they insisted on the existence of the two grades of Christians; they
pointed out that Paul had himself delivered and recommended the
Apostolic Decree which recognised the distinction of weaker and stronger
Brethren; and they urged the Galatians to strive to attain to the
higher, and not rest content with the lower grade, which was a mere
concession to weakness.

Such teaching found a ready response in the minds of the Galatian
Christians.  Many of them had first heard Paul preaching in the
synagogue, many had come under the influence of Judaism to some extent
even before Paul entered Galatia; all were ready to accept the belief
that, as the Jews were always the first in Paul's own plans, and as
Christianity came from the Jews, therefore it was right to imitate the
Jews (p.  144). It was precisely the most enthusiastic and devoted, who
would be eager to rise to the highest and most difficult stage of
Christian life.

Further, the Judaistic emissaries urged that Paul was merely the
messenger and subordinate of the Twelve, that these original Apostles
and leaders of the Church must be accepted as the ultimate guides.  and
that where Paul swerved from their teaching he was in error; and they
claimed likewise to be the messengers come direct from the Twelve to
communicate their latest views.  Paul had recently delivered the Decree
of the older Apostles; and now later messengers supplemented and
elucidated the Decree.

3.  LETTER TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. Paul saw that his vision of the
Church that should unite the civilised world was a vain dream, if it
were to be bound by the fetters of Judaism; and he felt, as soon as he
heard of this defection, that it must be met at once.  If these
Churches, his first foundations towards the west, were to pass under the
party of slavery, his work was ruined at its inception: the blow to his
policy and his influence was ruinous.  One of the arguments by which the
change had been produced was especially galling to him: his efforts at
conciliation were taken advantage of to distort his motives, and to
represent him as inconsistent and temporising, and his attempts to
soothe the prejudices of the Judaistic party were treated as attempts at
compromise.  Hence he bursts forth at the outset in a strain of terrific
vehemence (which I purposely give as far as possible in Lightfoot's
language): "Though we (i.e., Silas and 1), or an angel from heaven,
should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto
you, let him be accursed.  As we have told you before, so now once more
I say, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye
received, let him be anathema.  What!  does my boldness startle you?  Is
this, I ask, the language of a time-server?  Will any one say now that,
careless of winning the favour of God, I seek to conciliate men, to
ingratiate myself with men?  I speak thus strongly, for my language
shall not be misconstrued, shall wear no semblance of compromise"(Gal.
I 8-10). And towards the end of his letter he returns to the same point:
"What!  do I who have incurred the deadly hatred of the Judaisers, who
am exposed to continual persecution from them, do I preach circumcision?
If so, why do they persecute me?  Surety what scandalises them in my
teaching, the crucifixion with its atonement for sin, has been done away
with, if I have, as they say, taken to their method, and begun to preach
circumcision"(V 11).

Satisfied with the vehemence of the first outburst, and the sarcasm .of
the second, Paul wastes no argument to prove that he has been consistent
throughout.  He knows that the Galatic Churches cannot really believe
that part of his adversaries'arguments: they feel in their hearts that
he has always been true to the first Gospel; and he proceeds to remind
them of its origin and its hold on them, in order to enforce the
conclusion that they must cling to the first Gospel, whoever it be that
preaches any other.  His argument, therefore, is directed to show that
he came among them in the beginning with a message direct from God: "the
Gospel which was preached by me is not after man"(I 11): "it came to me
through revelation of Jesus". Then he proceeds to show, by appealing to
the facts, that he had not had the opportunity of learning anything from
the recognised pillars of the Church.  When it pleased God to reveal
Jesus in him, bitter enemy of the Church as he was, he "conferred not
with flesh and blood,"but went away for solitary meditation into Arabia.
He was made by God His Apostle to the Nations years before he conferred
with any of the Apostles.  Twice at a later date did he go up to
Jerusalem, in one case remaining fifteen days and seeing only Peter and
James, in the second going up at the Divine command to help the poor at
Jerusalem (II 10)-on which occasion, as a matter of fact, no injunction
was laid on his Greek assistant Titus to accept the Judaic rite-and
receiving the recognition of his Apostleship, but no instruction, from
the heads of the Church (p.  56 f.).

Here in passing let us ask the question, Did Paul in this
autobiographical sketch, given in such solemn yet vehement style, with
the oath by God that he is not deceiving them-did Paul, I say, omit to
mention that he had paid another visit to Jerusalem between the two that
he describes?  The question seems almost an insult; yet many scholars of
the highest order consider that he here leaves out of sight the visit
described by Luke, XI 28-30, and XII 25.  I confess that, after studying
all that the orthodox scholars say on this point I find a higher
conception of Paul's character and truthfulness in the position of the
critics who conclude that Luke utterly misconceived the sequence of
events in early Christian history and interpolated an intermediate visit
where no visit occurred, than in Bishop Lightfoot's position that "of
this visit Paul makes no mention here". Paul 's argument is rounded on
the rarity of his visits, and his aim is to show that on these visits he
received no charge from the Twelve.  Reason and truth rebel against the
idea that he left out the middle visit.  If he passed over part of the
facts here, what situation can be imagined in which he would feel
obliged to tell all the facts?  And on that supposition, that Paul
omitted a fact so essential to his purpose and to honest autobiography,
the entire body of orthodox scholars have built up their theory of early
Church history!  It cannot be!  Luke's second visit must be Paul's
second visit; and when we build boldly on that plain foundation, the
history rises before us in order and symmetry.

But further, it is obvious that Paul appeals with absolute confidence to
this second visit as proving his ease: he evidently conceives that he
has merely to recall the facts to the Galatians in order to make all
clear.  Now, there is one situation in which a man is obviously not
receiving from others, and that is when he is actually giving to them:
that was the situation on the second visit according to Luke, and that
explains Paul's confidence in appealing to his second visit.

Again, Paul knew that he had clever and skillful arguers to contend
against.  How could he expose himself to the retort that he was missing
out the intermediate visit to Jerusalem?  How could he feel confident
that the Galatians, who had already shown themselves so liable to be
deceived by specious arguments, would be able at once to reply to that
obvious retort?

Finally, Paul, as an honest and rational man, could not appeal to the
events of the third visit according to Luke, as proving beyond question
that he received on that occasion no charge from the Apostles.  He did
receive a charge then, and he delivered that charge to the Churches.

Why, then, it may be objected, does Paul not mention his third visit?
The answer is obvious.  He is engaged in proving that, when he gave his
first message to the Churches of Galatia, he had never received any
charge from the older Apostles.  His whole point is: "Cleave to my first
message, which came direct from God: if Silas and I afterwards said
anything inconsistent with that message, we are accursed". The third
visit to Jerusalem did not take place until after the Galatian Churches
were rounded, and therefore it could find no place in the
autobiographical retrospect of I 12-II 10; but it is clearly implied in
the scornful and impetuous sentence, I 8: "Even if Silas and I (as these
emissaries have been telling you), if an angel from heaven, should
preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we originally preached to
you, a curse be upon us".

After this autobiographical sketch, Paul refers to an instance which
showed very strongly his independence in face of the leading Apostle
Peter, and then passes on to the third and main argument of his
adversaries, rounded on the supposed grades in Christian life.  His line
of reply is to bring out in various ways the truth that the Judaistic
form is the lower stage, and the Gospel of freedom which had been
delivered to the Galatians the higher stage.  The Law alone was not
sufficient for salvation, inasmuch as Christ had died to supplement its
deficiency; therefore life according to the Law could not be the highest
stage of Christian life.  How could the Galatians be so foolish as to
think that, having begun in the Spirit, their higher stage of
development would be in the flesh (III 3)? The Christians who have
entered through the Spirit are the children of the free woman, but the
Judaistic Christians are the children of the bond woman and lower in
rank (IV 31). The latter may rise to be free, but, if the former sink
under bondage to the Law, they sacrifice their Christianity.  The
Judaistic Christians are children under care of a pedagogue, who have to
be raised by Christ to the full growth and freedom (III 23-4). In a
variety of other striking and impressive figures the superiority of the
free to the Judaistic Christians is illustrated.  It cannot be said that
there is any reasoning or argument: illustrations are used to bring the
Galatians to a clear consciousness of what they have in their own minds.
Argument is too external a process; Paul merely points out to the
Galatians that "they already know".

As a whole, the letter is an eloquent and powerful claim for freedom of
life, freedom of thought, freedom of the individual from external
restrictions and regulations, freedom for all to work out their own
salvation and develop their own nature: "Ye were called for freedom"(V
13). And towards the conclusion this turns to a glorification of love.
Their freedom is freedom to do right, not freedom to do everything; "the
whole Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself"(V 14). Selfishness, i.e., "the flesh,"is the
absolute antithesis of love, i.e., "the Spirit "; and the receiving of
Christ is "crucifying the flesh with the passions thereof"(V 24). The
essence of the true life lies neither in observing the Law nor in being
above the Law, but in building anew one's nature (VI 15).

4.  THE DATE OF THE GALATIAN EPISTLE, though out of chronological order,
may be considered here.  The defection of the Galatians occurred shortly
after Paul's second visit (not shortly after his first visit, as
Lightfoot strangely takes it, I 6, p.  42). He spent the summer of 50
among them; and the Judaie emissaries may have come in the summer of 51
or 52.  But, amid the sudden changes of plan on his journey, Paul could
not receive many letters from Galatia.  Moreover, his epistle seems to
imply the possession of full knowledge, such as could not be gained from
a mere letter: if the Galatians wrote to him, it is most improbable that
they explained their changed attitude and all the reasons for it.  No!
Paul's information comes from the personal report of a trusty messenger;
and the obvious suitability of Timothy for the duty occurs at once to
one's mind.  Further, it is clear that Timothy was with Paul during a
considerable part of the stay in Corinth, for he joined in the greeting
at the opening of both letters to Thessalonica.  It is therefore hardly
possible that he could have gone home, visited his friends, satisfied
himself as to the condition of the Churches, and returned to Corinth
before Paul left that city.  Moreover, if Paul heard at that time, it is
not probable that he would have spent so much time on a voyage to
Jerusalem and a visit to Syrian Antioch before visiting personally the
wavering Churches.

We conclude, then, that Timothy went to pay a visit to his friends, not
before the latter part of Paul's stay in Corinth; and, when he found out
the real state of affairs in South Galatia, he went to meet Paul with
the news.  Owing to Paul's movements, there are only two places where
Timothy could have met him,-Ephesus and Syrian Antioch.  The former is
most unlikely, for, if Timothy left Corinth some months before Paul, he
could have no assurance of meeting him there, where he merely called in
passing.  It is probable, then, that he brought his report to Paul at
Syrian Antioch after the fourth visit to Jerusalem (p.  265). With the
entire want of definite evidence, we cannot get beyond this estimate of
probabilities; and it is most likely that Timothy stayed with Paul
during the whole of his residence at Corinth, sailed with him as far as
Ephesus, and landed there in order to go home on a visit to his friends,
while Paul went on to Jerusalem.  We shall at a later stage find that
Paul often sent deputies to inspect his Churches; and their reports
often drew forth an Epistle to correct an erring Church (pp.  275, 284).

In this way, when Paul reached Syrian Antioch, or immediately after he
reached it, at the end of his visit to Caesareia and Jerusalem, he found
Timothy waiting with the disheartening news, in the summer of 53: and at
once he sat down and wrote the letter which has been preserved to us.

One question remains.  Why was Paul content with writing?  Why did he
not start at once himself?  Personal intervention is always more
effective in such cases.  But, in the first place, a letter would
certainly travel faster than Paul could get over the ground; and he
would not lose a moment in letting the Galatians hear what he thought.
In the second place, he could hardly sacrifice the opportunity of
reviewing the Churches in Syria and Cilicia that lay on his way:
everywhere he would be besieged with entrearies to stay for a little,
and he could not well hurry past them without at least a brief stay of
one or two days in each.  Finally there are frequently reasons which
make it impossible to hurry away on a serious journey like that from
Syria to South Galatia.  Paul was only human.

When Paul wrote the letter he must, on our view, have been intending to
arrive very soon after his letter.  It may be asked why he makes no
reference to this intention.  But we should rather ask, if, according to
the ordinary view, he were not coming immediately, why he did not make
some explanatory statement of the reasons that compelled him at such a
crisis to be content with a letter and to do without a visit (p.  275
f.). The messenger who carried the letter carried also the news that
Paul was following close after, as fast as his necessary detentions at
Antioch and other cities on the way permitted; and part of the effect of
the letter lay in the fact that the writer was going to be present in
person very soon.

The Epistle to the Galatians, therefore, belongs to A.D. 53, and was
written just when he was starting on his third journey, but before he
had begun that scheme of a general contribution among all his new
Churches which is so prominent in the three following letters, I, II
Cor.  and Rom.

To this date one objection may perhaps be urged: in IV 10, Paul asks,
"Are ye observing days and months and seasons and years?"  It has been
urged that this implies that the Sabbatical year 54-55 was observed by
the Galatians when the letter was written.  But Lightfoot has rightly
rejected this argument: Paul asks in sarcasm: "Are ye observing the
whole series of institutions?  are ye taking up anew a ritual like that
of paganism from which you were set free?"

5.  THE LATER HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA is obscure.  They took
part in the contribution raised by the Pauline Churches for the poor
brethren at Jerusalem (p.  286 f.), and were represented in the
delegation that carried it to Jerusalem.  Thereafter history ends, and
tradition alone preserves some scraps of information about Antioch,
Iconium and Lystra.  Derbe alone is not mentioned either in the
tradition (so far as my knowledge extends) or in the history of the
Church until we come down to A.D. 381, when its bishop Daphnus was
present at the Council of Constantinople.  The only hope of further
information about the four Churches lies inarchæology; but unless the
spade can be brought to supplement the too scanty records that remain
above ground, little can be hoped for.*

CHAPTER IX.

THE COMING OF LUKE AND THE CALL INTO MACEDONIA

1.  ACROSS ASIA. (XVI 6) AND THEY, HAVING MADE PROGRESS THROUGH THE
PHRYGIAN REGION OF the province GALATIA, AND HAVING BEEN PREVENTED BY
THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM SPEAKING THE WORD IN the Province ASIA, (7) AND
HAVING REACHED A POINT OVER AGAINST MYSIA (or perhaps, on the skirts of
Mysia), WERE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THEIR WAY INTO the province BITHYNIA;
AND THE SPIRIT OF JESUS SUFFERED THEM NOT; (8) AND, NEGLECTING MYSIA,
THEY CAME DOWN TO the harbour TROAS. (9) AND A VISION APPEARED TO PAUL
BY NIGHT: THERE WAS A CERTAIN MAN, A MACEDONIAN, STANDING, AND EXHORTING
HIM AND SAYING, "COME OVER TO MACEDONIA, AND HELP US". (10) AND WHEN HE
SAW THE VISION, IMMEDIATELY WE SOUGHT TO GO OUT from Asia INTO the
province MACEDONIA, ASSUREDLY GATHERING THAT "GOD HAS SUMMONED US TO
BRING THE GOOD NEWS TO THEM".

Paul and his companions made a missionary progress through the Phrygian
Region of the province Galatia (p.  104), and then crossed the frontier
of the province Asia: but here they were prevented from preaching, and
the prohibition was made absolute for the entire province.  They
therefore kept to the north across Asian Phrygia with the intention of
entering the adjoining Roman province Bithynia; but when they came
opposite Mysia, and were attempting to go out of Asia into Bithynia, the
Spirit of Jesus suffered them not.  They therefore kept on towards the
west through Mysia, without preaching in it (as it was part of Asia),
until they came out on its western coast at the great harbour of
Alexandria Troas.

The expression marks clearly the distinction between the prohibition to
preach in Asia, while they were actually in it, and the prohibition even
to set foot in Bithynia.  It was necessary for them to cross Asia in
order to fulfill the purpose.  for which they were about to be called.

The geographical facts of this paragraph are stated with great clearness
in the text followed by the Authorised Version and the older editions;
but the reading which they give is rounded on Manuscripts of an inferior
class (while the great MSS. have a different text), and is characterised
by the sequence of three participial clauses, a sequence almost unique
in Luke's writings, and therefore suspected and altered.  But the
strange form of construction by a succession of participles suits so
perfectly the strange and unique character, the hurry, and the deep-
lying emotion of the passage (see § 2) that, as Lightfoot's judgment,
Bibl Essays, p.  237,perceived, the inferior MSS. must here be followed.
The text of the great MSS., though it does not quite conceal the feeling
of the passage, yet obscures it a little, and, by approximating more to
Luke's ordinary form of sentence, loses that perfect adaptation of form
to sense, which so often strikes us in this history.  We have already
noticed, p.  115, that Luke loves the triple iteration of successive
words or clauses to produce a certain effect in arresting attention.

The reading of the inferior MSS. suits the South-Galatian theory
admirably; but that fact never weighed with me for a moment in the
choice.  As long as the question between the two theories was alone
concerned, the thought of following the inferior MSS. did not even
present itself: I followed the great MSS. and interpreted them in the
best way possible, neither looking aside nor feeling the slightest wish
to adopt the rival text.  But when the question of literary feeling came
up, after the delicate adaptation of expression to emotion throughout
Acts gradually revealed itself, it became clear that here the choice lay
between a cast of sentence unusual in this author, and one that was
quite in his ordinary style, in a place where the feeling and the facts
were strange and unique: hesitation was then impossible: the unusual
emotion demanded the unusual expression.  See note, p.  211 f.

In this passage the distinction observed by Luke between Roman
provincial designations and the older national names is specially clear.
Wherever he mentions districts of mission work, he classifies according
to the existing political (Roman) divisions (as here, the Phrygo-Galatic
Region, Asia, Bithynia, Macedonia); but where he is simply giving
geographical information, he either uses the pre-Roman names of lands
(e.g., Mysia), or omits the land from his narrative.

The "neglecting"of Mysia is a remarkable expression, one of those by
which Luke compels attention at a critical point.  As a rule he simply
omits a country where no preaching occurred (p.  90 f.); but here he
accumulates devices to arrest the reader.  His effects are always
attained, not by rhetorical devices, but by order and marshalling of
facts; and here, in a missionary tour, the "neglecting"of a great
country is a fact that no one can pass over.  Not catching the
intention, many understand "passing without entering"(parelqovnte"): Dr.
Blass rightly sees that a traveller cannot reach Troas without crossing
Mysia; but he goes on to alter the text, following the Bezan reading
(dielqovnte"; see p.  235).

The journey across Mysia led naturally down the course of the river
Rhyndacos, and past the south shore of the great lakes.  A tradition
that Paul had travelled by the sacred town of the goddess Artemis at the
hot springs of the river Aisepos can be traced as early as the second
century, accompanied with the legend that he had rounded a chapel in the
neighbourhood.  If he went down the Rhyndacos, it is practically certain
that he must have passed close to, or through, Artemaia on his way to
the great harbour.  Under the influence of this tradition, the Bezan
Reviser changed the text of v.  8, reading "making a progress through
Mysia ". But evangelisation on the journey across Mysia was forbidden,v.
6.  The tradition, however, is interesting, and there is further trace
of very early foundations in this quarter, which will be treated
elsewhere.

The rapid sweep of narrative, hurrying on from country to country, is
the marked feature of this paragraph; yet it merely places before us the
facts, as Paul's missionary aims found no opening, and he was driven on
and on.  But.  on the current North-Galatian theory, this effect, which
is obviously intended, is got, not by simply stating facts, but by
slurring over one of Paul's greatest enterprises, the evangelisation of
North Galatia and the rounding of several Churches in a new mission
district.  But the first words of v.  6 describe a progress marked by no
great events, a steady continuance of a process fully described in the
context (p.  72).

2.  THE CALL INTO MACEDONIA. This is in many respects the most
remarkable paragraph in Acts . In the first place the Divine action is
introduced three times in four verses, marking and justifying the new
and great step which is made at this point.  In XIII 1-11 also the
Divine action is mentioned three times, leading up to the important
development which the author defines as "opening the door of belief to
the Nations"; but in that case there were only two actual manifestations
of the Divine guidance and power.  Here on three distinct occasions the
guidance of God was manifested in three different ways-the Holy Spirit,
the Spirit of Jesus, and the Vision-and the three manifestations all
lead up to one end, first forbidding Paul's purpose of preaching in
Asia, then forbidding his purpose of entering Bithynia, and finally
calling him forward into Macedonia.  Now, amid "the multitude of the
revelations"(II Cor.  XII 7) granted to Paul, Luke selects only those
which have a distinct bearing on his own purpose as an historian, and
omits the vast majority, which were all important in their influence on
Paul's conduct and character.  What is the reason for his insistence in
this case?

It is not easy to account on strictly historical grounds for the
emphasis laid on the passage to Macedonia.  Lightfoot, in his fine essay
on "the Churches of Macedonia,"recognises with his usual insight that it
is necessary to acknowledge and to explain that emphasis; but his
attempt cannot be called successful.  As he himself acknowledges, the
narrative gives no ground to think that the passage from Troas to
Philippi was ever thought of by Luke as a passage from Continent to
Continent.  A broad distinction between the two opposite sides of the
Hellespont as belonging to two different Continents, had no existence in
the thought of those who lived in the Ægean lands, and regarded the sea
as the path connecting the Ægean countries with each other; and the
distinction had no more existence in a political point of view, for
Macedonia and Asia were merely two provinces of the Roman Empire,
closely united by common language and character, and divided from the
Latin-speaking provinces further west.

After an inaccurate statement that Macedonia was "the natural highroad
between the East and the West"(the Ægean was the real highroad, and
Corinth was "on the way of them that are being slain to God,"Church in
R. E., p.  318 f.), Lightfoot finds in Alexander the Great the proof of
the greatness of the step which Luke here records in Paul's work, and
even says that "each successive station at which he halted might have
reminded the Apostle of the great services rendered by Macedonia as the
pioneer of the Gospel!"That is mere riot of pseudo-historical fancy; and
it is hardly possible to believe that Lightfoot ever composed it in the
form and with the suggestion that it has in this essay.  This is one of
not a few places in his Biblical Essays in which the expansion of his
own "briefest summary"by the aid of notes of his oral lectures taken by
pupils has not been thoroughly successful.  The pages of the essay
amount to a practical demonstration that, on mere grounds of historical
geography alone, one cannot explain the marked emphasis laid on this new
departure.

In the second place, the sweep and rush of the narrative is unique in
Acts: point after point, province after province are hurried over.  The
natural development of Paul's work along the great central route of the
Empire was forbidden, and the next alternative that rose in his mind was
forbidden: he was led across Asia from the extreme south-east to the
extreme north-west corner, and yet prevented from preaching in it;
everything seemed dark and perplexing, until at last a vision in Troas
explained the purpose of this strange journey.  As before (p.  104), we
cannot but be struck with the fact, that in this paragraph the idea
seems to clothe itself in the natural words, and not to have been
laboriously expressed by a foreign mind.  And the origin of the words
becomes clear when we look at the concluding sentence: "immediately we
sought to go forth into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that 'God has
called us for to preach the Gospel unto them'". The author was with Paul
in Troas; and the intensity of this paragraph is due to his recollection
of the words in which Paul had recounted the vision, and explained the
whole Divine plan that had guided him through his perplexing wanderings.
The words derive their vivid and striking character from Paul, and they
remained indelibly imprinted on Luke's memory.

3.  THE COMING OF LUKE. The introduction of the first person at this
striking point in the narrative must be intentional.  This is no general
statement like XIV 22 (though even there the first person has a marked
effect, p.  123). Every one recognises here a distinct assertion that
the author was present.  Now the paragraph as a whole is carefully
studied, and the sudden change from third to first person is a telling
element in the total effect: if there is any passage in Acts which can
be pressed close, it is this.  It is almost universally recognised that
the use of the first person in the sequel is intentional, marking that
the author remained in Philippi when Paul went on, and that he rejoined
the Apostle some years later on his return to Philippi.  We must add
that the precise point at which the first-personal form of narrative
begins is also intentional; for, if Luke changes here at random from
third to first person, it would be absurd to look for purpose in
anything he says.  The first person, when used in the narrative of XVI,
XX, XXI, XXVII, XXVIII, marks the companionship of Luke and Paul; and,
when we carry out this principle of interpretation consistently and
minutely, it will prove an instructive guide.  This is the nearest
approach to personal reference that Luke permits himself; and he makes
it subservient to his historical purpose by using it as a criterion of
personal witness.

Luke, therefore, entered into the drama of the Acts at Troas.  Now it is
clear that the coming of Paul to Troas was unforeseen and unforeseeable;
the whole point of the paragraph is that Paul was driven on against his
own judgment and intention to that city.  The meeting, therefore, was
not, as has sometimes been maintained, pre-arranged.  Luke entered on
the stage of this history at a point, where Paul found himself he knew
not why.  On the ordinary principles of interpreting literature, we must
infer that this meeting, which is so skillfully and so pointedly
represented as unforeseen, was between two strangers: Luke became known
to Paul here for the first time.  Let us, then, scrutinise more closely
the circumstances.  The narrative pointedly brings together the dream
and the introduction of the first-personal element, "when he saw the
vision, straightway we sought to go"; and collocation is everywhere one
of the most telling points in Luke's style.

When we examine the dream, we observe that in it "a certain man of
Macedonia"was seen by Paul.  Paul did not infer his Macedonian origin
from his words, but recognised him as a Macedonian by sight.  Now, there
was nothing distinctive in the appearance or dress of a Macedonian to
mark him out from the rest of the world.  On the contrary, the
Macedonians rather made a point of their claim to be Greeks; and
undoubtedly they dressed in the customary Greek style of the Ægean
cities.  There was, therefore, only one way in which Paul could know the
man by sight to be a Macedonian-the man in the dream was personally
known to him; and, in fact, the Greek implies that it was a certain
definite person who appeared (ajnhvr ti", Latin quidam, very often
followed by the person's name; V 1, VIII 9, IX 10, 33, 36, X 1, etc.).

In the vision, then, a certain Macedonian, who was personally known to
Paul, appeared, and called him over into Macedonia.  Now, it has been
generally recognised that Luke must have had some connection with
Philippi; and we shall find reason to think that he had personal
knowledge of the city.  Further, Paul, whose life had been spent in the
eastern countries, and who had come so far west only a few days past,
was not likely to be personally acquainted with natives of Macedonia.
The idea then suggests itself at once, that Luke himself was the man
seen in the vision; and, when one reads the paragraph with that idea, it
acquires new meaning and increased beauty.  As always, Luke seeks no
effect from artifices of style.  He tells nothing but the bare facts in
their simplest form; and leaves the reader to catch the causal
connection between them.  But we can imagine how Paul came to Troas in
doubt as to what should be done.  As a harbour, it formed the link
between Asia and Macedonia.  Here he met the Macedonian Luke; and with
his view turned onwards he slept, and beheld in a vision his Macedonian
acquaintance beckoning him onward to his own country.

Beyond this we cannot penetrate through the veil in which Luke has
enveloped himself.  Was he already a Christian, or did he come under the
influence of Christianity through meeting Paul here?  for the
prohibition against preaching in Asia would not preclude Paul from using
the opportunity to convert an individual who was brought in contact with
him.  No evidence remains; "something sealed the lips of that
evangelist,"so far as he himself is concerned.  But we have gathered
from the drift of the passage that they met as strangers; and in that
case there can be no doubt where the probability lies.  The inference
that they met accidentally as strangers is confirmed by the fact that
Luke was a stranger to the Levant (p.  317). In one of the many ways in
which men come across one another in travelling, they were brought into
contact at Troas: Luke was attracted to Paul; and the vision was taken
by Luke, as well as by Paul, for a sign.  He left all, and followed his
master.

All this he suggests to us only by the same kind of delicate and subtle
literary devices, consisting merely in collocation of facts, order of
words, and slight changes of form, by which he suggested the development
of Paul's method and the change in his relation to Barnabas (p.  82 f.).
Luke always expects a great deal from his readers, but some critics give
too little attention to literary effect.  These will ask me for proofs;
but proofs there are none.  I can only point to the facts: they that
have eyes to see them know; they that have not eyes to see them will
treat this section (and others) as moonstruck fancy.  All that can be
said is that, if you read the book carefully, observing these devices,
you recognise a great work; if you don't, and follow your denial to its
logical consequences, you will find only an assortment of scraps.
Probably there will always be those who prefer the scraps.

It is quite in Luke's style to omit to mention that Paul related the
vision to his companions.  So also he omitted in XIII 7, 8, to mention
that Paul expounded the doctrine to the proconsul.  Luke always expects
a great deal from his readers.  But here the Bezan Reviser inserts the
missing detail, as he so often does (e.g.,XIII 9).

While there is no authority for the circumstances of the meeting,
conjecture is tempting and perhaps permissible.  It will appear that
Luke, though evidently acquainted with Philippi and looking to it as his
city, had no home there.  His meeting with Paul, then, did not take
place merely on an excursion from Philippi; and he was probably one of
the many Greeks in all ages who have sought their fortune away from
home.  His acquaintance with medicine is certain from the words of Paul
himself, "Luke, the beloved physician"(Col.  IV 14), and from the cast
of his language in many places; * and it is quite natural and probable
that the meeting might have been sought by Paul on that account, if Luke
was resident in Troas and well known there.

4.  THE ENTRANCE INTO MACEDONIA. (XVI 1l) WE SET SAIL THEN FROM TROAS,
AND MADE A STRAIGHT RUN TO SAMOTHRACE; AND THE DAY FOLLOWING we came TO
the harbour NEAPOLIS, (12) AND THENCE TO PHILIPPI, WHICH IS THE LEADING
CITY OF ITS DIVISION OF MACEDONIA, AND having the rank of A ROMAN
COLONY: AND WE WERE IN THIS CITY TARRYING CERTAIN DAYS.

It is remarkable with what interest Luke records the incidents from
harbour to harbour.  He has the true Greek feeling for the sea, a
feeling that must develop in every race possessing any capacity for
development, and any sensitiveness to the influences of nature, when
settled round the Ægean coasts; for the Ægean sea is so tempting, with
its regular winds and regular sunset calm, when the water lies dead,
with a surface which looks like oil, dense and glistening and dark, that
it seems to invite one to walk upon it.

To a certain extent the wealth of maritime details might be accounted
for by the loving interest with which Luke dwelt on his journeys in
company with Paul; but caution that the author recognises as needful.
this does not fully explain the facts.  Every one who compares Luke's
account of the journey from Cæsareia to Jerusalem (which might be
expected to live in his memory beyond others), or from Puteoli to Rome,
with his account of any of the voyages, must be struck by the difference
between the scanty matter-of-fact details in the land journeys, and the
love that notes the voyage, the winds, the runs, the appearance of the
shores, Cyprus rising out of the sea, the Cretan coast close in by the
ship's side, the mountains towering above it from which the blast
strikes down.  At the same time, it is quite clear that, though he
reported nautical matters with accuracy, he was not a trained and
practised sailor.  His interest for the sea sprang from his natural and
national character, and not from his occupation.

Philippi was an inland city, and Neapolis was its harbour.  Having once
mentioned the port, Luke leaves it to be understood in XX 6.  As usual,
Paul goes on to the great city, and does not preach in the port (cp.
XIV 26, XVIII 18).

The description of the dignity and rank of Philippi is unique in Acts;
nor can it be explained as strictly requisite for the historian's proper
purpose.  Here again the explanation lies in the character of the
author, who was specially interested in Philippi, and had the true Greek
pride in his own city.  Perhaps he even exaggerates a little the dignity
of Philippi, which was still only in process of growth, to become at a
later date the great city of its division.  Of old Amphipolis had been
the chief city of the division, to which both belonged.  Afterwards
Philippi quite outstripped its rival; but it was at that time in such a
position, that Amphipolis was ranked first by general consent, Philippi
first by its own consent.  These cases of rivalry between two or even
three cities for the dignity and title of "First"are familiar to every
student of the history of the Greek cities; and though no other evidence
is known to show that Philippi had as yet began to claim the title, yet
this single passage is conclusive.  The descriptive phrase is like a
lightning flash amid the darkness of local history, revealing in
startling clearness the whole situation to those whose eyes are trained
to catch the character of Greek city-history and city-jealousies.

It is an interesting fact that Luke, who hides himself so completely in
his history, cannot hide his local feeling; and there every one who
knows the Greek people recognises the true Greek!  There lies the
strength, and also the weakness, of the Greek peoples; and that quality
beyond all others has determined their history, has given them their
strength against the foreigner, and their weakness as a united country.

Nationality is more conspicuous in the foibles and weaknesses of
mankind, whereas great virtues and great vices have a common character
in all nations.  Luke shows himself the Greek when he talks of the
Maltese as "the barbarians"; when he regards the journey to Jerusalem as
a journey and nothing more; when he misrepresents the force of a Latin
word (p.  225); when he is blind to the true character of the Roman name
(the tria nomina); when he catches with such appreciation and such ease
the character of Paul's surroundings in Athens.  His hatred of the Jews
and his obvious inability to feel the slightest sympathy for their
attitude towards Paul, are also Greek.  On the other hand, his touches
of quiet humour are perhaps less characteristically Greek; but he was
not the old Greek of the classical period: he was the Greek of his own
age, when Greece had been for centuries a power in Asia; when Macedonia
had long been the leading Greek country; when Stoicism and Epicureanism
were the representative philosophies (XVII 18);and when the Greek
language was the recognised speech of many eastern Roman provinces,
along with the Latin itself.  To appreciate Luke, we must study the
modern Greek, as well as the Greek of the great age of freedom.

I know that all such mundane characteristics are commonly considered to
be non-existent in "the early Christian "! But an "early Christian"did
not cease to be a man, and a citizen.  Christianity has not taught men
to retire from society and from life; and least of all did Pauline
Christianity teach that lesson.  It has impressed on men the duty of
living their life better, of striving to mould and to influence society
around them, and of doing their best in the position.  in which they
were placed.  When Luke became a Christian, he continued to be a Greek,
and perhaps became even more intensely a Greek, as his whole life became
more intense and more unselfish.  It is a complete and ruinous error for
the historical student to suppose that Luke broke with all his old
thoughts, and habits, and feelings, and friends, when he was converted.
He lived in externals much as before; he observed the same laws of
politeness and good breeding in society (if he followed Paul's
instructions); his house, his surroundings, continued much the same; he
kept up the same family names; and, when he died, his grave, his
tombstone, and his epitaph, were in the ordinary style.  It took
centuries for Christianity to disengage itself from its surroundings,
and to remake society and the rules of life.  Yet one rarely finds among
modern historians of Christianity in the first two centuries of its
growth, any one who does not show a misconception on this point; and the
climax, perhaps, is reached in one of the arguments by which Dr.  Ficker
attempts to disprove the Christian character of the epitaph of the
Phrygian second-century saint, Avircius Marcellus, on the ground that a
Christian epitaph would not be engraved on an attar.  I presume his
point is that the altar-shaped form of tombstone was avoided by the
Christians of that time, because it was connected with the pagan
worship.  But a Pauline Christian would hold that "a gravestone will not
commend us to God; neither, if we use it not, are we the worse, nor if
we use it, are we the better"(I Cor.  VIII 8); and Avircius Marcellus
mentions Paul, and Paul alone among the Apostles, in his epitaph.  In
fact, almost all the early Christian epitaphs at Eumeneia are engraved
on altars, because there that shape was fashionable; whereas at Apameia
they are rarely on altars, because there that shape was not in such
common use.

Our view that the author of Acts was a Macedonian does not agree with a
tradition (which was believed to occur in Eusebius, see p.  389) that
Luke was an Antiochion.  The modern authorities who consider this
tradition to be rounded on a confusion between Lucas and Lucius, an
official of the Antiochion Church (XIII 1), seem to have strong
probability on their side.  The form Lueas may very well be a vulgarism
for Lucius; but, except the name, these two persons have nothing in
common.  The name Lucas is of most obscure origin: it may be a shortened
form of Lucius, or Lucilius, or Lucianus, or Lucanus, or of some Greek
compound name.  The Latin names, Lucius, Lucilius, etc., were spelt in
earlier Greek Leuvkio", in later Greek Louvkio"; and the change may
roughly be dated about A.D. 50-75, though Leuvkio" in some rare cases
occurs later, and possibly .Louvkio" sometimes earlier.  It is
noteworthy that Louka'" has the later form.

The Bezan "we"in XI 28 will satisfy those who consider the Bezan Text to
be Lukan; but to us it appears to condemn the Bezan Text as of non-Lukan
origin.  The warmth of feeling, which breathes through all parts of Acts
dealing with the strictly Greek world, is in striking contrast with the
cold and strictly historical tone of the few brief references to Syrian
Antioch.  If the author of Acts was a native bred up in Antioch, then we
should have to infer that there lay behind him an older author, whose
work he adapted with little change.  But our view is that the Reviser
had an Antiochian connection, and betrays it in that insertion, which to
him recorded a historical fact, but to us seems legend in an early stage
of growth.

