« 前へ次へ »
clearly implies that his Apostolic office and labours were well known and
II. On the other hand the identification adopted involves various diffi-Objections culties, which however, when weighed, do not seem sufficient to turn the answered. scale. These difficulties are of two classes:
(i) Discrepancies appearing to exist between the two narratives. (i) Discre
On the whole however the circumstances of the writers and the different Pancies. purposes of the narrators seem sufficient to explain the divergences, real or apparent, in the two accounts: and the remarks made in comparing the two records of the former visit apply with even more force to this (see p. 91). The alleged discrepancies are these :
(a) In the Acts St Paul is represented as sent to Jerusalem by the (a) Motive Christians of Antioch to settle some disputes which had arisen there: in of the the Epistle he states that he went up by revelation. Here however there” is no contradiction. The historian naturally records the external impulse, which led to the mission: the Apostle himself states his inward motive. ‘What I did,” he says, “I did not owing to circumstances, not as yielding to pressure, not in deference to others, but because the Spirit of God told me it was right.” The very stress which he lays on this revelation seems to show that other influences were at work.
The following parallel cases suggest how the one motive might supplement the other.
(a) In Acts ir. 29, 30, it is said, “They went about to slay him, which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.’ St Paul's own account of this incident, Acts xxii. 17 sq., is as follows: “While I prayed in the temple I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me, etc.' (3) In Acts xiii. 2–4 the mission of Paul and Barnabas is attributed both to the Holy Spirit and to the Church of Antioch : “The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away (dréAvorav). So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost (ikreg pàevres oró row dysov tweiHaros) etc.' (y) Acts xv. 28, ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” (b) St Paul speaks of his communications as made to the Apostles in (b) Chaprivate: St Luke's narrative describes a general congress of the Church. racter of The divergence is due to the different aims of the two writers. St Paul *::: is dwelling on what he owed or did not owe to the Twelve. St Luke de-
(c) Relations of St Paul with the Twelve.
(ii) Omis. 8.10118.
scribes the results as affecting the interests of the Church at large. St Paul
are the direct omissions of St Paul, on the supposition that he is speaking of the visit of Acts xv. (a) Above all, how comes it, that while enumerating his visits to Jeru- (a) and salem, St Paul should mention the first and third, and pass over the second Yisit to recorded in the Acts 7 Jerusalem. The answer is to be sought in the circumstances under which that visit was paid. 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. At this season of terror and confusion Paul and Barnabas arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had retired 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 Judaea. Having deposited these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient speed. Any lengthened stay might endanger their lives. Nor indeed was there any motive for remaining. Even had St Paul purposed holding conferences with the Apostles or the Church of the Circumcision, at this moment of dire distress it would have been impossible". Of this visit then, so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object is not to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations with the Twelve; and on these relations it had no bearing. (b) The omission of all mention of the Apostolic decree is a less con- (b) The siderable difficulty. The purport of the decree itself, and the form of Apostolio opposition which St Paul encountered in Galatia, sufficiently explain his * silence”. (1) The provisions of this decree seem to have been, as I have already mentioned, “Articles of Peace.” The Apostolic letter was only addressed to the Gentile brethren ‘in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia’ (xv. 23), that is, to the churches more directly in communication with Palestine, and therefore materially affected by the state of feeling and practice among the Jewish Christians. There is no reason for supposing that the decree was intended to be permanent and universal. It was drawn up to meet a special emergency, and its enactments accordingly are special. The Gentile Apostles seem to have delivered it scrupulously in those churches which had been already founded and which had felt the pressure of Jewish
prejudice (Acts xvi. 4). But in the brotherhoods afterwards formed and
Patristic accounts of the collision at Antioch.
The inci. The conduct of St Peter at Antioch has been a great stumblingblock do both in ancient and modern times. It has been thought strange that the go very Apostle, to whom was specially vouchsafed the revelation that there is character. nothing common or unclean, and who only a short time before this meeting at Antioch had declared himself plainly in favour of Gentile liberty, should have acted in a manner so inconsistent with all that had gone before. Accordingly some have sought to wrest St Paul's language here, and others have denied the accuracy of the narrative in the Acts. But in fact St Peter's character, as it is drawn in the Gospels, explains every difficulty.
* I Cor. x. 27 sq., Rom. xiv. 2 sq. portant recent works will be given in This question will be considered more the notes to the dissertation on ‘St at length in the dissertation on ‘St Paul and the Three.” Since the 1st Paul and the Three.” edition of this volume was published
* The accounts of this crisis in the I have read the articles of Reuss, La Apostolic history given by Neander Conférence de Jérusalem, in the Nouvelle Pflanz. I. p. 205 sq., and de Pressensé Revue de Théologie, XII. p. 324, XIII. p. Trois Premiers Siècles, Ire série, 1. p. 62. Though they contain many things 457 sq., seem to me on the whole with which I cannot agree, I gladly among the most truthful, preserving recognise the spirit of fairness in which a just mean between exaggerations on they are written. either side. Other references to im
It is at least no surprise, that he who at one moment declared himself ready to lay down his life for his Lord's sake and even drew his sword in defence of his Master, and the next betrayed Him with a thrice repeated denial, should have acted in this case, as we infer he acted from the combined accounts of St Luke and St Paul. There is the same impulsive courage followed by the same shrinking timidity. And though St Paul's narrative stops short of the last scene in this drama, it would not be rash to conclude that it ended as the other had ended, that the revulsion of feeling was as sudden and complete, and that again he went out and wept bitterly, having denied his Lord in the person of these Gentile converts. The history of the patristic interpretations of this passage is painfully Becomes a instructive. The orthodox fathers of the early Church were sore pressed o: both by heretics and unbelievers. On the one hand Ebionite writers, like too. the author of the Clementines, made it a ground for a personal attack on St Paul". On the other, extreme Gnostics such as Marcion used it to prove the direct antagonism of Christianity to Judaism as represented by the opposition of the Gentile to the Jewish Apostle”. And lastly, Porphyry and other writers availed themselves of the incident as an engine of assault on Christianity itself, impugning the characters of both Apostles in language which the fathers describe as coarse and blasphemous”. How were these diverse attacks to be met? Tertullian, arguing against the Marcionites, resisted all temptations to wrest the plain meaning of the passage". Cyprian and Ambrose moreover took it in its obvious sense". The same is done also by the commentators Victorinus and Hilary. But the majority of early writers fell into the snare. Two disingenuous expla-Solutions nations were put forward to meet the attacks of heretics and unbelievers; proposed each originating, it would appear, in one of the great fathers of Alexandria," and dividing between them the allegiance of subsequent writers. 1. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned (i) Clewas not the Apostle Peter, but one of the seventy disciples bearing the ment. same name. Though the passage itself absolutely excludes such a view, it nevertheless found several adherents, and is mentioned by Eusebius" with