It has lieen assumed that Ac l.'> refers to the same event as Oal 'Ji-n*; but tills, althoiiph commonlv, is not universally accepted. Wliv. It Is asked, does St. Paul omit all reference to the visit recorded in Ac IIM? This Is a penulne ditllculty. It has been suppesled that there has been a dlsarraiipement In the Acts. and. owlnp to a confusion of sources, olii' of the later visits has been liiiplieatcd. The arpument apalnst this is that Harnabas is representeil as the companion of St, Paul, and that he had left him at a later date, A mistake in ehronolopy is probable, but not a mistake as to the companionship. On the other side, liainsav (.SV, Aim/, p. 4S) Identities the visit of Oal .21-1(1 „,ii|, Hint of Ac 1 1-1". He lays prent stress on the diffleulty Involved In supposlnp that St, Paul omitted all reference to this Journey. Hut the reasons plveii bv Llphtfoot -that the apostles were not In .lerusalem. ami that therefore there was no need for tlie visit to be mentioned — are accejited by Hurt iJiiditinfic ChriHtiaiiiti/, [>. Td las sutticlent. We must refer the reader to Kamsay'sown liook for the discussion of the subject, but can only say that he has not succeeded In convincing us. A reasonable
32
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
criticism must say that the two narratives we are considering refer to the same events ; that the accounts they contain are independent and supplementary, but not contradictory isee the discussion between Sauday and Kamsay in Expositor, Feb. l*yti, and foil, numbers).
to) The third point need not detain us lon^r. It is merely that St. Luke does not record a narrative concerning St. Peter mentioned by St. Paul. He may have been ignorant of it ; he may have thought that it did not answer his purpose ; he may even have thought it better to omit an incident which he felt was discreditable. AVhat is important to notice is that the narrative in Galatians proves conclusively that the standpoint of the Acts is correct. It was quite impossible that St. Paul could accuse St. Peter of hypocrisy unless he had already adopted bis view. * It is clear from Gal '2*' '*'. that Peter then and for long before occupied in principle the standpoint of Paul' (Harnack, Iliat. of Dogma, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 90).
An examination of these narratives proves the independence of the two accounts, and each corroborates the other in various points. Wlien we turn to the general narrative in the Acts and compare it with that which can be gathered from the Epistles, we find three characteristics — inde- pendence, broad resemblances, and subtle points of contact. All the Epistles which correspond to the same period will fit into the narrative, while the minute coincidences which have been brought out by Paley, whose argument is not out of date, — more particularly that concerning the collection for the saints, — have very substantial evidential value.
3. The Archoeological Evidence. — A great test of the accuracy of the writer in the last twelve chapters is given by the evidence from archaeology. Its strength and value are so great that we need only refer to it. The investigations of the last twenty or thirty years have tended more and more to confirm the accuracy of the writer. In almost every point where we can follow him, even in minute details, he is right. He knows that at the time when St. Paul visited Cyprus it was governed by a proconsul ; this was the case only between the years B.C. 22 and some time early in the 2nd cent. ; then a change was made, probably in Hadrian's reign. He knows that the magistrates of Philippi were called (rrpaT-qyol, and were attended by lictors, but that those of Thessalonica were iraKirapxc'. He knows that Derbe and Lystra, but not Iconium, are cities of Lycaonia. The subject has been worked out in considerable detail by Lightfoot and Kamsay, and it is sufficient to refer to them. It is enough, too, to refer here to the very complete investigations of the account of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck made by James Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul). We need not enter into details, as they are admitted. What we must emphasize is the bearing of this evidence. It proves, in the first place, that in the latter portion of the Acts the writer had good and accurate sources of information. It is quite im- possible that he should be correct in all these points unless he had good material, or was himself conversant with the events. But it also proves, however we think he acquired the information, that he was accurate in the use of his sources. It is quite inconceivable that a writer who is so accurate in a large ninnber of small and difficult points could have, as is maintained, used .losephus, and used him with incredible inaccuracy. This evidence, on the other hand, does not prove that the writer is necessarily as trustworthy in the earlier portions of the history, where his sources of information were less good. It does suggest that he would get as accurate information as possible, and reproduce it correctly.
4. We pass backward to the transition period, which begins with the preaching of Stephen ami 3Xtends to the end of the apostolic council. This is clearly the most important period in the history, and we have few means of controlling it. We have little independent evidence. What we can