Note 1.  th;n Frugivan kai; Galatikh;n cwvran.  The use of to connect
two epithets of the same person or place is regular in Greek (so Sau'lo"
oJ kai Pau'lo", Saul alias Paul); e.g., Strabo speaks of a mouth of the
Nile as to; Kanwbiko;n kai; Jhraklewtikovn, the mouth which is called by
both names, Canopic and Heracleotic, where we should say, "the Canopic
or Heracleotic mouth". I need not dwell on such an elementary point.
Another point of Greek construction comes up in XVIII 23: when a list is
given in Greek, the items of which are designated by adjectives with the
same noun, the regular order is to use the noun with the first alone.
Strabo has numberless examples: 767, tw'n parakeimevnwn jArabivwn
ejqnw'n Nabataivwn te kai' Caulotopaivwn kai' jAgraivwn; 751, oJ
jArkeuvqh" potamo;" kai; oJ jOrovnth" kai; oJ Labwvta"; 802, to;
Mendhvsion stovma kai; to; Tanitikovn (there are some interesting and
delicate examples in Strabo, on which we cannot here dwell, of the
distinction between the double epithet and the double item); Herodotus,
II 17, to; de; Bolbitino;n stovma kai; to; Boukoliko;n; and so Luke
groups two Regiones as th;n Galatikh;n cwvran kai; Frugivan, XVIII 23.
The North-Galatian theorists insist that Frugivan in XVI 6 must be a
substantive; but they have not quoted any case in which a noun with its
adjective is coupled anarthrously by kaiv to a preceding noun with the
article.  Dr.  Chase quoted Luke III 1, th'" jItouraiva" kai;
Tracwnivtido" cwvra"; but the case tells against him, for Luke's
intention to use jItouraiva" here as an adjective is proved by the
following reasons:-

(1) Eusebius and Jerome repeatedly interpret Luke III 1 in that way (see
Expositor, Jan.  1894, p.  52; April, p.  289). (2) jItouraiva is never
used as a noun by the ancients, but is pointedly avoided, even where hJ
jItouraivwn was awkward: the reason was that jItoupaiva, as a noun,
would indicate a political entity, whereas the Ituræi were a wandering
nomadic race, who had not a definite and organised country.  As my other
reasons have been disputed, I do not append them here; though I consider
them unshaken.  [Mr.  Arnold's attempt to find one instance of
jItoupaiva as a noun in Appian seems to refute itself, Engl.  Hist Rev.,
1895, p.  553.]

Note 2.  dih'lqon th;n F. k.  G. cwvpan kwluqevnte". Many are likely to
rest on the authority of the great MSS., and prefer this reading.  It
may be understood, by an ellipse common in Greek, "they made a
missionary progress through the Phrygian land, viz., the Galatic part of
it, inasmuch as they were prevented from preaching in Asia, and could
not, therefore, do missionary work in the Asian part of it". But, if
this were the writing of Luke, I should prefer to hold that he meant
dih'lqon kai; ejkwluvqhsan.  using a construction which he has in (1)
XXIII 35 e[fh keleuvsa"he said, "I will hear thee, when thy accusers
arrive,"and ordered him to be imprisoned: (2) XXV 13 kathvnthsan
ajspasavmenoi "they arrived at Cæsareia and paid their respects to
Festus": (3) XVII 26ejpoivhsen ejx eJnov", oJrivsa" "he madeall nations
of one blood, and assignedto them limits and bounds" (here the unity of
all nations is the initial idea, and the fixing of limits and
distinctions is later). Blass, who thus explains XXIII 35, gives in his
preface, p.  20, many examples of the present infinitive used in the
same way (XVIII 23 ejxh'lqn diercovmenos he went forth and made a
progress through the Galatic Region, cp.  VI 9 ajnevsthsan sunzhtou'nte"
they rose up and disputed with Stephen, VI 11 uJpevbalon a[ndras
levgontas they suborned men which said [also VI 13], VIII 10 prosei'con
levgontes they hearkened and said, V. 36 ajnevsth levgwn he stood up and
said, VIII 18, XlV 22, etc.); and he accepts and prints in his text the
reading of inferior authority in XXVIII 14 pareklhvqhmen par j aujtoi's,
ejtimeivnantes we were cheered among them, and remained seven days.  The
usage is common in Paul.  The use of aorist or present participle
corresponds to the tense which would be used if the sentence were
constructed in the fuller fashion, e[fh kai; ejkeleusen but ejxh'lqen
kai; dihvrceto (Blass differs in regard to XXI 16, which he says =
sunh'lqon kai; h[gagon).

CHAPTER X.

THE CHURCHES OF MACEDONIA

1.  PHILIPPI. (XVI 13) ON THE SABBATH DAY WE WENT FORTH WITHOUT THE GATE
BY THE RIVER SIDE, WHERE THERE WAS WONT TO BE HELD A MEETING FOR PRAYER;
AND WE SAT DOWN, AND SPARE UNTO THE WOMEN THAT CAME TOGETHER. (14) AND A
CERTAIN WOMAN NAMED LYDIA, A SELLER OF PURPLE, OF THE CITY OF THYATIRA,
A GOD-FEARING proselyte WAS A HEARER; AND THE LORD OPENED HER HEART TO
GIVE HEED UNTO THE THINGS THAT WERE SPOKEN BY PAUL. (15) AND WHEN SHE
WAS BAPTISED AND HER HOUSEHOLD, SHE BESOUGHT US, SAYING, "IF YE HAVE
JUDGED ME TO BE. FAITHFUL TO THE LORD, COME INTO MY HOUSE AND ABIDE
THERE"; AND SHE CONSTRAINED US.

The omission of the article before the word "river"(potamovn ) is one of
the touches of familiarity which show the hand of one who knew Philippi
well.  As we say "I'm going to town," the Greeks omitted the article
with familiar and frequently mentioned places or things.  In this phrase
the commentators in general seem to understand that the Greek words mean
"ang1033 along a river," which is the form of expression that a complete
stranger might use about a city and a river that he had only heard of.

The text of the next clause is uncertain; but we hold that the
Authorised Version is right, following the inferior MSS. (see note, p.
235). On the first Sabbath they went along the river-bank to the regular
place where the Jews in Philippi, and those non-Jews who had been
attracted to Jewish customs, were wont to meet in prayer.  There seems
to have been no proper synagogue, which shows that the Jewish community
was very small; and in the rest of the narrative no Jew is mentioned.

Lydia, the Thyatiran woman, settled at Philippi, is an interesting
person in many respects.  Thyatira, like the Lydian land in general, was
famous for its dyeing; and its guild of dyers is known from the
inscriptions.  Lydia sold the purple dyed garments from Thyatira in
Philippi; and she had, no doubt, a regular connection with a firm in her
native city, whose agent she was.  In ancient time many kinds of
garments were woven in their perfect shape; and there was much less
cutting and sewing of cloth than at the present day.  Lydia, of course,
sold also the less expensive kinds of garments; but she takes her trade-
name from the finest class of her wares, indicating that she was a first
-class dealer.  She must have possessed a considerable amount of capital
to trade in such articles.  As her husband is not mentioned, and she was
a householder, she was probably a widow; and she may be taken as an
ordinary example of the freedom with which women lived and worked both
in Asia Minor and in Macedonia.

Lydia had probably become addicted to Jewish religious practices in her
native city.  There had been a Jewish colony planted in Thyatira, which
had exercised considerable influence on the city; and a hybrid sort of
worship had been developed, half Jewish, half pagan, which is called in
Revelation II 20, "the woman Jezebel".*

It is not to be inferred that Lydia and her household were baptised on
the first Sabbath.  A certain interval must be admitted in v.  14, which
shows Luke's looseness about time.  Lydia was present on the first
Sabbath, and became a regular hearer; and finally her entire household
came over with her.

2.  THE VENTRILOQUIST. (XVI 16) AND IT CAME TO PASS, AS WE WERE GOING TO
THE PLACE OF PRAYER, THAT A CERTAIN SLAVE-GIRL, POSSESSED OF A SPIRIT
PYTHON, i.e., a ventriloquist, MET US, WHICH BROUGHT HER MASTERS MUCH
GAIN BY SOOTHSAYING. (17) THE SAME, FOLLOWING AFTER PAUL AND US, KEPT
CRYING OUT SAYING, "THESE MEN ARE THE SLAVES OF THE GOD THE HIGHEST,
WHICH ANNOUNCE TO YOU THE WAY OF SAFETY ". (18) AND THIS SHE DID FOR
MANY DAYS. BUT PAUL, BEING SORE TROUBLED, TURNED AND SAID TO THE SPIRIT,
"I CHARGE THEE IN THE NAME OF JESUS THE ANOINTED TO GO OUT FROM HER";
AND IT WENT OUT THAT VERY MOMENT.

The idea was universally entertained that ventriloquism was due to
superhuman influence, and implied the power of foretelling the future.
The girl herself believed this; and in her belief lay her power.  Her
words need not be taken as a witness to Christianity.  "God the Highest"
was a wide-spread pagan expression, and "salvation" was the object of
many vows and prayers to that and other gods.  We need not ask too
curiously what was her motive in thus calling out at Paul's company.  In
such a case there is no distinct motive; for it is a poor and false
view, and one that shows utter incapacity to gauge human nature, that
the girl was a mere impostor.  That her mind became distorted and
diseased by her belief in her supernatural possession, is certain; but
it became thereby all the more acute in certain perceptions and
intuitions.  With her sensitive nature, she became at once alive to the
moral influence, which the intense faith by which the strangers were
possessed gave them, and she must say what she felt without any definite
idea of result therefrom; for the immediate utterance of her intuitions
was the secret of her power.  She saw in Paul what the populace at
Pisidian Antioch saw in Thekla, "a devotee, bound by some unusual
conditions, an inspired servant of 'the God,'who differed from the usual
type"of "God-driven"devotees.

When Paul turned on her, and ordered the spirit to come forth from her
in the name of his Master, the girl, who had been assiduously declaring
that Paul and his companions were God-possessed, and fully believed it,
was utterly disconcerted, and lost her faith in herself and with it her
power.  When next she tried to speak as she had formerly done, she was
unable to do so; and in a few days it became apparent that she had lost
her power.  Along with her power, her hold on the superstitions of the
populace disappeared; and people ceased to come to her to have their
fortunes read, to get help in finding things they had lost, and so on.
Thus the comfortable income that she had earned for her owners was lost;
and these, knowing who had done the mischief, sought revenge.  This was
by no means a rare motive for the outbreak of persecution against the
Church in later time; and at this stage, when Christianity was an
unknown religion, it was only through its interference with the profits
of any individual or any class (p.  277) that it was likely to arouse
opposition among the pagans.

3.  ACCUSATION AND CONDEMNATION IN PHILIPPI. (XVI 19) BUT, WHEN HER
MASTERS SAW THAT THEIR HOPE OF GAIN HAD DEPARTED, THEY SEIZED PAUL AND
SILAS [AND DRAGGED THEM INTO THE AGORA BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES], (20)
[AND BRINGING THEM TO THE PRESENCE OF THE PRÆTORS], THEY SAID, "THESE
MEN DO EXCEEDINGLY DISTURB OUR CITY, JEWS AS THEY ARE, (21) AND
RECOMMEND CUSTOMS, WHICH IT IS ILLEGAL FOR US TO RECEIVE OR TO OBSERVE,
AS WE ARE ROMANS". (22) AND THE POPULACE ROSE IN A BODY AGAINST THEM;
AND THE PRÆTORS, RENDING THEIR GARMENTS in horror, BADE the lictors BEAT
THEM, (23) AND WHEN THEY HAD LAID MANYSTRIPES ON THEM, THEY CAST THEM
INTO PRISON, CHARGING THE JAILOR TO KEEP THEM SAFELY: (24) AND HE HAVING
RECEIVED SUCH A CHARGE, CAST THEM INTO THE INNER PRISON, AND MADE THEIR
FEET FAST IN THE STOCKS.

It is hardly possible that vv.  19, 20 have the final form that the
writer would have given them.  The expression halts between the Greek
form and the Latin, between the ordinary Greek term for the supreme
board of magistrates in any city (a[rconte"), and the popular Latin
designation (strathgoiv.prætores), as if the author had not quite made
up his mind which he should employ.  Either of the clauses bracketed is
sufficient in itself; and it is hardly possible that a writer, whose
expression is so concise, should have intended to leave in his text two
clauses which say exactly the same thing.

The title Prætors was not technically accurate, but was frequently
employed as a courtesy title for the supreme magistrates of a Roman
colony; and, as usual, Luke moves on the plane of educated conversation
in such matters, and not on the plane of rigid technical accuracy.  He
writes as the scene was enacted.

It is impossible and unnecessary to determine whether the slave-girl's
owners were actually Roman citizens.  They speak here as representatives
of the general population.  The actual coloni planted here by Augustus
when he rounded the colony, were probably far outnumbered by the Greek
population (incolæ); and it is clear that in the colonies of the Eastern
provinces, any Italian coloni soon melted into the mass of the
population, and lost most of their distinctive character, and probably
forgot even their language.  The exact legal relation of the native
Greek population to the Roman coloni is uncertain; but it is certain
that the former occupied some kind of intermediate position between
ordinary provincials and Romans or Latins (when the colony was a Latin
colony like Antioch). These colonies were one of the means whereby Rome
sought to introduce the Roman spirit and feeling into the provinces, to
romanise them; and the accusation lodged against Paul, with the whole
scene that followed, are a proof, in this vivid photographic picture,
that the population prided themselves on their Roman character and
actually called themselves Romans, as they called their magistrates
Prætors.

Paul on other occasions claimed his right of citizen ship; why not here?
It is evident that the Prætors made a great to-do over this case: they
regarded it as a case of treason, or, as it was termed in Greek,
"impiety"(ajsevbeia), rent their clothes in loyal horror, with the
fussy, consequential airs that Horace satirises in the would-be Prætor
of a country town (Sat.  I 5, 34): the fabric of the Empire was shaken
to its foundations by this disgraceful conduct of the accused persons;
but the Prætors of Philippi stood firm, and the populace rose as one
man, like true Romans, to defend their country against her insidious
enemies.  In such a scene what chance was there that Paul's protest
should be listened to?  Perhaps it was made and not listened to, since
the whole proceedings were so disorderly and irregular.

The first person ceases at this point; the author was not arrested, and
therefore could not speak in the first person of what happened in the
prison.  He did not accompany Paul further; but remained at Philippi as
his headquarters, till Paul returned there, XX 6, when the first person
is resumed.  It is only natural to understand that he was left in
Philippi, because of his obvious suitability for the work of
evangelising that city; and his success was so striking that his "praise
in the preaching of the good news was through all the Churches,"II Cor.
VIII 18 (a passage which is understood by early tradition as referring
to Luke). At the same time it is clear that he had not been a
householder in Philippi previously, for he went with Paul to enjoy
Lydia's hospitality.

4.  THE PRISON AND THE EARTHQUAKE. (XVI 25) BUT ABOUT MIDNIGHT PAUL AND
SILAS WERE PRAYING AND SINGING HYMNS UNTO GOD, AND THE PRISONERS WERE
LISTENING TO THEM; (26) AND SUDDENLY THERE WAS A GREAT EARTHQUAKE, SO
THAT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE PRISON-HOUSE WERE SHAKEN; AND IMMEDIATELY
ALL THE DOORS WERE OPENED; AND EVERY ONE'S FETTERS WERE SHAKEN OUT. (27)
AND THE JAILOR, BEING ROUSED FROM SLEEP, AND SEEING THE PRISON-DOORS
OPEN, DREW HIS SWORD, AND WAS ABOUT TO KILL HIMSELF, CONSIDERING THAT
THE PRISONERS HAD ESCAPED. (28) BUT PAUL CRIED OUT WITH A LOUD VOICE,
"DO THYSELF NO HARM, FOR WE ARE ALL HERE ". (29) AND CALLING FOR LIGHTS,
HE RAN HASTILY IN, AND TREMBLING FOR FEAR THREW HIMSELF BEFORE PAUL AND
SILAS, (30) AND BROUGHT THEM OUT [WHEN HE HAD MADE THE REST FAST], AND
SAID, "SIRS ! WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?" (31) AND THEY SAID, "BELIEVE
ON THE LORD JESUS, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED, THOU AND THY HOUSE ". (32)
AND THEY SPAKE THE WORD OF THE LORD TO HIM, WITH ALL THAT WERE IN HIS
HOUSE. (33) AND HE TOOK THEM AT THAT HOUR OF THE NIGHT AND WASHED THEM
OF THEIR STRIPES; AND WAS BAPTISED, HE AND ALL HIS IMMEDIATELY. (34) AND
HE BROUGHT THEM UP INTO HIS HOUSE, AND SET MEAT BEFORE THEM, AND
REJOICED GREATLY, WITH ALL HIS HOUSE, HAVING CONCEIVED FAITH IN GOD.

There are several difficulties which occur to every one on first reading
this passage.  (1) The opening of the doors and the undoing of the bonds
by the earthquake seem incredible to one who thinks of doors like those
in our prisons and of handcuffed prisoners.  But any one that has seen a
Turkish prison will not wonder that the doors were thrown open: each
door was merely closed by a bar, and the earthquake, as it passed along
the ground, forced the door posts apart from each other, so that the bar
slipped from its hold, and the door swung open.  The prisoners were
fastened to the wall or in wooden stocks, v.  24; and the chains and
stocks were detached from the wall, which was shaken so that spaces
gaped between the stones.  In the great earthquakes of 1880 at Smyrna,
and 1881 at Scio, I had the opportunity of seeing and hearing of the
strangely capricious action of an earthquake, which behaves sometimes
like a playful, good-natured sprite, when it spares its full terrors.

(2) Why did not the prisoners run away when their fetters were loosed?
The question is natural to those who are familiar with the northern
races, and their self-centred tenacity of purpose and presence of mind.
An earthquake strikes panic into the semi-oriental mob in the Ægean
lands; and it seems to me quite natural that the prisoners made no dash
for safety when the opportunity was afforded them.  Moreover, they were
still only partially free; and they had only a moment for action.  The
jailor was also roused by the earthquake, and came to the outer door; he
was perhaps a soldier, or at least had something of Roman discipline,
giving him presence of mind; his call for lights brought the body of
diogmitai or other class of police who helped to guard the prisoners;
and the opportunity was lost.

(3) It was midnight, and the jailor had to call for lights: how could
Paul from the inner prison see that the jailor was going to kill
himself?  We must understand that the inner prison was a small cell,
which had no window and no opening, except into the outer and larger
prison, and that the outer prison, also, had one larger door in the
opposite wall; then, if there were any faint starlight in the sky, still
more if the moon were up, a person in the outer doorway would be
distinguishable to one whose eyes were accustomed to the darkness, but
the jailor would see only black darkness in the prison.

The jailor was responsible with his life for the safety of his
prisoners; and, concluding from the sight of the open door that they had
managed to set themselves free, and open the door, and escape, he
preferred death by his own hand, to exposure, disgrace, and a
dishonourable death.

The Bezan Text preserves in v.  30 a little detail, which is so
suggestive of the orderly well-disciplined character of the jailor, that
we are prompted to accept it as genuine.  The jailor first attended to
his proper work, and secured all his prisoners; and thereafter he
attended to Paul and Silas, and brought them forth.  It seems highly
improbable that a Christian in later time would insert the gloss that
the jailor looked after his prisoners before he cared for his salvation;
it is more in the spirit of a later age to be offended with the
statement that the jailor did so, and to cut it out.

In his subsequent action to Paul and Silas, the jailor was not acting
illegally.  He was responsible for producing his prisoners when called
for; but it was left to himself to keep them as he thought best.

5.  RELEASE AND DEPARTURE FROM PHILIPPI. (XVI 35) AND WHEN DAY WAS COME
THE PRÆTORS SENT THE LICTORS, WITH THE MESSAGE to the jailor: "LET THOSE
MEN GO". (36) AND THE JAILOR REPORTED THE MESSAGE TO PAUL THAT "THE
PRÆTORS HAVE SENT orders THAT YOU BE SET FREE. NOW, THEREFORE, GO FORTH
AND TAKE YOUR WAY IN PEACE]" (37) BUT PAUL SAID UNTO THEM: "THEY FLOGGED
US IN PUBLIC without investigation, ROMAN CITIZENS AS WE ARE, AND CAST
US INTO PRISON; AND NOW DO THEY TURN US OUT SECRETLY? NOT SO; BUT LET
THEM COME IN PERSON AND BRING US OUT." (38) AND THE LICTORS REPORTED TO
THE PRÆTORS THESE WORDS; AND THEY WERE TERRIFIED ON HEARING THAT "THEY
ARE ROMAN CITIZENS"; (39) AND THEY WENT AND BESOUGHT THEM, AND BROUGHT
THEM OUT, AND ASKED THEM TO GO AWAY FROM THE CITY. (40) AND THEY WENT
OUT FROM THE PRISON AND ENTERED INTO LYDIA'S HOUSE; AND THEY SAW AND
EXHORTED THE BRETHREN, AND WENT AWAY.

The sudden change of attitude on the part of the Prætors is remarkable.
One day they sent the prisoners for careful custody: the next morning
they send to release them.  The Bezan Reviser felt the inconsequence,
and inserts an explanation: "And when day was come the Prætors
[assembled together in the agora, and remembering the earthquake that
had taken place, they were afraid, and]sent the lictors". But, though
this is modelled on Luke's language (cp.  I 15, etc.), it is hardly in
his style of narrative.  It is more characteristic of him to give no
explanation, but simply to tell the facts.  Perhaps the earthquake had
roused their superstitious fears on account of the irregular and
arbitrary proceedings of yesterday.  Perhaps they felt some misgivings
about their action.  if we are right in thinking that Paul and Silas had
appealed vainly to their rights as Romans.

Whatever be the reason, there can be no mistake as to Luke's intention
to bring out the contrast (1) between the orders sent to the jailor in
the morning, and the charge given to him at night; (2) between the
humble apology of the Prætors in the morning, and their haughty action
on the previous day; (3) between the real fact, that the Prætors had
trampled on Roman order and right, and their fussy pretense of
vindicating the majesty of Rome.  And so the same Prætors who had
ordered them to be beaten and imprisoned now begged them to go away from
the city.  In the Bezan Text the request of the Prætors is put at
greater length, and with obvious truth: "the magistrates, being afraid
lest there should be another conspiracy against Paul, and distrusting
their own ability to keep order, said, 'Go forth from this city, lest
they, again make a riot and inveigh loudly against you to us'". The
weakness of municipal government in the cities of the Ægean lands was
always a danger to order; and the Bezan Text hits off admirably the
situation, and brings out with much skill the naive desire of the
magistrates to avoid an unpleasant ease by inducing the innocent and
weaker parties to submit to injustice and withdraw from the city.  One
would gladly think this Lukan.

In v.  37 the rendering (A.V. and R.V.) "uncondemned"does not fairly
represent Paul's meaning, for it suggests that it would have been
allowable for the Prætors to condemn Paul after fair trial to be
flogged.  But the Prætors could not in any circumstances order him to be
flogged; in fact, formal trial would only aggravate their crime, as
making it more deliberate.  The crime might be palliated by pleading
that it was done in ignorance: and Paul would naturally cut away the
plea by saying that they had made no attempt to investigate the facts.
Yet the Greek is clear, and can only be translated "uncondemned". A
parallel case occurs XXII 25, where Paul asks the centurion: "is it
lawful for you to flog a man that is a Roman citizen, and him
uncondemned?"  Here there is the same false implication that the act
would be aggravated by being done without the proper formal
condemnation.

Yet Paul, as a Roman citizen, must have known his rights; and it seems
clear that he could not have used the exact words which Luke reports.
Now, when we consider the facts, we see that it must be so.  No civis
Romanus would claim his rights in Greek; the very idea is ludicrous.
Paul claimed them in the Roman tongue; and we may fairly understand that
the officials of a Roman colony were expected to understand Latin; for
the official language even of far less important colonies in Asia Minor
was Latin.  The phrase which Paul used was most probably re incognita,
"without investigating our case". Luke, however, had the true Greek
inability to sympathise with the delicacies of Roman usage, and.
translates the Latin by a term, which would in some circumstances be a
fair representative, but not here, nor in XXII 25.

The whole residence of Paul at Philippi seems to have been short: it is
defined by Luke as being "for certain days,"and apparently not much
seems to have been accomplished before the incident of the ventriloquist
and the resulting imprisonment.  If the party was at Troas in October
A.D. 50, they probably left Philippi before the end of the year.  It
seems probable from v.  40 that there were some other Christians besides
those in Lydia's house.  It is, however, remarkable that Luke makes no
explicit reference to any other converts.

Doubtless, before Paul left, the question was discussed what should be
his next centre; and Thessalonica was suggested, probably on account of
its Jewish settlers, whose synagogue offered a good opening for work.
The directions which were given the travellers at starting were to make
their way along the Roman road through Amphipolis and Apollonia to
Thessalonica (XVII 1, where diodeuvsante" is the verb, oJdov" denoting
the Roman road).

6.  THESSALONICA. (XVII 1) AND THEY WENT ALONG THE Roman ROAD THROUGH
AMPHIPOLIS AND APOLLONIA, AND CAME TO THESSALONICA, WHERE WAS A
SYNAGOGUE OF THE JEWS. (2) AND, AS WAS CUSTOMARY WITH PAUL, HE WENT IN
TO ADDRESS THEM, AND FOR THREE SABBATHS HE REASONED WITH THEM FROM THE
SCRIPTURES, (3) OPENING THEIR MEANING, AND QUOTING TO PROVE THAT IT WAS
PROPER THAT THE ANOINTED ONE SHOULD SUFFER AND RISE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD,
AND THAT "THE ANOINTED ONE IS THIS man, THE very JESUS WHOM I AM
PROCLAIMING TO YOU". (4) AND SOME OF THEM WERE PERSUADED; AND THERE WERE
IN ADDITION GATHERED TO PAUL AND SILAS MANY OF THE GODFEARING
proselytes, AND A GREAT MULTITUDE OF THE GREEKS, AND OF THE LEADING
WOMEN NOT A FEW.*

The curious and rare title "politarchs"was given to the supreme board of
magistrates at Thessalonica, as is proved by inscriptions.

This passage is full of difficulty both in text and in interpretation.
Our text, agreeing with many MSS. and Versions, recognises three classes
of hearers besides the Jews; whereas the Approved Text, resting on the
great MSS., unites the "God-fearing"and "the Greeks"into the single
class "God-fearing Greeks". In this case many reasons combine to show
the error of the latter reading, and the falseness of the principle that
has led Tischendoff, Westcott and Hort, and others to set almost
boundless confidence in those MSS. (see note 2, p.  235).

In v.  4 Paul goes on to a wider sphere of influence than the circle of
the synagogue; and a lapse of time is implied in the extension of his
work over the general population of the city (called here by the
strictly correct term, Hellenes). Between the two opposite groups, the
Jews and the Hellenes, there is interposed the intermediate class of God
-fearing proselytes; and there is added as a climax a group of noble
ladies of the city.  In Macedonia, as in Asia Minor, women occupied a
much freer and more influential position than in Athens; and it is in
conformity with the known facts that such prominence is assigned to them
in the three Macedonian cities.

In this journey a more pointed distinction than before between the short
period of synagogue work, and the longer period of general work, may be
noticed.  The three Sabbaths of v.  2 must be taken as the entire period
of work within the circle of the synagogue; and the precise statement of
time may also be taken as an indication that the usual quarrel with the
Jews took place earlier at Thessalonica than in former cases.

That a considerable time was spent in the wider work is proved both by
its success, and by the language of I Thess.  I, II, which cannot
reasonably refer only to work in the synagogue or to a short missionary
work among the general population.  Paul clearly refers to a long and
very successful work in Thessalonica.  His eagerness to return, and his
chafing at the ingenious obstacle preventing him, are explained by his
success: he was always eager to take advantage of a good opening.
Further Paul mentions that the Philippians, IV 16, "sent once and again
unto my need in Thessalonica". It is reasonable to think that some
interval elapsed between the gifts (especially as Paul had to work to
maintain himself, I Thess.  II 9). Dec.  50-May 51 seems a probable
estimate of the residence in Thessalonica.

7.  THE RIOT AT THESSALONICA. (XVII 5) AND THE JEWS BECAME JEALOUS; AND
WITH SOME WORTHLESS ASSOCIATES OF THE LOWER ORDERS THEY GATHERED A MOB
AND MADE A RIOT; AND, ASSAULTING THE HOUSE OF JASON, THEY SOUGHT TO
BRING Paul and Silas BEFORE A PUBLIC MEETING. (6) AND WHEN THEY FOUND
THEM NOT, THEY BEGAN TO DRAG JASON AND CERTAIN BRETHREN BEFORE THE
POLITARCHS, SHOUTING, "THESE THAT HAVE TURNED THE CIVILISED WORLD UPSIDE
DOWN HAVE COME HITHER ALSO, (7) AND JASON HATH RECEIVED THEM; AND THE
WHOLE OF THEM ARE VIOLATING THE IMPERIAL LAWS, ASSERTING THAT THERE IS
ANOTHER EMPEROR, JESUS". (8) AND THEY TROUBLED THE PEOPLE AND THE
POLITARCHS, WHO HEARD THIS. (9) AND THE POLITARCHS TOOK SECURITIES FOR
GOOD BEHAVIOUR FROM JASON AND THE OTHERS, AND LET THEM GO.

The description of this riot is more detailed than any of the preceding.
The lower classes, the least educated, and the most enslaved to paganism
on its vulgarest and most superstitious side, were the most fanatical
opponents of the new teaching; while the politarchs were by no means
inclined to take active measures against it, and the better educated
people seem to have supplied most of the converts.  Men of all classes
were impressed by the preaching of Paul, but only women of the leading
families; and the difference is obviously due to the fact that the
poorer women were most likely to be under the sway of superstition.  A
similar distinction is mentioned at Berea (XVII 12), where not a few of
the high-born Greek ladies and of the male population in general were
attracted by the new teaching.

It would appear that this riot was more serious than the words of Luke
would at first sight suggest.  The language of Paul in his first letter
to the Thessalonians, II 14-16, shows that a powerful, dangerous, and
lasting sentiment was roused among the classes which made the riot.

The charge brought against Paul was subtly conceived and most dangerous.
The very suggestion of treason against the Emperors often proved fatal
to the accused; and it compelled the politarchs to take steps, for, if
they failed to do so, they became exposed to a charge of treason, as
having taken too little care for the honour of the Emperor.  Many a man
was ruined by such a charge under the earlier Emperors.

The step taken by the politarchs was the mildest that was prudent in the
circumstances: they bound the accused over in security that peace should
be kept.  This was a penalty familiar in Roman law, from which it must
have been adopted in the ordinary practice of provincial towns like
Thessalonica.

Paul evidently felt very deeply his sudden and premature separation from
the Church of Thessalonica: it was at once so promising and so
inexperienced, that he was unusually eager to return to it; and as he
says, "we endeavoured the more exceedingly to see your face with great
desire; because we would fain have come to you, I Paul once and again;
and Satan hindered us". What is the meaning of the strange expression,
"Satan hindered us"? How did Paul, who was so eager to go back to
Thessalonica, find an insurmountable obstacle in his way?  Was it mere
personal danger that prevented him, or was it some more subtle device of
Satanic craft that kept him out of Thessalonica?

It is not in keeping with Paul's language to interpret "Satan"in this
case as the mob, which had brought him into danger and was still enraged
against him.  He alludes by a very different metaphor to the opposition
which he often.  experienced from the vulgar, uneducated, and grossly
superstitious city populace.  In I Cor.  XV 32 he describes his
relations with the Ephesian mob as "fighting with beasts". This term is
an interesting mixture of Greek and Roman ideas, and corresponds well to
Paul's mixed education, as a Roman citizen in a Greek philosopher's
lecture-room.  In the lecture room he became familiar with the Platonic
comparison of the mob to a dangerous beast; and amid the surroundings of
the Roman Empire he became familiar with the death-struggle of criminals
against the wild beasts of the circus.  But a person .who designates the
mob in this contemptuous way, uses the term "Satan"only of some more
subtle and dangerous enemy, far harder to overcome.

Now, security against any disturbance of the peace had been exacted from
Jason and his associates, the leading Christians of Thessalonica; and
clearly this implied that they were bound over to prevent the cause of
disturbance, Paul, from coming to Thessalonica.  This ingenious device
put an impassable chasm between Paul and the Thessalonians (ejnevkoyen
is the strong term used). So long as the magistrates maintained this
attitude, he could not return: he was helpless, and Satan had power.
His only hope lay in an alteration of the magistrates'policy.  They
would not be long in power; and perhaps their successors might act
differently.  But the politarchs doubtless thought that they treated the
case mildly and yet effectually; they got rid of the cause, without
inflicting any punishment on any person.

This interpretation of the term "Satan,"as denoting action taken by the
governing power against the message from God, is in keeping with the
figurative use of the word throughout the New Testament.

8.  BEROEA. (XVII 10) AND THE BRETHREN IMMEDIATELY SENT AWAY PAUL AND
SILAS BY NIGHT UNTO BEREA; AND WHEN THEY WERE COME HITHER THEY WENT INTO
THE SYNAGOGUE OF THE JEWS. (11) NOW THESE WERE MORE NOBLE THAN THOSE IN
THESSALONICA, IN THAT THEY RECEIVED THE WORD WITH ALL READINESS OF MIND,
EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES DAILY WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE SO. (12) MANY
OF THEM THEREFORE BELIEVED; AS DID ALSO NOT A FEW OF THE HIGH-BORN GREEK
LADIES AND OF THE MALE POPULATION. (13) BUT WHEN THE JEWS OF
THESSALONICA LEARNED THAT IN BEREA ALSO THE WORD OF GOD WAS PREACHED BY
PAUL, THEY CAME THERE ALSO EXCITING AND DISTURBING THE MULTITUDES. (14)
THEN FORTHWITH PAUL WAS SENT FORTH BY THE BRETHREN TO GO TOWARDS THE
SEA; BUT SILAS AND TIMOTHY REMAINED THERE. (15) AND THEY THAT CONDUCTED
PAUL BROUGHT HIM AS FAR AS ATHENS; AND RECEIVING DIRECTIONS FOR SILAS
AND TIMOTHY THAT THEY SHOULD COME TO HIM WITH ALL SPEED, THEY DEPARTED.

Here, just as at Thessalonica, a wider influence than the circle of the
synagogue is distinctly implied, so that we must understand that Paul
preached also to the Greek population.  The nobler conduct of the Berean
Jews consisted in their freedom from that jealousy, which made the Jews
in Thessalonica and many other places enraged when the offer of
salvation was made as freely to others as to themselves.

The process that compelled Paul's departure from Berea was evidently
quite similar to that at Thessalonica; and probably that is the reason
why the riot and the accusation of treason against the Emperor are not
mentioned more particularly (p.  72). As usual, we notice how lightly
Luke passes over the difficulties and dangers which drove Paul from
place to place.

In v.  15 we must understand that Silas and Timothy obeyed the
directions, and came on to rejoin Paul.  There is no point in mentioning
such an order, unless it were obeyed.  It is in the style of Luke to
mention an intention and leave the reader to gather that it was carried
into effect (p.  181). Moreover, we learn from I Thess.  III 1 that
Timothy was sent by Paul away from Athens to Thessalonica, which implies
that he rejoined him.  It is undeniable that the statement in XVIII 5,
"when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia,"seems at first sight
to imply that they arrived from Berea only after Paul had left Athens,
and followed him on to Corinth, and met him there for the first time
since his departure from Berea.  But the calculation of time shows that
that could hardly be the case: it would not take nearly so long to
perform the journey, and we shall see that Silas and Timothy rejoined
Paul in Corinth after a mission from Athens to Thessalonica and Philippi
(p.  241). In that case the narrative is very awkward and badly
constructed; and we can hardly suppose that it has received the final
touches from the author's hand.  It is not unnatural that the Philippian
author, writing about facts with which he and his nearest audience were
specially familiar, and making his narrative as brief as possible,
should have omitted to mention the mission from Athens to Macedonia.
But it is probable that, if he had lived to put the finishing touch to
his work, he would not have left this awkwardness.

Another possible indication of incompleteness is the emission of the
harbour of Berea, a unique omission in this history (p.  70).

The question naturally occurs, why did Paul go on from Berea alone,
leaving Silas and Timothy behind, and yet send orders immediately on
reaching Athens that they were to join him with all speed?  There seems
at first sight some inconsistency here.  But again comparison between
Acts and Thess.  solves the difficulty.  Paul was eager "once and
again"to return to Thessalonica; and was waiting for news that the
impediment placed in his way was removed.  Silas and Timothy remained to
receive the news (perhaps about the attitude of new magistrates); and to
bring it on to Paul.  But they could not bring it on to him until they
received his message from Athens; Paul left Berea with no fixed
plan,"sent forth by the brethren to go to the coast,"and the further
journey to Athens was resolved on at the harbour.

We must allow several months for the residence at Berea, with the
preaching in the synagogue and the city, and the riot.  Paul must have
reached Athens some time in August 51, as is shown by the dates of his
residence in Corinth (p.  264).

