01. Chapter 1. THE OUTLINE GIVEN IN ACTS OF EVENTS IN ST. PAUL’S LIFE

CHAPTER I THE OUTLINE GIVEN IN ACTS OF EVENTS IN ST. PAUL’S LIFE

IT needs no argument to show that the problems concerning the Pauline Epistles can only be stated, much less solved, in connection with the evidence of the Acts. In the Acts we have not, indeed, any attempt to give an account of all St. Paul’s work, but we have an outline of a great part of it, and in some places detailed information as to his journeys, which it is impossible to overvalue. This outline of the course of events is the necessary basis of any attempt to reconstruct the background of the Epistles. Fortunately, it is quite easy to follow, and presents in itself hardly any serious difficulties. The writer of Acts takes us from city to city with St. Paul, and often gives us some indication of the time spent in each, so that with surprisingly few exceptions we can reconstruct St. Paul’s route, and (though here the degree of certainty is markedly less) the duration of his work in various districts.

Nevertheless, the matter is occasionally complicated by a series of critical questions, some of which in turn depend on the Epistles. Therefore we are to some extent dealing, in connection with St. Paul, with a problem involving two factors, one of which must always be assumed as certain when the other is under discussion, though neither can really be finally treated as possessing its assumed stability. Ideally the proper method is first to assume one factor, and afterwards to consider the necessary correction to be allowed for, owing to the possible range of error in the assumption. But in practice certain limitations can be usefully observed in carrying out such a plan. It is neither necessary nor desirable to fight all over again the battle of the acts in the spirit of Zeller the battle of the Acts in the spirit of Zeller or of his immediate oppenents Zeller still or of his immediate oppenents Zeller oppenents Zeller stll worth reading, but even though half a century of criticism has not been able to settle all the problems which have been raised in connection with the Acts, it has gone some way towards reducing them to manageable dimensions, so that for the purpose of the present book, which is concerned primarily with the Epistles, it is possible within very short limits to present a sufficient statement of the subject, showing the points on which there is especial room for doubt, and the general position which most commends itself to those who have fully investigated the Acts.

It would be generally admitted that the central point of all study of the Acts is the “we-clauses,” in which the writer speaks of himself and St. Paul in the first person plural. These clauses, by an almost unanimous consent, are regarded as the work of a companion of St. Paul; and there is scarcely less agreement in tracing most of the important facts of the “Pauline” half of Acts to the same source. The contentious points are concerned with the relation of this writer to the redactor, and with the earlier or “Petrine” half of the book. Many critics, by no means belonging to an extreme school, think that the “we-clauses” and the source to which they belong—which is very commonly recognized to have been the work of St. Luke, the friend of St. Paul—ought to be distinguished from the final redactor, who may have lived in the last days of the first century, and have compiled the Third Gospel and Acts from earlier documents. Others think that the writer of the “we-clauses” was himself the redactor, whom they identify with St. Luke, and consider that he used the first person in order to indicate the occasions on which he had been actually present at the incidents described. Professor Harnack’s studies on the question have done much to commend the latter opinion, but he has not yet succeeded in obtaining such a measure of agreement as to justify a writer on the Epistles in disregarding the alternative view.This question is not, however, of the first importance for the present subject, as there is in any case something approaching unanimity in assigning a high value to the “Pauline” half of Acts, though its accuracy is still questioned on some individual details; these will be considered, so far as is necessary, when they are met with in discussing the Epistles. Far more serious is the problem raised by the “Petrine” half of the Acts. Here it is conceded generally that the redactor, whether he was St. Luke or a later writer, was using various sources; but there is no agreement as to whether these sources were written or oral, or, if they were written, Greek or Aramaic. It is also generally conceded that these sources were not all of equal value, and that some difficulties in the opening narratives can best be explained on the hypothesis that the redactor, or one of his sources, had misunderstood the narrative. The importance of this fact for the Pauline Epistles is chiefly in connection with the Judaistic controversy. If, for instance, we assume that the redactor of Acts, as redactors are wont to do, made two incidents out of two narratives of the same incident, we have to face the possibility that Acts has multiplied the visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem, and this is an important factor in considering the problem of the relation between the visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1-21 and the Apostolic Council.

