2. Is it more probable that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem or went to Galilee?— The evidence tliat the disciples went to Galilee is found in Mark.f The end of Mark is, of course, missing, but there are in the existing text two indications that the appearances of the risen Christ were in Galilee, and therefore that the disciples must have returned there after the Crucihxion. (a) Mk H^''-, « All ye shall be offended ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.' This seems intended to prepare the way for the flight of the disciples after the arrest in Geth- semane ; the meaning of the second part, ' I will go before you into Galilee,' is obscure, but in any case it implies a return to Galilee. (6) Mk 16^ (tlie message of the young man at the tomb), ' Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee, there shall you see him.' Here it is quite clearly stated that the first appearance of the risen Christ to the disciples is to be in Galilee, and once more it must be urged that this implies that the disciples went there.
On the other hand, the evidence of Luke and the Acts is that the disciples did not leave Jeru- salem, and that, so far from the risen Lord announ- cing His future appearance to the disciples in Galilee, He actually told them to remain in Jerusalem.
That the two traditions thus exist cannot be questioned, nor can they be reconciled without violence. If, however, we have to choose between them, the Galilsean tradition seems to deserve the preference. It is in itself much more probable that the disciples fled to Galilee when they left Jesus to be arrested by Himself, than that they went into Jerusalem. If they were, as the narra- tive says, panic-stricken, Jerusalem was the last place to which those who were not inhabitants of that city would go. Moreover, it is not diflicult to see that the tendency of Christian history would have naturally emphasized Jerusalem and omitted Galilee, for it is certainly a fact that from the be- ginning the Christian Church found its centre in Jerusalem and not in Galilee. Why this was so is obscure, and there is a link missing in the history of the chain of events. This must be recognized, but what either source B or Luke himself (if Ac 1 be not part of source B) has done is to connect up the links of the chain as if the Galihean link had never existed. So far as this goes, it is a reason for not accepting Ac 1 as an accurate account of history ; and this judgment perhaps reflects on source B and certainly in some measure on Luke. It must, however, be noted that it ought not seriously to attect our judgment on Luke's account of later events. The period between the Crucifixion and the growth of the Jerusalem community was naturally the most obscure point in the history of Christianity ; and, even if Luke
• Of course, if this be so, there is a contradiction between Ac 1 and 2, and it becomes more probaVjle (a) that Ac 1 is from a separate tradition from source 15 ; {b) tiiat source B, like A, was a written document wVien used by Luke.
t Secondary evidence is to be found in Mt 28, Jn 21, and the ' Gospel of Peter,' but Mark is the primary evidence.
went wrong in his attempt to find out the facts at this point, that is no special reason for rejecting his evidence for later events when he really was in a position to obtain sound information. All that is really shown is that, unlike Mark, he was never in close contact with one of the original Galila;an disciples.
VI. Chronology of Acts. — There are no definite chronological statements in the Acts, such as those in Lk 3^ But at five points syn- chronisms with known events can be establishetl and used as the basis of a chronological system. These are the death of Herod Agrippa I. (Ac 12^^^) ; the famine in Judfea (II-'"^ 12-^); Gallio's pro- consulate in Corinth (18^^) ; the decree of Claudius banishing all Jews from Rome (18-) ; and the arrival of Festus in Judjea (25^).
1. The death of Herod Agrippa. — Agrippa I., according to the evidence of coins * (if these be genuine), reigned nine years. The beginning of his reign was immediately after the accession of Caligula, who became Emperor on 16 March, A.D. 37, and within a few days appointed Agrippa, who was then in Rome, to the tetrarchy of Philip, with the title of king ; to this in 39-40 the tetrarchy of Antipas was added. Later on, Claudius added Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. The ditticulty is that Josephus says that Agrippa died in the seventh year of his reign. This would be between the sjjring of 43 and that of 44, but it does not agree with the evidence of the coinage, unless it be supposed that Agrippa dated his accession from the death of Philip rather than from his appointment by Caligula.
2. The famine in Judaea.— Our information for the date of this event is found in Josephus and Orosius. Josephus (Ant. XX. v.) says that the famine took place during the procuratorship of Alexander. Alexander's term of ottice ended in A.D. 48, and this is therefore the terminus ad qitcm for the date of the famine. His terra of ottice began after that of Fadus. It is not known when Fadus retired, but he was sent to Judtea after the death of Herod Agrippa I. in A.D. 44, so that Alexander's term cannot have begun before 45, and more probably not before 46. Thus Josephus fixes the famine within a margin of less than two years on eitlier side of 47.