There is an interesting addition made to the Bezan Text of v.  15: "and
they which conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; [and he
neglected Thessalia, for he was prevented from preaching the word unto
them]". Here we meet a difficult question in provincial bounds.  Where
should Paul go from Bercea?  The one thing clear to him was that he was
called to Macedonia.  If Thessaly was part of that province,* Larissa
was the natural completion of his Macedonian work; and we could readily
believe that he thought of it and was prevented by a revelation.  But,
in that case, why is "the revelation"left out?  Such an omission is
unique in Acts.  On the other hand, if Thessaly was part of Achaia, Paul
could not think at that time of beginning work in a new province.  In
Athens he was merely waiting for the chance of returning to Thessalonica
(p.  240). But, in that case, we might understand, "he was prevented (by
the call restricting him to Macedonia)". Perhaps the Reviser, having
eliminated parh'lqen from XVI 8, thought that XVII 15 was a suitable
place for the idea, which he wished to preserve.

Note 1.  The Place of Prayer at Philippi.  We take our stand upon the
fact that the Bezan Text, "where there seemed to be a prayer-
place"(ejdovkei proseuch; ei\nai), appears to be an explanation of our
text (ejomivzeto proseuch; ei\nai): it is therefore clear that in the
middle of the second century our text was read, and was found difficult,
and was misunderstood to mean "there was thought to be a prayer-place ".
This misunderstanding led to other attempts at correction, one of which
appears in the great MSS. (ejnomivzomen proseuchVn ei\nai).

Note 2.  The Synagogue at Thessalonica.  The true reading of XVII 4
results from a comparison of A with D. The reading of the great MSS. is
impossible for these reasons: (1) It restricts Paul's converts to Jews.
proselyte Greeks, and a few ladies, taking no notice of any work outside
the circle of the synagogue.  I Thess.  gives the impression that
converts direct from heathenism were the mass of the Church.  (2) It
restricts Paul's work to three Sabbaths, which is opposed to all
rational probability, to Thess.  and to Phil.; whereas our text
restricts the work within the circle of the synagogue to three Sabbaths,
but adds a second stage much more important, when a great multitude of
the general population of the city was affected.  (3) The contrast drawn
between the Jews of Berea and of Thessalonica, v.  11, is very unfair to
the latter, if, as the great MSS. put it, three Sabbaths produced such
vast effect within the circle of the synagogue.  (4) That reading speaks
of "a great multitude of God-fearing Greeks,"implying that the synagogue
had exercised an astonishing influence on the population.  Lightfoot
quotes the fact that Salonica is still mainly a Jewish city, as a proof
that Judaism gained and kept a strong hold on the city throughout
Christian history; but a visit to Salonica would have saved him from
this error.  The Jews of Salonica speak Spanish as their language, and
are descended from Spanish Jews, expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella, who
found in Turkey a refuge denied or grudged them in most European
countries.  There is no reason known to me for thinking that Judaism was
strong in the city under the Byzantine Empire; and the strong antipathy
of the Greeks to the Jews makes it improbable.  The Thessalonian Jews
were protected by the Roman government; but one may doubt if they
maintained their ground under the Christian Empire.

CHAPTER XI.

ATHENS AND CORINTH

1.  ATHENS. (XVII 16) NOW WHILE PAUL WAS WAITING FOR THEM IN ATHENS, HIS
SOUL WAS PROVOKED WITHIN HIM AS HE BEHELD THE CITY FULL OF IDOLS. (17)
SO HE REASONED IN THE SYNAGOGUE WITH THE JEWS AND THE PROSELYTES, AND IN
THE MARKETPLACE EVERY DAY WITH CHANCE COMERS . . . . (23) "AS I WENT
THROUGH THE CITY SURVEYING THE MONUMENTS OF YOUR RELIGION, I FOUND ALSO
AN ALTAR WITH THIS INSCRIPTION 'TO UNKNOWN GOD'."

The picture of Paul in Athens, which is given in the ensuing scene, is
very characteristic of Athenian life.  Luke places before us the man who
became "all things to all men,"and who therefore in Athens made himself
like an Athenian and adopted the regular Socratic style of general free
discussion in the agora; and he shows him to us in an atmosphere and a
light which are thoroughly Attic in their clearness, delicacy, and
charm.

It is evident from v.23, and our conception of Paul's character forces
the same view on us, that he was not indifferent even to the "sights"of
the great university city of the world, which united in itself so many
memorials of history and of education.  The feelings which would rise in
the mind of an American scholar from Harvard, seeing Oxford for the
first time, were not alien to Paul's spirit The mere Jew could never
have assumed the Attic tone as Paul did.  He was in Athens the student
of a great university, visiting an older but yet a kindred university,
surveying it with appreciative admiration, and mixing in its society as
an equal conversing with men of like education.

This extraordinary versatility in Paul's character, the unequaled
freedom and ease with which he moved in every society, and addressed so
many races within the Roman world, were evidently appreciated by the man
who wrote this narrative, for the rest of Chapter XVII is as different
in tone from XIII as Athens is different from Phrygia.  Only a writer
who was in perfect sympathy with his subject could adapt his tone to it
so perfectly as Luke does.  In Ephesus Paul taught "in the school of
Tyrannus"; in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in the
market-place.  How incongruous it would seem if the methods were
transposed!  But the narrative never makes a false step amid all the
many details, as the scene changes from city to city; and that is the
conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life.

Athens in Paul's time was no longer the Athens of Socrates; but the
Socratic method had its roots in the soil of Attica and the nature of
the Athenian people.  In Athens Socrates can never quite die, and his
spirit was in Paul's time still among the people, though the learned
lecturers of the university felt already the coming spirit of Herodes
Atticus more congenial to them.  Among the people in the agora, then,
Paul reasoned in the Socratic fashion; but when the Professors came upon
the scene, they soon demanded of him a display in the style of the
rhetorician.

As Paul wandered through Athens, the interest in its monuments and its
university was soon overpowered by the indignation roused by the idols
with which it was crowded.  In this centre of the world's education,
amid the lecture-rooms where philosophers had taught for centuries that
it was mere superstition to confuse the idol with the divine nature
which it represented, the idols were probably in greater numbers than
anywhere else in Paul's experience.  Though he was only waiting for the
message to go back to Thessalonica, and resume the work in Macedonia to
which he had been called, yet indignation would not let him keep silence
during the short stay which he anticipated in Athens.  He began to
discourse in the synagogue, and to hold Socratic dialogue in the agora
with any one whom he met.

Here we observe the same double mission as in Berea, Thessalonica, and
elsewhere; and, as in other cases, the Jewish mission is mentioned
first.  There is one marked difference between this passage and the
corresponding descriptions at Berea and Thessalonica.  In those cases
great results were attained; but in Athens no converts are mentioned at
this stage, either in the synagogue or in the agora.  The lack of
results at this stage is, however, fully explained by the shortness of
the time.  Paul's stay in Athens can hardly have been longer than six
weeks, and was probably less than four; and the process described in v.
17 was brought to a premature close by the great event of his visit,
which the historian describes very fully.

The time spent in Athens may be deduced approximately from the following
considerations.  Probably less than a fortnight elapsed before Silas and
Timothy joined him there, according to his urgent directions.  They
brought with them no favourable news: it was still impossible for him to
return to Thessalonica, and he "thought it good to be left in Athens
alone, and sent Timothy to comfort the Thessalonians concerning their
faith"(I Thess.  III 1, 2).

Since Paul remained alone, Silas also must have been sent away from
Athens; and as, some two months later, Silas with Timothy rejoined Paul
from Macedonia, he was probably sent to Philippi, for frequent
communication was maintained at this time between Paul and his first
European Church (Phil.  IV 15 f.).

Paul was still looking forward to a return to his proper work in
Macedonia; and it is clear that he intended to remain in Athens until
Silas and Timothy came back from their mission, which makes it probable
that their absence was not intended to be a long one.  Doubtless they
travelled to Thessalonica together, and Timothy waited there while Silas
went to Philippi, discharged his mission, and returned; and then they
came to Athens together.  They found Paul no longer there, for he had in
the meantime gone to Corinth.  Circumstances that happened in Athens had
forced him to abandon the city and go to Corinth: "after this he
departed from Athens and came to Corinth"(XVIII 1). In this sentence it
might seem that the words "departed from Athens"are wasted; and that it
would have been sufficient to say after this he came to Corinth"; but
our principle is that every minute fact stated in Acts has its own
significance, and the departure from Athens (cwrisqei;" ejk tw'n
jAqhnw'n) is emphasised, because it was a violation of the intended plan
under the compulsion of events.

The same word is used in XVIII 1 to describe Paul's departure from
Athens, and in 2 to describe Aquila's enforced departure from Rome.  On
our view (p.  252) the idea of sudden, premature departure is contained
in each.

Further, it is clear that Paul had been in Corinth for some time and
attained a certain measure of success, before Silas and Timothy arrived;
and, if we allow seven weeks for their mission, which seems ample, he
must have spent altogether about three or four weeks in Athens and five
or six in Corinth.

2.  IN THE UNIVERSITY AT ATHENS. (XVII 18 AND CERTAIN ALSO OF THE STOIC
AND EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHERS ENGAGED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM; AND SOME
SAID, "WHAT WOULD THIS SPERMOLOGOS [ignorant plagarist] SAY?" AND
OTHERS, "HE IS APPARENTLY AN EXPONENT OF FOREIGN DIVINITIES"[BECAUSE HE
WAS GIVING THE GOOD NEWS OF "JESUS"AND "RESURRECTION "]. (19) AND THEY
TOOK HOLD OF HIM AND BROUGHT HIM BEFORE THE Council of AREOPAGUS,
SAYING, "MAY WE LEARN WHAT IS THIS NEW TEACHING WHICH IS SPOKEN BY THEE?
(20) FOR THOU BRINGEST SOME THINGS OF FOREIGN FASHION TO OUR EARS; WE
WISH THEREFORE TO LEARN WHAT IS THEIR NATURE." (21) BUT THE WHOLE crowd
of ATHENIANS AND RESIDENT STRANGERS who formed the audience WERE
INTERESTED ONLY IN SAYING OR HEARING SOMETHING NEW and smart.  (22) AND
PAUL STOOD IN THE MIDST OF THE Council of AREOPAGUS AND SAID . . . (33)
THUS PAUL WENT FORTH FROM THE MIDST OF THEM.

The explanatory clause in v.  18 is wanting in the Bezan Text and an old
Latin Version, and is foreign to Luke's fashion of leaving the reader to
form his own ideas with regard to the scene.  It is apparently a gloss,
suggested by v.  32, which found its way into the text of almost all
MSS.

The different opinions of the philosophers in v.  18 are purposely
placed side by side with a touch of gentle sarcasm on their inability,
with all their acuteness, to agree in any opinion even about Paul's
meaning.  The first opinion is the most interesting.  It contains a word
of characteristically Athenian slang, Spermológos, and is clearly caught
from the very lips of the Athenians (as Dr.  Blass happily puts it).
This term was used in two senses-(1) a small bird that picks up seeds
for its food, and (2) a worthless fellow of low class and vulgar habits,
with the insinuation that he lives at the expense of others, like those
disreputable persons who hang round the markets and the quays in order
to pick up anything that falls from the loads that are carried about.
Hence, as a term in social slang, it connotes absolute vulgarity and
inability to rise above the most contemptible standard of life and
conduct; it is often connected with slave life, for the Spermológos was
near the type of the slave and below the level of the free man; and
there clings to it the suggestion of picking up refuse and scraps, and
in literature of plagiarism without the capacity to use correctly.  In
ancient literature plagiarism was not disapproved when it was done with
skill, and when the idea or words taken from another were used with
success: the literary offence lay in the ignorance and incapacity
displayed when stolen knowledge was improperly applied.

To appreciate fully a term of social slang requires the greatest effort
to sympathise with and recreate the actual life of the people who used
the term.  Probably the nearest and most instructive parallel in modern
English life to Spermológos is "Bounder,"allowing for the difference
between England and Athens.  In both there lies the idea of one who is
"out of the swim,"out of the inner circle, one who lacks that thorough
knowledge and practice in the rules of the game that mould the whole
character and make it one's nature to act in the proper way and play the
game fair.  The English term might be applied to a candidate for a
professorship, whose life and circumstances had lain in a different line
and who wanted knowledge and familiarity with the subject; and that is
the way in which St.  Paul is here called a Spermológos, as one who aped
the ways and words of philosophers.  Dean Farrar's rendering, "picker-up
of learning's crumbs,"is happy, but loses the touch of slang.

The general tendency of recent opinion is that Paul was taken to the
Hill of Ares, in order to give an address in quiet surroundings to a
crowd of Athenians on the spot where the Council that derived its name
from the hill sat to hold solemn trials for murder; and the view taken
in the Authorised Version and the ancient authorities, such as
Chrysostom and Theophylact, that Paul was subjected to a trial before
the Council, is rejected on the ground that in the proceedings there is
nothing of a judicial type, no accuser, no accusation, and no defensive
character in Paul's speech, which is addressed not to a court but to a
general Athenian audience.  These reasons quite disprove the view that
the scene described in vv.  19-34 was a trial.  But the idea that the
assembly of Athenians went up to the hill-top as a suitable place for
listening to an address is even more unsatisfactory.  The top of the
little hill is a most unsuitable place from its small size and its
exposed position; and it is quite out of keeping with the habits of the
people to go to such a place for such a purpose.  Curtius has led the
way to a proper view of the whole incident, which lies wholly in the
agora.

Further, it is inconsistent with the patriotism and pride of the
Athenians that they should conduct a foreigner for whom they expressed
such contempt to the most impressive seat of Athenian religious and
national history, in order that he might there talk to them.  The
Athenians were, in many respects, flippant; but their flippancy was
combined with an intense pride in the national dignity and the historic
glory of the city, which would have revolted at such an insult as that
this stranger should harangue them about his foreign deities on the spot
where the Athenian elders had judged the god Ares and the hero Orestes,
where the goddess Athena had presided in the highest court of her chosen
people, and where still judgment on the most grave cases of homicide was
solemnly pronounced.

Nor would it be a permissible interpretation that a small number of
philosophic inquirers retired to this quiet spot for unimpeded
discussion.  The scene and the speech breathe the spirit of the agora,
and the open, free, crowded life of Athens, not the quiet atmosphere of
the philosophic study or class-room; while the tone of the opinions
expressed in v.  18 is not one of philosophic interest and careful
discussion, but of contempt, dislike, and jealousy.  Moreover, it would
be an insult to address philosophic inquirers in the language of vv.  22
-3.  The philosophers did not dedicate altars to an Unknown God, but
regarded all such proceedings as the mere superstition of the vulgar.
Paul's speech is an exceedingly skillful one, if addressed to a popular
audience; but to philosophers it would be unskillful and unsuitable.

But the language shows clearly that Paul was brought before the Council
and not simply conducted to the Hill.  He stood "in the midst of the
Areopagus,"v.  22, and "he went forth from the midst of them": he that
went forth from the midst of them must have been standing in the midst
of them.  In this scene, full of the Attic spirit and containing typical
words of Athenian slang like Spermológos, we require some distinctly
Greek sense for each detail; and "Paul stood in the middle of the
Hill"is in Greek an absurdity.  He stood in the middle of the Council, a
great and noble, but not a friendly assembly, as in IV 7 Peter stood "in
the midst"of the Sanhedrim; and in Acts and the Gospels many similar
expressions occur.  (See note, p.  260.)

The philosophers took hold of Paul.  When a man, especially an educated
man, goes so far as to lay his hands on another, it is obvious that his
feelings must be moved; and the word must have some marked sense in a
writer whose expression is so carefully studied as Luke's.  It occurs as
a sign of friendly encouragement to a person in a solitary and difficult
position, IX 27, XXIII 19; but more frequently it denotes hostile
action, as XXI 30, XVIII 17, XVI 19.  There must have been some stronger
feeling among the philosophers than mere contempt mingled with some
slight curiosity, before they actually placed their hands on Paul.  Now
they certainly did not act as his friends and sponsors in taking him
before the Council, therefore we must understand that they took him
there from dislike and with malice.

What then was their object?  Every attempt to explain the scene as a
trial has failed, and must fail (p.  243). Even the idea of a
preliminary inquiry is unsuitable; for, if it were so, none of the
marked features of the scene are preserved in the narrative, which would
be contrary to our experience in Luke's descriptions.  In estimating the
situation, we must remember that in vv.  18, 19, Paul is among the
lecturers and professors of the university.  Therein lies the chief
interest of the scene, which is unique in Acts.  We have seen Paul in
various situations, and mixing in many phases of contemporary life.
Here alone he stands amid the surroundings of a great university,
disputing with its brilliant and learned teachers; and here, as in every
other situation, he adapts himself with his usual versatility to the
surroundings, and moves in them as to the manner born.

Two questions have to be answered in regard to the scene that follows:
why was Paul taken before the Council?  and what were the intentions of
the philosophers in taking him there?  It is clear that Paul appeared to
the philosophers as one of the many ambitious teachers who came to
Athens hoping to find fame and fortune at the great centre of education.
Now, certain powers were vested in the Council of Areopagus to appoint
or invite lecturers at Athens, and to exercise some general control over
the lecturers in the interests of public order and morality.  There is
an almost complete lack of evidence what were the advantages and .the
legal rights of a lecturer thus appointed, and to what extent or in what
way a strange teacher could find freedom to lecture in Athens.  There
existed something in the way of privileges vested in the recognised
lecturers; for the fact that Cicero induced the Areopagus to pass a
decree inviting Cratippus, the Peripatetic philosopher, to become a
lecturer in Athens, implies that some advantage was thereby lectured to
him.  There certainly also existed much freedom for foreigners to become
lecturers in Athens, for the great majority of the Athenian professors
and lecturers were foreign.  The scene described in vv.  18-34 seems to
prove that the recognised lecturers could take a strange lecturer before
the Areopagus, and require him to give an account of his teaching and
pass a test as to its character.

When they took him to the court to satisfy the supreme university
tribunal of his qualifications, they probably entertained some hope that
he would be overawed before that august body, or that his teaching might
not pass muster, as being of unsettling tendency (for no body is so
conservative as a University Court).

The government in Greek cities exercised a good deal of control over the
entire system of education, both for boys and for young men, who were
trained in graduated classes and passed on from one to another in
regular course.  There is good reason for thinking that in Athens this
control was exercised by the Council of Areopagus, in the case both of
boys and of young men: it rises naturally out of their ancient charge of
the manners and morals of the citizens, of the public hygiene and the
state physicians, and of offences against religious ritual (though
serious charges of impiety and of introducing foreign religion were not
tried before the Areopagus but before the popular courts);and it is, in
ancient view, related to the control of peace and order which they
exercised in the Roman period.  Moreover, Quintilian mentions that the
Areopagus punished a boy who used to pluck out the eyes of quails, which
implies their jurisdiction over the young.

In the rhetorical displays of that period, the general audience (corona)
was an important feature.  The influence of the audience is familiar to
every reader of the literature of that time; and the younger Pliny says
that even the lawyers of his time spoke more to gain the approval and
applause of the audience than to influence the opinion and judgment of
the court.  Owing to the difficulty in multiplying copies of literary
productions, public opinion could not be so well appealed to or
expressed in any other way; and the applause or disapproval of the
circle of hearers came to represent to a great extent the public verdict
on all intellectual achievements.  Luke, therefore, could not well omit
the audience, even in this brief account; and he touches it off in v.
21, where the force of the imperfect tense is important: Luke is not
describing the general character of the Athenian people (which would
require a present tense): he places another element in the scene
alongside of those already described.  While the philosophers insisted
with some malevolent intention on having a test applied, the general
crowd of Athenians and resident strangers were merely moved by
curiosity.

The unmistakable tone of contempt in the description suits a Macedonian
describing an Athenian crowd (for the two peoples always disliked and
despised each other); and it is not undeserved.  As Mr.  Capes says in
his University Life in Ancient Athens: "the people commonly was nothing
loath to hear: they streamed as to a popular preacher in our own day, or
to an actor starring in provincial towns: the epicures accepted the
invitation to the feast of words, and hurried to the theatre to judge as
critics the choice of images, and refinement of the style, and all the
harmony of balanced periods ". As Luke says, they were as eager to make
smart criticisms as to listen.

3.  THE SPEECH BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF AREOPAGUS. (XVII 22) AND PAUL STOOD
IN THE MIDST OF THE COUNCIL AND SAID, "YE MEN OF ATHENS, IN ALL RESPECTS
I OBSERVE THAT YOU ARE MORE than others RESPECTFUL OF WHAT IS DIVINE.
(23) FOR AS I WAS GOING THROUGH your city AND SURVEYING THE MONUMENTS OF
YOUR WORSHIP, I FOUND ALSO AN ALTAR WITH THE INSCRIPTION TO UNKNOWN GOD.
THAT divine nature, THEN, WHICH YOU WORSHIP, NOT KNOWING what it is, I
AM SETTING FORTH TO YOU. (24) THE GOD THAT MADE THE WORLD AND ALL THINGS
THEREIN, HE, LORD AS HE IS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, DWELLETH NOT IN SHRINES
MADE WITH HANDS, (25) AND IS NOT SERVED BY HUMAN HANDS AS THOUGH HE
NEEDED ANYTHING, SINCE HE HIMSELF GIVETH TO ALL LIFE AND BREATH AND ALL
THINGS. (26) AND HE MADE OF ONE nature EVERY RACE OF MEN TO DWELL ON ALL
THE FACE OF THE EARTH; AND FIXED DEFINED TIMES AND BOUNDS OF THEIR
HABITATION, (27) THAT THEY SHOULD SEEK THE GOD, IF HAPLY THEY MIGHT FEEL
AFTER HIM AND FIND HIM, BEING AS INDEED HE IS NOT FAR FROM EACH ONE OF
US. (28) FOR IN HIM WE LIVE AND MOVE AND ARE, AS CERTAIN ALSO OF YOUR
POETS HAVE SAID, FOR WE ARE ALSO HIS OFFSPRING. (29) BEING THEN THE
OFFSPRING OF GOD, WE OUGHT NOT TO THINK THAT THE DIVINE NATURE IS LIKE
UNTO GOLD OR SILVER OR STONE, GRAVEN BY ART AND DEVICE OF MAN. (30) NOW
THE TIMES OF IGNORANCE GOD OVERLOOKED, BUT AT PRESENT HE CHARGETH ALL
MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT, (31) INASMUCH AS HE HATH SET A DAY ON WHICH,
IN the person of THE MAN WHOM HE HATH ORDAINED, HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD
IN RIGHTEOUSNESS; AND HE HATH GIVEN ALL A GUARANTEE BY RAISING HIM FROM
THE DEATH."(32) AND WHEN THEY HEARD OF "RAISING FROM THE DEAD,"SOME
MOCKED, AND OTHERS SAID, "WE WILL HEAR THEE CONCERNING THIS YET AGAIN".
(33) THUS PAUL WENT OUT FROM THE MIDST OF THEM. (34) BUT CERTAIN MEN
CLAVE UNTO HIM AND BELIEVED; AMONG WHOM ALSO WAS DIONYSIUS, A MEMBER OF
THE COUNCIL, AND A WOMAN NAMED DAMARIS, AND OTHERS WITH THEM. (XVIII 1)
AND THEREAFTER HE LEFT ATHENS, AND WENT TO CORINTH.

The influence of Paul's Athenian surroundings may be traced in the
"philosophy of history"which he sketches briefly in his address.  In the
Socratic position the virtue of"knowing"was too exclusively dwelt on,
and in some of the earlier Platonic dialogues the view is maintained
that virtue is knowledge and vice ignorance; and Greek philosophy was
never clear about the relation of will and permanent character to
"knowing". The Greek philosophers could hardly admit, and could never
properly understand, that a man may know without carrying his knowledge
into action, that he may refuse to know when knowledge is within his
grasp, and that the refusal exercises a permanent deteriorating
influence on his character.  Now Paul, in his estimate of the relation
of the pre-Christian world to God, adopts a different position in the
Athenian speech from that on which he afterwards took his stand in his
letter to the Romans, I 19-32.  In the latter place he recognises (to
quote Lightfoot's brief analysis) that the pagan world "might have seen
God through His works.  They refused to see Him.  They disputed, and
they blinded their hearts.  Therefore they were delivered over to
impurity.  They not only did those things; but they took delight in
those who did them."Here we have a full recognition of that fundamental
fact in human nature and life, which Æschylus expressed in his greatest
drama * a conception of his own differing from the common Greek
view:"the impious act breeds more, like to its own kind: it is the
nature of crime to beget new crime, and along with it the depraved
audacious will that settles, like an irresistible spirit of ill, on the
house". But to the Athenians Paul says, "the times of ignorance,
therefore, God overlooked"; and those times are alluded to as a period,
when men were doing their best to find and to worship "God Unknown". We
must not, of course, demand that the entire theology of Paul should be
compressed into this single address; but yet there is a notable omission
of an element that was unfamiliar and probably repugnant to his
audience, and an equally notable insistence on an element that was
familiar to them.  The Stoic ring in 23 f.  is marked (pp.  147, 150).

One woman was converted at Athens; and it is not said that she was of
good birth, as Was stated at Berea and Thessalonica and Pisidian
Antioch.  The difference is true to life.  It was impossible in Athenian
society for a woman of respectable position and family to have any
opportunity of hearing Paul; and the name Damaris (probably a vulgarism
for damalis, heifer) suggests a foreign woman, perhaps one of the class
of educated Hetairai, who might very well be in his audience.

It would appear that Paul was disappointed and perhaps disillusioned by
his experience in Athens.  He felt that he had gone at least as far as
was right in the way of presenting his doctrine in a form suited to the
current philosophy; and the result had been little more than naught.
When he went on from Athens to Corinth, he no longer spoke in the
philosophic style.  In replying afterwards to the unfavourable
comparison between his preaching and the more philosophical style of
Apollos, he told the Corinthians that, when he came among them, he
"determined not to know anything save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"(I
Cor.  I 12); and nowhere throughout his writings is he so hard on the
wise, the philosophers, and the dialecticians, as when he defends the
way in which he had presented Christianity at Corinth.  Apparently the
greater concentration of purpose and simplicity of method in his
preaching at Corinth is referred to by Luke, when he says, XVIII 5, that
when Silas and Timothy rejoined him there, they found him wholly
possessed by and engrossed in the word.  This strong expression, so
unlike anything else in Acts , must, on our hypothesis, be taken to
indicate some specially marked character in the Corinthian preaching.

4.  CORINTH. (XVIII 1) AFTER THESE EVENTS HE LEFT ATHENS AND WENT TO
CORINTH. (2) AND, FINDING A CERTAIN JEW NAMED AQUILA, A MAN OF PONTUS BY
BIRTH, WHO HAD LATELY COME FROM ITALY, AND PRISCILLA HIS WIFE, BECAUSE
CLAUDIUS HAD COMMANDED ALL THE JEWS TO LEAVE ROME, HE ACCOSTED THEM. (3)
AND BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE SAME CRAFT, HE ABODE WITH THEM, AND WROUGHT AT
HIS TRADE [FOR THEY WERE TENTMAKERS BY THEIR CRAFT]. (4) AND HE USED TO
DISCOURSE IN THE SYNAGOGUE EVERY SABBATH, AND TRIED TO PERSUADE JEWS AND
GREEKS. (5) AND WHEN SILAS AND TIMOTHY ARRIVED FROM MACEDONIA, HE WAS
WHOLLY ABSORBED IN PREACHING, ATTESTING TO THE JEWS THAT THE ANOINTED
ONE IS JESUS.

Almost all MSS. add to v.  3 the explanation which we have given in
parentheses; but it comes in very awkwardly, for Luke, who said at the
beginning of the verse, "because he was of the same craft,"did not
intend to say at the end, "for they were tentmakers by craft". The Bezan
Text and an old Latin Version (Gig.)  omit this detail; and they must
here represent the original state of the text.  In order to make the
explanation a little less awkward, the two great MSS. read, "he abode
with them and they wrought". The explanation is a gloss, which crept
from the margin into the text.  It is doubtless very early, and
perfectly trustworthy: its vitality lies in its truth, for that was not
the kind of detail that was invented in the growth of the Pauline
legend.

Aquila, a man of Pontus, settled in Rome bears a Latin name; and must
therefore have belonged to the province and not to non-Roman Pontus.
This is a good example of Luke's principle to use the Roman provincial
divisions for purposes of classification (pp.  91, 196).

There is here a reference to Imperial history.  Aquila and Priscilla had
come recently from Rome, on account of an edict of Claudius expelling
the Jews from Rome.  Suetonius says that the expulsion was caused by a
series of disturbances "due to the action of Chrestus"; and in all
probability this Chrestus must be interpreted as "the leader of the
Chrestians"(p.  47 f.), taken by a popular error as actually living.  In
the earliest stages of Christian history in Rome, such a mistake was
quite natural; and Suetonius reproduces the words which he found in a
document of the period.  As Dion Cassius mentions, it was found so
difficult to keep the Jews out of Rome on account of their numbers, that
the Emperor did not actually expel them, but made stricter regulations
about their conduct.  It would therefore appear that the edict was found
unworkable in practice; but Suetonius is a perfect authority that it was
tried, and it is quite probable that some Jews obeyed it, and among them
Aquila.  Neither Suetonius nor Dion gives any clue to the date; but
Orosius says that it occurred in Claudius's ninth year, 49.  I believe
that this date is a year wrong, like that of the famine (p.  68), and
for the same reason: the edict must be placed in the end of 50, and thus
Aquila arrived in Corinth six or seven months before Paul came in Sept.
51.

The careful record of Aquila's antecedents must, on our hypothesis, be
taken as not a mere picturesque detail; Luke mentioned his Roman
residence, because it had some bearing on his subject.  After some time
(during most of which Paul had been in Aquila's company at Corinth and
at Ephesus), a journey to Rome is announced as Paul's next intention,
XIX 21.  Aquila was able to tell him of the events that had occurred in
Rome "at the action of Chrestus"; and his experience showed him how
important it was to go direct to the great centres of Roman life.  The
connection of Luke with the Macedonian journey (p.  203) is an
interesting parallel.

Paul mentions in writing to the Romans, XV 24, that he intended to go on
from Rome to Spain.  Such an intention implies in the plainest way an
idea already existent in Paul's mind of Christianity as the religion of
the Roman Empire.  Spain was by far the most thoroughly romanised
district of the Empire, as was marked soon after by the act of Vespasian
in 75, when he made the Latin status universal in Spain.  From the
centre of the Roman world Paul would go on to the chief seat of Roman
civilisation in the West, and would thus complete a first survey, the
intervals of which should be filled up by assistants, such as Timothy,
Titus, etc.

5.  THE SYNAGOGUE AND THE GENTILES IN CORINTH. (XVIII 6) AND WHEN THEY
BEGAN TO FORM A FACTION AGAINST HIM AND BLASPHEME, HE SHOOK OUT HIS
GARMENTS AND SAID UNTO THEM, "YOUR BLOOD ON YOUR OWN HEAD! I ON MY SIDE
AM CLEAN! FROM HENCEFORTH I WILL GO UNTO THE GENTILES,"i.e., in this
city.  (7) AND HE CHANGED HIS PLACE from the synagogue, AND WENT INTO
THE HOUSE OF A CERTAIN MAN NAMED TITIUS JUSTUS, A GOD-FEARING proselyte,
WHOSE HOUSE JOINED HARD TO THE SYNAGOGUE. (8) BUT CRISPUS, THE ARCHISYNA
GOGOS, BELIEVED IN THE LORD WITH ALL HIS HOUSE; AND MANY OF THE PEOPLE
OF CORINTH USED TO HEAR AND BELIEVE AND RECEIVE BAPTISM. (9) AND THE
LORD SAID IN THE NIGHT BY A VISION UNTO PAUL, "BE NOT AFRAID, BUT SPEAK
ON, .AND HOLD NOT THY PEACE; (10) BECAUSE I AM WITH THEE, AND NO MAN
SHALL SET ON THEE TO HARM THEE; BECAUSE I HAVE MUCH PEOPLE IN THIS
CITY". (11) AND HE SETTLED A YEAR AND SIX MONTHS, TEACHING AMONG THEM
THE WORD OF GOD.

The distinction between the period of work in the synagogue, and that of
direct preaching to the populace, is expressed with marked emphasis at
Corinth.  Corinth stood on the highroad between Rome and the East; and
was therefore one of the greatest centres of influence in the Roman
world.  Macedonia was in this respect quite secondary, though one of the
routes to the East passed across it; and hence Paul was ordered to sit
down for a prolonged stay when he reached Corinth.  It is characteristic
of Luke to define the entire stay before relating some incidents that
occurred in it (pp.  153, 289).

It must be acknowledged that Paul had not a very conciliatory way with
the Jews when he became angry.  The shaking out of his garments was
undoubtedly a very exasperating gesture; and the occupying of a
meetinghouse next door to the synagogue, with the former archisynagogos
as a prominent officer, was more than human nature could stand.
Probably he found unusual opposition here, pp.  143, 287; but it is not
strange that the next stage of proceedings was in a law-court.

Titius Justus was evidently a Roman or a Latin, one of the coloni of the
colony Corinth.  Like the centurion Cornelius, he had been attracted to
the synagogue.  His citizenship would afford Paul an opening to the more
educated class of the Corinthian population.

It seems to be implied by vv.  8, 17, that there was only one
archisynagogos in the Corinthian synagogue; and, when Crispus became a
Christian, a successor was appointed.  At Pisidian Antioch there were
several archisynagogoi.  M.S. Reinach has shown from a Smyrnæ an
inscription that the title in Asia Minor did not indicate an office, but
was a mere expression of dignity, "a leading person in the synagogue";
and the Bezan Text of XIV 2 distinguishes clearly between the archons of
the synagogue (officials, probably two in number), and the
archisynagogoi.

6.  THE IMPERIAL POLICY IN ITS RELATION TO PAUL AND TO CHRISTIAN
PREACHING. (XVIII 12) BUT WHILE GALLIO WAS PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA, THE JEWS
WITH ONE ACCORD ROSE UP AGAINST PAUL, AND BROUGHT HIM BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL, SAYING, (13) "THIS MAN PERSUADETH PEOPLE TO WORSHIP GOD
CONTRARY TO THE LAW"(14) BUT WHEN PAUL WAS ABOUT. TO OPEN HIS MOUTH,
GALLIO SAID UNTO THE JEWS, "IF A MISDEMEANOUR OR A CRIME WERE IN
QUESTION, YE JEWS, REASON WOULD THAT I SHOULD BEAR WITH YOU; (15) BUT IF
THEY ARE QUESTIONS OF WORD, not deed, AND OF NAMES, not things, AND OF
YOUR LAW, not Roman law, YE YOUR- SELVES WILL LOOK TO IT: TO BE A JUDGE
OF THESE MATTERS for my part HAVE NO MIND". (16) AND HE DROVE THEM FROM
THE TRIBUNAL. (17) AND ALL THE GREEKS SEIZED SOSTHENES, THE
ARCHISYNAGOGOS, AND PROCEEDED TO BEAT HIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; AND
GALLIO TOOK NO NOTICE OF THIS CONDUCT.

Achaia was governed by a proconsul from B.C. 27 to A.D. 15, and from
A.D. 44 onwards.  It was a province of the second rank, and was
administered by Roman officials, after holding the prætorship, and
generally before the consulship.  Corinth had now become the chief city
of Achaia, and the residence of its governors (as Marquardt infers from
this passage).

Here we have another point of contact with Roman history.  Gallio was a
brother of the famous Seneca, and shared his fortunes.  Seneca was in
disgrace from 41 to 49; but in 49 he was recalled from banishment and
appointed prætor for A.D. 50.  Pliny mentions that Gallio attained the
consulship, which was probably after his proconsulship in Achaia.  In
his career of office Gallio must have been prætor not less than five
years before he went to Achaia; but no evidence survives to show in what
year he held the prætorship (except that it cannot have been between 41
and 49):as the elder brother, he probably held it before Seneca.  There
is no other evidence that Gallio governed Achaia; but the statement of
Luke is corroborated by the fact, which Seneca mentions, that Gallio
caught fever in Achaia, and took a voyage for change of air.

Either the Jews at Corinth did not manage their accusation so well as
those of Thessalonica, or Gallio elicited the true character of their
complaints against Paul as being really matters of mere Jewish concern.
It is clear that Gallio's short speech represents the conclusion of a
series of inquiries, for the accusation, as it is quoted, does not refer
to words or names, but only to the Law.  But it is reasonable to suppose
that the Jews put their accusation at first in a serious light, with a
view to some serious penalty being inflicted; and Gallio, on probing
their allegations, reduced the matter to its true dimensions as a
question that concerned only the self-administering community of "the
Nation of the Jews in Corinth". It would have been interesting to know
more about this case, for it seems to show that Gallio shared the broad
and generous views of his brother about the policy of Rome in regard to
the various religions of the provinces.  The Greeks, who always hated
the Jews, took advantage of the marked snub which the governor had
inflicted on them, to seize and beat Sosthenes, who had been appointed
to replace Crispus as Archisynagogos, and who doubtless was taking a
prominent part in the proceedings.  Gallio took no notice of this piece
of "Lynch law,"which probably seemed to him to be a rough sort of
justice.