It will be seen that it will be necessary in the end to consider several points of this nature in relation to the Epistles; but the clearest method seems unquestionably to be found in starting with the narrative of Acts as we have in the ordinary Greek text, using this as the working hypothesis from which a study of the historical side of the Epistles must begin, and taking into consideration in the course of this study the modifications rendered possible by the criticism of the Acts. The narrative of the Acts, which it is proposed to use in this way, is familiar to every one, but for convenience it is perhaps not superfluous to state in the shortest possible summary the facts which it contains relating to St. Paul. The Acts describe St. Paul as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-29), A jew of Tarsus (Acts 21:39, Acts 22:1-30, Acts 23:1-35),called Saul in Jewish circles, who had been educated in Jerusalem under the guidance of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He was a zealous defender of a strict Pharisaic Judaism (Acts 22:3; Acts 23:6), and took part in the persecution of Christians (Acts 7:58; Acts 8:3, Acts 26:9-10). He was at his own request employed in this connection by the High Priest to go to Damascus in the interests of the anti-Christian Jewish propaganda (Acts 9:1-2; Acts 22:5; Acts 26:12), but on the way to that city he was suddenly converted by a vision of the risen Lord to believe the doctrine, which he had hitherto repudiated, that the Messiah was Jesus, and became as zealous a defender of Christianity, as he had previously been a persecutor of it (Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-10, Acts 26:9-10).

After his conversion he went first to Damascus (Acts 9:8), where he was cured of the temporary blindness which had befallen him, and was baptized by Ananias, a Christian of Damascus (Acts 9:10-19), who had been told in a vision to do this. Here he stayed for some time, preaching Christianity in the Jewish synagogues, but when the Jews became enraged at his gospel (Acts 9:19-25) he escaped to Jerusalem, where the disciples were at first afraid of him, but afterwards accepted him on the recommendation of St. Barnabas (Acts 9:26-27). He then spent some time in Jerusalem arguing with the Greek-speaking Jews, but when a plot was formed to kill him the disciples sent him to Caesarea and thence to Tarsus (Acts 9:28-30). How long he stayed in Tarsus is not stated: but it is probable that he spent his time in energetically preaching the gospel, for the next that is heard of him is that St. Barnabas, who had been sent from Jerusalem to Antioch to investigate and supervise the growing Christian community in that city, fetched St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him (Acts 11:22-26). From this point onwards our information becomes much fuller. The first important incident was the sending of St. Paul and St. Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem in order to bring help in the time of the famine (Acts 11:27-30). This is the second visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem that is mentioned in the Acts: what happened beyond the distribution of alms is not stated, and when it was finished St. Paul and St. Barnabas returned to Antioch (Acts 12:25). At Antioch the Church decided to take the important step of sending St. Barnabas and St. Paul, accompanied by John Mark, on a missionary expedition outside the province Syria Cilicia in which they had hitherto worked (Acts 13:1-3, Acts 13:5). They first went to Cyprus (Acts 13:4-12), and then crossed over to Perga in Pamphylia, where John Mark appears to have been reluctant to go any further and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). From Perga St. Barnabas and St. Paul went to Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14-50), Iconium (Acts 13:51-52, Acts 14:1-5), Lystra (Acts 14:6-10), and Derbe (Acts 1:1-21), passing in this way from the province of Pamphylia to that of Galatia, which is, however, not actually mentioned by name, and then retraced their steps to Perga (Acts 14:21-24). From Perga they went to the neighbouring port of Attalia, and thence sailed to Antioch in Syria, whence they had started (Acts 14:25-26). In Antioch they found that the peace of the community was disturbed by the arrival of members of the Church at Jerusalem who insisted on the necessity of circumcision (Acts 15:1), and in order to settle the disputes which arose it was arranged that St. Paul and St. Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles and elders, and represent the Antiochene point of view (Acts 15:2). The result was the famous “Council of Jerusalem” which decided, after hearing St. Paul and St. Barnabas, various Christians of the Pharisaic party, and finally St. Peter and St. James, that circumcision ought not to be demanded from Gentile Christians, but that they should be exhorted to keep themselves from “the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from things strangled], and from blood" (Acts 15:4-21). This decision, the text of which is doubtful (see pp. 48 ff.), was made the substance of a letter to the Christians of Antioch and its Province, Syria Cilicia, and entrusted to Judas Barsabbas and Silas to take to Antioch, whither St. Paul and St. Barnabas also returned (Acts 15:22-32). In Antioch they remained for some time; after which St. Paul and St. Barnabas formed the plan of revisiting the communities which they had established already. But as St. Paul would not agree to take again John Mark, who had turned back on the first journey, they separated, and St. Barnabas went to Cyprus, while St. Paul went with Silas through Syria Cilicia, and ultimately reached Derbe, Lystra (in which Timothy joined them), and Iconium (Acts 15:36, Acts 16:2). What next happened is a matter of dispute. The text of Acts says: “And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian Region (τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν) having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia, and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not, and passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas" (Acts 16:6-8), but exactly what this means is not quite certain, and, as it has some bearing on the Epistle to the Galatians, it will be discussed later in connection with that Epistle (see Chap. V.). In any case, whatever route St. Paul may have followed, in the end he reached Troas and thence went to Neapolis (the modern Cavalla), Philippi, where he was imprisoned and beaten (Acts 16:11-40), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9), and Beroea (Acts 17:10-14), (in both of which Jewish opposition put an end to his work,) and thus founded the Christian Churches of the Province of Macedonia. From Beroea, leaving Timothy and Silas behind, he went, partly by sea, to Athens (Acts 17:15-34)and then to Corinth where Timothy and Silas rejoined him. Here he stayed a year and six months, and founded the Church in that city, living with Aquila and Priscilla, Jews of Pontus who had recently come from Rome, and teaching first in the synagogue, and afterwards in the house of Titus Justus who lived next to it. He was here also brought before the Roman magistrate, Gallio, but acquitted (Acts 18:1-17). From Corinth he went for a short time to Ephesus, and then returned, possibly after a short visit to Jerusalem, to Antioch. This is generally regarded as the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18-22).

