The whole question of glossolalia can be studied in H. Gun- kel, Die Wirkimgen des heiligen Geistes, Gottingen, 1899 ; H. Lietzmann's Commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch zum NT, iii. 2, Tiibingen, 1909 ; J. Weiss, ' 1 Cor." in Meyer's Krit.-Exeg. Kommentar, Gottingen, 1910 (9th ed. of '1 Cor.').
(b) The accounts given in Acts and Galatians of St. PauVs visits to Jerusalem. — The points of divergence, which are serious, are concerned with (a) St. Paul's actions immediately after the con- version ; (/3) his first visit to Jerusalem ; (7) his second visit to Jerusalem.
(a) St. PauVs actions immediately after the con- version.— The two accounts of this complex of in- cidents are Ac 9i"-3" and Gal l^^'^K The main points in the two narratives may be arranged thus in parallel columns : —
Acts.
Galatiaks.
1. Visit to Damascus immedi- 1. Visit to Arabia immediately
ately after the conversion. after the conversion.
2. Escape from Damascus and 2. A ' return ' to Damascus.
journey to Jerusalem.
3. Retreat from Jerusalem to 3. A visit to Jerusalem ' after
Tarsus in Cilicia. three years.'
4. Departure to the ' districts of Syria and Cilicia."
The difference between these accounts is obvious, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Acts is here inaccurate. It should be noted, however that the inaccuracy apparently consists in tele scoping togetlier two visits to Damascus and omit ting the Arabian journey which came between them St. Paul, by speaking of his ' return ' to Damascus, implies that the conversion had been in that city and in 2 Co 11*^'* ('in Damascus the ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damas- cenes to take me, and I was let down in a basket through a window') we have a corroboration of the
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
19
escape mentioned in Acts, though it clearly must come after the visit (probably of a missionary character) to Arabia, in order to account for the hostility of Aretas. Thus, so far as the enumera- tion of events is concerned, the inaccuracy of Acts resolves itself into the omission of the Arabian visit, and the consequent telescoping together of two visits to Damascus along with a proportion- ate shortening of the chronology.
(/3) St. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem. — The de- tails of this visit are a more serious matter, and Acts and Galatians cannot fully be reconciled, as is plain when the narratives are arranged in parallel columns.
Ac 928-30.
' And when he was come to
Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples : and they were all afraid of him, not helieving that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them g'oing in and coming out at Jeru- salem, and he spake and dis- puted against the Hellenists ; but they went about to kill him.'
OAL 118-23.
• After three years I went up to Jerusalem to become ac- quainted with Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now touching the things which I write to you, before God, I lie not. Then I came into the districts of Sy ria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judsa which were in Christ : but they only heard say. He that persecuted us once now preachelh the faith of which be once made havoc'
No argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks of a period of preaching in Jerusalem which attracted sufficient attention to endanger St. Paul's life, Mhile Galatians describes an essentially private visit to Peter ; probably both documents refer to the same visit, as they place it between •St. Paul's departure from Damascus and his arrival in Cilicia, but they give divergent accounts of it.
(7) St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem. — It is possible that the difficulties here are due to a mis- taken exegesis rather than to any real divergence between Acts and Galatians. If we start from the facts, it is clear that St. Paul describes in Gal 2''" his second visit to Jerusalem. In the course of this he held a private interview with the apostles in Jerusalem, in consequence of which he was free to continue his preaching to the Gentiles without hindrance. It is also clear from Ac 11-^^- 12^ that St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem was during the time of the famine. If Ave accept the identi- fication of the second visit according to Acts with the second visit according to Galatians, there is no difficulty beyond the fact that Acts does not state that St. Paul and the other apostles discussed their respective missions when they met in Jerusalem ; but, since this discussion altered nothing — the Gentile mission had already begun — tliere was no special reason why Luke should have mentioned it. Usuallj^ however, critics have assumed that the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal 2^"'" is not the second but the third visit referred to in Acts, so that the interview with the ajjostles described in Gal 2 is identified with the ' Ajiostolic Council' in Ac 15. Great difficulties then arise : it is obviously essential to St. Paul's argument that he should not omit any of his visits to Jerusalem, and it is not easy to understand why, if he is writing after the Apostolic Council, he does not mention tlie decrees. There would seem to have been a party in Galatia which urged that circumcision was necessary for all Christians ; this point had been settled at the Apostolic Council. If the Council had taken place, why did St. Paul not say at once that the judaizing attitude had been condemned by the heads of the Jerusalem Church ?