The fact that Sosthenes (whether the same or another) joined with Paul
in writing to the Corinthians, I 1, caused an early misapprehension of
the scene.  It was understood that Gallio, after deciding against the
Jews, allowed them to console themselves by beating a Christian; and the
word "Greeks"is omitted in the great MSS. under the influence of this
mistake.  But such action is inconceivable in the Roman governor; and
the text of the inferior MSS. which substitutes a lifelike and
characteristic scene for one that is utterly foolish, must undoubtedly
be preferred.  Probably two persons at Corinth named Sosthenes were
brought into relations with Paul, one a Jew, the other a prominent
Christian; or perhaps the Jew was converted at a later date.

This action of the Imperial government in protecting him from the Jews,
and (if we are right) declaring freedom in religious matters, seems to
have been the crowning fact in determining Paul's line of conduct.
According to our view, the residence at Corinth was an epoch in Paul's
life.  As regards his doctrine he became more clearly conscious of its
character, as well as more precise and definite in his presentation of
it; and as regards practical work he became more clear as to his aim and
the means of .attaining the aim, namely, that Christianity should be
spread through the civilised, i.e., the Roman, world (not as excluding,
but as preparatory to, the entire world, Col.  III 11), using the
freedom of speech which the Imperial policy as declared by Gallio seemed
inclined to permit.  The action of Gallio, as we understand it, seems to
pave the way for Paul's appeal a few years later from the petty outlying
court of the procurator of Judea, who was always much under the
influence of the ruling party in Jerusalem, to the supreme tribunal of
the Empire (p.  306 f.).

The letters to the Thessalonians belong to the earlier part of his stay
in Corinth, before he had definitely reached the new stage of thought
and aim.  To the new stage, when he had attained full consciousness and
full dominion over his own plans, belong the four great letters, Gal, I
and II Cor., Rom.

Note 1.  oJ [Areios Pavgos was often used, in a conversational way, in
place of the cumbrous technical form, hJ ejx jAreivou Pavgou boulhv.
The decisive passages are pointed out to me by two friends and old
pupils, Mr.  A. Souter and Rev.  A.F. Findlay.  Cicero says to Atticus,
I 14, 5, Senatus [Areio" Pavgo". "our Senate is a veritable Areopagus".
Cicero picked up the conversational usage during his six months
residence in Athens; and hence he uses Areopagus to denote the Court,
Nat.  D. II 29, 74, Rep.  I 27, 43.  Again in an inscription of A.D. 50-
100 (Cavvadias, Fouilles d'Epidaure I p.  68, No.  206) we find [Areio"
Pavgo" ejn jEleusi'ni lovgous ejpoihvsato.  (Pape quotes other cases,
which are not so clear, and are denied by some authorities.)  Here, as
everywhere, we find Luke using the language of educated conversation.

Note 2.  Gallio.  One of the many difficulties in which Dr.  Clemen's
theory involves him is that he has to deny the identity of Luke's Gallio
with Seneca's brother.  Gallio's voyage from Achaia, undertaken on
account of a local fever (Seneca, Ep.  Mor.. 104, 1), was not the same
as his voyage from Rome to Egypt after his consulship on account of
phthisis (Pliny, XXXI 33), though probably the first also was to Egypt.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CHURCH IN ASIA

1.  THE SYRIAN VOYAGE AND THE RETURN TO EPHESUS. (XVIII 18) AND PAUL
TOOK HIS LEAVE OF THE BRETHREN, AND SAILED * THENCE FOR SYRIA, AND WITH
HIM PRISCILLA AND AQUILA; AND HE SHORE HIS HEAD IN CENCHREÆ, FOR HE HAD
A VOW. (19) AND THEY REACHED EPHESUS, AND HE LEFT THE OTHERS THERE. AND
FOR HIMSELF, HE WENT INTO THE SYNAGOGUE, AND DELIVERED A DISCOURSE UNTO
THE JEWS. (20) AND WHEN THEY ASKED HIM TO ABIDE A LONGER TIME, HE
CONSENTED NOT; (21) BUT HE TOOK HIS LEAVE OF THEM, AND SAID, ["I MUST BY
ALL MEANS PASS THE COMING FEAST IN JERUSALEM]; IF GOD PLEASE, I WILL
RETURN UNTO YOU;"AND HE SET SAIL FROM EPHESUS. (22) AND, REACHING
CÆSAREIA, HE WENT UP to Jerusalem, SALUTED THE CHURCH, AND then WENT
DOWN TO ANTIOCH. (23) AND, HAVING SPENT SOME TIME there, HE WENT FORTH,
AND MADE A PROGRESS IN ORDER from first to last THROUGH THE GALATIC
REGION AND THE PHRYGIAN Region, CONFIRMING ALL THE DISCIPLES. . . . (XIX
1) AND IT CAME TO PASS THAT PAUL, MAKING A MISSIONARY PROGRESS THROUGH
THE HIGHER-LYING QUARTERS of Asia, CAME TO the capital of the province
EPHESUS (Expositor, July, 1895, p.  39).

Just as in XX 6 the company sailed away from Philippi (Neapolis, where
they really embarked, being omitted, p.  70), so here Paul sailed from
Corinth, the harbour being left out of sight.  Then the harbour is
brought in as an afterthought: before actually embarking at Cenchreæ,
the eastern port of Corinth, Paul cut his hair, marking the fulfilment
of a vow which apparently was connected with safe embarkation from
Corinth.  Though the grammatical construction of v.  18 would suggest
that Aquila made the vow, and one old Latin Version makes this sense
explicit, yet the natural emphasis marks Paul as the subject here.

Aquila and Priscilla remained in Ephesus until the end of 55 (I Cor.
XVI 19);but in 56 they returned to Rome, where they were in the early
part of A.D. 57 (Rom.  XVI 3). We may fairly suppose that Timothy came
with Paul to Ephesus, and went up on a mission from thence to his native
city and the other Churches of Galatia.  This is an important passage
for dating the journey.  If we accept the longer reading of v.  21
(which appears in the Bezan Text, and elsewhere), it is certain that
Paul was hurrying to Jerusalem for the coming feast, which may be
confidently understood as the Passover.  But even with the shorter
reading of the great MSS., it would be highly probable that the reason
why he postponed accepting the invitation to work in Ephesus and hurried
on to Cæsareia, could lie only in his desire to be present at Jerusalem
on some great occasion; and the Passover is the feast which would
attract him.  Paul seems to have made a practice of beginning his
journeys in the spring.

According to our view the whole journey took place thus.  Paul was
always eager to.  profit by any "open door,"and an invitation from his
own people to preach to them in Ephesus must have been specially
tempting to him.  Nothing but some pressing duty, which seemed to him to
imperatively require his presence in Jerusalem at the feast, was likely
to hurry him away from them.  Further, the feast must have been close at
hand, otherwise he could have waited some weeks before going on.  Now,
in A.D. 53, Passover fell on March 22; and navigation began as a rule
only on March 5.  But Paul took an early ship for Cæsareia, probably a
pilgrim ship, carrying from Corinth and Ephesus many Jews for the coming
Passover, and directing its course accordingly.  In these circumstances
he could not lose a day on the road, and could merely promise to return,
"if God will ".

On reaching Cæsareia, he went up and saluted the Church.  Dr.  Blass
considers that he went up from the harbour to the city of Cæsareia and
saluted the Church there, and then "went down"to Antioch.  That
interpretation is impossible for several reasons.  (1) It is impossible
to use the term "went down"of a journey from the coast-town Cæsareia to
the inland city Antioch.  On the contrary, one regularly "goes down"to a
coast-town (XIII 4, XIV 25, XVI 8, etc.). (2) The terms "going up"and
"going down"are used so frequently of the journey to and from Jerusalem
as to establish this usage.  Usually the phrase is given in full, "they
went up to Jerusalem"; but Dr.  Blass accepts as Lukan a reading in XV
6, in which "to go up to the Elders"is used in the sense of "to go up to
Jerusalem to the Elders". If he admits that sense in XV 6, why not also
in XVIII 22?  Conversely, the phrase "to go down"is used XXIV 22, where
the reader has to understand "from Jerusalem to Cæsareia". Now, the aim
of Paul's journey to Jerusalem, having been put in the reader's mind by
the words of v.  21, is readily and naturally supplied in v.  22.

The shipload of pilgrims to Jerusalem, with Paul among them, landed at
Cæsareia, and went up to Jerusalem to the Passover in regular course.
Paul exchanged greetings with the Church (this phrase implies that he
made only a brief stay), and went down to Antioch.  There he received
serious news about the Galatian Churches (p.  190); and with all
convenient speed he went by the land route through Cilicia, to Derbe,
Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch.  With the shortest stay that can
be supposed, when he was seeing old and loved friends after years of
absence, Paul can hardly have reached Derbe before July 53.  We cannot
allow less than two months for confirming the wavering Churches of
Galatia, especially as on this visit (I Cor.  XVI 1) he probably planned
the collection for the poor in Jerusalem, which was made universal
throughout his new Churches during the following three years.  Thus he
would have completed his work in Galatia by the beginning of September.
Then he went on to Ephesus, taking the higher-lying and more direct
route, not the regular trade route on the lower level down the Lycus and
Mæander valleys.  As he made a missionary progress through the upper
lands, he can hardly have reached Ephesus before the end of September,
.A..D. 53, and October is a more probable time.  Such a journey must
have occupied much time, even if we cut it down to the shortest possible
limits.  The distances are very great, and progression was very slow;
and even on a rapid journey many interruptions must be allowed for (as
any one who travels in these countries knows only too well).

In interpreting v.  22, we had to understand that the thought of
Jerusalem as Paul's aim had been suggested to the reader's mind by v.
21.  That is the case when the longer form of v.  21 is accepted; but
with the shorter text it becomes too harsh and difficult to supply the
unexpressed thought in v.  22.  We conclude that the longer form is the
original text, and the shorter form is a corruption.  But how did the
corruption originate?  A curious error appears in Asterius (c.  400,
A.D.), and in Euthalius (probably c.  468), and therefore was probably
part of the early tradition, according to which Pisidian Antioch, not
Syrian Antioch, was alluded to in v.  22.  By that misconception the
whole journey is obscured, and especially a visit to Jerusalem in v.  22
becomes impossible.  Two ways of curing the difficulty were tried.  The
Bezan Text retained the allusion to Jerusalem and the feast in v.  22,
and explained the supposed failure to pay the visit by interpolating in
XIX 1 the statement, "now when Paul wished according to his own plan to
go to Jerusalem, the Spirit bade him turn away into Asia". On the other
hand, in the text of the great MSS., the reference to the intended visit
to Jerusalem is cut out of v.  21.  Each of these seems a deliberate and
conscious effort made by some editor to eliminate a difficulty from the
passage as it stood originally

2.  APOLLOS, PRISCILLA AND AQUILA. During the time that Paul was absent
from Ephesus, there came thither an Alexandrian Jew named Apollos, a
good speaker, and well read in the Scriptures.  He had learned in
Alexandria the doctrine of John the Baptist and his prophecy of the
immediate coming of Christ; and this he preached in Ephesus with great
fervour and detailed proof from Scripture.  Priscilla and Aquila, having
heard his preaching, instructed him with regard to the fulfilment of
John's prophecy.  Afterwards he conceived the intention of crossing over
to Achaia; and the Brethren gave him letters of recommendation to the
disciples in Corinth.  When he settled there he became an effective
preacher, and a powerful opponent of the Jews, showing how in Jesus the
prophecies with regard to the Anointed One were fulfilled.

This episode is obviously introduced, not so much for its own intrinsic
importance, as for the sake of rendering the opening of Paul's first
letter to the Corinthians clear and intelligible.  A contrast is drawn
there between the more elaborate and eloquent style of Apollos and the
simple Gospel of Paul; and it is implied that some of the Corinthian
Brethren preferred the style and Gospel of Apollos.  The particulars
stated here about Apollos have clearly been selected to throw light on
the circumstances alluded to, but not explained in the letter.

In the Bezan Text the account of Apollos appears in a different form,
which has all the marks of truth, and yet is clearly not original, but a
text remodelled according to a good tradition.  The name is given in the
fuller form Apollonius; but Paul uses the diminutive Apollos; and Luke,
to make his explanation clearer would naturally use the same form.
Moreover, Luke regularly uses the language of conversation, in which the
diminutive forms were usual; and so he speaks of Priscilla, Sopatros and
Silas always, though Paul speaks of Prisca, Sosipatros and Silvanus.  On
that principle we must prefer the form Apollos.

Again, the text of almost all MSS. mentions Priscilla first; but the
Bezan Text alters the order, putting Aquila first.  Elsewhere also the
Bezan Reviser shows his dislike to the prominence assigned to women in
Acts . In XVII 12 he changes "not a few of the honourable Greek women
and of men"into "of the Greeks and the honourable many men and women".
In XVII 34 he cuts out Damaris altogether.  In XVII 4 he changes the
"leading women"into "wives of the leading men"These changes show a
definite and uniform purpose, and therefore spring from a deliberate
Revision of the original Received Text.

The unusual order, the wife before the husband (so XVIII 18), must be
accepted as original; for there is always a tendency among scribes to
change the unusual into the usual.  Paul twice (II Tim.  IV 19, Rom.
XVI 3) mentions Prisca before Aquila; that order was, therefore, a
conversational custom, familiar in the company among whom they moved;
though it must have seemed odd to strangers in later generations.

Probably Prisca was of higher rank than her husband, for her name is
that of a good old Roman family.  Now, in XVIII 2 the very harsh and
strange arrangement of the sentence must strike every reader.  But
clearly the intention is to force on the reader's mind the fact that
Aquila was a Jew, while Priscilla was not; and it is characteristic of
Luke to suggest by subtle arrangement of words a distinction which would
need space to explain formally (pp.  85, 204). Aquila was probably a
freedman.  The name does indeed occur as cognomen in some Roman
families; but it was also a slave name, for a freedman of Mæcenas was
called (C. Cilnius) Aquila.  There is probably much to discover with
regard to this interesting pair, but in this place we cannot dwell on
the subject.

The order in which the different threads of the narrative here succeed
one another exactly recalls the method of XI 27-XII 25.  There vv.  27-
30 narrate the events in Antioch, and bring Barnabas and Saul to the
gates of Jerusalem; next, the events in Jerusalem are brought up to
date; and then the action of the envoys in Jerusalem is described.  So
here Paul's journey is narrated, and he is brought to the frontier of
Asia; next, the events in Ephesus are brought up to date; and then
Paul's entrance into Asia and his action at Ephesus are described.

3.  EPHESUS. (XIX 1) AND IT CAME TO PASS, THAT, WHILE APOLLOS WAS AT
CORINTH, PAUL, HAVING PASSED THROUGH THE UPPER DISTRICTS, CAME TO
EPHESUS. (8) AND HE ENTERED INTO THE SYNAGOGUE, AND SPAKE BOLDLY FOR THE
SPACE OF THREE MONTHS, REASONING AND PERSUADING AS TO WHAT CONCERNS THE
KINGDOM OF GOD. (9) BUT WHEN SOME WERE HARDENED AND DISOBEDIENT,
SPEAKING EVIL OF THE WAY BEFORE THE MULTITUDE, HE DEPARTED FROM THEM AND
SEPARATED THE DISCIPLES, REASONING DAILY IN THE SCHOOL OF TYRANNUS [FROM
THE FIFTH TO THE TENTH HOUR]. (10) AND THIS CONTINUED FOR THE SPACE OF
TWO YEARS.

The distinction between the period of preaching in the synagogue and the
direct address to the Ephesian population is very clearly marked, and
the times given in each case.  In vv.  2-7 a strange episode is related
before Paul entered the synagogue.  He found twelve men who had been
baptised by the baptism of John, and induced them to accept re-baptism.
This episode I must confess not to understand.  It interrupts the
regular method of Luke's narrative; for in all similar cases, Paul goes
to the synagogue, and his regular efforts for his own people are related
before any exceptional cases are recorded.  The circumstances, too, are
difficult.  How had these twelve escaped the notice of Aquila,
Priscilla, and Apollos, and yet attracted Paul's attention before he
went to the synagogue?  Perhaps the intention is to represent Paul as
completing and perfecting the work begun by Apollos; re-baptism was,
apparently, not thought necessary for Apollos, and now Paul lays down
the principle that it is required in all such cases.  But that seems
distinctly below the level on which Luke's conception of Paul is
pitched.  If there were any authority in MS. or ancient Versions to omit
the episode, one would be inclined to take that course.  As there is
none, I must acknowledge that I cannot reconcile it with the conception
of Luke's method, founded.  on other parts of the narrative, which is
maintained in this book.  Possibly better knowledge about the early
history of the Ephesian Church might give this episode more significance
and importance in the development history than it seems to possess.

We should be glad to know more about the lecture room of Tyrannus.  It
played the same part in Ephesus that the house of Titius Justus
adjoining the synagogue did in Corinth.  Here Paul regularly taught
every day; and the analogy which we have noticed in other cases (pp.
75, 243) between his position, as it would appear to the general
population, and that of the rhetors and philosophers of the time, is
very marked.  There is one difference, according to the Bezan Text of v.
9: Paul taught after the usual work of the lecture-room was concluded,
i.e., "after business hours ". Doubtless he himself began to work (XX
34, I Cor.  IV 12) before sunrise and continued at his trade till
closing time, an hour before noon.  His hours of work are defined by
himself, I Thess.  II 9, "ye remember our labour and toil, working day
and night "; there, as often in ancient literature, the hours before
daybreak are called "night,"and his rule at Thessalonica may be extended
to Ephesus.  Public life in the Ionian cities ended regularly at the
fifth hour; and we may add to the facts elsewhere stated a regulation at
Attaleia in Lydia that public distribution of oil should be "from the
first to the fifth hour"*. Thus Paul himself would be free, and the
lecture-room would be disengaged, after the fifth hour; and the time,
which was devoted generally to home-life and rest, was applied by him to
mission-work.

In the following narrative the powers of Paul are brought into
competition with those of Jewish exorcists and pagan dabblers in the
black art, and his superiority to them demonstrated.  Ephesus was a
centre of all such magical arts and practices, and it was therefore
inevitable that the new teaching should be brought in contact with them
and triumph over them.  There can be no doubt that, in the conception of
Luke, the measure of success lay in the extent to which Divine power and
inspiration was communicated to a new Church; and perhaps the whole
description may be defended as the extremist example of that view.  But
it seems undeniable that, when we contrast this passage with the great
scene at Paphos, or the beautiful though less powerful scene with the
ventriloquist at Philippi, there is in the Ephesian description
something like vulgarity of tone, together with a certain vagueness and
want of individuality, very different from those other scenes.  Such
details, too, as are given, are not always consistent and satisfactory.
The seven sons in v.  14 change in an unintelligible way to two in v.
16 (except in the Bezan Text); and the statement that the seven were
sons of a chief priest, looks more like a popular tale than a
trustworthy historical statement.  There is no warrant in the text for
the view sometimes advocated, that Sceva was merely an impostor who
pretended to be a chief priest.  The money value of the books that were
destroyed is another touch that is thoroughly characteristic of the
oriental popular tale.  The inability of the vulgar oriental mind to
conceive any other aim, object, or standard in the world except money,
and its utter slavery to gold, are familiar to every one who has seen
the life of the people, or studied the Arabian Nights: in the West one
sees nothing like the simple, childish frankness with which the ordinary
oriental measures all things by gold, and can conceive of no other
conscious aim except gold.  So far as the oriental peasant is natural
and unconscious, he is interesting and delightful, and his complete
difference of nature at once attracts and holds at a distance the man of
Western thoughts; but so far as he consciously attempts to conceive
motives and form plans, gold is his sole standard of value.

In this Ephesian description one feels the character, not of weighed and
reasoned history, but of popular fancy; and I cannot explain it on the
level of most of the narrative The writer is here rather a picker-up of
current gossip, like Herodotus, than a real historian.  The puzzle
becomes still more difficult when we go on to v.  23, and find ourselves
again on the same level as the finest parts of Acts . If there were many
such contrasts in the book as between vv.  11-20 and 23-41, I should be
a believer in the composite character of Acts . As it is, I confess the
difficulty in this part; but the existence of some unsolved difficulties
is not a bar to the view maintained in the present treatise (p.  16).

4.  THE CHURCH IN THE PROVINCE OF ASIA. (XIX 10) THIS CONTINUED FOR THE
SPACE OF TWO YEARS, SO THAT ALL THEY THAT DWELT IN ASIA HEARD THE
WORD.... (21) NOW AFTER THESE THINGS WERE ENDED, PAUL PURPOSED IN THE
SPIRIT, WHEN HE HAD MADE A PROGRESS THROUGH MACEDONIA AND ACHAIA, TO GO
TO JERUSALEM, SAYING, "AFTER I HAVE BEEN THERE, I MUST ALSO SEE ROME".
(22) AND, HAVING SENT INTO MACEDONIA TWO OF THEM THAT ASSISTED HIM,
TIMOTHY AND ERASTUS, HE HIMSELF STAYED IN ASIA FOR A WHILE.

The work in Asia, which had been Paul's aim in A.D. (p.  198), was now
carried out.  The long residence suits the greatness of the work, for
Asia was the richest.  one of the largest, and in many ways the leading
province of the East.

Ephesus, as the seat of government, was the centre from which the whole
province of Asia could best be affected (p.  104); and the effect of
Paul's long work there extended far over that vast province, but
chiefly, of course, along the great lines of communication.  For
example, Churches arose in three cities of the Lycos Valley, Laodiceia,
Colossai, and Hierapolis, though Paul himself did not go there.  All the
seven Churches mentioned in the Revelation were probably rounded during
this period, for all were within easy reach of Ephesus, and all were
great centres of trade.  It is probable that they, being the first
foundations in the province, retained a sort of representative
character; and thus they were addressed in the Revelation (perhaps as
heads over districts), when there were certainly other Churches in the
province.

In the ordinary communication between the capital and the other cities
of the province, the influence from Ephesus would be carried to these
cities; but that was not the only way in which these other Churches
grew.  Paul had with him a number of subordinate helpers, such as
Timothy, Erastus, Titus, etc.  The analogy of many other cases in the
early history of the Church would leave no room to doubt that helpers
were often employed in missions to the new Churches; and, as Timothy
joined with Paul in the letter to the Colossians, it may be inferred
that he had been working in that city.

The clear conception of a far-reaching plan revealed in v.  21 is
confirmed by Rom.  XV 24 (see p.  255).

It has been argued by some (and notably by Lightfoot) that Paul made a
short visit to Corinth, during his Ephesian mission.  But this
conjectural visit (II Cor.  XII 14, XIII 1) is more likely to have been
made from Philippi, (p.  283), for clearly (Acts XIX 9, 10) Paul resided
in Ephesus throughout the period Oct.  53 to Jan.  56.  In the latter
part of autumn 55 he sent to Corinth the First Epistle; and at that time
his intention was to remain in Ephesus till Pentecost 56 (XVI 8), and
then to go through Macedonia to Corinth.  But this was an alteration of
a previous plan to sail direct from Ephesus to Corinth, thence going to
Macedonia, and returning to Corinth, from whence he should sail for
Jerusalem (II Cor.  I 16). That intention was abandoned, and a letter, I
Cor., was sent instead: the full knowledge of the state of things in
Corinth, which is revealed in that letter, was gained by the report of
some envoys (XVI 17, compare p.  284). The abandonment of the plan was
doubtless due to the conviction that the success of the work in Asia
demanded a longer residence.  He, therefore, cut out of his programme
the first of these two proposed visits to Corinth, and restricted
himself to one, which he should pay after a progress through Macedonia
(I Cor.  XVI 5). He sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, instructing
the former to go on to Corinth, and he told the Corinthians, IV 17, that
Timothy was coming, "who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which
be in Christ". Finally, when his Asian work was cut short, he went from
Philippi to Corinth, April 56 (see Preface).

The analogy of this case strengthens our interpretation of the Galatian
letter (p.  190). In each case Paul had to encounter a serious and
dangerous situation in a distant Church.  In the case of Corinth, he
could not go, but sent a substitute and a letter explaining that the
substitute was on the way, and the bearer would give the reason why Paul
could not go then; but he adds in the letter a promise to go later,
though "some of them fancied that he was not coming". In the case of
Galatia he was able to go immediately, and sent off a hasty letter in
front, the bearer of which would announce that he was following.  But on
the usual theory, Paul, in that serious emergency In Galatia, neither
thought of going there, nor of explaining that he could not go.

No allusion to Timothy occurs between XVIII 5 (where he rejoined Paul at
Corinth) and XIX 22.  According to the analogy of Luke's method (p.  46
f.), this shows that he was understood by the author to have been
attached to Paul's service during the intervening period, ready for any
mission, such as that to Galatia, or this to Macedonia.  According to I
Cor.  IV 17, Timothy was to go on to Corinth: Luke speaks only of
Macedonia.  Both are correct; it becomes clear from II Cor.  that
Timothy did not go on to Corinth, and that Paul found him in Macedonia:
probably he met Titus on his way back to report to Paul the result of
the first letter, and waited instructions before going on.  See p.  285.

The plan of staying in Ephesus till Pentecost was interrupted by a
popular riot.  Already in the autumn of 55 Paul spoke of the
difficulties in Ephesus caused by the opposition of the vulgar populace
(p.  230, I Cor.  XV 32); and the character of the city shows how
inevitable that was.  The superstition of all Asia was concentrated in
Ephesus.  Throughout the early centuries the city mob, superstitious,
uneducated, frivolous, swayed by the most commonplace motives, was
everywhere the most dangerous and unfailing enemy of Christianity, and
often carried the imperial officials further than they wished in the way
of persecution.  Moreover, round the great Ephesian temple, to which
worshippers came from far, many tradesmen got their living from the
pilgrims, supplying them with victims and dedicatory offerings of
various kinds, as well as food and shelter.  During the year 55, the
tension in Ephesus grew more severe: the one hand, the teaching spread
so fast that Paul was tempted to remain longer than he had intended (p.
275): on the other hand, his success only enraged and alarmed the
opposing forces.  "A great door and effectual is opened unto me, and
there are many adversaries"(I Cor.  XVI 9): "after the manner of men I
fought with beasts in Ephesus"(ib.  XV 32, p.  230).

The most sensitive part of "civilised"man is his pocket; and it was
there that opposition to Christian changes, or "reforms,"began.  Those
"reforms"threatened to extinguish some ancient and respectable trades,
and promised no compensation; and thus all the large class that lived
off the pilgrims and the temple service was marshalled against the new
party, which threatened the livelihood of all.

5.  DEMETRIUS THE SILVERSMITH. The scene which follows is the most
instructive picture of society in an Asian city at this period that has
come down to us.  It is impossible here to treat it so fully as it
deserves; and we can only enumerate the more striking points, and refer
to previous discussions.  A certain Demetrius was a leading man in the
associated trades, which made in various materials, terra-cotta, marble
and silver, small shrines (naoi) for votaries to dedicate in the temple,
representing the Goddess Artemis sitting in a niche or naiskos, with her
lions beside her.  Vast numbers of these shrines were offered to the
goddess by her innumerable votaries.  The rich bought and offered them
in more expensive materials and more artistic form, the poor in simple
rude terra-cotta.  The temple and the sacred precinct were crowded with
dedications; and the priests often cleared away the old and especially
the worthless offerings to make room for new gifts.  The richer
tradesmen made shrines in the more expensive material, and silver was
evidently a favourite material among the wealthy.  Demetrius, then, must
have had a good deal of capital sunk in his business.  He called a
meeting of the trades, doubtless in a guild house where they regularly
met, and pointed out that Paul, by teaching the worthlessness of images,
was seriously affecting public opinion and practice over almost the
whole province Asia,* and endangering their business as well as the
worship of the goddess.  The tradesmen were roused; they rushed forth
into.  the street;* a general scene of confusion arose, and a common
impulse carried the excited crowd into the great theatre.  The majority
of the crowd were ignorant what was the matter; they only knew from the
shouts of the first rioters that the worship of Artemis was concerned;
and for about two hours the vast assembly, like a crowd of devotees or
howling dervishes, shouted their invocation of "Great Artemis". In this
scene we cannot mistake the tone of sarcasm and contempt, as Luke tells
of this howling mob; they themselves thought they were performing their
devotions, as they repeated the sacred name; but to Luke they were
merely howling, not praying.

A certain Alexander was put forward by the Jews to address the mob; but
this merely increased the clamour and confusion.  There was no clear
idea among the rioters what they wanted: an anti-Jewish and an anti-
Christian demonstration were mixed up, and probably Alexander's
intention was to turn the general feeling away from the Jews.  It is
possible that he was the worker in bronze, who afterwards did Paul much
harm (II Tim.  IV 14).

Our conception of the scene assumes that the Bezan reading in 28, 34
(megavlh [Artemi") is original.  The accepted text, "Great is
Artemis,"gives a different tone to the scene: that is the quiet
expression in which a worshipper recognises and accepts a sign of the
goddess's power, drawing an inference and expressing his respect and
gratitude.  "Great Artemis"was a common formula of devotion and prayer,
as is attested by several inscriptions; and it gives a more natural and
a far more effective tone to the scene.

Two of Paul's companions in travel, Gaius and Aristarchus, had been
carried into the theatre with the crowd; and he himself was on the point
of going there, but the disciples would not allow him, and his friends
among the Asiarchs sent urging him not to risk himself among the mob.
It is noteworthy that Luke, as usual, adds no comments or reflections of
his own as to the danger in which Paul was placed.  But the slightest
consideration suffices to show that he must have been at this period in
the most imminent danger, with the mob of a great Ionian coast-city
raging against him.  In the speech of Demetrius are concentrated most of
the feelings and motives that, from the beginning to the end, made the
mob so hostile to the Christians in the great oriental cities.  Paul
himself says, "concerning our affliction which befell in Asia, that we
were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, insomuch that we
despaired even of life"(II Cor.  I 8). His immediate withdrawal from
Ephesus, in the midst of his promising work, was forced on him.

It is a question whether the reading of some few MSS., "Gaius and
Aristarchus a Macedonian,"should not be followed.  Gaius, in that case,
would be the native of Derbe mentioned in XX 4.  Luke, himself a
Macedonian, does not omit the little touch of national pride in
Aristarchus; but he was not so interested in the nationality of Gaius.
The peculiar phraseology, with the ethnic in singular (Makedovna)
following two names, and preceding sunekdhvmou", led naturally to the
change (Makedovna"), which appears in most MSS. The epithet, "travelling
companions,"seems to point forward to XX 4, as we have no reason to
think that either Gaius or Aristarchus had hitherto been companions of
Paul on a journey.  Prof.  Blass, recognising the probability that Gaius
is the travelling companion of XX 4, accepts Valckenaer's alteration of
the text in that place, making Gaius a Thessalonian, and Timothy a man
of Derbe; and that alteration would be very tempting, were it not for
the insurmountable statement, XVI 1, that Timothy was a Lystran.

The reference to the Asiarchs is very important, both in respect of the
nature of that office (on which it throws great light, though that opens
up a wide and disputed field), and as a fact of Pauline history.  The
Asiarchs, or High Priests of Asia, were the heads of the imperial,
political-religious organisation of the province in the worship of "Rome
and the Emperors"(p.  134); and their friendly attitude is a proof both
that the spirit of the imperial policy was not as yet hostile to the new
teaching, and that the educated classes did not share the hostility of
the superstitious vulgar to Paul.  Doubtless, some of the Asiarchs had,
in the ordinary course of dignity, previously held priesthoods of
Artemis or other city deities; and it is quite probable that up to the
present time even the Ephesian priests were not at all hostile to Paul.
The eclectic religion, which was fashionable at the time, regarded new
forms of cult with equanimity, almost with friendliness; and the growth
of each new superstition only added to the influence of Artemis and her
priests.  My friend, Mr.  J. N. Farquhar, Principal of the L.M.S.
College, Calcutta, writes that he is struck with similar facts in the
situation of mission work in India, and its relation to the priests and
people.

Luke, having stated the accusation against Paul, does not fail to show
up its utter groundlessness in the eyes of responsible officials.  The
speech of the Town-clerk, which is given at length, is a very skillful
and important document, in its bearing on the whole situation, and on
Luke's plan (p.  304 f.). The Clerk was probably the most important
official in Ephesus, and therefore in close contact with the court of
the proconsul, who generally resided in that city; and his speech is a
direct negation of the charges commonly brought against Christianity, as
flagrantly disrespectful in action and in language to the established
institutions of the State.  He points out that the only permissible
method of procedure for those who have complaints against a Christian is
action before the courts of the province, or the assembly of the
municipality; and he warns the rioters that they are bringing themselves
into danger by their disorderly action.

This address is so entirely an apologia of the Christians that we might
almost take it as an example of the Thucydidean type of speech, put into
the mouth of one of the actors, not as being precisely his words, but as
embodying a statesmanlike conception of the real situation.  At any
rate, it is included by Luke in his work, not for its mere Ephesian
connection, but as bearing on the universal question of the relations in
which the Church stood to the Empire (p.  306). The well-known rescripts
of Hadrian to Fundanus, and of Antoninus Pius to the Greek cities, take
their stand on the same permanent and obvious ground, which at all times
formed the one statesmanlike principle of action, and the basis for the
Church's claim to freedom and toleration.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE VOYAGE TO JERUSALEM

1.  THE SECOND EUROPEAN JOURNEY. (XX 1) AND AFTER THE RIOT CEASED, PAUL,
HAVING SENT FOR THE DISCIPLES AND EXHORTED THEM, BADE THEM FAREWELL, AND
DEPARTED TO MAKE HIS WAY INTO MACEDONIA. (2) AND HAVING MADE A PROGRESS
THROUGH THOSE QUARTERS, AND EXHORTED THEM WITH MUCH PREACHING, HE WENT
INTO GREECE. (3) AND HE SPENT THREE MONTHS there.

Paul took a coasting vessel from Ephesus, we may be sure; and, as was
often the case, he had to transship in Troas.  Here "a door was opened
to him"(II Cor.  II 12). Doubtless he had to wait some time for a
passage to Macedonia; for, though in January a passage could be easily
obtained along the safe Asian coast, it was more difficult to find
opportunity for the longer voyage over the open sea to Macedonia;
perhaps none was found till general navigation began, March 5.  It is
probable that already in the voyages between Ephesus and Macedonia, the
new teaching had effected a lodging in Troas (XIX 10);and in the delay
there, Paul had a good opening.  In Troas Paul had expected to meet
Titus; and was much disappointed that he was not there.  At the same
time he was greatly dispirited by the strong opposition which had driven
him prematurely from Ephesus (II Cor.  I 8 f.); and was in a depressed
frame of mind owing to ill-health (ib.  IV 7 f.).

Titus is the most enigmatic figure in early Christian history.  His
omission from Acts has been alluded to (P. 59). He enters on the stage
of history for a short time in A.D. 45-6, and then we hear nothing of
him, until we learn that Paul expected to find him in Troas in January
or February 56.  He was now on his way from Corinth to Macedonia; and he
joined Paul after he had arrived at Philippi in February or March,
bringing a detailed report of the state of the Corinthian Church.  Now
in II Cor.  Titus is prominent to a degree unique in Paul's letters; he
is named nine times, and always with marked affection and distinction.
Why, then, is he never mentioned in I Cor.? . There is one satisfactory
reason, and only one, so far as I can judge: he was the bearer of the
first letter.* His special interest in Corinth is mentioned, VII 15,
VIII 16.  He was eager to return on a second mission to Corinth, VIII
17, and along with him Paul sent the Brother whose praise in the
delivery of the good tidings was spread over all the Churches (Luke,
according to an early tradition), and another, who was selected on
account of the confidence that he felt in the Corinthians.  It may be
safely assumed that the Titus of II l Cor.  is the same Titus that is
mentioned in Gal II 1.

Titus, then, had been sent on his first mission to Corinth in autumn 55,
probably by direct ship.  He could not come back across the open sea
during the winter (Nov.  10 to March 5), and must take a coasting voyage
by Macedonia.  Paul expected to find him in Troas; but he was detained
too long, and met Paul in Philippi in February or early March 56; and he
returned thence on a second mission to Corinth.

As Titus was at hand in Ephesus about October 55, it is hardly open to
doubt that he had been in Paul's company on the whole of the third
journey.  It is equally clear that he had not been with Paul on the
first or the second journey, for he is mentioned in Gal.  II 1as a
stranger to the Galatians, whose Greek birth had to be explained to
them.  Probably it was his Greek origin that had prevented Paul from
taking him as a companion on earlier journeys.  We have seen how careful
Paul was to conciliate the Jews on his second journey; and we may fairly
consider that the grumbling of the Jews in Jerusalem in 46 (even when
Titus was bringing food to them) had warned Paul that it was not
expedient to have Titus with him when he entered the synagogues of
strange cities.  For his companions on the second journey he selected
Silas, a Jewish Roman, and Timothy, half-Greek, half-Jew.  Finally, on
his third journey, when he was putting down the Judaising tendency in
Galatia, he took Titus with him by a carefully-planned stroke of policy:
one of the arguments by which the Judaisers proved that Judaic
Christianity was the higher stage was that Paul had circumcised Timothy
before promoting him to an office of trust.  He replied by taking Titus
with him to Galatia; and from II Cor.  we gather that Titus proved one
of the most congenial and useful of his assistants.  The space which he
fills in II Cor.* is a unique fact in Paul's letters; and in the loving
and tender sympathy of Paul's language about him we may read a wish to
compensate for the neglect that had during many years sacrificed him to
the thankless policy of conciliating the Jews.