After an interval, spent in Antioch, St. Paul started on his third missionary journey, returning through the “Galatic Region and Phrygia,” along the hill country of the province of Asia, to Ephesus (Acts 18:23). In Ephesus he preached for three months in the synagogue, and afterwards for two years in the “school of Tyrannus,” with the result, according to St. Luke, that “all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:1-10). Towards the end of the period St. Paul formed the plan of going to Jerusalem, after paying a visit to his converts in Macedonia and Achaia, and then extending his field of preaching to Rome (Acts 19:21). It would also seem, from an allusion in his speech before Felix, that the reason for his desire to visit Jerusalem was the bringing of alms to the poor of the community (Acts 24:17). As a preliminary to this journey he sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia shortly before the time when he intended to leave Ephesus (Acts 19:22). His last days in Ephesus were rendered unpleasant by a riot raised against him by Demetrius, a silversmith, and worshipper of Artemis, who thought that St. Paul’s teaching was derogatory to his goddess, and harmful to his trade (Acts 19:23-41).

After the agitation raised by Demetrius had died down, St. Paul went through Macedonia to Achaia (Acts 20:1-2)—probably Corinth is intended—and formed the plan of sailing direct to Syria, but finding a plot among the Jews, changed his mind and returned over land through Macedonia to Philippi (Acts 20:3-6), whence after the Passover he crossed, in the company of the writer of the we-clauses, to Troas, where Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus joined him (Acts 20:4-6). Here they waited seven days, and the main body of the party then went in a coasting vessel to Assos, where St. Paul, who had gone by road, was again taken up (Acts 20:6, Acts 20:13). From Assos they sailed in stages to Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus, where St. Paul bade farewell to the Ephesian Presbyters, who came to see him (Acts 20:14-38). From Miletus they sailed to Cos, Rhodes, and Patara, and then changing ships sailed south of Cyprus to Tyre, where the ship stopped seven days, thence to Ptolemais, and Caesarea (Acts 21:1-8). In Caesarea they stayed for some time with Philip the Evangelist, who, it is mentioned, had four prophetess daughters (Acts 21:8-9), and during this stay Agabus prophesied that St. Paul would be imprisoned by the Jews, in Jerusalem (Acts 21:10-11). This made both his own party, and also the Caesarean community, urge him not to go to Jerusalem; but he held to his plan and insisted on going (Acts 21:12-14). On his arrival at Jerusalem St. Paul was received by St. James (Acts 21:18), who told him that the Jews regarded him as a renegade who preached to the Jews of the Diaspora that they should not circumcise their children nor “walk after the customs.” He suggested, therefore, that St. Paul should show his respect for the Jewish law by taking part in a vow which four men of the community had taken, and by paying their expenses (Acts 21:19-24). St. Paul agreed to do this, but before the week of the vow was completed Jews from Asia saw him in the temple and raised a tumult by accusing him of teaching against the law and of introducing Greeks into the temple (Acts 21:25-29). He was violently turned out of the temple, and only saved from being lynched by the interposition of Lysias, the tribunus militum in charge of the Roman garrison at Jerusalem, who arrested him (Acts 21:33; Acts 23:26). This arrest was the beginning of a long imprisonment. St. Paul was tried four times without any decisive verdict being given. (1) By the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem (Acts 22:30; Acts 23:10). (2) By the Governor Felix in Caesarea, where he had been sent by Lysias in consequence of a Jewish plot which rendered it unsafe to keep him in Jerusalem (Acts 23:12-27). (3) After two years, when Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, St. Paul was brought before Festus, who proposed that he should go to Jerusalem and there be tried. St. Paul, however, stood on his rights and demanded to be tried by Caesar’s tribunal, and Festus determined to send him to Rome (Acts 25:13). (4) A short time after this Herod Agrippa II. was staying in Caesarea, and Festus brought St. Paul before him. The result of this trial before Agrippa was favourable to St. Paul, but having appealed to Caesar (whose representative Agrippa was not) he could not be released (Acts 25:13; Acts 26:32), and soon afterwards was sent off by sea, accompanied, it would seem, by St. Luke and by Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 27:6-44) . Thus ended the first period of imprisonment, at Caesarea, which seems to have lasted rather more than two years (Acts 24:27).

