writes history ad narrandum.
These are not simply the suspicions and conjectures of a carping and defiant criticism. They are well founded inductions; every time that we have reviewed the Acts we have found the book systematically faulty. The control which we can demand of the synoptical texts, we can demand also of St. Paul, and particularly of the Epistle to the Galatians. It is clear, then, where the Acts and the Epistles do not accord, preference should always be given to the latter, which are older, possess absolute authenticity, thorough sincerity, and freedom from legendary corruption. The most important doctrines for history are those which possess in the least degree the historic form. The authority of chronicles must give place to medals, maps, or authentic letters. Viewed in this light, the epistles of undoubted authors and well-authenticated dates form the basis of all the history of Christian origins. Without them, doubts would weaken and destroy all faith even in the life of Jesus. Now, in two very important instances, the Epistles display in broad light the peculiar tendencies of the author of the Acts, and his desire to efface every trace of the dissensions which had existed between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem.[I.48]
And firstly, the author of the Acts makes out that Paul, after the accident at Damascus (X. 19, and following verses; XXII. 17, and following verses), came to Jerusalem at an epoch when his conversion was hardly known; that he had been presented to the apostles; that he had lived with them and the faithful brethren on the most cordial terms; that he had disputed publicly with the Hellenistic Jews, and that a conspiracy on their part and a celestial revelation led to his departure from Jerusalem. Now Paul informs us that the matter was quite different. To prove that he owes to Jesus Himself and not to the Twelve his doctrine and mission, he says (Gal. I. 11, and following verses) that after his conversion he avoided taking counsel with any one,[I.49] or going to Jerusalem to consult with those who had been apostles before himself; but that of his own accord he went to preach and to carry out his personal mission in Hauran; that three days later, it is true, he journeyed to Jerusalem, but only to make the acquaintance of Cephas; that he remained fifteen days, but saw no other apostle, excepting, perhaps, James, the brother of the Lord; so that, really, his countenance was quite unknown to the churches of Judea. The effort to soften the asperities of the severe apostle and present him as a co-worker of the Twelve, laboring in concert with them at Jerusalem, hence seems without evidence. It has been given to appear that Jerusalem was his capital and point of departure; that his doctrine was so identical with that of the apostles that he was able, to a great degree, to take their place as preachers; that his first apostolate was confined to the synagogues of Damascus; that he had been a disciple and listener, which was not the fact;[I.50] that the time between his conversion and his first journey to Jerusalem was very short; that his sojourn in that city was quite protracted; that his preaching was received with general satisfaction; that he lived on intimate terms with all the apostles, though he assures us that he had seen but two of them; and that the faithful of Jerusalem took care of him, though Paul declares that they were unknown to him.
The same disposition to prove that Paul was a frequent visitor to Jerusalem, which had induced our author to prolong the apostle’s stay in Jerusalem, seems also to have induced him to credit the apostle with one journey too many. He says that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas, bearing the offerings of the faithful after the year 44 (Acts XI. 30; XII. 25). Now, Paul expressly declares that between the journey made three years after his conversion and that made in relation to the subject of circumcision, he did not go to Jerusalem at all (Gal. I. and II.); in other words, between Acts IX. 26, and XV. 2, Paul makes no mention of any travel. One could wrongly deny the identity of the journey described in the second chapter of Galatians with that mentioned in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and yet not be subject to contradiction. “Three years after my conversion,” says St. Paul, “I went to Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Cephas, and fourteen years afterwards I went again to Jerusalem.” There has been some doubt whether this period of fourteen years dates from the conversion, or from the journey three years subsequent to that event. We will assume the first hypothesis as being most favorable to those who defend the account as given in Acts. There would then, according to St. Paul, have been at least eleven years between his first and second journey to Jerusalem; now surely there are not eleven years between that which is related in Acts IX. 26 and the following verses, and the account which we find in Acts XI. 30, etc. By maintaining it against all show of truth, one would fall into another impossibility. The truth is, that which is related in Acts XI. 30 is contemporaneous with the death of James, the son of Zebedee,[I.51] which having just preceded the death, in the year 44, of Herod Agrippa I., furnishes us with the only fixed date in the Acts of the Apostles.[I.52] The second journey took place at least fourteen years after his conversion; and if he had really made that journey in the year 44—the conversion must have occurred in the year 30—a theory which is manifestly absurd. It is then impossible to allow any credence to the statements in Acts XI. 30 and XII. 35.
All of these journeyings to and fro appear to be reported by our author in a very inexact manner; and in comparing Acts XVII. 14–16, and XVIII. 5, with 1 Thessalonians III. 1–2, another discrepancy will be found. As this last, however, has nothing to do with doctrinal matters, we shall not discuss it here.
An important feature of the subject now before us, and one which throws much light on this difficult question of the historical value of the Acts, is a comparison of the passages relative to the discussion concerning circumcision in the fifteenth chapter of Acts and the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. According to the Acts, certain of the brethren of Judea coming to Antioch and maintaining the necessity of the rite of circumcision for converted heathen, Paul, Barnabas, and several others were appointed as a deputation to go from Antioch to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders on this question. They were warmly received by their brethren at the Holy City, and a great convention was held. The sentiments of reciprocal charity which prevailed, and the great satisfaction experienced by these co-religionists at thus meeting again together, dispelled all feeling of dissension. Peter gave utterance to the opinion which had been anticipated from the mouth of Paul, viz. that the converted heathen were not subject to the law of Moses. James modified this only by a very light restriction.[I.53] Paul did not speak, and indeed had no reason to do so, because his views were fully expressed by Peter; and the theory of the Judean brethren found no supporters. According to the advice of James, a solemn decree was made and communicated by deputies expressly chosen to the various churches.
Let us now examine the account given by Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians. It was his desire that this journey to Jerusalem should have the effect of a spontaneous movement, or even be deemed the result of a revelation. On his arrival at Jerusalem he communicated his gospel to whom it concerned, and had private interviews with many important personages. No one criticised his actions nor troubled him with communications, but only begged him to remember the poor of Jerusalem. Titus, who accompanied him, consented to be circumcised{I.54}, but only through the representations of “two false intruding brethren.” Paul permitted this incidental concession, but he would not submit to them. As to the more prominent men (and Paul never speaks of them excepting with a shade of bitterness and irony), they learn nothing new from him. He even disputed with Cephas “because he was wrong.” At first, indeed, Cephas mingled with every one without distinction. Emissaries arrived from James; and Peter hid himself, avoiding the uncircumcised. Paul publicly apostrophized Cephas, bitterly reproaching him for his conduct, “seeing that he did not keep in the narrow path of gospel truth.”
Observe the difference. On the one side holy concord; on the other, extreme susceptibility and half-restrained anger. On one side a harmonious council; and on the other, nothing resembling it. On the one side a formal decree emanating from a recognised authority; on the other, antagonistic opinions reciprocally conceding nothing excepting for form’s sake. It is needless to say which version merits our preference. The account given in the Acts is scarcely truthful, because the dispute in which the Council was engaged is not alluded to after the Council was reunited. The two orators here make use of expressions contradictory to what they had elsewhere said. The decree which the Council is reported to have made, is assuredly a fiction. If this decree, emanating from the pen of James, had really been promulgated, why should the good and timid Peter have been afraid of the messengers sent by James? Why should he hide himself? He, as well as the Christians of Antioch, was acting in entire conformity with this decree, the