The importance of Titus in subsequent years confirms the impression
derived from II Cor.  He seems to have remained in Europe when Paul went
to Jerusalem in March 57.  At a later time he was sent to Dalmatia, II
Tim.  IV 10; and near the end of Paul's career he was entrusted with the
general oversight of the Churches in Crete, Tit.  I 5.

Paul spent the summer and autumn of 56 in Macedonia.  He found Timothy
waiting him either in Thessalonica or in Bercea; and they joined in
addressing the second letter to the Corinthians, enforcing in a more
personal way the instructions already sent through the three envoys who
had come from Philippi.  The common view (which is as old as the
subscription added in some MSS. to the letter), that the envoys carried
with them II Cor., seems improbable.  In winter Paul went on to Hellas
(the Greek term for the country forming the main part of the Roman
province), and spent December, January.  and February in Corinth.

2.  THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE FOUR PROVINCES. (3) AND WHEN HE HAD SPENT
THREE MONTHS, AND A PLOT WAS LAID AGAINST HIM BY THE JEWS WHILE HE WAS
ON THE POINT OF SETTING SAIL FOR SYRIA, HE ADOPTED THE PLAN OF MAKING
HIS RETURN JOURNEY to Jerusalem THROUGH MACEDONIA. (4) AND THERE
ACCOMPANIED HIM on the journey to Jerusalem SOPATER, SON OF PYRRHUS OF
BEREA, AND on the part OF THE THESSALONIANS ARISTARCHUS AND SECUNDUS,
AND GAIUS OF DERBE AND TIMOTHY, AND THE ASIANS TYCHICUS AND TROPHIMUS
(NOW THESE Asian delegates, COMING TO MEET US, AWAITED US IN TROAS). (5)
AND WE SAILED AWAY FROM PHILIPPI AFTER THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, AND
CAME UNTO THEM TO TROAS.

At the opening of navigation, Paul had arranged to sail from Corinth to
Jerusalem, obviously with the intention of celebrating the Passover
there; but the discovery of a Jewish plot to kill him altered his plans.
The style of this plot can be easily imagined.  Paul's intention must
have been to take a pilgrim ship carrying Achaian and Asian Jews to the
Passover (p.  264). With a shipload of hostile Jews, it would be easy to
find opportunity to murder Paul.  He therefore abandoned the proposed
voyage and sailed for Macedonia, where he easily arrived in time to
celebrate the Passover in Philippi.

It is clear that the plot was discovered at the last moment, when
delegates from the Churches had already assembled.  The European
delegates were to sail from Corinth, the Asian from Ephesus, where
doubtless the pilgrim ship would call (as in 53, P. 264). When the plan
was changed, word was sent to the Asian delegates; and they went as far
as Troas to meet the others, for in ancient voyages it could be
calculated with certainty that Paul's company would put in at that
harbour.

The purpose of this numerous company is not stated in this part of the
text; but in XXIV 17, Paul says: "I came to bring alms to my nation, and
offerings,"and the reason is often alluded to in the Epistles to Corinth
and Rome.  In Rom.  XV 25, written from Corinth about Jan.  57, Paul
says: "Now I go unto Jerusalem, acting as an administrator of relief to
the saints". The scheme of a general contribution collected week by week
for a long time in all the Pauline Churches of Galatia, Asia, Macedonia,
and Achaia, has been well described by Mr.  Rendall (Expositor, Nov.
1893, p.  321). The great importance which Paul attached to this
contribution, and to the personal distribution of the fund (daikoniva),
is attested, not merely by the long and careful planning of the scheme,
and by the numerous body of delegates who carried it to Jerusalem, but
also by his determination to conduct the delegates personally, in spite
of all the dangers which, as he knew, awaited him there: "I go
constrained by the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing what shall befall
me there, save that the Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city,
saying that bonds and afflictions await me". It is evident that he
thought this scheme the crowning act of his work in these four
provinces; and as soon as it was over, his purpose was to go to Rome and
the West (p.  255), and cease for the time his work in the Eastern
provinces (XX 25).

The scheme is not alluded to in the letter to the Galatian Churches: but
it seems to have been inaugurated there by oral instructions during the
third visit (I Cor.  XVI 1). The mission of Timothy and of Titus in 56
doubtless helped to carry it out in Europe.  Luke evidently took it up
with special zeal, and he was from an early date selected as one of the
administrators who were to carry it to Jerusalem (II Cor.VIII 19). In
the list, v.  4, Luke omits his own name, but suggests his presence by
his familiar device.  No representative from Achaia is on the list; but
perhaps we may understand that the Corinthians had asked Paul himself to
bear their contribution, the amount of which he praises (II Cor.  IX 2).

In v.  4 we have probably a case like XVI 19 f., in which the authority
hesitated between two constructions, and left an unfinished sentence
containing elements of two forms.  The facts were probably as stated in
our rendering; and it would lead too far to discuss the sentence, which
perhaps never received the author's final revision.

3.  THE VOYAGE TO TROAS.. (XX 6) WE SAILED AWAY FROM PHILIPPI AFTER THE
DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, AND CAME UNTO THEM TO TROAS IN FIVE DAYS; AND
THERE WE TARRIED SEVEN DAYS. (7) AND ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK WHEN
WE WERE GATHERED TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD, PAUL DISCOURSED WITH THEM,
BEING ABOUT TO DE- PART ON THE MORROW; AND HE PROLONGED HIS SPEECH UNTIL
MIDNIGHT. . . (13) AND WE, GOING BEFORE TO THE SHIP, SET SAIL FOR ASSOS.

In A.D. 57 Passover fell on Thursday, April 7.  The company left
Philippi on the morning of Friday, April 15, and the journey to Troas
lasted till the fifth day, Tuesday, April 19.  In Troas they stayed
seven days, the first of which was April 19, and the last, Monday, April
25.  Luke's rule is to state first the whole period of residence, and
then some details of the residence (see pp.  153, 256, and XIX 10). On
the Sunday evening just before the start, the whole congregation

4.  EUTYCHUS. (XX 7) AND UPON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, WHEN WE WERE
GATHERED TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD, PAUL DISCOURSED TO THEM, INTENDING TO
GO AWAY ON THE MORROW; AND HE PROLONGED HIS SPEECH UNTIL MIDNIGHT. (8)
AND THERE WERE MANY LIGHTS IN THE UPPER CHAMBER, WHERE WE WERE GATHERED
TOGETHER. (9) AND THERE SAT IN THE WINDOW A CERTAIN YOUNG MAN NAMED
EUTYCHUS, WHO WAS GRADUALLY OPPRESSED BY SLEEP AS PAUL EXTENDED HIS
DISCOURSE FURTHER, AND BEING BORNE DOWN BY HIS SLEEP HE FELL FROM THE
THIRD STORY TO THE GROUND, AND WAS LIFTED UP DEAD. (10) AND PAUL WENT
DOWN AND FELL ON HIM, AND EMBRACING HIM SAID, "MAKE YE NO ADO; FOR HIS
LIFE IS IN HIM". (11) AND HE WENT UP, AND BROKE BREAD AND ATE, AND
TALKED WITH THEM A LONG WHILE, EVEN TILL BREAK OF DAY; AND THUS HE
DEPARTED. (12) AND THEY BROUGHT THE LAD ALIVE, AND WERE NOT A LITTLE
COMFORTED. (13) BUT WE, GOING BEFORE TO THE SHIP, SET SAIL FOR ASSOS,
INTENDING TO TAKE PAUL ON BOARD FROM THENCE; FOR SO HE HAD ARRANGED,
INTENDING HIMSELF TO GO BY LAND.

In this case the author vouches that Eutychus was dead, implying
apparently that, as a physician, he had satisfied himself on the point
In XIV 19 he had no authority for asserting that Paul was dead, but only
that his enemies considered him dead.

The sequence of the narrative is remarkable: the young man fell: Paul
declared he was not dead: Paul went upstairs again, partook of the
common meal (conceived here as a sacrament), and conversed till break of
day: they brought the young man living.  But the interruption of the
story of Eutychus's fate is intentional.  The narrator was present in
the upper chamber, and saw Eutychus fall, and heard Paul declare that he
was not dead; but he does not claim to have been a witness of the man's
recovery, and he marks the difference by a break in the narrative.  The
ship, having to round the projecting cape Lectum, would take longer time
to reach Assos than the land journey required; and Paul stayed on to the
last moment, perhaps to be assured of Eutychus's recovery, while the
other delegates went on ahead in the ship.  Thus the fact that Eutychus
recovered is in a sense the final incident of the stay at Troas.  The
Bezan reading makes the sequence clearer: "and while they were bidding
farewell, they brought the young man living, and they were comforted".

There is a very harsh change of subject in v.  12; the persons who
brought the youth are not those who were comforted (as Dr.  Blass points
out). A similar change of subject, but not quite so harsh, occurs in
XIII 2-3.  The word "brought,"not "carried,"implies that Eutychus was
able to come with some help.

5.  THE VOYAGE TO CAESAREIA. (14) AND WHEN HE MET US AT ASSOS, WE TOOK
HIM BOARD, AND CAME TO MITYLENE; (15) AND SAILING FROM THENCE ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY, WE REACHED a point on the mainland OPPOSITE CHIOS; AND ON
THE MORROW WE STRUCK ACROSS TO SAMOS, AND [AFTER MAKING A STAY AT
TROGYLLIA] ON THE NEXT DAY WE CAME TO MILETUS. (16) FOR PAUL HAD DECIDED
TO SAIL PAST EPHESUS, TO AVOID SPENDING TIME IN ASIA;1 FOR HE WAS
HASTENING, IF IT WERE PENTECOST. (17) AND FROM MILETUS HE SENT TO
EPHESUS, AND SUMMONED THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. (18) AND WHEN THEY WERE
COME TO HIM, HE SAID UNTO THEM... (36) AND WHEN HE HAD THUS SPOKEN, HE
KNEELED DOWN WITH THEM ALL, AND PRAYED. (37) AND THEY ALL WEPT SORE, AND
FELL ON PAUL'S NECK, AND KISSED HIM, SORROWING MOST OF ALL FOR THE WORD
WHICH HE HAD SPOKEN, THAT THEY WILL BEHOLD HIS FACE NO MORE. (38) AND
THEY BROUGHT HIM ON HIS WAY UNTO THE SHIP. (XXI 1) AND WHEN IT CAME TO
PASS THAT WE, TEARING OURSELVES FROM THEM, SET SAIL, WE MADE A STRAIGHT
RUN TO COS, AND THE NEXT DAY TO RHODES, AND FROM THENCE TO PATARA [and
Myra]. (2) AND, FINDING A SHIP GOING OVER SEA TO PHŒNICE, WE WENT ON
BOARD AND SET SAIL. (3) AND, HAVING SIGHTED CYPRUS, LEAVING IT ON OUR
LEFT, WE SAILED UNTO SYRIA, AND LANDED AT TYRE; FOR THERE THE SHIP WAS
TO UNLADE. (4) AND HAVING FOUND THE DISCIPLES, WE TARRIED THERE SEVEN
DAYS; AND THESE SAID THROUGH THE SPIRIT TO PAUL NOT TO SET FOOT IN
JERUSALEM. (5) AND WHEN IT CAME TO PASS THAT WE HAD FINISHED OUR TIME,
WE DEPARTED AND WENT ON OUR JOURNEY; AND THEY ALL, WITH WIVES AND
CHILDREN, BROUGHT US ON OUR WAY TILL WE WERE OUT OF THE CITY. AND
KNEELING DOWN ON THE BEACH, WE PRAYED, (6) AND BADE EACH OTHER FAREWELL;
AND WE WENT ON BOARD SHIP, BUT THEY RETURNED HOME AGAIN. (7) AND
FINISHING THE short RUN FROM TYRE, WE REACHED PTOLEMAIS; AND WE SALUTED
THE BRETHREN AND ABODE WITH THEM ONE DAY.

The ship evidently stopped every evening.  The reason lies in the wind,
which in the Ægean during the summer generally blows from the north,
beginning at a very early hour in the morning; in the late afternoon it
dies away; at sunset there is a dead calm, and thereafter a gentle south
wind arises and blows during the night.  The start would be made before
sunrise; and it would be necessary for all passengers to go on board
soon after midnight in order to be ready to sail with the first breath
from the north.

In v.  14 our translation (agreeing with Blass) assumes that the reading
sunevbalen is correct; but the great MSS. read sunevballen, and perhaps
the imperfect may be used, implying that Paul did not actually enter
Assos, but was descried and taken in by boat as he was nearing the city.
On Monday, April 25, they reached Mitylene before the wind fell; and on
Tuesday afternoon they stopped at a point opposite Chios (probably near
Cape Argennum). Hence on Wednesday morning they ran straight across to
the west point of Samos, and thence kept in towards Miletus; but when
the wind fell, they had not got beyond the promontory Trogyllia at the
entrance to the gulf, and there, as the Bezan Text mentions, they spent
the evening.  Early on Thursday, April 28, they stood across the gulf
(which is now in great part filled up by the silt of the river Mæander)
to Miletus.  Here they found that they could reckon on a stay of some
days, and Paul sent a messenger to Ephesus.  The messenger could not
reach Ephesus that day, for the land road round the gulf made a vast
circuit, and the wind would prevent him from sailing across to Priene in
the forenoon.  Moreover, it would take some time to land, and to engage
a messenger.  In the early afternoon there would arise a sea-breeze
blowing up the gulf (called in modern times Imbat, ejmbavth"), which
would permit the messenger to sail to the north side of the gulf.  He
would probably land at Priene, cross the hills, and thereafter take the
coast road to Ephesus, which he might reach during the night.  Some time
would be required to summon the presbyters; and they could not travel so
fast as a single chosen messenger.  They would show good speed if they
reached Priene in the evening and were ready to sail to Miletus with the
morning wind.  The third day of Paul's stay at Miletus, then, was
devoted to the presbyters; and we cannot suppose that the ship left
Miletus before Sunday morning, May 1, while it is possible that the
start took place a day later.

On that day they reached Cos, on May 2 Rhodes, May 3 Patara, May 4 Myra,
and, probably, May 7 Tyre.

In Tyre they stayed seven days, and sailed on May 13 for Ptolemais,
where they spent the day, and on May 14 they reached Cæsareia.  As
Pentecost was on May 28, they had still a considerable time before them.
If Paul remained several days in Cæsareia, then, the reason must be that
there was still plenty of time to do so without endangering his purpose.

We reach the same conclusion from observing the author's concise style.
After stating the object of the journey in v.  16, he leaves the reader
to gather from his silence that the object was attained.  The fact was
clear in his own mind, and he was content with one single incidental
allusion to it, not for its own sake (he as a Greek felt little interest
in Jewish festivals), but to explain a point in which he was interested,
viz., the sailing past Ephesus without touching there.

The statement in v.  16 has led to a common misconception that Paul was
sailing in a vessel chartered by himself, whose stoppages he could
control as he pleased.  But if Paul had been able to fix where the
vessel should stop, it was obviously a serious waste of time to go to
Miletus and summon the Ephesian elders thither; the shorter way would
have been to stop at Ephesus and there make his farewell address.
Clearly the delay of three days at Miletus was forced on him by the
ship's course, and the facts of the journey were these.  From Neapolis
they sailed in a ship bound for Troas.  Here they had to transship; and
some delay was experienced in finding a suitable passage.  Paul would
not voluntarily, have spent seven days at Troas: the length of a
coasting voyage was too uncertain for him to waste so many days at the
beginning, when he was hastening to Jerusalem.  After a week, two
chances presented themselves: one ship intended to make no break on its
voyage, except at Miletus, the other to stop at Ephesus.  The latter
ship was, for some reason, the slower; either it was not to sail further
south than Ephesus (in which case time might be lost there in finding a
passage); or it was a slow ship, that intended to stop in several other
harbours.  The shortness of the time determined Paul to choose the ship
that went straight to Miletus, and "to sail past Ephesus"; and the
pointed statement proves that the question had been discussed, and
doubtless the Ephesian delegates-begged a visit to their city.

To Luke the interest of Pentecost lay not in itself, but in its
furnishing the reason why Paul did not go to Ephesus.  There, as in so
many other touches, we see the Greek, to whom the Jews were little more
than "Barbaroi".

We notice that Paul, having been disappointed in his first intention of
spending Passover at Jerusalam, was eager at any rate to celebrate
Pentecost there.  For the purpose which he had at heart, the formation
of a perfect unity between the Jewish and the non-Jewish sections of the
Church, it was important to be in Jerusalem to show his respect for one
of the great feasts.

Modern discussion of the voyage to Cæsareia illustrates the unnecessary
obscurity in which a remarkably accurate narrative has been involved by
over-subtlety, want of experience of rough-and-ready travel, and
inattention to the peculiar method of Luke as a narrator.  As we have
seen, only two numbers are at all doubtful: the length of the stay at
Miletus, and the duration of the over-sea voyage to Tyre; but in each
case a day more or less is the utmost permissible variation.  We find
that Paul had fully thirteen days to spare when he reached Cæsareia.
Yet many excellent scholars have got so far astray in this simple
reckoning of days as to maintain that Paul was too late.  Even Weiss, in
his edition (in many respects excellent), so lately as 1893, concludes
that already in Tyre Paul found that it was impossible to reach
Jerusalem in time.  Yet, at a pinch, the journey from Tyre to Jerusalem
could have been performed in four days.

The farewell speech to the Ephesians, simple, pathetic, and
characteristic of Paul as it.  is, contains little that concerns our
special purpose.  Paul intimates clearly that this is his farewell
before entering on his enterprise in the West: "Ye all shall no longer
see my face". With a characteristic gesture he shows his hands: "these
hands ministered unto my necessities".

Incidentally we notice the ancient custom of reckoning time: the
residence in Asia, which can hardly have been more than two years six
months at the most, is estimated loosely as "three years".

The clinging affection which is expressed in the farewell scene, and in
the "tearing ourselves away"of XXI 1, makes a very pathetic picture.

Myra is mentioned on this voyage in the Bezan Text, and there can be no
doubt that the ship on which the company was embarked either entered the
harbour of Myra, or, at least, went close to it before striking across
the open sea west of Cyprus to the Syrian coast.  The voyage may be
taken as typical of the course which hundreds of ships took every year,
along a route familiar from time immemorial.  It had been a specially
frequented route since the age of the earlier Seleucid and Ptolemaic
kings, when, as Canon Hicks remarks, "there must have been daily
communication between Cos and Alexandria ".*

The harbour of Myra seems to have been the great port for the direct
cross-sea traffic to the coasts of Syria and Egypt.  It was the seat of
the sailors god, to whom they offered their prayers before starting on
the direct long course, and paid their vows on their safe arrival; this
god survived in the Christianised form, St.  Nicholas of Myra, the
patron-saint of sailors, who held the same position in the maritime
world of the Levant as St.  Phokas of Sinope did in that of the Black
Sea (where he was the Christianised form of Achilles Pontarches, the
Ruler of the Pontos).

Myra is termed by the pilgrim Sawulf (as I learn from Dr.  Tomaschek)
"the harbour of the Adriatic Sea, as Constantinople is of the Ægean
Sea"; and this importance is hardly intelligible till we recognise its
relation to the Syrian and Egyptian traffic.  The prevailing winds in
the Levant throughout the season are westerly; and these westerly
breezes blow almost with the steadiness of trade-winds.  Hence the
ancient ships, even though they rarely made what sailors call "a long
leg"across the sea, were in the habit of running direct from Myra to the
Syrian, or to the Egyptian coast.  On the return voyage an Alexandrian
ship could run north to Myra, if the wind was nearly due west; but, if
it shifted towards north-west (from which quarter the Etesian winds blew
steadily for forty days from July 20), the ships of Alexandria ran for
the Syrian coast.  The same steady winds, which favoured the run from
Myra to Tyre, made the return voyage direct from Tyre to Myra an
impossibility.  Hence the regular course for ships from Syria was to
keep northwards past the east end of Cyprus till they reached the coast
of Asia Minor; and then, by using the land winds which blow off the
coast for some part of almost every day, and aided also to some extent
by the current which sets steadily westward along the Karamanian coast
(as it is now called), these traders from Syria worked their way along
past Myra to Cnidos at the extreme south-western corner of Asia Minor.

It may, then, be safely assumed that Myra was visited by Paul's ship, as
the Bezan Text asserts.  But the addition of "and Myra"is a mere gloss
(though recording a true fact), for it implies that the transshipment
took place at Myra.  We need not hesitate to accept the authority of the
great MSS. that Paul and his company found at Patara a ship about to
start on the direct Syrian course, and went on board of it (probably
because their ship did not intend to make the direct voyage, or was a
slower vessel). Luke then hurries over the direct voyage, mentioning
only the fact which specially interested him, that they sighted the
western point of Cyprus.  He did not mention Myra; he was giving only a
brief summary of the voyage, and for some reason the visit to Myra did
not interest him.

Many circumstances might occur to deprive the visit of interest and to
make Luke omit it (as he omits many other sights) from his brief summary
of the voyage.  Formerly I illustrated this by my own experience.  I was
in the port of Myra in the course of a voyage; yet I never saw either
the town or the harbour, and would probably omit Myra, if I were giving
a summary description of my experiences on that voyage.

At Tyre the vessel stayed seven days unloading; it must therefore have
been one of the larger class of merchant vessels; and probably only that
class ventured to make the direct sea voyage from Lycia by the west side
of Cyprus.  Small vessels clung to the coast.  As the same ship* was
going on as far as Ptolemais, and as there was still abundant time for
the rest of the journey, Paul remained until the allotted time of its
stay was over, v.  5.  None of the party seems to have known Tyre, for
they had to seek out the Brethren there.  The hearty welcome which they
received from strangers, whose sole bond of union lay in their common
religion, makes Luke dwell on this scene as showing the solidarity of
feeling in the Church.  There took place a kindly farewell on the shore
at Tyre, as at Miletus; but the longing and sorrow of long personal
friendship and love could not here be present to the same extent as
there.  The scenes are similar, and yet how different!  Such touches of
diversity amid resemblance could be given only by the eye-witness.

The ship completed the short voyage to Ptolemais early; and the party
spent the day with the Brethren; and went on to Cæsareia next day.
Probably they went in the same ship.  The emphasis laid on "finishing
the voyage"from Tyre to Ptolemais is due to the fact that it was
probably over about 10 A.M.

6.  CAESAREIA AND JERUSALEM. (XXI 8) ON THE MORROW WE DEPARTED, AND CAME
INTO CÆSAREIA. AND, ENTERING INTO THE HOUSE OF PHILIP THE EVANGELIST,
WHO WAS ONE OF THE SEVEN, WE ABODE WITH HIM. (9) NOW THIS MAN HAD FOUR
DAUGHTERS, VIRGINS, WHICH DID PROPHESY. (10) AND, AS WE TARRIED THERE
SOME* DAYS, THERE CAME DOWN FROM JUDEA A CERTAIN PROPHET NAMED AGABUS.
(11) AND COMING TO US AND TAKING PAUL'S GIRDLE, HE BOUND HIS OWN FEET
AND HANDS AND SAID: "THUS SAITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, 'SO SHALL THE JEWS BIND
AT JERUSALEM THE MAN THAT OWNETH THIS GIRDLE, AND DELIVER HIM INTO THE
HANDS OF THE. GENTILES'".... (15) AND AFTER THESE DAYS, WE, HAVING
EQUIPPED horses, PROCEEDED ON OUR WAY TO JERUSALEM. (16) AND THERE WENT
WITH US ALSO some OF THE DISCIPLES FROM CÆSAREIA,

CONDUCTING US TO the house OF ONE MNASON, AN EARLY DISCIPLE, WHERE WE
SHOULD FIND ENTER-TAINMENT. (17) AND WHEN WE ARRIVED AT JERUSALEM, THE
BRETHREN RECEIVED US GLADLY.

and these conducted us where we should find entertainment; and reaching
a certain village, we were in the house of Mnason, an early disciple;
and going out thence we came to Jerusalem, and the Brethren received us
gladly.

The length of the stay at Cæsareia is concealed, with Luke's usual
defective sense of time, by the vague phrase, v.  10, hJmevra" pleivou".
The sense of this expression varies greatly according to the situation
(cp.  XXIV 17, with XIII 31, XXVII 20); but here it is not likely to be
less than nine or ten.

The party was therefore cutting down the time for the journey to the
utmost.  Evidently they desired to remain as long as possible with the
Brethren; and the plan for the journey was arranged for them, so that
with Cæsareian guidance and help it could be done with comfort and
certainty when time necessitated departure.  Now, it is an elementary
principle of prudent living in Southern countries that one should avoid
those great exertions and strains which in Northern countries we often
take as an amusement.  The customs of the modern peoples (whom we on
superficial knowledge are apt to think lazy, but who are not so) show
that this principle guides their whole life; and it may be taken as
certain that in ancient time the same principle was followed.  Moreover,
Paul was accompanied by his physician, who fully understood the
importance of this rule, and knew that Paul, subject as he was to
attacks of illness, and constantly exposed to great mental and emotional
strains, must not begin his work in Jerusalem by a hurried walk of sixty
-four miles from Cæsareia, more especially as it is clear from a
comparison of the Bezan with the Accepted Text that the journey was
performed in two days.  We conclude, then, that the journey was not
performed on foot; and when we look at the words with this thought in
our minds we find there the verb which means in classical Greek, "to
equip or saddle a horse"Chrysostom took the word in that sense;* but the
modern commentators have scorned or misunderstood him.

Some of the Brethren from Cæsareia accompanied them as far as a village
on the road, where they stayed for a night with Mnason of Cyprus, one of
the earliest Christian converts.  The next day the Brethren returned
with the conveyances to Cæsareia, while Paul and his company performed
the rest of the journey (which was probably not far) on foot.  Time had
passed rapidly, when a convert of A.D. 30 or 31 was "ancient"in 57; but
the immense changes that had occurred made the Church of 30 seem divided
by a great gulf from these Macedonian and Asian delegates as they
approached Jerusalem.

7.  THE CRISIS IN THE FATE OF PAUL AND OF THE CHURCH. From the moment
when Paul was arrested onwards, the narrative becomes much fuller than
before.  It still continues true to the old method of concentrating the
reader's attention on certain selected scenes, which are described in
considerable detail, while the intervening periods are dismissed very
briefly.  Thus XXI 17-XXIV 23 describes the events of twelve days, XXIV
24-27 of two years, XXV 1-XXVIII 7 of about five months, XXVIII 8-11 of
three months.  But the scenes selected for special treatment lie closer
together than formerly; and it is beyond doubt that, on our hypothesis,
the amount of space assigned to Paul's imprisonment and successive
examinations marks this as the most important part of the book in the
author's estimation.  If that is not the case-if the large space devoted
to this period is not deliberately intended by the author as
proportionate to its importance-then the work lacks one of the prime
qualities of a great history.  It is essential to our purpose to
establish that we are now approaching the real climax, and that what has
hitherto been narrated leads up to the great event of the whole work.
If we fail in that, we fail in the main object for which we are
contending; and we should have to allow that Acts is a collection of
episodic jottings, and not a real history in the true sense of the word.

It must strike every careful reader that Luke devotes special attention
throughout his work to the occasions on which Paul was brought in
contact with Roman officials.  Generally on these occasions, the
relations between the parties end in a friendly way: the scene with the
proconsul of Cyprus is the most marked case: but Gallio, too, dismissed
the case against him, and the formal decision of a proconsul had such
weight as a precedent that the trial practically resulted in a
declaration of religious liberty for the province.

To come to subordinate Roman officials, the "Prætors"of the colony
Philippi, though treating him severely at first, ended by formally
apologising and acknowledging his rights, and only begged of him as a
favour to move on-a request which he instantly granted.  In the colonies
Antioch and Lystra he was treated severely, but the blame is laid
entirely on the Jews, and the magistrates are not directly mentioned;
while in both cases it is brought out in the narrative that condemnation
was not pronounced on fair charges duly proved.  But though the reader's
attention is not drawn to the magistrates, there can be no doubt that,
at least in Antioch, the magistrates took action against Paul; and there
is some probability that in each place he was scourged by lictors (p.
107), though these and many other sufferings are passed over.  In the
first stages of his work in Asia Minor.  he was in collision with Roman
colonial officials; but these events are treated lightly, explained as
due to error and extraneous influence, and the Roman character of the
cities is not brought out.  While the picture is not discoloured, yet
the selection of details is distinctly guided by a plan.

The clerk (Grammateus) of the city of Ephesus was not a Roman official,
but, as the most important officer of the capital of the province, he
was in closer relations with the Roman policy than ordinary city
magistrates: and he pointedly acquitted Paul of any treasonable design
against the State or against the established order of the city, and
challenged the rioters to bring any charge against Paul before the Roman
Courts.  The Asiarchs, who were officials of the province, and therefore
part of the Roman political system, were his friends, and showed special
care to secure his safety at that time.  Even the jailor at Philippi was
an officer of Rome, though a very humble one; and he found Paul a friend
in need, and became a friend in turn.

The magistrates of ordinary Greek cities were not so favourable to Paul
as the Roman officials are represented.  At Iconium they took active
part against him; and the silence about the magistrates of the colonies
Antioch and Lystra is made more marked by the mention of those of
Iconium.  At Thessalonica the magistrates excluded him from the city as
a cause of disorder.  At Athens the Areopagus was contemptuous and
undecided.  The favourable disposition of Roman officials towards Paul
is made more prominent by the different disposition of the ordinary
municipal authorities.

These facts acquire more meaning and more definite relation to the
historian's purpose when we come to the last scenes of the book.  We
cannot but recognise how pointedly the Imperial officials are
represented as Paul's only safeguard from the Jews, and how their
friendly disposition to him is emphasised.  Even Felix, one of the worst
of Roman officials, is affected by Paul's teaching, and on the whole
protects Paul, though his sordid motives are not concealed, and he
finally left Paul bound, as "desiring to gain favour with the Jews,"XXIV
27; but at least there was no official action on the part of Felix
against him.  Festus, his successor, is described as just and fair
towards Paul; he found in him "nothing worthy of death,"and had
difficulty in discovering any definite charge against him that he could
report when sending him for trial before the supreme court of the
Empire.  The inferior officials, from the tribune Claudius Lysias, to
the centurion Julius, are represented as very friendly.  This is all the
more marked, because nothing is said at any stage of the proceedings o!
kindness shown to Paul by any others; yet no one can doubt that the
household of Philip and the general body of Christians in Cæsareia tried
to do everything possible for him.  We see then that the historian, out
of much that might be recorded, selects for emphasis the friendliness of
the Roman officials: in the climax of his subject he concentrates the
reader's attention on the conduct of Romans to Paul,* and on their
repeated statements that Paul was innocent in the eyes of Roman Imperial
law and policy.

Throughout the whole book, from the time when the centurion Cornelius is
introduced, great art is shown in bringing out without any formal
statement the friendly relations between the Romans and the new
teaching, even before Paul became the leading spirit in its development.
To a certain extent, of course, that lies in the subject matter, and the
historian simply relates the facts as they occurred, without colouring
them for his purpose; but he is responsible for the selection of
details, and while he has omitted an enormous mass of details (some of
which we can gather from other informants), he has included so many
bearing on this point, as to show beyond all question his keen interest
in it.

Further, when we compare Luke with other authorities in their treatment
of the same subject, we see how much more careful he is than they in
bringing out the relations in which Christianity stood to the Imperial
government.  In the Third Gospel, Luke alone among the four historians
records formally the attempt made by the Jews to implicate Jesus in
criminal practices against the Roman Empire,* and the emphatic, thrice*
repeated statement of Pilate acquitting Him of all fault (XXIII 2, 4,
14, 22) before the law.

We must conclude, then, that the large space devoted to the trial of
Paul in its various stages before the Roman Imperial tribunals is
connected with a strongly marked interest and a clear purpose running
through the two books of this history; and it follows that Luke
conceived the trial to be a critical and supremely important stage in
the development of the Church.

The next question that faces us is whether Luke is justified as a
historian in attaching such importance to this stage in the development
of Christianity.  Perhaps the question may be best answered by quoting
some words used in a different connection and for a different purpose.
"It is both justifiable and necessary to lay great stress on the trial
of Paul.  With the legal constructiveness and obedience to precedent
that characterised the Romans, this case tried before the supreme court
must have been regarded as a test case and a binding precedent, until
some act of the supreme Imperial authority occurred to override it.  If
such a case came for trial before the highest tribunal in Rome, there
must have been given an authoritative and, for the time, final judgment
on the issues involved."

But, further, it is obvious that the importance of the trial for Luke is
intelligible only if Paul was acquitted.  That he was acquitted follows
from the Pastoral Epistles with certainty for all who admit their
genuineness; while even they who deny their Pauline origin must allow
that they imply an early belief in historical details which are not
consistent with Paul's journeys before his trial, and must either be
pure inventions or events that occurred on later journeys.  I have
elsewhere argued that the subsequent policy of Nero towards the Church
is far more readily intelligible if Paul was acquitted.  But, if he was
acquitted, the issue of the trial was a formal decision by the supreme
court of the Empire that it was permissible to preach Christianity: the
trial, therefore, was really a charter of religious liberty, and therein
lies its immense importance.  It was, indeed, overturned by later
decisions of the supreme court; but its existence was a highly important
fact for the Christians.

The importance of the preliminary stages of the trial lies in its issue;
and it is obviously absurd to relate these at great length, and wholly
omit the final result which gives them intelligibility and purpose.  It
therefore follows that a sequel was contemplated by the author, in which
should be related the final stages of the trial, the acquittal of Paul,
the active use which he made of his permission to preach, the
organisation of the Church in new provinces, and the second trial
occurring at the worst and most detested period of Nero's rule.  That
sequel demands a book to itself; and we have seen that the natural
implication of Luke's expression in Acts I 1,if he wrote as correct
Greek as Paul wrote, is that his work was planned to contain, a least,
three books.

This view of Luke's historical plan suits well the period at which he
wrote.  It is argued in Ch.  XVII 2 that he was engaged in composing
this book under Domitian, a period of persecution, when Christians had
come to be treated as outlaws or brigands, and the mere confession of
the name was recognised as a capital offence.  The book was not an
apology for Christianity: it was an appeal to the truth of history
against the immoral and ruinous policy of the reigning Emperor, a
temperate and solemn record, by one who had played a great part in them,
of the real facts regarding the formation of the Church, its steady and
unswerving loyalty in the past, its firm resolve to accept the facts of
Imperial government, its friendly reception by many Romans, and its
triumphant vindication in the first great trial at Rome.  It was the
work of one who had been trained by Paul to look forward to Christianity
becoming the religion of the Empire and of the world who regarded
Christianity as destined not to destroy but to save the Empire.

8.  FINANCES OF THE TRIAL. It has been asked where Paul got the money
which he required to pay the expenses of four poor men (XXI 23),
purifying themselves in the temple; and the suggestion has been made
that the elders who advised him to undertake this expense, followed up
their advice by giving him back some of the money which the delegates
from the four provinces had just paid over to them.  Without laying any
stress on the silence of Luke as to any such action, we cannot believe
that Paul would accept that money for his own needs, or that James would
offer it.  They were trustees of contributions destined for a special
purpose; and to turn it to any other purpose would have been fraudulent.
It is incredible that Paul, after laying such stress on the purpose of
that contribution, and planning it for years (p.  288), should divert
part of it to his own use the day after he reached Jerusalem.

But several other facts show clearly that, during the following four
years, Paul had considerable command of money.  Imprisonment and a long
lawsuit are expensive.  Now, it is clear that Paul during the following
four years did not appear before the world as a penniless wanderer,
living by the work of his hands.  A person in that position will not
either at the present day or in the first century be treated with such
marked respect as was certainly paid to Paul, at Cæsareia, on the
voyage, and in Rome.  The governor Felix and his wife, the Princess
Drusilla, accorded him an interview and private conversation.  King
Agrippa and his Queen Berenice also desired to see him.  A poor man
never receives such attentions, or rouses such interest.  Moreover,
Felix hoped for a bribe from him; and a rich Roman official did not look
for a small gift.  Paul, therefore, wore the outward appearance of a man
of means, like one in a position to bribe a Roman procurator.  The
minimum in the way of personal attendants that was allowable for a man
of respectable position was two slaves; and, as we shall see, Paul was
believed to be attended by two slaves to serve him.  At Cæsareia he was
confined in the palace of Herod; but he had to live, to maintain two
attendants, and to keep up a respectable appearance.  Many comforts,
which are almost necessities, would be given by the guards, so long as
they were kept in good humour, and it is expensive to keep guards in
good humour.  In Rome he was able to hire a lodging for himself and to
live there, maintaining, of course, the soldier who guarded him.