St. Paul’s voyage to Rome was adventurous: he started from Caesarea in a ship of Adramyttium which was going to the coast of the Province of Asia. After touching at Sidon they sailed across, leeward of Cyprus, to Myra (Acts 27:2-5). Here they changed into a ship of Alexandria, bound for Italy, and made their way with difficulty to Fair Havens, near Lasea in Crete. It was now the late autumn, and sailing became dangerous, but the captain tried to push on, and being caught in a strong north-easterly wind was wrecked on the island of Malta (Acts 27:6-44). Here St. Paul, his friends, and escort spent the winter (Acts 28:1-10), and after three months sailed in another Alexandrian ship, called the Dioscuri, to Syracuse, Rhegium, and finally Puteoli (Acts 28:11-13), where they landed, and, after a week’s rest, made their way to Rome, being met at Appii Forum and Three Taverns by members of the Christian community at Rome (Acts 28:14-15). On his arrival, St. Paul was lodged by himself, possibly in an inn (cf. ξενίαν, Acts 28:23), in the custody of a soldier (Acts 28:16). After three days he summoned the Jews to hear him, and on two separate occasions they came. On the first the main issue of the meeting was the charges brought against him: of these the Jews professed complete ignorance, and said that no instruction had reached them from Jerusalem Acts 28:17-22). On the second occasion St. Paul explained his teaching, and when the Jews, with some exceptions, would not believe, he announced to them, with a quotation from Isaiah, his intention of preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 28:23-23). At this point the narrative in Acts is closed by the statement “And he abode two full years in his own hired dwelling, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding him” (Acts 28:30-31), a curious and enigmatic conclusion, which has often been discussed, and leaves us doubtful whether St. Paul was acquitted, condemned, or dismissed for lack of evidence.

Such is the sequence of events with which the Acts provide us. For the present purpose it is invaluable as affording the outline of the missionary activity of St. Paul which is one of the chief features in that background of the Epistles which it is proposed to reconstruct. It is no doubt imperfect; St. Paul must have done much more than St. Luke recorded, and, therefore, the mention in the Epistles of events which find no place in the Acts is not surprising. But, imperfect though it be, it covers most fully precisely that period to which all the Epistles, except the Pastorals, belong. As will be seen, we are able to fix with tolerable certainty the time when the Epistles were written, even though the degree of certainty is by no means always the same, and this result is chiefly owing to the record of the sequence of events in the Acts. It is, of course, obvious that the statements in the Acts are not always plain, and so far as this is the case they will be discussed fully in connection with the Epistles on which they have a bearing, but on the whole, and considering the character of the book, Acts is a first-rate historical document, and singularly easy to understand, so far as the mere enumeration of events is concerned. The enumeration of events, however, is only the beginning of historical research, and it is far more difficult, as well as more important, to discover from the Acts that development of tendencies and ideas which produced the controversies and problems that called forth the Pauline Epistles. For this purpose it will be necessary to consider the real meaning of the Judaistic controversy, of which the Council at Jerusalem was the culminating point, but by no means the end, and the results which sprang from the ensuing propagation of Christianity in the Graeco-Roman world.

Footnotes:

¹Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht, 1854. Published in English by Williams and Norgate in 1875 as The Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles.

¹Untersuchungen zu den Schriften des Lukas, Hinrichs, 1906–8. These studies were originally published in three volumes, under the titles of Lukas der Arzt, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, and Die Apostelgeschichte. They have been published in English by Williams and Norgate, as Luke the Physician, The Sayings and Words of Jesus, and The Acts of the Apostles.

²No special book more recent than Harnack can be cited; but very important articles will be found in theTheol. Literaturzeitung, vol. 33 pp. 172–6, by Schürer; in the Theologische Rundschau, vol. xi. pp. 185–205, by Bousset; in the American Journal of Theology, vol. 11 pp. 454–474, by Bacon; and in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, vol. 1. pp. 176–214, by Hilgenfeld. Bousset’s article gives a full account of all recent studies of the Acts of any importance.

⁵Or Titius; the text is doubtful.

⁷It is sometimes disputed if the island was really Malta, but the point is immaterial for the present purpose.

³This is the traditional view; but the evidence of the Papyri points to the probability that ξενία means “hospitality”; see Moulton and Milligan in the Expositor, March, 1910, p. 286, who regard this view as “practically certain.”

⁸In favour of the view that the trial was quashed because no hostile witnesses appeared, see Interpreter, 1909, pp. 147 ff. and 438 f., What was the end of St. Paul’s trial?