These difficulties have been met in England since the time of Lightfoot by assuming that the Apos- tolic decrees had only a local and e[/hemeral import- ance, in which case it does not seem obvious why they are given so prominent a place in Acts. In Germany this difficulty has been more fully ap- preciated, and either the account in Ac 15 — identi- fied with Gal 2 — has been abandoned as wholly unhistorical, or the suggestion has been made that the account in Gal 2 is really a more accurate statement of what happened during St. Paul's interview with the ajio>tles, wliich probably took place during the famine, while the ' decrees ' mentioned in Acts really belong to a later period — perhaps St. Paul's last visit to Jerusalem — and have been misplaced by Luke.
All these suggestions (and a difierent combination is given by almost every editor) agree in giving up the accuracy of Ac 15. On the other hand, if the view be taken that Gal 2 refers to an interview between St. Paul and the Jerusalem apostles during the time of the famine, and that it settled not the question of circumcision, but that of continuing the mission to the Gentiles which had been begun in Antioch, there is no further difii- culty in thinking that Ac 15 represents the dis- cussion of the question of circumcision whicli inevitably arose as soon as the Gentile mission expanded. It is, therefore, desirable to ask whether the reasons for identifying Gal 2 and Ac 15 are decisive. The classical statement in Eng- lish is that of Lightfoot (Epistle to the Galatians, p. 123ff. ), who formulates it by saying that there is an identity of geography, persons, subject of dispute, character of the conference, and result. Of these identities only the first is fully accurate ; and it applies equally well to the visit to Jerusalem in the time of the famine. The persons are not quite the same, for Titus and John are not mentioned in Acts. The subject is not the same at all, for in Galatians the question of the Law is not discussed (and was apparently raised only by St. Peter's conduct later on in Antioch), bttt merely whether the mission to the uncircumcised should be continued,* while in Acts the circum- cision of the Gentiles is the main point. The character of the conference is not the same at all, for in Galatians it is a private discussion, in Acts a full meeting of the Church ; and the result is not the same, for tiie one led up to the Apostolic decrees, while the otiier apparently did not do so. Lightfoot to some extent weakens these objections by suggesting that St. Paul de- scribes a private conference before the Coimcil, but in so doing he weakens his own case still more, for he can give no satisfactory reason whj- St. Paul should carefullj' describe a private conference, but omit the public meeting and official result tu which it was preliminary.
Thus, if the identification of Gal 2 and Ac 15 be abandoned, the objections which are raised against the account in Acts fall to the ground, and the resultant arguments against the identi- fication of the writer of Acts with Luke are proportionately weakened.
The question may be studied in detail in C. Clemen, Paulus, GJessen, 1904 ; A. C. McGiffert, A History nf Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1S97 ; A. Harnack, Apostel- gesch., Leipzig, 1908; J. B. Lig-htfoot, Galatians, Canibridge, 1865 ; K. Lake, Earlier EpistUs of St. Paul, London, 1911 ; C. W. Emmet, Galatiaiis, London, 1912.
(c) The movements of St. PauVs companions in Macedonia and Achnia in Ac 17^^ 18^ compared ivith 1 Th 5"-^.— The ditterence between these narratives is concerned with the movements of Timothy and Silas. According to Acts, when St.
* From the context it is clear that to evayye\iov T19S aKpofivarCai . . . TTJ! TrepiTo^ris means the gospel for the Uncircumcision (i.e. the Gentiles) and the Circumcision {i.e. the Jews).
20
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
Paul ■went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas in Beroea, and sent a message to them either from Athens or from some intermediate point, asking them to rejoin him as soon as possible, but they did not actually join him until he readied Corinth (Ac 18^). This arrival of Timothy at Corinth is mentioned in 1 Th S**, but, according to the im- plication of 1 Th 3"-, Timothy (and Silas ?) had already reached Athens and been sent away again with a message to Thessalonica. In this case Acts omits the whole episode of Timothy's arrival at and departure from Athens, and telescopes together two incidents in much the same way as seems to have been done with regard to St. Paul's visits to Damascus immediately after the conversion. This is the simplest solution of the question, though it is possible to find other conceivable theories, such as von Dobschiitz'a suggestion that 1 Tli 3^ need not mean that Timothy came to Athens, as the facts would be equally covered if a message from St. Paul had intercepted him on his way from Beroea to Athens and sent him to Thessalonica.
The best account of various ways of dealing- with the question is given by E. von Dobschiitz, ' Die Thessalonicherbriefe,' in Meyer's Krit.-Excget. EommentarT, Gottingen, 1909.