An appeal to the supreme court could not be made by everybody that
chose.  Such an appeal had to be permitted and sent forward by the
provincial governor; and only a serious case would be entertained.  But
the case of a very poor man is never esteemed as serious; and there is
little doubt that the citizen's right of appeal to the Emperor was
hedged in by fees and pledges.  There is always one law for the rich man
and another for the poor: at least, to this extent, that many claims can
be successfully pushed by a rich man inwhich a poor man would have no
chance of success.  In appealing to the Emperor, Paul was choosing
undoubtedly an expensive line of trial.  All this had certainly been
estimated before the decisive step was taken.  Paul had weighed the
cost; he had reckoned the gain which would accrue to the Church if the
supreme court pronounced in his favour; and his past experience gave him
every reason to hope for a favourable issue before a purely Roman
tribunal, where Jewish influence would have little or no power.  The
importance of the case, as described in the preceding section, makes the
appeal more intelligible.

Where, then, was the money procured?  Was it from new contributions
collected in the Churches?  That seems most improbable, both from their
general poverty, from Paul's personal character, and from the silence of
Luke on the point.  Luke himself was probably a man dependent on his
profession for his livelihood.  His name is not that of a man of high
position.  There seems no alternative except that Paul's hereditary
property was used in those four years.  As to the exact facts, we must
remain in ignorance.  If Paul hitherto voluntarily abstained from using
his fortune, he now found himself justified by the importance of the
case in acting differently.  If, on the other hand, he had for the time
been disowned by his family, then either a reconciliation had been
brought about during his danger (perhaps originating in the bold
kindness of his young nephew), or through death property had come to him
as legal heir (whose right could not be interfered with by any will).
But, whatever be the precise facts, we must regard Paul as a man of some
wealth during these years.

He appeared to Felix and to Festus, then, as a Roman of Jewish origin of
high rank and great learning, engaged in a rather foolish controversy
against the whole united power of his nation (winch showed his high
standing, as well as his want of good judgment). That is the spirit of
Festus's words, "Paul!  Paul!  you are a great philosopher, but you have
no common sense".

On the details given of the incidents in Jerusalem and Cæsareia, I shall
not enter.  I am not at home on the soil of Palestine; and it seems
better not to mix up second-hand studies with a discussion of incidents
where I stand on familiar ground.

Note.  Procuratorship of Felix.  The remarkable contradiction between
Josephus (who makes Cumanus governor of Palestine 48-52, Felix being his
successor in 52), and Tacitus (who makes Felix governor of Samaria [and
probably of Judea], contemporary with Cumanus as governor of Galilee,
the latter being disgraced in 52, and the former acquitted and honoured
at the same trial), is resolved by Mommsen in favour of Tacitus as the
better authority on such a point; and most students of Roman history
will agree with him.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE VOYAGE TO ROME

In describing the voyage from Cæsareia to Malta, we are guided by the
excellent work of James Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St.  Paul (third
edition, 1866); but as there are some points of interest which he has
not explained satisfactorily, we shall briefly describe the voyage, and
treat more elaborately such points as need to be added to Smith's
results.

1.  CAESAREIA TO MYRA. A convoy of prisoners was starting for Rome under
charge of a centurion of the Augustan cohort, and a detachment of
soldiers; and Paul was sent along with it.  He, of course, occupied a
very different position from the other prisoners.  He was a man of
distinction, a Roman citizen who had appealed for trial to the supreme
court in Rome.  The others had been in all probability already condemned
to death, and were going to supply the perpetual demand which Rome made
on the provinces for human victims to amuse the populace by their death
in the arena.

The cohorts of the Roman legions never bore surnames, and it would
therefore seem that this "Augustan cohort"was one of the auxiliary
cohorts, which had regularly one or more surnames.  But the duty which
is here performed by the centurion was never performed by an auxiliary
officer, but only by an officer of a legion.  It would therefore appear
that an auxiliary officer is here represented in a position which he
could not hold.

But, when we recollect (1) that Luke regularly uses the terms of
educated conversation, not the strict technical names, and (2) that he
was a Greek who was careless of Roman forms or names, we shall not seek
in this case to treat the Greek term (spei'ra Sebasthv) as a translation
of a correct Roman name; but we shall look for a body in the Roman
service which was likely to be called "the troop of the Emperor"by the
persons in whose society Luke moved at the time.  We give the answer to
which Mommsen seems to incline Berlin Akad.  Sitzungsber, 1895, p.  501,
adding the evidence of Luke's style, but otherwise quoting Mommsen.
First we ask what officer would be likely to perform the duty here
assigned to Julius.  It would naturally be a legionary centurion on
detached service for communication between the Emperor and his armies in
the provinces (as described on p.  348). That the centurion whom Luke
alludes to was one of this body is confirmed by the fact that, when he
reached Rome, he handed Paul over to his chief.  We conclude, then, that
the "troop of the Emperor"was a popular colloquial way of describing the
corps of officer-couriers; and we thus gather from Acts an interesting
fact, elsewhere unattested but in perfect conformity with the known
facts.

Luke uses the first person throughout the following narrative; and he
was therefore in Pauls company.  But how was this permitted?  It is
hardly possible to suppose that the prisoner's friends were allowed to
accompany him.  Pliny mentions a case in point (Epist.  III 16). Paetus
was brought a prisoner from Illyricum to Rome, and his wife Arria vainly
begged leave to accompany him; several slaves were permitted to go with
him as waiters, valets, etc., and Arria offered herself alone to perform
all their duties; but her prayer was refused.  The analogy shows how
Luke and Aristarchus accompanied Paul: they must have gone as his
slaves, not merely performing the duties of slaves (as Arria offered to
do), but actually passing as slaves.  In this way not merely had Paul
faithful friends always beside him; his importance in the eyes of the
centurion was much enhanced, and that was of great importance.  The
narrative clearly implies that Paul enjoyed much respect during this
voyage, such as a penniless traveller without a servant to attend on him
would never receive either in the first century or the nineteenth.

In the harbour of Cæsareia there was no convenient ship about to sail
for Rome; and the convoy was put on board of an Adramyttian ship which
was going to make a voyage along the coast towns of the province Asia.
Communication direct with Rome might be found in some of the great Asian
harbours, or, failing any suitable ship in the late season, the
prisoners might be taken (like Ignatius half a century later) by Troas
and Philippi and the land road to Dyrrachium, and thence to Brundisium
and Rome.

The direct run from Lycia to the Syrian coast was often made, but it is
hardly possible that a direct run from Syria back to Myra was ever
attempted by ancient ships.  They never ventured on such a run except
when a steady wind was blowing which could be trusted to last.  But
westerly breezes blow with great steadiness through the summer months in
the Levant; and it is certain that ancient ships westward bound sailed
east of Cyprus, as the Adramyttian ship now did.  Luke explains why they
sailed on this side of Cyprus; and he must, therefore, have expected to
take the other side.  Now, a sailor or a person accustomed to these seas
would not have thought of making any explanation, for the course of the
ship was the normal one.  But Luke had come to Sidon from Myra by the
west side of Cyprus, and he, therefore, was impressed.  with the
difference, and (contrary to his.  usual custom) he gives a formal
explanation; and his explanation stamps him as a stranger to these seas.

The ship worked slowly along the Cilician and Pamphylian coast, as the
sailors availed themselves of temporary local land breezes and of the
steady westward current that runs along the coast.  The description
given in the Periodoi of Barnabas of a voyage from Seleuceia in Syria to
Cyprus in the face of a prevailing steady westerly wind, the work of a
person familiar with the circumstances, illustrates perfectly the voyage
on this occasion.  The Adramyttian ship crept on from point to point up
the coast, taking advantage of every opportunity to make a few miles,
and lying at anchor in the shelter of the winding coast, when the
westerly wind made progress impossible.

Smith in his masterly work collects several other examples of the same
course which was adopted by the Adramyttian ship.  Modern sailing ships,
even with their superior rig, have several times been forced by the
steady westerly wind towards the north, keeping east of Cyprus, and
using the breezes which blow at intervals from the Caramanian coast.

In this description there is an addition made in the Later Syriac
version and some other authorities, which Westcott and Hort put in the
margin as one "which appears to have a reasonable probability of being
the true reading". The ship, in this addition, is said to have spent
fifteen days in beating along the Cyprio-Pamphylian coast.  This
addition obviously suits the situation, and may be unhesitatingly
accepted as true, whether as written by Luke or as a well-informed
gloss.  Most probably it is Lukan, for Luke gives rough statements of
the time throughout this voyage; and an exact estimate at this point is
quite in his style.  It perhaps dropped out of most MSS., as wanting
interest for later generations.

If we may judge from the Periodoi Barnabœ, the coasting voyage was
accomplished comparatively rapidly as far as Myra (see also p.  320).

In the harbour of Myra, the centurion found an Alexandrian ship on a
voyage towards Italy.  He embarked his convoy on board of this ship.  It
is characteristic of the style of Luke that he does not mention the
class of ship or the reason of its voyage from Alexandria to Italy; but
simply tells facts as they occur.  Now, Egypt was one of the granaries
of Rome; and the corn trade between Egypt and Rome was of the first
importance and of great magnitude.  There is, therefore, a reasonable
probability that this ship was carrying corn to Rome; and this inference
is confirmed by Luke himself, who mentions in v.  38 that the cargo was
grain.

A ship-captain familiar with the Levant informed me that he had known
ships going west from Egypt keep well to the north, in order to avail
themselves of the shelter of the Cretan coast.  No ancient ship would
have ventured to keep so much out to sea as to run intentionally from
Egypt to Crete direct, and moreover the winds would rarely have
permitted it; but it is probable that this Alexandrian ship had sailed
direct to Myra across the Levant.  The steady westerly Breezes which
prevented ships from making the direct run from Sidon, were favourable
for the direct run from Alexandria.  Probably this course was a
customary one during a certain season of the year from Alexandria to
Italy.  Any one who has the slightest knowledge of "the way of a ship in
the sea,"will recognise that, with a steady wind near west, this was the
ideally best course; while if the breeze shifted a little towards the
north, it would be forced into a Syrian port; and, as we know from other
sources, that was often the case.

As we saw (p.  298), Myra was one of the great harbours of the Egyptian
service.  It is, therefore, unnecessary and incorrect to say, as is
often done, that the Alexandrian ship had been blown out of its course.
The ship was on its regular and ordinary course, and had quite probably
been making a specially good run, for in the autumn there was always
risk of the wind shifting round towards the north, and with the wind
N.W. the Alexandrian ships could only fetch the Syrian coast.

A voyage which Lucian, in his dialogue The Ship, describes as made by a
large Egyptian corn-ship, may be accepted as a fair description of what
might occur in the first or second century; and it illustrates well the
course of both the Alexandrian and the Adramyttian ship.  Lucian's Ship
attempted to run direct from Alexandria to Myra.  It was off the west
point of Cyprus (Cape Akamas) on the seventh day of its voyage, but was
thence blown to Sidon by a west wind so strong that the ship had to run
before it.  On the tenth day from Sidon it was caught in a storm at the
Chelidonian islands and nearly wrecked; ten days from Sidon to the
islands would correspond to fully thirteen from Cæsareia to Myra.
Thereafter its course was very slow; it failed to keep the proper course
to the south of Crete; and at last it reached Piræus on the seventieth
day from Alexandria.

2.  FROM MYRA TO FAIR HAVENS. (XXVII 7) AND WHEN WE HAD SAILED SLOWLY
MANY DAYS, AND WERE COME WITH DIFFICULTY OFF CNIDOS, AS THE WIND DID NOT
PERMIT our straight course ONWARDS, WE SAILED UNDER THE LEE OF CRETE,
OFF Cape SALMONE; (8) AND COASTING ALONG IT WITH DIFFICULTY, WE CAME
UNTO A CERTAIN PLACE CALLED FAIR HAVENS, NIGH TO WHICH WAS A CITY LASEA.

From Myra the course of both the Adramyttian and the Alexandrian ship
would coincide as far as Cnidos.  But they found great difficulty in
making the course, which implies that strong westerly winds blew most of
the time.  After a very slow voyage they came opposite Cnidos; but they
were not able to run across to Cythera (a course that was sometimes
attempted, if we can accept Lucian's dialogue The Ship, as rounded on
possible facts) on account of strong northerly winds blowing steadily in
the Ægean, and threatening to force any ship on the north coast of
Crete, which was dangerous from its paucity of harbours Accordingly, the
choice was open either to put in to Cnidos, and wait a fair wind, or to
run for the east and south coast of Crete.  The latter alternative was
preferred in the advanced season; and they rounded the eastern
promontory, Salmone (protected by it from a north-westerly wind), and
began anew to work slowly to the west under the shelter of the land.
They kept their course along the shore with difficulty until they
reached a place named Fair Havens, near the city Lasea, which, as Smith
has shown conclusively, is the small bay, two leagues east of Cape
Matala, still bearing the same name (in the modern Greek dialect
Limew'na"Kalouv"); and there they lay for a considerable time.  It is
not stated in the narrative why they stayed so long at this point, but
the reason is clear to a sailor or a yachtsman: as Smith points out,
Fair Havens is the nearest shelter on the east of Cape Matala, whilst
west of that cape the coast trends away to the north, and no longer
affords any protection from the north or north-west winds, and therefore
they could go no farther so long as the wind was in that quarter.

The voyage to Cnidos had been slow and hard, and the course along Crete
was made with difficulty.  At the best that part of the voyage must
always have been troublesome, and as the difficulty was unusually great
in this case, we cannot allow less time between Myra and Fair Havens
than from September 1 to 25.  The arrival at Fair Havens is fixed by the
narrative; and thus we get the approximate date, August 17, for the
beginning of the voyage from Cæsareia.

3.  THE COUNCIL. (XXVII 9) AND WHEN A LONG TIME ELAPSED, AND SAILING WAS
NOW DANGEROUS (AS THE FAST ALSO WAS ALREADY OVER), PAUL OFFERED HIS
ADVICE (10) IN THESE WORDS: "SIRS, I PERCEIVE THAT THE VOYAGE IS LIKELY
TO BE ACCOMPANIED WITH HARDSHIP AND MUCH LOSS, NOT MERELY TO SHIP AND
CARGO, BUT ALSO TO OUR LIVES". (11) BUT THE CENTURION WAS INFLUENCED
MORE BY THE SAILING-MASTER AND THE CAPTAIN THAN BY WHAT PAUL SAID. (12)
AND, AS THE HAVEN WAS BADLY SITUATED FOR WINTERING IN, THE MAJORITY of
the council APPROVED THE PLAN TO GET UNDER WEIGH FROM THENCE, AND
ENDEAVOUR TO MAKE PHŒNIX AS A STATION TO WINTER IN-A HARBOUR THAT FACES
SOUTH-WEST AND NORTH-WEST.

The groat Fast fell in 59 on Oct.  5, and, as Paul and Aristarchus
observed the Fast, Luke uses it as an indication of date.  The dangerous
season for navigation lasted from Sept.  14 to Nov.  11, when all
navigation on the open sea was discontinued.  The ship reached Fair
Havens in the latter part of September, and was detained there by a
continuance of unfavourable winds until after Oct.  5.  We might be
disposed to infer that the Feast of Tabernacles, Oct.  10, fell after
they left Fair Havens, otherwise Luke would have mentioned it rather
than the Fast, as making the danger more apparent.  The picturesque
ceremonies of the Tabernacles would have remained in Luke's mind; but at
sea they were not possible; and the Fast was therefore the fact that
impressed him, as it was observed by Paul and Aristarchus.

In these circumstances a meeting was held to consider the situation, at
which Paul was present, as a person of rank whose convenience was to
some extent consulted, whose experience as a traveller was known to be
great.  It is characteristic of Luke's style not to mention formally
that a council was held.  He goes straight to what was the important
point in his estimation, viz., Paul's advice; then he explains why
Paul's advice was not taken; and in the explanation it comes out in what
circumstances the advice was given.  The whole scene forms, in point of
narrative method, an exact parallel to the interview at Paphos (p.  75).
We notice also that Luke as a mere servant could not have been present
at the council, and depended on Paul's report; and his account follows
the order in which Paul would describe the proceedings.  We can imagine
that Paul on coming forth, did not formally relate to his two friends
that the council met, that the chairman laid the business before it, and
so on, but burst forth with his apprehension that "they had made a
mistake in not taking the prudent course".

At the council it is implied that the centurion was president, while the
captain and sailing-master were merely advisers.  To our modern ideas
the captain is supreme on the deck of his ship; and, even if he held a
meeting to decide on such a point as the best harbour to lay up in, or
consulted the wishes of a distinguished officer in the military service,
yet the ultimate decision would lie with himself.  Here the ultimate
decision lies with the centurion, and he takes the advice of the
captain.  The centurion, therefore, is represented as the commanding
officer, which implies that the ship was a Government ship, and the
centurion ranked as the highest officer on board.  That, doubtless, is
true to the facts of the Roman service.  The provisioning of the vast
city of Rome, situated in a country where farming had ceased to pay
owing to the ruinous foreign competition in grain, was the most serious
and pressing department of the Imperial administration.  Whatever else
the Emperor might neglect, this he could not neglect and live.  In the
urban populace he was holding a wild beast by the ear; and, if he did
not feed it, the beast would tear him to pieces.  With ancient means of
transport, the task was a hundred times harder than it would be now; and
the service of ships on which Rome was entirely dependent was not left
to private enterprise, but was a State department.  It is, therefore, an
error of the Authorised and Revised Versions to speak of the owner
(nauvklhro") of this Alexandrian ship:* the ship belonged to the
Alexandrian fleet in the Imperial service.  The captains of the fleet*
made dedications on account of safe passage at Ostia, and Seneca sat in
his house at Puteoli and watched the advance ships sail in announcing
the approach of the Alexandrian fleet (Ep.  Mor.  77). Passengers were
landed at Puteoli; but cargo was carried on to Ostia.  As a general rule
the ships sailed in fleets; but, of course, incidental reasons often
kept one ship apart (as we see in XXVIII 11, and in the opening of
Lucian's dialogue TheShip).

Now, there was not in Rome that strict separation between the naval and
the military services which now exists.  There was only one service; the
same person was at one moment admiral of a fleet, at another general of
a land army and an officer might pass from one branch to the other.  The
land-service, however, ranked higher, and a legionary centurion was
certainly of superior rank to the captain of a vessel of the Alexandrian
fleet.  In this case, then, the centurion sat as president of the
council.  Naturally, he would not interfere in navigation, for his life
might pay the forfeit of any error, but the selection of a port for
wintering in was more in his line.  Now, it was the regular practice for
all Roman officials, who often had to take responsibility in cases in
which they were not competent alone to estimate all the facts, to summon
a council (consilium) of experienced and competent advisers before
coming to a decision.  Such was the nature of the meeting here
described.

The centurion, very properly, was guided in this matter, against the
advice of Paul, by the opinion of his professional advisers, who were
anxious to get on as far as possible before navigation ceased on
November 11, and it was resolved to take any fair opportunity of
reaching the harbour of Phoenix, which was not only further on, but also
better protected.

In the council-scene, then, when we put events in their sequence in
time, and add those facts of the situation which Luke assumes as
familiar to his readers, we have a vivid and striking incident, agreeing
with the general type of Roman procedure, and yet giving us information
about life on board a Government transport such as we could not find in
any other part of ancient literature.

There has been a good deal of discussion as to the description of the
harbour Phoenix, the modern Lutro, "the only secure harbour in all winds
on the south coast of Crete ". This, however, faces the east, not the
west.  Smith tries to interpret the Greek words in that sense; but it
must be observed that Luke never saw the harbour, and merely speaks on
Paul's report of the professional opinion.  It is possible that the
sailors described the entrance as one in which inward-bound ships looked
towards N.W. and S.W., and that in transmission from mouth to mouth, the
wrong impression was given that the harbour looked N.W. and S.W.

4.  THE STORM. (XXVII 13) AND WHEN A MODERATE SOUTHERLY BREEZE AROSE,
SUPPOSING THAT THEY HAD GOT THEIR OPPORTUNITY,* THEY WEIGHED ANCHOR AND
SAILED ALONG THE CRETAN COAST CLOSE IN. (14) BUT AFTER NO LONG TIME
THERE STRUCK DOWN FROM THE ISLAND A TYPHONIC WIND, WHICH GOES BY THE
NAME EURAQUILO. (15)AND WHEN THE SHIP WAS CAUGHT BY IT, AND COULD NOT
FACE THE WIND, WE GAVE WAY AND LET THE SHIP DRIVE. (16) AND, WHEN WE RAN
UNDER THE LEE OF A SMALL ISLAND, CAUDA BY NAME, WE WERE ABLE WITH
DIFFICULTY TO HAUL IN THE BOAT. (17) AND HAVING UNDERGIRDING IT; AND
BEING IN TERROR LEST THEY BE CAST ON "THE GREAT QUICKSANDS,"THEY REDUCED
SAIL, AND LET THE SHIP DRIFT IN THAT POSITION (viz., laid-to under storm
-sails).

One morning, after the council, their chance came with a moderate south
wind, which favoured their westerly voyage.  At this point the writer
says that they went close inshore; and this emphatic statement, after
they had been on a coasting voyage for weeks, must in a careful writer
have some special force.  Cape Matala projected well out to the south
about six miles west of Fair Havens, and it needed all their sailing
power to clear it on a straight course.  From Luke's emphasis we gather
that it was for some time doubtful whether they could weather the point;
and in the bright late autumn morning we can imagine every one gathered
on the deck, watching the wind, the coast and the cape ahead.  If the
wind went round a point towards the west, they would fail; and the
anxious hour has left its record in the single word of v.  13 (a\sson),
while the inability of some scribes or editors to imagine the scene has
left its record in the alteration (qa'sson).

After passing Cape Matala, they had before them a fair course with a
favouring breeze across the broad opening of the Gulf of Messara.  But
before they had got halfway across the open bay,* there came a sudden
change, such as is characteristic of that sea, where "southerly winds
almost invariably shift to a violent northerly wind". There struck down
from the Cretan mountains, which towered above them to the height of
over 7000 feet, a sudden eddying squall from about east- north-east.
Every one who has any experience of sailing on lakes or bays overhung by
mountains will appreciate the epithet "typhonic,"which Luke uses.  As a
ship-captain recently said to me in relating an anecdote of his own
experience in the Cretan waters, "the wind comes down from those
mountains fit to blow the ship out of the water".

An ancient ship with one huge sail was exposed to extreme danger from
such a blast; the straining of the great sail on the single mast was
more than the hull could bear; and the ship was exposed to a risk which
modern vessels do not fear, foundering in the open sea.  It appears that
they were not able to slacken sail quickly; and, had the ship been kept
up towards the wind, the strain would have shaken her to pieces.  Even
when they let the ship go, the leverage on her hull must have been
tremendous, and would in a short time have sent her to the bottom.
Paul, who had once already narrowly escaped from such a wreck, drifting
on a spar or swimming for a night and a day (II Cor.  XI 25), justified
in his advice at Fair Havens not to run the risk of coasting further in
the dangerous season on a coast where such sudden squalls are a common
feature.  In this case the ship was saved by getting into calmer water
under the shelter of an island, Cauda (now Gozzo), about twenty-three
miles to leeward.

At this point Smith notices the precision of Luke's terminology.  In v.
4 they sailed under the lee of Cyprus, keeping northwards with a
westerly wind on the beam (uJpepleuvsamen); here they ran before a wind
under the lee of Cauda (uJpodramovnte").

The sailors knew that their only hope was in the smoother water behind
Cauda, and kept her up accordingly with her head to the wind, so that
she would make no headway, but merely drifted with her right side
towards the wind ("on the starboard tack").

Here three distinct operations were performed; and it is noteworthy that
Luke mentions first among them, not the one which was the most important
or necessary, but the one in which he himself took part, viz., hauling
in the boat.  In the light breeze it had been left to tow behind, and
the squall had come down too suddenly to haul it in.  While the other
operations required skill, any one could haul on a rope, and Luke was
pressed into the service.  The boat was waterlogged by this time; and
the historian notes feelingly what hard work it was to get it in, v.
16.

While this was going on, ropes were got out, and the ship undergirded to
strengthen her against the storm and the straining of her timbers.  The
scholars who discuss nautical subjects seem all agreed that undergirders
were put longitudinally round the ship (i.e., horizontal girders passed
round stem and stern). If any of them will show how it was possible to
perform this operation during a storm, I shall be ready to accept their
opinion; but meantime (without entering on the question what
"undergirders,"uJpozwvmata, were in Athenian triremes) I must with Smith
believe that cables were passed underneath round the ship transversely
to hold the timbers together.  This is a possible operation in the
circumstances, and a useful one.

Luke mentions last what a sailor would mention first, the most delicate
and indispensable operation, viz., leaving up just enough of sail to
keep the ship's head to the wind, and bringing down everything else that
could be got down.  It is not certain that he fully understood this
operation, but perhaps the Greek (calavsantes to; skeu'os) might be
taken as a technical term denoting the entire series of operations,
slackening sail, but leaving some spread for a special purpose.

This operation was intended to guard against the danger of being driven
on the great quicksands of the African coast, the Syrtes.  These were
still far distant; but the sailors knew that at this late season the
wind might last many days.  The wind was blowing straight on the sands;
and it was absolutely necessary, not merely to delay the ship's motion
towards them, but to turn it in a different direction.  In the Gulf of
Messara, the wind had been an eddying blast under the mountains; but
further out it was a steady, strong east-north-easterly gale.

Dragging stones or weights at the end of ropes from the stern, which is
the meaning elicited by some German commentators and writers on nautical
matters, might be useful in other circumstances; but how that meaning
can be got from the Greek words (calavsante" to; skeu'o"), I confess
that I cannot see.  Moreover, as we have said, what the sailors wished
was not merely to delay their course towards the Syrtes, but to turn
their course in another direction.

Accordingly, the ship drifted, with her head to the north, steadied by a
low sail, making lee-way proportionate to the power of the wind and
waves on her broadside.  As Smith shows in detail, the resultant rate of
motion would vary, according to the size of the ship and the force of
the wind, between 3/4 and 2 miles per hour; and the probable mean rate
in this case would be about 11/2 miles per hour; while the direction
would approximate to 8º north of west.  The ship would continue to drift
in the same way as long as the wind blew the same, and the timbers and
sails held; and at the calculated rates, if it was under Cauda towards
evening, it would on the fourteenth night be near Malta.

5.  DRIFTING. (XXVII 18) AND, AS WE LABOURED EXCEEDINGLY WITH THE STORM,
THE NEXT DAY THEY BEGAN TO THROW THE FREIGHT OVERBOARD, (19) AND ON THE
THIRD DAY WE CAST OUT, WITH OUR OWN HANDS ACTUALLY, THE SHIP'S
FURNITURE. (20) AND AS NEITHER SUN NOR STARS WERE VISIBLE FOR MANY DAYS,
AND A SEVERE STORM WAS PRESSING HARD ON US, ALL HOPE THAT WE SHOULD BE
SAVED WAS GRADUALLY TAKEN AWAY. (21) AND WHEN THERE HAD BEEN LONG
ABSTINENCE FROM FOOD, THEN PAUL STOOD FORTH IN MIDST OF THEM, AND SAID:
"THE RIGHT COURSE, GENTLEMEN, WAS TO HEARKEN TO ME, AND NOT TO SET (22)
AND MY ADVICE TO YOU IN THE PRESENT IS TO TAKE HEART; FOR LOSS OF LIFE
THERE SHALL BE NONE AMONG YOU, BUT OF THE SHIP. (23) FOR THERE STOOD BY
ME THIS NIGHT AN ANGEL OF THE GOD WHOSE I AM, WHOM .ALSO I SERVE, (24)
SAYING: 'FEAR NOT, PAUL; THOU MUST STAND BEFORE CÆSAR; AND, LO ! THERE
HAVE BEEN GRANTED THEE BY GOD ALL THEY THAT SAIL WITH THEE'. (25)
WHEREFORE TAKE HEART, GENTLEMEN; FOR I BELIEVE GOD, THAT IT SHALL BE SO
AS IT HATH BEEN SPOKEN UNTO ME. (26) HOWBEIT WE MUST BE CAST ON SOME
ISLAND."

In their situation the great danger was of foundering through leakage
caused by the constant straining due to the sail and the force of the
waves on the broadside, which ancient vessels were not strong enough to
stand.  To lessen the danger, the sailors began to tighten the ship, by
throwing away the cargo.  On the day after, the whole company, Luke
among them, sacrificed the ship's equipment.  V 19 is a climax; "with
our own hands we threw away all the ship's fittings and equipment,"the
extreme act of sacrifice.  The first person, used in the Authorised
Version, occurs only in some less authoritative MSS., but greatly
increases the effect.  The sailors threw overboard part of the cargo;
and the passengers and supernumeraries, in eager anxiety to do
something, threw overboard whatever movables they found, which was of
little or no practical use, but they were eager to do something.  This
makes a striking picture of growing panic; but the third person, which
appears in the great MSS., is ineffective, and makes no climax.

One of the miserable accompaniments of a storm at sea is the difficulty
of obtaining food; and, if that is so in a modern vessel, it must have
been much worse in an ancient merchant ship, inconveniently crowded with
sailors and passengers.  Moreover, the sacrifice of the ship's furniture
must have greatly increased the difficulty of preparing food.

Worse than all, the leakage was steadily growing from the straining of
the mast, and yet they dared not cut the mast away, as it alone helped
them to work off the dreaded African sands.  Day after day the crew sat
doing nothing, eating nothing, waiting till the ship should sink.  In
such a situation the experience of many cases shows that some
individual, often one not hitherto prominent, and not rarely a woman,
comes forward to cheer the company to the hope of escape and the courage
of work; and many a desperate situation has been overcome by the energy
thus imparted.  In this case Paul stood forth in the midst of the
helpless, panic-struck crowd.  When caution was suitable (v.  10), he
had been the prudent, cautious adviser, warning the council of
prospective danger.  But now, amidst panic and despair, he appears cool,
confident, assured of safety; and he speaks in the only tone that could
cheer such an audience as his, the tone of an inspired messenger.  In a
vision he has learned that all are to escape; and he adds that an island
is to be the means of safety.

6.  LAND. (XXVII 27) BUT WHEN THE FOURTEENTH NIGHT WAS COME, AS WE WERE
DRIVEN TO AND FRO IN THE ADRIA, TOWARDS MIDNIGHT THE SAILORS SURMISED
THAT SOME LAND WAS NEARING THEM; (28) AND THEY SOUNDED, AND FOUND TWENTY
FATHOMS; AND AFTER A LITTLE SPACE THEY SOUNDED AGAIN, AND FOUND FIFTEEN
FATHOMS. (29) AND FEARING LEST HAPLY WE SHOULD BE CAST ON ROCKY GROUND
THEY LET GO FOUR ANCHORS FROM THE STERN, AND PRAYED THAT DAY COME ON.
(30) AND AS THE SAILORS WERE SEEKING TO MAKE THEIR ESCAPE FROM THE SHIP,
AND HAD LOWERED THE BOAT INTO THE SEA, UNDER PRETENCE OF LAYING OUT
ANCHORS FROM THE BOW, (31) PAUL SAID TO THE CENTURION AND THE SOLDIERS,
"UNLESS THESE ABIDE IN THE SHIP, YOU CANNOT BE SAVED". (32) THEN THE
SOLDIERS CUT AWAY THE ROPES OF THE BOAT AND LET HER FALL AWAY. (33) AND
WHILE THE DAY WAS COMING ON, PAUL BESOUGHT THEM ALL TO TAKE SOME FOOD,
SAYING: "THIS DAY IS THE FOURTEENTH DAY THAT YOU WATCH AND CONTINUE
FASTING, AND HAVE TAKEN NOTHING. (34) WHEREFORE, I BESEECH YOU TO TAKE
SOME FOOD, FOR THIS IS FOR YOUR SAFETY; FOR THERE SHALL NOT A HAIR
PERISH FROM THE HEAD OF ANY OF YOU."(35) AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THIS HE
TOOK BREAD AND GAVE THANKS TO GOD IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL; AND HE BRAKE
IT, AND BEGAN TO EAT. (36) THEN WERE THEY ALL OF GOOD CHEER, AND
THEMSELVES ALSO TOOK SOME FOOD. (37) AND WE WERE IN ALL ON THE SHIP 276
SOULS. (38) AND WHEN THEY HAD EATEN ENOUGH, THEY PROCEEDED TO LIGHTEN
THE SHIP, THROWING OUT THE WHEAT INTO THE SEA.

Luke seems to have had the landsman's idea that they drifted to and fro
in the Mediterranean.  A sailor would have known that they drifted in a
uniform direction; but it seems hardly possible to accept Smith's idea
that the Greek word (diaferomevnwn) can denote a straight drifting
course.

The name Adria has caused some difficulty.  It was originally narrower
in application; but in the usage of sailors it grew wider as time
passed, and Luke uses the term that he heard on shipboard, where the
sailors called the sea that lay between Malta, Italy, Greece, and Crete
"the Adria". As usual, Luke's terminology is that of life and
conversation, not of literature.  Strabo the geographer, who wrote about
A.D. 19, says that the Ionian sea on the west of Greece was "a part of
what is now called Adria,"implying that contemporary popular usage was
wider than ancient usage.  In later usage the name was still more widely
applied: in the fifth century "the Adria"extended to the coast of
Cyrene; and mediæval sailors distinguished the Adriatic, as the whole
Eastern half of the Mediterranean, from the Ægean sea (see p.  298).

On the fourteenth midnight, the practised senses of the sailors detected
that land was nearing: probably, as Smith suggests, they heard the
breakers, and, as an interesting confirmation of his suggestion, one old
Latin version reads "that land was resounding".* was now necessary to
choose where they should beach the vessel; for the sound of the breakers
warned them that the coast was dangerous.  In the dark no choice was
possible; and they therefore were forced to anchor.  With a strong wind
blowing it was doubtful whether the cables and anchors would hold;
therefore, to give themselves every chance, they let go four anchors.
Smith quotes from the sailing directions that in St.  Paul's Bay (the
traditional scene of the wreck), "while the cables hold there is no
danger, as the anchors will never start". He also points out that a ship
drifting from Cauda could not get into the bay without passing near the
low rocky point of Koura, which bounds it on the east.  The breakers
here warned the sailors; and the charts show that after passing the
point the ship would pass over 20 fathoms and then over 15 fathoms depth
on her course, W. by N.

Anchoring by the stern was unusual; but in their situation it had great
advantages.  Had they anchored by the bow, the ship would have swung
round from the wind; and, when afterwards they wished to run her ashore,
it would have been far harder to manage her when lying with her prow
pointing to the wind and away from the shore.  But, as they were, they
had merely to cut the cables, unlash the rudders, and put up a little
foresail (v.40); and they had the ship at once under command to beach
her at any spot they might select.

As the ship was now lying at anchor near some land, the sailors were
about to save themselves by the boat and abandon the ship to its fate
without enough skilled hands to work it; but Paul, vigilant ever,
detected their design, and prevented it.  Then, in order that the
company might have strength for the hard work that awaited them at
daybreak, he encouraged them once more with the assurance of safety,
urged them to eat with a view thereto, and himself set the example.
There is perhaps an intention in v.35 to represent Paul as acting like
Jesus at the last Passover; and the resemblance is more pointed if the
words added in one MS. and some versions are original, "giving also to
us". But it would be necessary to understand "us"to mean only Luke and
Aristarchus (as Dr.  Blass agrees); and this is harsh after the word has
been so often used in a much wider sense.  It is characteristic of
Christianity in all periods to seek after resemblances between the
Founder and any great hero of the faith at some crisis of history; and
this addition seems a later touch to bring out the resemblance.

7.  PAUL'S ACTION ON THE SHIP. The account of the voyage as a whole is
commonly accepted by critics as the most trustworthy part of Acts and as
"one of the most instructive documents for the knowledge of ancient
seamanship,"(Holtzmann on XXVII 4, p.  421). But in it many critics
detect the style of the later hand, the supposed second-century writer
that made the work out of good and early documents, and addressed his
compilation to Theophilus.  Many hold that this writer inserted vv.  21-
26, and some assign to him also vv.  33-35, because the character there
attributed to Paul is quite different from his character in the genuine
old document, especially vv.  10 and 31; in the original parts Paul is
represented as a simple passenger, cautious to a degree, suffering from
hunger, apprehensive of the future, keenly alive to prospective danger,
and anxious to provide against it: on the other hand, in vv.  21-26 he
knows that their safety is assured; he speaks as the prophet, not the
anxious passenger; he occupies a position apart from, and on a higher
plane than human.

This is a fair hypothesis, and deserves fair and dispassionate
consideration; no one whose mind is not already definitely made up on
all questions can pass it by; and only those who feel that they
understand the entire narrative in every turn and phrase and allusion
would willingly pass it by, for every real student knows how frequently
his knowledge is increased by changing his point of view.

We may at once grant that the narrative would go on without any obvious
awkwardness if 21-26 were omitted, which is of course true of many a
paragraph describing some special incident in a historical work.

But it is half-hearted and useless to cut out 21-26 as an interpolation
without cutting out 33-38; there, too, Paul is represented as the
prophet and the consoler on a higher plane, though he is also the mere
passenger suffering from hunger, and alive to the fact that the safety
of all depends on their taking food and being fit for active exertion in
the morning.  Some critics go so far as to cut out vv.  33-35.  But it
is not possible to cut these out alone; there is an obvious want of
sequence between 32 and 36, and Holtzmann therefore seems to accept 33-
35.  But if they are accepted I fail to see any reason for rejecting 21-
26; these two passages are so closely akin in purport and bearing on the
context that they must go together; and all the mischief attributed to
21-26 as placing Paul on a higher plane is done in 33-35.

Further, the excision of 21-26 would cut away a vital part of the
narrative.  (1) These verses contain the additional fact, natural in
itself and assumed in v.  34 as already known, that the crew and
passengers were starving and weak.  (2) They fit well into the context,
for they follow naturally after the spiritlessness described in v.  20,
and Paul begins by claiming attention on the ground of his former advice
(advice that is accepted by the critics as genuine because it is
different in tone from the supposed interpolation). "In former
circumstances,"says he, "I gave you different, but salutary advice,
which to your cost you disregarded; listen to me now when I tell you
that you shall escape."The method of escape, the only method that a
sailor could believe to be probable, is added as a concluding
encouragement.

But let us cut out every verse that puts Paul on a higher plane, and
observe the narrative that would result: Paul twice comes forward with
advice that is cautiously prudent, and shows keen regard to the chance
of safety.  If that is all the character he displayed throughout the
voyage, why do we study the man and his fate?  All experience shows that
in such a situation there is often found some one to encourage the rest;
and, if Paul had not been the man to comfort and cheer his despairing
shipmates, he would never have impressed himself on history or made
himself an interest to all succeeding time.  The world's history stamps
the interpolation-theory here as false.

Moreover, the letters of Paul put before us a totally different
character from this prudent calculator of chances.  The Paul of Acts
XXVII is the Paul of the Epistles: the Paul who remains on the
interpolation theory could never have written the Epistles.

Finally, the reason why the historian dwells at such length on the
voyage lies mainly in vv.  21-26 and 33-38.  In the voyage he pictures
Paul on a higher plane than common men, advising more skillfully than
the skilled mariners, maintaining hope and courage when all were in
despair, and breathing his hope and courage into others, playing the
part of a true Roman in a Roman ship, looked up to even by the
centurion, and in his single self the saviour of the lives of all.  But
the interpolation-theory would cut out the centre of the picture.

There remains no reason to reject vv.  21-26 which I can discover,
except that it introduces the superhuman element.  That is an argument
to which I have no reply.  It is quite a tenable position in the present
stage of science and knowledge to maintain that every narrative which
contains elements of the marvellous must be an unhistorical and
untrustworthy narrative.  But let us have the plain and honest reasons;
those who defend that perfectly fair position should not try to throw in
front of it as outworks flimsy and uncritical reasons, which cannot
satisfy for a moment any one that has not his mind made up beforehand on
that fundamental premise.  But the superhuman element is inextricably
involved in this book: you cannot cut it out by any critical process
that will bear scrutiny.  You must accept all or leave all.

8.  ON SHORE. (XXVII 39) AND WHEN IT WAS DAY THEY DID NOT RECOGNISE THE
LAND; BUT THEY WERE AWARE OF A SORT OF BAY OR CREEK WITH A SANDY BEACH,
AND THEY TOOK COUNSEL, IF POSSIBLE, TO DRIVE THE SHIP UP ON IT. (40.)
AND CASTING OFF THE ANCHORS, THEY LEFT THEM IN THE SEA, WHILST LOOSING
THE FASTENINGS OF THE RUDDERS, AND SETTING THE FORESAIL TO THE BREEZE,
THEY HELD FOR, THE OPEN BEACH. (41) AND CHANCING ON A BANK BETWEEN TWO
SEAS, THEY DROVE THE SHIP

ON IT; AND THE PROW STRUCK AND REMAINED IMMOVABLE, BUT THE AFTER PART
BEGAN TO BREAK UP FROM THE VIOLENCE. (42) AND THE SOLDIERS COUNSEL WAS
TO KILL THE PRISONERS, LEST ANY SHOULD SWIM AWAY AND ESCAPE; (43) BUT
THE CENTURION, WISHING TO SAVE PAUL, STAYED THEM FROM THEIR PURPOSE, AND
BADE THEM THAT COULD SWIM TO LEAP OVERBOARD AND GET FIRST TO LAND, (44)
AND THE REST, SOME ON PLANKS, AND SOME ON PIECES FROM THE SHIP. AND SO
IT CAME TO PASS THAT ALL ESCAPED SAFE TO THE LAND.

No description could be more clear and precise, selecting the essential
points and omitting all others.  Smith quotes some interesting parallels
from modern narratives of shipwreck.

Some doubt has arisen whether "the bank between two seas"was a shoal
separated from the shore by deep water, or, as Smith says, a neck of
land projecting towards the island of Salmonetta, which shelters St.
Paul's Bay on the north-west.  But the active term "drove the ship on
it"(ejpevkeilan) implies purpose, and decides in Smith's favour.  The
fact that they "chanced on a ridge between two seas"might at the first
glance seem to imply want of purpose; but, as Smith points out, they
could not, while lying at anchor, see the exact character of the spot.
They selected a promising point, and as they approached they found that
luck had led them to the isthmus between the island and the mainland.
In their situation the main object was to get the ship close up to the
shore, and safe from being rapidly and utterly smashed up by the waves.
No place could have better favoured their purpose.  The ship (which
probably drew eighteen feet of water) "struck a bottom of mud,
graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix
itself, and be held fast, while the stern was exposed to the force of
the waves". Thus the foreship was held together, until every passenger
got safe to dry land.  Only the rarest conjunction of favourable
circumstances could have brought about such a fortunate ending to their
apparently hopeless situation; and one of the completest services that
has ever been rendered to New Testament scholarship is James Smith's
proof that all these circumstances are united in St.  Paul's Bay.  The
only difficulty to which he has applied a rather violent solution is the
sandy beach: at the traditional point where the ship was run ashore
there is no sandy beach; but he considers that it is "now worn away by
the wasting action of the sea". On this detail only local knowledge
would justify an opinion,

In v.  41 "the violence"is rate expression used by a person standing on
the shore and watching the waves smash up the ship: he does not need to
specify the kind of violence.  This expression takes us on to the beach,
and makes us gaze on the scene.  The humblest scribe can supply kumavtwn
here, and most of them have done so.

9.  MALTA. (XXVIII 1) AND WHEN WE WERE ESCAPED, THEN WE LEARNT THAT THE
ISLAND IS CALLED MELITA. (2) AND THE BARBARIANS SHOWED US NO COMMON
KINDNESS; FOR THEY KINDLED A FIRE, AND WELCOMED US ALL, BECAUSE OF THE
PRESENT RAIN AND BECAUSE OF THE COLD. (3) BUT WHEN PAUL HAD GATHERED A
BUNDLE OF STICKS AND LAID THEM ON THE FIRE, A VIPER CAME OUT BY REASON
OF THE HEAT AND FASTENED ON HIS HAND. (4) AND WHEN THE BARBARIANS SAW
THE BEAST HANGING FROM HIS HAND, THEY SAID TO ONE ANOTHER, "NO DOUBT
THIS MAN IS A MURDERER, WHOM, THOUGH HE HATH ESCAPED FROM THE SEA, YET
JUSTICE WILL NOT SUFFER TO LIVE". (5) HOWBEIT HE SHOOK OFF THE BEAST
INTO THE FIRE, AND TOOK NO HARM. (6) BUT THEY EXPECTED THAT HE WOULD
HAVE SWOLLEN OR FALLEN DOWN DEAD SUDDENLY; BUT WHEN THEY WERE LONG IN
EXPECTATION AND BEHELD NOTHING AMISS COME TO HIM, THEY CHANGED THEIR
MINDS, AND SAID THAT HE WAS A GOD. (7) NOW IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF THAT
PLACE WERE LANDS BELONGING TO THE FIRST man OF THE ISLAND, NAMED
POPLIUS, WHO RECEIVED US AND ENTERTAINED US THREE DAYS COURTEOUSLY. (8)
AND IT WAS SO THAT THE FATHER OF POPLIUS LAY SICK OF A FEVER AND
DYSENTERY; AND PAUL ENTERED IN UNTO HIM, AND PRAYED, AND LAYING HIS
HANDS ON HIM HEALED HIM. (9) AND WHEN THIS WAS DONE THE REST ALSO WHICH
HAD DISEASES IN THE ISLAND CAME AND WERE CURED;(10) WHO ALSO HONOURED US
WITH MANY HONOURS, AND WHEN WE SAILED PUT ON BOARD SUCH THINGS AS WE
NEEDED.

The name Poplius is the Greek form of the prænomen Publius; but it is
not probable that this official would be called by a simple prænomen.
Poplius might perhaps be the Greek rendering of the nomen Popilius.  Yet
possibly the peasantry around spoke familiarly of "Publius"his prænomen
simply; and Luke (who has no sympathy for Roman nomenclature) took the
name that he heard in common use.  The title "first"technically correct
in Melita: it has inscriptional authority.  Doubtless many of the
sailors had been at Malta before, for eastern ships bound for Rome must
have often touched at the island, v.  11.  "But St.  Paul's Bay is
remote from the great harbour, and possesses no marked features by which
it could be recognised"from the anchorage in the bay.

The objections which have been advanced, that there are now no vipers in
the island, and only one place where any wood grows, are too trivial to
deserve notice.  Such changes are natural and probable in a small
island, populous and long civilised.

The term "barbarians,"v.  2, is characteristic of the nationality of the
writer.  It does not indicate rudeness or uncivilised habits, but merely
non-Greek birth; and it is difficult to imagine that a Syrian or a Jew
or any one but a Greek would have applied the name to the people of
Malta, who had been in contact with Phoenicians and Romans for many
centuries.

CHAPTER XV.

ST. PAUL IN ROME

1 THE COMING TO ROME. (XXVIII 11) AFTER THREE MONTHS WE SET SAIL IN A
SHIP OF ALEXANDRIA, WHICH HAD WINTERED IN THE ISLAND, WHOSE SIGN WAS
"THE TWIN BROTHERS". (12) AND TOUCHING AT SYRACUSE, WE TARRIED THERE
THREE DAYS. (13) AND FROM THENCE, BY TACKING, WE ARRIVED AT RHEGIUM. AND
AFTER ONE DAY A SOUTH WIND SPRANG UP, AND ON THE SECOND DAY WE CAME TO
PUTEOLI: (14) WHERE, FINDING BRETHREN, WE WERE CONSOLED AMONG THEM,
REMAINING SEVEN DAYS;* AND THEREUPON WE CAME TO ROME. (15) AND FROM
THENCE THE BRETHREN, HEARING THE NEWS ABOUT US, CAME TO MEET US AS FAR
AS "APPIUS MARKET"AND "THREE TAVERNS": WHOM, WHEN PAUL SAW, HE THANKED
GOD AND TOOK COURAGE. (16) AND WHEN WE ENTERED INTO ROME [the centurion
delivered the prisoners to the stratopedarch, and] PAUL WAS SUFFERED TO
ABIDE BY HIMSELF WITH THE SOLDIER THAT GUARDED HIM [outside of the
camp]. ... (30) HIRED DWELLING, AND RECEIVED ALL THAT WENT IN UNTO HIM,
(31) AND PREACHED THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND TAUGHT WHAT CONCERNED THE LORD
JESUS CHRIST WITH ALL BOLDNESS, NONE FORBIDDING HIM (see note, p.  362).

The wreck took place before the middle of November (p.  322); therefore
they sailed from Malta in February.  That is earlier than the usual
beginning of over-sea navigation; but we may understand that fovourable
weather tempted them to an early start; and as the autumn was unusually
tempestuous, it is probable that fine weather began earrly.  Luke does
not tell what sort of wind blew, leaving the reader to understand that
it was from a southerly quarter (as otherwise no ancient ship would
attempt the over-sea voyage). The wind fell and they had to wait three
days in Syracuse.  Then though the breeze was not from the south, they
were able by good seamanship to work up to Rhegium*. Here, after one
day, a south wind arosee; and they sailed across to Puteoli, arriving
there on the second day.

The passage probably took not much over twenty-four hours, beginning one
day and ending the following morning: with a following wind, these large
merchant vessels sailed fast.  The passengers landed in Puteoli; but the
cargo, doubtless, was carried to Ostia, where it had to be transshipped
to smaller vessels which could go up the Tiber to Rome.

Luke mentions the name of the last vessel, but not of any of the others.
The reason lies in the circumstances.  He heard the news about the last
vessel before he saw it; but he became acquainted with the others by
seeing them.  Probably the news that the Dioscuri, of the Alexandrian
Imperial fleet, was lying in the great harbour, reached the shipwrecked
party during the three days when they were in Poplius's house; and was
so noted in Luke's memoranda.  But he had not the sailor's mind, who
thinks of his ship as a living friend, and always speaks of her by her
name; hence the other ships were to him only means of conveyance,
whereas the name of the Dioscuri was the first fact which he learned
about her.

Puteoli, as a great harbour, was a central point and a crossing of
intercourse; and thus Christianity had already established itself there.
All movements of thought throughout the Empire acted with marvellous
rapidity on Rome, the heart of the vast and complicated organism; and
the crossing-places or knots* on the main highways of intercourse with
the East-Puteoli, Corinth, Ephesus, Syrian Antioch-became centres from
which Christianity radiated.  At Pompeii, which is not far from Puteoli,
the Christians were a subject of gossip among loungers in the street
before it was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79.

The double expression of arrival at Rome in vv.14 and 16 is remarkable;
and has caused much speculation among commentators.  Blass is inclined
to seek a change of text, giving the sense "we proceeded on our way
(imperfect) to Rome, then we came to Appii Forum, etc., and finally we
entered Rome ". Others prefer other interpretations.  But the double
expression seems due to the double sense that every name of a city-state
bears in Greek: the word Rome might either include the entire territory
of the city, the XXXV tribes as they were completed in B.C.241, i.e.,
the whole ager Romanus, or be restricted to the walls and buildings.
Thus v.  13, "we reached the state Rome,"the bounds of which were
probably pointed out as the party reached them; in 14, "we passed
through two points in the ager Romanus"; and in 15, "we entered the
(walls of) Rome"(see p.  111).

 It is evident that Paul, when he reached this crisis of his fate, was
feeling dispirited; for the tendency to low spirits is always one of the
most trying concomitants of his chronic disorder, as described in Ch.  V
§ 2.  The allusions to the consolation that he received from meeting
Brethren at Puteoli, Appius's Forum, and the Three Taverns, must be
taken as indications of some marked frame of mind.  We have already
observed him in a similar state of depression when he was in Troas and
Philippi (p.  283 f.).

When the party reached Rome, the centurion delivered his charge to his
superior officer, who bears the title Chief of the Camp(Stratopedarch)
in the Greek text.  This title has always hitherto been interpreted as
denoting the Prefect of the Prætorian Guard, stationed in a large camp
adjoining the wails of Rome.  But that interpretation is not well suited
either to the natural character of language or to the facts of the Roman
service.  The title could not properly designate an officer of such high
rank; and the Prætorian Prefect would hardly be concerned with a
comparatively humble duty like the reception of and responsibility for
prisoners.  The Greek title Stratopedarch very rarely occurs; and it
remained for Mommsen, aided by the form given in an old Latin version,
Princeps Peregrinorum, to explain who the officer really was, and to
place the whole episode of Paul's Roman residence in a new light (see p.
315).

Augustus had reduced to a regular system the maintenance of
communications between the centre of control in Rome and the armies
stationed in the great frontier provinces.  Legionary centurions, called
commonly frumentarii, went to and fro between Rome and the armies; and
were employed for numerous purposes that demanded communication between
the Emperor and his armies and provinces.  They acted not only for
commissariat purposes (whence the name), but as couriers, and for police
purposes, and for conducting prisoners; and in time they became detested
as agents and spies of Government.  They all belonged to legions
stationed in the provinces, and were considered to be on detached duty
when they went to Rome; and hence in Rome they were "soldiers from
abroad,"peregrini.  While in Rome they resided in a camp on the Cælian
Hill, called Castra Peregrinorum; in this camp there were always a
number of them present, changing from day to day, as some came and
others went away.  This camp was under command of the Princeps
Peregrinorum; and it is clear that Stratopedarch in Acts is the Greek
name for that officer (see p.  315).

This whole branch of the service is very obscure.  Marquardt considers
that it was first organised by Hadrian; but Mommsen believes that it
must have been instituted by Augustus.

2.  THE RESIDENCE IN ROME. Paul was treated in Rome with the utmost
leniency.  He was allowed to hire a house or a lodging in the city, and
live there at his own convenience under the surveillance of a soldier
who was responsible for his presence when required.  A light chain
fastened Paul's wrist to that of the soldier.  No hindrance was offered
to his inviting friends into his house, or to his preaching to all who
came in to him; but he was not allowed to go out freely.

After the depression of spirit in which Paul entered Rome, Acts
concludes with a distinct implication of easier and more hopeful
circumstances.  His work went on unimpeded, while the rest after the
fatigue and hardships of the voyage would be beneficial to his physical
health (even though September might afterwards prove unhealthy); and
thus the two chief reasons for his gloomy frame of mind on landing in
Italy were removed.  He regarded himself as "an ambassador in a
chain"(Eph.  VI 20); he asked for the prayers of the Colossians and the
Asian Churches generally for his success in preaching; his tone is
hopeful and full of energy and spirit for the work (1.  c., Col.  IV 3,
4); and he looked forward to acquittal and a visit to Colossai (Philem.
22). We may date these letters to Philemon, to Colossai, and to the
Asian Churches generally (Eph.)  near the middle of the long
imprisonment; an accurate date is impossible, but for brevity's sake we
may speak of their date as early in 61.

The presence of many friends in Rome also cheered Paul.  He had been
permitted to take two personal attendants with him from Cæsareia; but
though his other companions in Jerusalem were prevented from
accompanying him in his voyage, some of them followed him to Rome.
Timothy was with him during great part of his imprisonment, was sent on
a mission to Philippi about the end of 61 (Phil.  II 19), and thereafter
seems to have had his headquarters in Asia, whence he was summoned by
Paul to join him during his second imprisonment.  Tychicus also joined
Paul in Rome in 60, and was sent on a mission to Asia, and especially to
the Churches of the Lycos valley, early in 61.  They probably left
Cæsareia when Paul sailed for Rome, visited on the way their own homes,
and arrived in Rome not long after Paul himself.

Moreover, Mark, who had become reconciled with Paul (probably during his
residence at Jerusalem, or his imprisonment in Cæsareia), came also to
Rome.  He left Rome in 61, contemplating an extended tour in the
province Asia, in the course of which he would probably visit Colossai.
Oral instructions had been already sent to the Colossians, and,
doubtless, other Pauline Churches (probably by Onesimus and Tychicus),
to welcome him as Paul's deputy; and Paul writes to the Colossians a
formal recommendation of him (IV 10). The terms in which Paul speaks
suggest that he had not taken any active interest in the new Pauline
Churches since the unfortunate quarrel in Pamphylia, and that there was
likely to be some coldness towards him among the Pauline Christians.
From this year, apparently, began a new era in Mark's life.  His work
seems to have lain in Asia during the next few years, for about the
close of his life Paul bids Timothy (IV 11) bring Mark with him to Rome,
implying that they were near each other; and Timothy was in Ephesus at
the time.  Probably Paul had been informed of Mark's desire to rejoin
him in his troubles.  At a later date Mark is associated with the
greeting of I Peter V 13 to the Churches of the provinces of Asia Minor,
in such a way as to imply personal acquaintance with them; and this wide
range of work, though not easily reconcilable with the earlier dates
assigned to that Epistle, suits naturally and well the date about 80
(Church in R.E., p.  280 f). On this view Mark after Paul's death must
have devoted himself to work in the more easterly provinces of Asia
Minor; and returned to Rome ten or twelve years later.

It is remarkable that Luke has not a word to say about the process by
which Christianity spread to Rome; but, according to the plan which we
have already seen to be shadowed forth for the sequel of this history,
the process would form part of the contemplated Third Book.  That Book
would naturally open with a brief statement of the western dispersion
and the planting of Christianity in Italy, going back for the moment to
an earlier date, just as in XI 27 the historian, when he has to include
Antioch in the stage of his drama, turns back to the movement
originating in Stephen's work.  So here he brings Paul to Rome; and
thereafter he would probably have made a new start with the Churches of
the West and the new impulse imparted to them by Paul's acquittal.  We
are compelled to make some conjecture on this point; for no one can
accept the ending ofActs as the conclusion of a rationally conceived
history.  Such an ending might exist in a diary, which has no
determining idea, but not in a history; and we, who work on the
hypothesis that Acts is a history, must strive to understand the guiding
idea of an unfinished work.

According to modern ideas, the rapidity with which every movement in the
provinces influenced Rome is a sign of strong vitality and intimate
union of the parts of that vast Empire.  The Imperial policy fostered
intercommunication and unity to the utmost; and it is not too much to
say that travelling was more highly developed, and the dividing power of
distance was weaker, under the Empire than at any time before or since,
until we come down to the present century.  But that fact, which we
estimate as probably the best measure of material civilisation, was
regarded with horror by the party of old Roman thought and manners,
which was stubbornly opposed in mind to the Imperial rule, though it was
powerless against it.  They saw that the old Roman character was
changed, and the old Roman ideals of life and government were destroyed,
by the influx of provincial thoughts and manners.  The Orontes was
pouring its waters into the Tiber; Syrian and Greek vices were
substituted for Roman virtues; and prominent among these vices were
Judaism, Christianity, and other "debasing superstitions"

The new movement made marked progress in the vast Imperial household;
and Paul, in sending to the Philippian Church the greetings of the Roman
Christians, says, "All the saints salute you, especially they that are
of Caesar's household ". This is quite to be expected.  The Imperial
household was at the centre of affairs and in most intimate relations
with all parts of the Empire; and in it influences from the provinces
were most certain to be felt early.  There can be no doubt that
Lightfoot is right in considering that Christianity effected an entrance
into Cæesar's household before Paul entered Rome; in all probability he
is right also in thinking that all the slaves of Aristobulus (son of
Herod the Great) and of Narcissus (Claudius's favourite freedman) had
passed into the Imperial household, and that members of these two
familiœlang1050 are saluted as Christians by Paul (Rom.  XVI 10 f.).

3.  SENECA AND PAUL. Thee question has been much discussed what
relation, if any, existed between Seneca and Paul at this time.  A
tradition existed in the fourth century that they had been brought into
close relation.  It is, however, exceedingly doubtful whether this
tradition had any other foundation than the remarkable likeness that
many of Seneca's phrases and sentiments show to passages in the New
Testament.  But, however striking these extracts seem when collected and
looked at apart from their context, I think that a careful consideration
of them as they occur in the books, must bring every one to the
conclusion advocated by Lightfoot, by Aubé, and by many others, that the
likeness affords no proof that Seneca came into such relations with Paul
as to-be influenced in his sentiments by him: resemblances quite as
striking occur in works written before Paul came Rome (according to the
received, although not always absolutely certain, chronology of Seneca's
works), as in those written after.  Nor was it among the professed
philosophers that Paul was likely to be listened to: they considered
that they knew all he had to say, and could quote from their own
lectures a good moral precept to set alongside of anything he could tell
them.

Yet there can be no doubt that some very striking parallels between
Senecan and Pauline sayings occur; and this is true of Seneca to a
greater extent than of any other non-Christian writer.  It is possible
that the philosophical school of Tarsus had exercised more influence on
Paul than is commonly allowed; and it'is certain that Seneca was
influenced by Athenodorus of Tarsus.  Lightfoot refers especially to the
fact that both Paul and Seneca "compare life to a warfare, and describe
the struggle after good as a contest with the flesh ". Seneca makes one
long quotation from Athenodorus (de CIem., 4), and in it the idea that
life is a warfare is worked out elaborately; and the saying (Ep.  X),
"So live with men, as if God saw you; so speak with God, as if men heard
you,"occurs immediately after a quotation from Athenodorus,* and seems
to be a reflection in Seneca's words of Athenodorus's intention.
Athenodorus lived much in Rome, and died there in Cato's house, 60-50
B.C.; but it is probable both that his system exercised great influence
in the university of his own city, and that Paul's expression and
language may contain traces of his university training in Tarsus.

But though there is no reason to think that Seneca was influenced by
Paul's language or thoughts, yet there is every reason to think that the
liberal policy of the Empire at this period in religion was due to
Seneca's broad views.  It is certain that he had exercised very great
influence on the Imperial policy, since his pupil Nero became Emperor in
54; and it is highly probable that the energy with which that policy was
carried out in the East, and the generous freedom with which all
religious questions were treated during that period, are due to Seneca's
spirit.  He is perhaps the only distinguished politician of the first
century who shows some of the wide views of Hadrian; and it is
remarkable that both Seneca and Hadrian were sprung from Spain, being
thus thoroughly Roman and yet absolutely free from the old narrow Roman
spirit.  It is clear that, in the later years of Nero's reign, the
Empire began to fall into dangerous disorganisation, while in his early
years the government at home and abroad seems to have been remarkably
successful; and it is not easy to account for the contrast, except by
connecting the success with Seneca's guiding spirit.  Now, the tone
which marks the relations of the State to Paul throughout the period
described in Acts , is quite different from that which began in A.D. 64
and subsequently became intensified.  Surely we can best account for the
change by the disgrace and retirement of Seneca in 62: his spirit
departed from the administration by rapid steps after that date.
Circumstances had given him for a few years such influence as perhaps
never again was exercised by a private citizen in the Empire.  As a
rule, the Emperors held the reins of government tight in their own
hands, and allowed no subordinate to exert any influence on the general
conduct of affairs; and there are many great Emperors, but only one
great Minister under the Empire, Seneca.

The household of Seneca during his ascendancy was likely to be brought
into close relations with the great movements that were agitating the
Empire.  It is therefore natural to expect that the new religion should
affect it in some degree, as it did the Imperial household.  Nor are we
left to mere conjecture on this point.  A remarkable inscription of
somewhat later date has been found at Ostia, "M. Annaeus Paulus to M.
Annaeus Paulus Petrus, his very dear son:"the name "Paul Peter"must be
taken as an indubitable proof of religion.  These persons possibly
belong to a family of freed men connected with the household of Seneca;
but, assuming that, it is no more admissible to quote this inscription
as corroborating Seneca's traditional subjection to Christianity, than
it would be to quote the strong leaven of Christianity in Cæsar's
household in proof of Cæesar's amenability to the same influence.

4.  THE TRIAL. It is doubtful why Paul's trial was so long delayed.
Perhaps his opponents, despairing of obtaining his condemnation,
preferred to put off the trial as long as possible; and there were then,
as there are now, many devices in law for causing delay.  Perhaps the
case was being inquired into by the Imperial Office: the trial had to
take place before the Emperor or one of his representatives (probably
one of the two Prefects of the Prætorian Guard). The whole question of
free teaching of an oriental religion by a Roman citizen must have been
opened up by the case; and it is quite possible that Paul's previous
proceedings were inquired into.

The trial seems to have occurred towards the end of A.D. 61 Its earliest
stages were over before Paul wrote to the Philippians, for he says, I
12, "the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the
progress of the Good News; so that my bonds became manifest in Christ in
the whole Prætorium, and to all the rest; and that most of the Brethren
in the Lord, being confident in my bonds, are more abundantly bold to
speak the word of God without fear". This passage has been generally
misconceived and connected with the period of imprisonment; and here
again we are indebted to Mommsen for the proper interpretation.  The
Prætorium is the whole body of persons connected with the sitting in
judgment, the supreme Imperial Court, doubtless in this case the Prefect
or both Prefects of the Prætorian Guard, representing the Emperor in his
capacity as the fountain of justice, together with the assessors and
high officers of the court.  The expression of the chapter as a whole
shows that the trial is partly finished, and the issue as yet is so
favourable that the Brethren are emboldened by the success of Paul's
courageous and free-spoken defence and the strong impression which he
evidently produced on the court; but he himself, being entirely occupied
with the trial, is for the moment prevented from preaching as he had
been doing when he wrote to the Colossians and the Asian Churches
generally.

That Philippians was written near the end of the imprisonment has been
widely recognised, though the powerful opposition of Lightfoot has
carried away the general current of opinion in England.  When Paul was
writing to the Church at Philippi, his custom of sending his
subordinates on missions had stripped him of companions; and so he says,
"I have no man like-minded (with Timothy) who will show genuine care for
your state, for they all seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ,
but ye recognise his proved character"(Phil II 20 f.). It seems
impossible to believe that Paul could have written like this, if he had
had with him Tychicus, "faithful minister and fellow-servant in the
Lord,"Aristarchus, Mark, and above all Luke.  Yet, if anything is sure
about that period, it is that Aristarchus and Luke had been with Paul
from his arrival in Rome till after Coloss., Philem.  and Eph.  were
written, while Tychicus probably joined him with Timothy in 60.  On our
supposition, Mark and Tychicus had already been sent on missions to
Asia; Luke is either the "true yoke-fellow"addressed in Phil IV 3, or
was actually the bearer of the letter to Philippi; Aristarchus also had
been sent on a mission during the summer of 61; and Epaphras naturally
had returned to the Lycos valley.  There remained some friends with Paul
(IV 21), probably Demas among them (Col.  IV 14, Philem.  24); but he
did not feel sure of their thorough trustworthiness, and his doubt about
Demas was afterwards justified (II Tim.  IV 10). Hence his eagerness to
get back to the company of real and trusty friends (II 24 fl.).

Amid the general tone of hopefulness and confidence in Philippians,
there are some touches of depression, which may be attributed to the
absence of so many intimate friends, to the increased strain that the
trial now proceeding must have put on his powers (p.  94 f.), and to the
probable closer confinement necessitated by the trial, that he might
always be accessible in case of need.  There is more eagerness for the
issue of the long proceedings manifest in Phil.  than in the other
letters from Rome; but it is part of human nature to be more patient
when the end is still far off, and more excited and eager as the end
approaches.

The letter to Philippi was not called forth by any dangerous crisis
there, as were the letters to Colossai and to the Asian Churches
generally (Eph.). Hence Col.  and Eph."exhibit a more advanced stage in
the development of the Church"than Phil.  Lightfoot and others are
indubitably right in that point; but their inference that Phil.  was
written earlier than the others does not follow.  The tone of Col.  and
Eph.  is determined by the circumstances of the Churches addressed.  The
great cities of Asia were on the highway of the world, which traversed
the Lycos valley, and in them development took place with great
rapidity.  But the Macedonians were a simple-minded people in comparison
with Ephesus and Laodiceia and Colossai, living further away from the
great movements of thought.  It was not in Paul's way to send to
Philippi an elaborate treatise against a subtle speculative heresy,
which had never affected that Church.  His letter was called forth by
the gifts which had been sent by the Philippians; it is a recognition of
their thoughtful kindness; and hence it has a marked character, being
"the noblest reflection of St.  Paul's personal character and spiritual
illumination, his large sympathies, his womanly tenderness, his delicate
courtesy"(to use once more the words of Lightfoot). It is plain that he
did not actually need the help that the), now sent; but his gratitude is
as warm and genuine as if he had been in deep need, and he recurs to the
former occasions when his real poverty had been aided by them.  The
freedom from anxiety about the development at Philippi, and the hearty
affection for kind friends, make this in many respects the most pleasing
of all Paul's letters.

Though prepared to face death if need be, Paul was comparatively
confident of the issue when he wrote to Philippi: "I have the confident
conviction that I shall remain and abide for you all to your progress
and joy of believing,"and "I trust that I shall come to you shortly"That
he was acquitted is demanded both by the plan evident in Acts (p.  308)
and by other reasons well stated by others.

5.  LAST TRIAL AND DEATH OF PAUL. His later career is concealed from us,
for the hints contained in the Pastoral Epistles hardly furnish even an
outline of his travels, which must have lasted three or four years, 62-
65 A.D. At his second trial the veil that hides his fate is raised for
the moment.  On that occasion the circumstances were very different from
his first trial.  His confinement was more rigorous, for Onesiphorus had
to take much trouble before obtaining an interview with the prisoner (II
Tim.  I 17): "he fared ill as far as bonds, like a criminal"(II 9). He
had no hope of acquittal: he recognised that he was "already being
poured forth as an offering, and the time of his departure was come".
The gloom and hopelessness of the situation damped and dismayed all his
friends: at his first hearing "all forsook"him; yet for the time he "was
delivered out of the mouth of the lion". In every respect the situation
thus indicated is the opposite of the circumstances described on the
first trial.  Phil.  occupies the same place in the first as II Tim.  in
the second trial; but Phil.  looks forward to a fresh career among the
Churches, while II Tim.  is the testament of a dying man.  In one
respect, however, the second trial was like the first.  Paul again
defended himself in the same bold and outspoken way as before,
expounding the principles of his life to a great audience, "that all the
Gentiles might hear".

Yet the circumstances of this second trial are totally different from
that "short way with the dissenters"which was customary under Domitian
and Trajan and later Emperors.  After his first examination Paul could
still write to Asia bidding Timothy and Mark come to him, which shows
that he looked forward to a considerable interval before the next stage
of his trial.  He was charged as a malefactor, crimes had to be proved
against him, and evidence brought; and the simple acknowledgment that he
was a Christian was still far from sufficient to condemn him, as it was
under Domitian.  It is a plausible conjecture of Conybeare and Howson
that the first hearing, on which he was acquitted and "delivered out of
the lion's mouth,"was on the charge of complicity and sympathy with the
incendiaries, who had burned Rome in 64; and that charge was
triumphantly disproved.  The trial in that case did not occur until the
first frenzy of terror and rage against the supposed incendiaries was
over; and some other species of crime had to be laid to the account of
the Christians charged before the courts.  The second and fatal charge,
heard later, was doubtless that of treason, shown by hostility to the
established customs of society, and by weakening the Imperial authority.

If our conception of the trial is correct, the precedent of the first
great trial still guided the courts of the empire (as we have elsewhere
sought to prove). It had then been decided that the preaching of the new
religion was not in itself a crime; and that legal offences must be
proved against Christians as against any other subjects of the empire.
That was the charter of freedom (p.  282) which was abrogated shortly
after; and part of Luke's design was, as we have seen (p.  307), to
record the circumstances in which the charter had been obtained, as a
protest against the Flavian policy, which had overturned a well-weighed
decision of the supreme court.

Note.  Text of XXVIII 16.  The failure in the great MSS. of the delivery
of Paul to the Stratopedarch is a very clear case of omitting a Lukan
detail, which had only a mundane interest; and the failure of similar
details in XXVII 5, XVI 30, etc., may be estimated by the analogy of
this case.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY-30-40 A.D.

1.  THE STATE OF THE CHURCH IN A.D. 30.  The chronological difficulty
has probably weighed with many, as it has with Lightfoot (Ed.  Gal.  p.
124), in rejecting the identification which we advocate of the visit in
Acts XI with that in Gal.  II 1-10.  It is therefore necessary to glance
briefly at the chronology of the early chapters of Acts , in order to
show that there is no real difficulty for those who (like Lightfoot)
date the Crucifixion in A.D. 30.  Our identification, if proved, would
make it certain that the Death of Christ cannot be dated so late as 33.

Luke's historical method required him in the opening of his Second Book
to give a full account of the first condition of the Church in
Jerusalem, and then to concentrate attention on the critical steps and
persons by whom the Universal Church was moulded to the form it had in
his time.

In I, after a short preamble, connecting the narrative with the
preceding book, he describes how the number of the Apostles was filled
up.  The organisation of the Church was always a subject of keen
interest to Luke; he "evidently had the impression that the guidance of
affairs rested with the Apostles in Jerusalem"(p.  53); and the
appointment of this important official was in his estimation a matter of
great moment.  Peter took the lead; two were selected by common
agreement and vote; and out of these the lot showed which was preferred
by the Divine will.

In II 1-42 the events of Pentecost (May 26, A.D. 30), and the effect
produced on the character of the converts, are described; and the
general state and conduct of this primitive Church is summed up in II 43
-47.

The second part of II 47, "the Lord added to them day by day those that
were being saved,"is one of those phrases in which Luke often hits off a
long, steady, uniform process.  It is to be taken as a general
description of subsequent progress in Jerusalem, during the course of
which occurred the events next related.

The space devoted by Luke to Pentecost shows that he considered the
events of that day to be of the highest importance.  On that day the
Divine grace was given to the Apostles, qualifying them (p.  45) for the
work which they were now required to perform since their Master had left
them.

Luke shows true historical insight in fixing the reader's attention on
Pentecost.  For the permanence of a movement of this kind, much depends
on the successors of the first leader; and the issue is determined in
the period following the leader's removal.  Has the leader shown that
electrical creative power that remoulds men and communicates his own
spirit to his disciples, or will the movement be found leaderless and
spiritless, when the originator is taken away?  While the leader is with
his disciples, they have little or no opportunity of showing
independence and originality and capacity for command.  When he is re
moved from them, the first effect must be discouragement and a sense of
emptiness, proportionate to the influence exerted by the leader.  Then
comes the real test, which determines the vitality and permanence of the
movement.  Has the spirit of the founder descended on his followers?
With Luke, and with all the great leaders of the first century, that was
the test of every new man and every new congregation: had the Spirit
been granted to them?

In the second month after their leader was taken away, on the day of
Pentecost, the test was fulfilled in the primitive Church; and the
capacity of his disciples to carry on his work was shown.  They became
conscious of the power that had been given them, and their new power was
recognised by the multitude in their words and in their looks.  The same
impression of a transformed and recreated nature was made on the elders
and scribes, when they examined Peter and John (IV 13 f., see § 2).

By virtue of that Divine grace, "many wonders and signs were done by the
Apostles,"v.  43, during the following time.  But it is vital to Luke's
method not to rest contented with.  that general statement, but to give
one special, clear example of the power communicated to the Apostles and
to the Church of which they were the leaders.  It would be waste of time
to regret that he passes over so much that we should like to know, and
devotes so much space to a marvel that is to us a difficulty: our
present aim is to understand the purpose of what he does say, not to
long after what he omits.

The example is given in III; the subsequent events of the same day are
narrated IV 1-4; and the following day is described IV 5-31, when Peter
and John, in whom the proof of Divine grace had been shown forth.  were
examined before a meeting of "the rulers and eiders and scribes". These
are represented as realising now for the first time, v.  13, the change
that had come over Peter and John, who from "unlearned and ignorant
men"had been transformed into bold and eloquent preachers.  Evidently.
the historian conceives that this transformation, wrought at Pentecost,
was now beginning to be generally felt; and therefore he is still (as we
have said) describing the immediate issue of Pentecost.  Thereafter
comes a second general statement of the state and character of the
primitive Church, startlingly similar to II 43-47.

Thus the whole passage II 43-IV 35 hangs very closely together, and
describes the Church in the period immediately succeeding May 26, A.D.
30.  Two episodes of this period, exemplifying the conduct of the true
and the false convert, are described IV 36-V 11; and then comes a third
general description of the state of the Church in this period V 12-16,
followed by a statement of the attempt made by the Jewish leaders to
coerce the Apostles into silenceV 17-41.

That at least two accounts by two different authorities underlie Luke's
narrative, and have been worked up by him with little change, seems
clear.  It is, of course, obvious that he was entirely dependent for
this period of his history on the authority of other persons; and we see
in the Third Gospel how much he was influenced by the very language of
his authorities, and how little change he made on their words.  *

2.  TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE NARRATIVE,Acts I-V. It is obvious that the
trustworthiness of this part of Acts stands on quite a different footing
from that of the Pauline narrative, which we have hitherto discussed.
The author had means of knowing the later events with perfect accuracy
(so far as perfection can be attained in history); but the means which
helped him there fail in I-V, and the scene and surroundings were to him
strange and remote (p.  19 f.). He was here dependent entirely on
others, and it was more difficult for him to control and make himself
master of the evolution of events.  We discern the same guiding hand and
mind, the same clear historical insight seizing the great and critical
steps, in the early chapters, as in the later; but the description of
the primitive Church wants precision in the outline and colour in the
details.  It seems clear that the authorities on which Luke depended
were not equally good; and here second-rate incidents are admitted along
with first-rate in a way that has done his reputation serious injury in
the estimation of those who begin to study Acts from this, its
necessarily weakest part.  One or two examples will bring out our
meaning.  First we take an incident related also by Matthew.

Matthew XX VII 5-8=rAC 7:5-8

Acts I 18-19.=rAC 1:18-19

AND HE WENT AWAY AND HANGED HIMSELF. AND THE CHIEF PRIESTS TOOK THE
PIECES OF SILVER, AND SAID, "IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO PUT THEM INTO THE
TREASURY, SINCE. IT IS THE PRICE OF BLOOD". AND THEY TOOK COUNSEL, AND
BOUGHT WITH THEM THE POTTER'S FIELD, TO BURY STRANGERS IN. WHEREFORE
THAT FIELD WAS CALLED THE FIELD OF BLOOD. UNTO THIS DAY.

NOW THIS MAN OBTAINED A FIELD WITH THE REWARD OF HIS INIQUITY; AND
FALLING HEADLONG, HE BURST ASUNDER IN THE MIDST, AND ALL HIS BOWELS
GUSHED. AND IT BECAME KNOWN TO ALL THE DWELLERS AT JERUSALEM; INSOMUCH
THAT IN THEIR LANGUAGE THAT FIELD WAS CALLED AKELDAMA, THAT IS, THE
FIELD OF BLOOD.

There can be no hesitation in accepting the vivid and detailed
description which Matthew gives of this incident.  But, if so, the
account given in Acts cannot be accepted as having any claim to
trustworthiness in any point of discrepancy.  The character of this
account is marked, and its origin obvious.  It is a growth of popular
fancy and tradition, which preserved the main facts, viz., the
connection between the name, Field of Blood, and the price paid to the
betrayer.  But it is characteristic of popular tradition, while it
preserves some central fact, to overlay it with fanciful accretions,
which often conceal completely the historical kernel.  In this case, we
have the tale arrested at an early point in its growth, when its
elements are still separable.  The name Field of Blood had to be
explained suitably to the remembered fact that it was bought with the
betrayer's reward; but its meaning was mistaken.  Popular fancy always
craves for justice; it connected the name with the betrayer's
punishment, took the Blood, which formed one element of the name, as the
betrayer's blood, and evolved a myth which united fact and retributory
justice in a moral apologue.

It is a remarkable thing that popular tradition should so soon distort a
tale so simple and so impressive.  But oriental tradition never clings
to fact with anything like the same tenacity as Greek tradition; and we
know how much even the latter distorts and covers over the facts that it
preserves.  The oriental mind has little or nothing of the proper
historical tone.  It remembers facts, not for their own value, but for
the lesson they can convey.  It substitutes the moral apologue for
history in the strict sense of the term, craving for the former, and
possessing little regard for the latter.  It acts with great rapidity,
transforming the memory of the past within the lapse of a few years; and
probably those who know the East best will find least difficulty in
believing that the stow which Luke here gives might have been told him,
when the Field of Blood was pointed out to him at Jerusalem in 57 A.D.

But in this rapid transformation of fact in Eastern popular tradition
lies the best safeguard of the historical student against it.  He rarely
needs to doubt, as he often must in Greece, whether any narrative is
history or mere popular tradition.  Greek tradition often has such a
natural appearance that it is hard to say where fact ends and fancy
begins.  But oriental tradition is so free in its creation, so
unfettered by any thought of suitability in the accessories, that it is
marked off from history by a broad and deep gap.  By history we mean
narrative rounded on documents that are nearly contemporary with the
actual facts, or on the accounts of eye-witnesses, not implying that
"history"must be absolutely true.  To give a true account even of a
single incident that one has actually participated in is not within the
power of all, for it needs education, skill in selection, and an eye to
distinguish the relative importance of different points.  To give a true
account of a long series of incidents is, of course, much more
difficult.  No history is absolutely true; all give accounts that are
more or less distorted pictures of fact.  But the conception of history
as an attempt to represent facts in correct perspective, even when it is
poorly and feebly carried out, is a great and sacred possession, which
we owe to the Greeks; and is a generically different thing from popular
tradition, which aims either at the moral apologue, or the glow of an
individual or a family, and regards faithfulness to actual facts as
quite a secondary thing.

The episode of Ananias and Sapphira V 1 f.  excites reasonable
suspicion.  That Ananias should be carried forth and buried unknown to
his family, unmourned by his kindred and friends, is not merely contrary
to right conduct, but violates the deepest feelings of oriental life.
That a man should be properly lamented and wept for by his family is and
has always been a sacred right, which even crime does not forfeit.  But
the desire to bring into strong relief the unselfishness of the
primitive Church has worked itself out in a moral apologue, which has
found here an entrance alongside of real history.

Again in II 5-11 another popular tale seems to obtrude itself.  In these
verses the power of speaking with tongues, which is clearly described by
Paul as a species of prophesying (I Cor.  XII 10 f., XIV 1 f.), is taken
in the sense of speaking in many languages.  Here again we observe the
distorting influence of popular fancy.

Yet alongside of these suspicious stories we find passages which show
strongly the characteristic method of Luke; and the entire plan of the
narrative, concentrating attention on the successive critical steps, is
thoroughly Lukan.  We take one example of a Lukan passage.

The incident in IV 13 f.  is especially characteristic of Luke's style;
and it has been widely misunderstood.  Zeller, Holtzmann, Meyer-Wendt
and others, understand these verses to mean that the members of the
Sanhedrim became aware only during the trial that Peter and John had
been disciples of Jesus: which, as they justly point out, is most
unnatural and unsuitable.  But the force of the passage seems to be very
different: the Jewish leaders perceived the bold and fluent speech of
Peter and John, and yet they observed from their dress and style of
utterance that they were not trained scholars; and they marvelled (for
there was then probably an even more marked distinction than at the
present day between the speech and thought of a fisherman or shepherd
and of an educated person); and they further took cognisance of the fact
that they were disciples of Jesus; and they gazed on the man that had
been cured standing along with his preservers.  These were the facts of
the case: all were undeniable; and all were vividly brought before them.
What conclusion could be drawn from them?  The historian's point is that
there was only one possible inference; and, as the Jewish leaders were
unwilling to draw that inference, they perforce kept silence, not having
wherewithal to dispute the obvious conclusion.

Here, as usual, the historian does not himself draw the inference; but
merely states the main facts, and leaves them to tell their own tale.
But in no passage does he state the facts in more dramatic form.  The
conclusion lies close at hand, rig., that these illiterate fishermen had
acquired the art and power of effective oratory through their having
been the disciples of Jesus, and through the Divine grace and power
communicated to them.

We notice also that John's speech has not previously been mentioned, yet
now it is assumed that he had spoken.  This is characteristic of the
writer's style, as we have seen it in the second part of the work.  It
is evident that Peter's single speech did not exhaust the proceedings at
the trial; but Luke assumes that the reader conceives the general
situation and the style of procedure in such trials; and he quotes the
most telling utterance, and leaves the rest to the reader's imagination.

We are struck with the marked difference of Acts I-V, not merely from
the later chapters, but also from Luke'sFirst Book, the Gospel.  In
composing his Book I, he had formal works of a historical kind to use
for his authorities (Luke I 1); and he followed them very closely, not
giving scope to his own method of narration or of grouping.  But these
formal works seem all to have ended either with the death or the
ascension of the Saviour; and the most obscure and difficult period for
a historian writing about 80-85 A.D. was the time that immediately
succeeded the death of Jesus.  Luke was dependent here on informal
narratives, and on oral tradition; and, if we be right in our view that
he did not live to put the last touches to his work, we may fairly
suppose that the most difficult period was left the least perfect part
of the whole.  But we must content ourselves here with this slight
indication of a view that would require much minute argument to state
properly.  There is a marked resemblance between I-V and XIX. In both,
episodes that savour of popular fancy stand side by side with Lukan work
of the best kind.

3.  APPOINTMENT OF STEPHEN AND THE SEVEN. The first distinct step in
development from the primitive condition of the Church, when it was a
mere small and almost unorganised community, was due to the pressure of
poverty.  In Jerusalem very poor Jews were numerous, and many of them
had become Christian.  Hence from the beginning the Church had to
contend against a chronic state of want among its adherents.  Probably
we are apt to find a more communistic sense than Luke intended in II 44,
IV 32; for II 4, IV 35 indicate judicious charity, and even the action
of Barnabas in IV 37 looks more like charity than communism:* he and
others sold their possessions and gave the money in trust to the
Apostles for the good of the Church.  In later years, as the Church
spread, the pressure of need in Jerusalem acted as a bond to unite the
scattered congregations in active ministration (pp.  49 f., 288); and at
the beginning it stimulated the primitive Church to originate a better
organisation.

The difficulties in which the Church was placed, which would have killed
a weakly life, only stimulated its vigour and its creative energy.  This
creative vitality is to the historian the most interesting side of the
early Church; it was free from dead conservatism; it combined the most
perfect reverence for its earliest form with the most perfect freedom to
adapt that form to new exigencies; it did not stifle growth on the plea
that it must remain exactly as it was.  It was growing so rapidly that
it burst through its earliest forms, before they could acquire any
binding force, or fix themselves in the prejudices of its members.  This
free untrammeled expansion was the law of its life, and the Divine
reality of its being.  In later times, on the contrary, many of its
adherents have maintained that its Divine life lies in its preserving
unchanged from the beginning the form that was prescribed for it.  Thus
the view taken in Acts is that the Church's Divine character lies in the
free unceasing growth of its form and institutions; but the common view
of later times has been that its Divine character lies in the permanence
and unchangeability of its form from the beginning onwards.

At first Luke represents the superintendence and distribution of these
charities as undertaken solely by the Apostles, who soon found that "it
was not meet that they should forsake preaching and perform the
ministration at tables"(VI 2). Moreover, in the pressure of claims and
accumulation of duties, complaint was made that the widows among the
Hellenist Jews were neglected in favour of the native Hebrews.  It was
therefore arranged that a new class of officers should be instituted,-
for whom no name is here given, but who were the origin out of which the
"Deacons"of the developed Church arose.

It is a remarkable fact that the Elders are not mentioned here; and this
is one of the points which show Luke's want of proper authorities about
the primitive Church.  When we come to a period, where his information
was good, we find the Elders prominent, and specially in practical
business matters (pp.  52, 166, 171); and there can be no doubt that
this characteristic Jewish institution existed as a matter of course in
the primitive Church.  The superintendence of relief measures was
recognised as peculiarly their province (XI 30). It seems clear that in
the memory of tradition the Apostles had survived alone as being the far
more prominent figures, while the first Elders had been almost
forgotten.

The new officers are here termed simply "Seven Men in charge of this
duty"(i.e., septem viri mensis ordinandis). It would be easy to find
Jewish analogies that would explain the original idea; but it would not
be easy to find any Jewish analogy to explain the vitality and
adaptability of the institution.  We must turn to Roman organising
methods to find anything that will explain the importance and lasting
effect of this step.  Roman ideas were in the air; and the vigorous life
of the Church was shown in its power of seizing and adapting to its own
purposes all that was strong and serviceable in the world.  It suited
itself to its surroundings, and used the existing political facts and
ideas, "learning from the surrounding world everything that was valuable
in it"(p.  149).

The Seven who were appointed bear purely Greek names; and one was not a
Jew, but a proselyte of Antioch.  There can, therefore, be no doubt that
a distinct step towards the Universalised Church was here made; it was
already recognised that the Church was wider than the pure Jewish race;
and the non-Jewish element was raised to official rank.  Nikolaos was a
proselyte of the higher and completer type (p.  43); and his case was
therefore quite different in character from that of Cornelius (p.  42
f.), who was only God-fearing.  In the conferring of office on Nikolaos
a distinct step was made; but it was quite in accordance with the
principle of the extreme Judaistic party in the Church (p.  157). The
case of Cornelius was a second and more serious step.

The consequences of this first step in advance were soon apparent.  The
wider sympathies and wider outlook of Hellenistic Jews quickened the
life of the young community; and Stephen, especially, was conspicuous
for the boldness with which he advocated the faith and opposed the
narrowness of Judaism, saying, as his accusers alleged, "that this Jesus
or Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which
Moses delivered unto us ". Even though this is a perversion of Stephen's
meaning, yet the form implies that Stephen had advanced beyond the
previous position of the Apostles as regards their relation to Judaism.

The critical point in chronology is to determine the date or Stephen's
accusation and martyrdom.  Luke gives us no clear evidence as to the
length of the two periods that he describes, viz., (1) between Pentecost
and the election of the Seven, (2) between the election and the death of
Stephen.  The latest date which our view leaves open is A.D. 33, for
Paul's conversion followed shortly after Stephen's death, and in the
fourteenth year after his conversion he visited Jerusalem for the second
time, probably in 46 (though 45 is not absolutely excluded, pp.  51,
68). Can we suppose that the necessity for the admission of the
Hellenistic Jews to official rank was felt already in A.D. 32, and that
Stephen's brief career ended in 33?  The space of two years has seemed
sufficient to many scholars; some have been content with one.  The
difficulties which the primitive Church had to meet by appointing the
Seven faced it from the first; and that step was probably forced on it
very soon.  The wider spirit shown in the selection of the Seven was
likely to cause an early collision with Jewish jealousy; and the party
which had cut off Jesus was not likely to suffer His followers to
increase so rapidly without an effort to stop the movement.  Now the
persecution that caused and followed Stephen's death was the first
attempt at coercion; the actions described in IV 5 f.  and V 17 f.  were
mere warnings and threats, which naturally resulted soon in active
measures.  We cannot easily believe that repressive measures were
delayed more than two or three years at the utmost; we should rather
have expected them even sooner.

It is therefore quite fair to date Stephen's death about two and a half
or three years after the great Pentecost.

4.  PHILIP THE EVANGELIST AND PETER. After the death of Stephen, the
history widens, and several threads appear in it.  The foundation of a
series of Churches over Judea and Samaria is first described; and the
author's attention is directed chiefly on three steps in the progress
towards the Universalised Church, the foundation of an extra-Judean
Church in the city of Samaria, and the admission of an Ethiopian*and of
a Roman centurion as Christians.  These steps are connected with the
names of Philip and Peter.  The institution of a series of Churches in
Palestine, a process which must have occupied a long time, is briefly
but clearly indicated in VIII 40, IX 31-35, 42f; but Luke's personal
interest in the expansion of a still purely Judaic Church was not great.
Yet the episodes of Æneas and Dorcas,IX 33-42, show that, though the
details seemed to Luke not required for his purpose, the spread of the
Church over Palestine was conceived by him as an important step in
history.  These episodes are introduced, because they proved that the
Divine power worked in the process whereby the Church of Jerusalem
expanded into the Church of all Palestine.  In the utter absence of
statement as to Luke's authority for the two episodes, they cannot be
placed by the historian on a higher level than general belief.  It is
remarkable that we have no knowledge whether Luke ever met Peter.  The
want of any reference to Peter in XXI 18 must, in our view, be taken as
a proof that he was not in Jerusalem at the time.

In the midst of the narrative describing this expansion is interposed an
account of Saul's life during the three years 33-5;* and this
arrangement is obviously intended to bring out the long period over
which that process of expansion was spread.  According to our theory it
continued from A.D. 33 until it was checked to some extent by the
development of the Pauline idea and the jealousy roused thereby among
almost all Jews except the great and leading minds, which were able to
rise more or less completely above it.  Then came the supreme
catastrophe of the great war, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the
suppression of "the Nation"of the Jews.

The expansion of the Church beyond Palestine is first alluded to in XI
19, where the dispersion of missionaries over Phœnice, Cyprus, and Syria
is mentioned (Ch.  III, § 1). It is remarkable that Luke never alludes
to the development of the Church towards the south or east.  Yet the
dispersion that followed Stephen's death must have radiated in all
directions; and II 7-11, and VIII 27 f., lead naturally to some general
spread of the new teaching in all directions.  It is obvious that Luke
has not made it his object to write the history of the whole expansion
of the Church; but selected the facts that bore on a narrower theme,
viz., the steps by which the Church of Jerusalem grew into the Church of
the Empire, and the position of the Church in the Empire.  Egypt,
Ethiopia, and the East and South are therefore excluded from his
narrative.

5.  PAUL IN JUDEA AND ARABIA. The introduction of Paul is connected with
the death of Stephen: he was then a young man, and probably was entering
for the first time on public life.  At this point the subjective touch
in VIII 1, "Saul was consenting unto his death,"is a clear indication
that Luke's authority was Paul himself.  The phrase is a confession of
inward feeling, not a historian's account of action; and the words are
Paul's own (XXII 20). A dramatic touch like this is, on our theory,
deliberately calculated.  Luke intends to set before his readers the
scene at Cæsareia, where Philip narrated the story of Stephen and of his
own early work, and Paul interposed the agonised confession of VIII 1
The narrative from VI 9 to VIII 39 probably reproduces Philip's words
very closely; while Luke has inserted touches, as VII 58, VIII 1, and
adapted the whole to his plan.*

The slight variations in the three accounts of Paul's conversion do not
seem to be of any consequence.  Luke did not seek to modify Paul's
speeches in order to produce verbal conformity with the account which
seemed to him to represent the facts fairly; but the spirit and tone and
the essential facts are the same, IX 3-18, XXII 6-16,XXVI 12-18.

Two difficulties, however, deserve notice in the account of Paul's
conduct during the first years after his conversion.  In the first
place, why does Luke say nothing about Paul's journey into Arabia?  But
we have no authority for believing that the journey was of such
importance as to require a place in this history, for Luke does not
enumerate all the influences that moulded Paul's development.  Paul's
reference to the incident (Gal.  I 17) is clear and complete in itself,
if it was not a serious journey, but a small episode in his private
life.  "When it pleased God to call me to the work of my life, so far
was I from needing counsel or instruction from Jerusalem, that I retired
into Arabia, and came back again to Damascus."Damascus was at the time
subject to the King of Arabia Petræa; and the natural interpretation is
that a person describing incidents of his experience in Damascus means
by Arabia the adjacent country on the east.  Had this excursion been an
important step in the development of Paul's thought (as Lightfoot
inclines to think, when he sees in it a sojourn on Mount Sinai after the
style of Moses), Luke might be expected to mention it and show how much
underlies Paul's words; but, as he does not mention it, the fair
inference is that there was no more in it than Paul says explicitly.

Moreover, Luke divides Paul's stay in Damascus into two periods, a few
days residence with the disciples IX 19, and a long period of preaching
20-23.  The quiet residence in the country for a time, recovering from
the serious and prostrating effect of his conversion (for a man's life
is not suddenly reversed without serious claim on his physical power),
is the dividing fact between the two periods.  The division is certainly
very awkwardly and insufficiently indicated; but Luke everywhere shows
similar weakness in indicating the temporal relations of events.

In the second place, the accounts of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, in
the third year after his conversion, are obscure.  In Gal.  I 18 f.
Paul says he went up to see Peter (evidently regarding him as the
leading spirit in the development of the Church), and saw no other
Apostle, except James the Lord's brother.  But in Acts IX 28 f.  "he was
with the Apostles going in and going out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly
in the name of the Lord.  And he spake and disputed against the Grecian
Jews; but they went about to kill him."In weighing this account we must
bear in mind Luke's intention: he conceived the Apostles as the
permanent governing body in Jerusalem (p.  53), and they dwarfed in his
estimation any other administrative body in the primitive Church (p.
374). Here, therefore, he speaks loosely of "the Apostles,"meaning the
governing body of the Church, without implying that they were all
present in Jerusalem.  It was one of his objects to insist on the
agreement between Paul and the leaders of the Church; and he distinctly
had, and communicates, the impression that the opposition of the extreme
Judaistic party to Paul was factious, and was condemned by the leaders.
It therefore seemed important to him to emphasise the harmony between
Paul and the Jewish leaders at this first visit; and, though most of the
Apostles were absent, yet the two real leaders were present.  We
certainly should not naturally infer from Luke's words that the visit
lasted only fifteen days; but there is no real difficulty in supposing
that Paul's life was at this time in danger from the first.  He had
deserted his former friends, and they would feel towards him the hatred
that always pursues a deserter.

On the other hand, XXVI 20 is distinctly in contradiction with all other
authorities; but, as Dr.  Blass points out, the Greek is solecistic, and
his altered reading, "in every land to both Jews and Gentiles,"seems to
me to carry conviction with it.*

The difficulty with regard to the interval between Paul's first and
second visit to Jerusalem (which we consider to have been only eleven
years, whereas many take it as fourteen, Gal.  II 1) disappears when we
take the Greek in its real sense.  Paul says to the Galatians, "Then, in
the third year,* I went up to Jerusalem . . . then, when the fourteenth
year was ending ". The two reckonings go together, and are estimated
from the same starting-point.

CHAPTER XVII.

COMPOSITION AND DATE OF ACTS.

1.  HYPOTHESIS OF "THE TRAVEL DOCUMENT". We have seen that Luke
represents himself as having been an eye-witness of some of the
incidents which he describes; and we have inferred, from the pointed way
in which he does this, that he was not an eye-witness of the rest.  In
the parts where he had no personal knowledge his trustworthiness depends
on his authority in each case.  In a former work I have tried to show
that there lies behind the narrative of Paul's journeys a document
originating "from a person acquainted with the actual circumstances,"and
therefore "composed under St.  Paul's own influence". I was careful "to
express his influence in the most general terms, and to avoid any
theorising about the way in which it was exercised"; and I purposely
left the question untouched whether the "Travel-Document"was composed by
the author of Acts or by a different person; for my object then was to
show that the document was a trustworthy record of facts, to avoid
constructing a system, to investigate each fact independently on its own
evidence, and to give no opening to the criticism that I was twisting
the evidence at any point in order to suit an idea derived from
elsewhere.

In the present work the reasons on which the supposition of a "Travel-
Document"was rounded are much strengthened; and we must now put the
question in a more precise form.  What is the relation between the
"Travel-Document"and the completed text of Acts?  To this the answer
must be that the "Travel Document"was Luke's own written notes
(supplemented by memory, and the education of further experience and
reading and research). His diary, where he was an eye-witness, and his
notes of conversation with Paul, and doubtless others also, were worked
into the book of Acts suitably to the carefully arranged plan on which
it is constructed.  We have found traces of deep and strong emotion
which must be understood as Paul's own feeling: the technical term for
making a missionary progress through a district* is used only by Paul (I
Cor.  XVI 5) and by Luke in describing Paul's work;* while in describing
the precisely similar work of other missionaries, he uses a different
and a more usual Greek construction.* This line of investigation might
be carried much further so as to show that Luke everywhere follows with
minute care the best authority accessible to him; and in Acts especially
Paul and Philip.  As we have seen, Ch.  XVI, § 2, the period in which he
found greatest difficulty was that which intervened between the
conclusion of his formal historical authorities for the life of the
Saviour, and the beginning of the careful narratives which he had noted
down from Paul and Philip about their own personal experiences.

One episode, which bears all the marks of vivid personal witness, comes
under neither of these categories, viz., the story of Peter's
imprisonment and escape, XII. Here some other authority was used; and
the narrative suggests distinctly that the authority was not Peter
himself, but one of those in the house of Mary.  John Mark, who is
pointedly mentioned as being in Jerusalem, XII 25, and who was
afterwards with Luke and Paul in Rome, was almost certainly (v.  12) the
ultimate authority here.

Luke added to these authorities an obvious acquaintance with Paul's own
letters.  He rarely states anything that is recorded in them; he assumes
them as known; and he makes it one of his objects to set them in a
clearer light.

The whole of his materials he used with the true historical sense for
the comparative importance of events and for the critical steps in a
great movement, and also with a wide and careful study of the general
history of the contemporary world (i.e., the Roman Empire). The research
which Luke applied in the execution of his work is shown with especial
clearness in the chronological calculations which he introduced in Book
I (similar to those which he would probably have added in Book II, see
p.  23). These calculations deserve fresh study with a view to estimate
the work which the author has compressed into them.  The accuracy of one
of them (viz., the statement about Philip in Luke III 1) I have defended
elsewhere, and, as I believe, on grounds which would carry conviction to
every one, were it not that they are inconsistent with the dominant
North-Galatian theory.  Again the census (Luke II 1 )under Quirinius is
pointedly called the first, implying that it was the first of a series
of census.  A census is known to have been made in Syria by Quirinius in
his second government, about 6 A.D., which suggests that they were
perhaps decennial.  We have no other evidence as to a census in 5-4
B.C.; but when we consider how purely accidental is the evidence* for
the second census, the want of evidence for the first seems to
constitute no argument against the trustworthiness of Luke's statement.
It is certain that the dependent kingdoms paid tribute to Rome exactly
as if they had been part of the Empire; and it is in perfect accord with
the methodical character of Augustus's administration that he should
order such census to be made regularly throughout "the whole world".
Incidentally we observe in this phrase that Luke's view is absolutely
confined to the Roman Empire, which to him is "the world". Luke
investigated the history of this series of census.

2.  DATE OF THE COMPOSITION OF ACTS. The elaborate series of
synchronisms by which Luke dates the coming of John the Baptist are
especially remarkable; and it is to them we turn for evidence as to the
date of composition.  On our view the Crucifixion took place at the
Passover of A.D. 30, the fourth Passover in the public career of Jesus.
Now John was six months older than Jesus; and his career began in his
thirtieth year, a little before the coming of Jesus.  Thus we reach the
conclusion that the synchronisms of Luke III 1, 2, are calculated for
the summer (say July) of A.D. 26; and he calls this year the fifteenth
of the reign of Tiberius, implying that he reckoned his reign to begin
A.D. 12, when Tiberius was associated by Augustus in the Empire.  But
such a method of reckoning the reign of Tiberius was unknown.  According
to Roman reckoning, Tiberius, in July A.D. 26, was either in his twelfth
year (reckoning from the death of his predecessor) or in his twenty-
eighth year (reckoning his tenure of the tribunician power). No other
way of reckoning his reign was ever employed by Romans.  How then could
Luke speak of his fifteenth year?  There can hardly be any other reason
than that the calculation was made under an Emperor whose years were
reckoned from his association as colleague; so that Luke, being familiar
with that method, applied it to the case of Tiberius.  Now that was the
case with Titus.  His reign began from his association with his father
on 1st July A.D. 71.

We thus get a clue, though in itself an uncertain one, to suggest the
date when Luke was at work.  His chronological calculations were
probably inserted as the finishing touches of Book I (p.  23), while
Titus was reigning as sole Emperor, 79-81 A.D.; and the composition of
that book belongs to the years immediately preceding, while the
composition of Book II belongs to the years immediately following.  This
argument, taken by itself, would be insufficient; but it is confirmed by
the impression which the book as a whole makes.  Acts could not have
been written so late as Trajan, when long persecution had altered the
tone and feeling of the Church towards the State.  It is the work of a
man whose mind has been moulded in a more peaceful time.  and who has
not passed through a time like the reign of Domitian (p.  22). On the
other hand, its tone is not that of assured conviction about the
relation to the State, such as we observe in Paul's Epistles.  It is the
tone of one who seeks to prove a position that is doubtful and assailed,
but still of one who believes that it may be proved.  As we have seen,
there runs through the entire work a purpose which could hardly have
been conceived before the State had begun to persecute on political
grounds.  So long as Christians were proceeded against merely on the
ground of crimes, which the accuser sought to prove by evidence (as was
the case with Paul, p.  360), there was no necessity to establish that
Christianity was legal.  Defence then consisted in disproving the
specific crimes charged against the individual Christian; but, after the
Flavian policy had declared Christianity illegal and proscribed the
Name, the first necessity for defence was to claim legal right.

3.  THEOPHILUS. It has an important bearing on Luke's attitude towards
the Roman State that his work is addressed to a Roman officer,* who had
become a Christian.  We may safely say that in the first century a Roman
official would hardly bear the name Theophilus; and therefore it must be
a name given to him at baptism, and used or known only among the
Christians.  The fact that his public name is avoided, and only the
baptismal name used, favours the supposition (though not absolutely
demanding it) that it was dangerous for a Roman of rank to be recognised
as a Christian.  In the narrative of Acts there is not the slightest
trace of private or baptismal names.  These seem to have been adopted
under the pressure of necessity and from the desire for concealment.
Thus the very dedication of the work points to a developed state of the
relations between Church and State, and carries us down to the time of
Domitian.

4.  THE FAMILY OF LUKE. We have made it an object to collect the scanty
traces of Luke's personality that remain in Acts; and we may therefore
conclude our task by referring to the tradition about his birthplace.
The later tradition, as it appears in Jerome, Euthalius, etc., declares
that Luke was an Antiochian,* but it is practically certain that the
authority for all the later statements is Eusebius.  Eusebius, however,
does not say that Luke was an Antiochian; he merely speaks of him as
"being according to birth of those from Antioch".* This curious and
awkward expression is obviously chosen in order to avoid the statement
that Luke was an Antiochian; and it amounts to an assertion that Luke
was not an Antiochian, but belonged to a family that had a connection
with Antioch.  Eusebius therefore had access to a more detailed and
distinct tradition, which he reproduces in this brief form.  The older
tradition must have told that Luke had a family connection with Antioch;
and Eusebius carefully restricts himself to that statement; but the
tradition probably set forth the exact connection, and it is perhaps
allowable to conclude our study with a conjecture.

Antioch, as a Seleucid foundation, had almost certainly a Macedonian
element in its population.  It is now well established that the military
strength of the Seleucid colonies lay usually in a contingent of
Macedonians; and a considerable number of Seleucid cities style
themselves Macedones on coins or inscriptions.  It is quite probable
that intercourse and connection may have been maintained between the
Macedonian element in Antioch and their original home; and migrations to
and fro are likely to have occurred between Macedonia and Antioch in the
constant and easy intercourse of the centuries following the foundation.
Thus it may very well have happened that Luke was a relative of one of
the early Antiochian Christians; and this relationship was perhaps the
authority for Eusebius's carefully guarded statement.  Further, it is
possible that this relationship gives the explanation of the omission of
Titus from Acts, an omission which every one finds it so difficult* to
understand.  Perhaps Titus was the relative of Luke; and Eusebius found
this statement in an old tradition, attached to II Cor.  VIII 18, XII
18, where Titus and Luke (the latter not named by Paul, but identified
by an early tradition) are associated as envoys to Corinth.  Luke, as we
may suppose, thought it right to omit his relative's name, as he did his
own name, from his history.  There is not sufficient evidence to justify
an opinion; but this conjecture brings together an enigmatic expression
in Eusebius and a serious difficulty in Acts, and finds in each a
satisfactory solution of the other.

III.-CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX TO THE LIFE

OF ST. PAUL

Entrance on public life (in his thirtieth year); see Preface, Ed.  II.
A.D. 30 or 31

Events culminating in the death of Stephen pp.  363-376 30.33

Journey to Damascus and Conversion 376, 378 note (year ending 2nd Sept.)
33

Retirement into Arabia 380 34

First visit to Jerusalem 381 35

Residence in Tarsus, etc.  46 35-43

Barnabas brings Saul to Antioch 45 43

The Prophecy of Agabus 49 early in 44

The famine in Jerusalem begins with failure of harvest 49-54, 68 45

Second visit to Jerusalem 55-62 winter 45-46

Return to Antioch 62-64 winter 46-47

First journey ordered 64-67 not later than Passover, 29th March, 47In
Cyprus 70-88 (Church* p.  60 f.)  till July 47

In Pamphylia 89-97 (Church 16-18, 61-65) July 47

In Pisidian Antioch 98-107 (Church 25-27, 66-68) till winter of 47

In Iconium (Church 36-46, 68) till summer 48

In Lystra 110-119, 128 (Church 47-54, 68 f.. till autumn 48

In Derbe 120 (Church 54-55, 59) winter 48-49

Return by stages through Lystra, Iconjura, Antioch, and across

Pisidia 120-123 (Church 70-73) Feb.-May 49

Short stay in Perga 124 (Church 72) June-July 49

Return by Attalia to Syrian Antioch 125 August 49

Third visit to Jerusalem: the Council 153-174 winter 49-50

Second journey begins 176 after the Feast, 25th March to 1st April 50

In Galatia 178-189 summer 50

Across Asia to Troas 194-212, 225 f.  about Oct.  50

In Philippi 213-226, 235 till about Dec.  50

In Thessalonica 227-231, 235 f.  Dec.  50-May 51

In Berea 232-234 May-July 51

In Athens 234, 237-252, 260 f.  August 51

In Corinth 252-261, 264 Sept.  51 to March 53

Arrival of Gallio 258 f.  July 52

Fourth visit to Jerusalem 263-266 at the Feast, 22nd-29th March 53

Short visit to Syrian Antioch: epistle to Galatians 265, 184-192 May 53

Third Journey begins 265 about June 53

 In Galatia 265 July and August 53

 In Ephesus, 265.  269-282 Oct.  53 to Jan.  56

 Wrote first Epistle to Corinthians 275 about Oct.  55

 In Troas 283 Feb.  56

 In Macedonia 286 till late autumn 56

 Wrote second Epistle to Corinthians 286 summer 56

 In Achaia three months 285 Dec.  56 to Feb.  57

 Journey to Philippi 287 March 57

 Start from Philippi for Troas on the way to Jerusalem 289 15th April 57

Fifth visit to Jerusalem: arrival 295 (day before) Pentecost, 28th May
57

Imprisonment in Palestine June 57 to July 59

Voyage to Rome 314-345 August 59 to Feb.  60

In Rome 346-360 until end of 61

Epistles to Colossians and Philemon 349 early in 61

Epistle to Philippians 357 late in 61

Trial and acquittal 356-360 end of 61

Later travels 360 62-66

Second trial 300-362 67