6. In Gal. i, 2, Paul speaks of two visits to Jerusa- lem, the one (i, 18) '* after three years" (viz. from his conversion), the other (ii, 1) "fourteen years after- ward" {Sid BtKariooapiav irwv). The first oAhese is evidently that of Acts ix, 26 ; that the other must be the second of those mentioned in the Acts, viz. that of xi, xii, has been understooc^ by many, and probaUy would have been by all, could it have been made to square with their chronology. The argument, re- stricted from irrelevant issues, lies hi a very narrow compass. To make good his assertion (i* 11 sq.) thU he received not his gospel and commission from Peter, or any other man, but direct from Christ himself, the
CHRONOLOGY
811
CHRONOLOGY
ftposile begins to enumerate <fte occoMcmt on wAieAafofM j Ae mxa and converted wUh tks other ajtoi&et at Jenuo' I lem, Kow, if the visit Gal. ii, 1, be not that of Acts ' zi, 12, it must be later (no one wishes to put it earli- er) ; but, if so, then it would seem he has not enumer- > ated aU the occasions on which he saw the other apos- \ ilea. It is hardly satisfiEurtory (comp. Meyer on Gal, ' p. 41) to allege (with Wieseler, CkronoL det apoet. ZeU- aJtUTMy p. 180) that the apostle, not writing a history, is not bound to recite idl his visits to Jerusalem, or (with Ewald, Ge$ek, yi, 50) that he is concerned to enumerate only those visits which he made tat the purpose of conferring with the apostles. His intention is plainly to state that he had no intervening opportu- nity of consulting them. Accordingly, Scbleiermach- er i&nkU. ins N. T. p. 569), Neander (Pfkme, u. Lett, i, 188 of the 4th ed.), De Wette {Komrn, in loc.), tf eyer (v. s, p. 47), find the conclusion inevitable that Luke was misinformed in saying that Paul went up to Jeru- salem as related in Acts id, 80, because the apostle himself declares that between his first visit, whidi can t>e no other than that of ix, 26, and the other, which can only have been that to the council, as related in Acts zv, there was none intermediate. But, in &ct, the drcnmstances of the visit. Gal. ii, 1, are perfectly compatible with those of Acts zi, xii, the only diffi- culty being that which is supposed to lie in the chro- nology; nor, on the other hand, is the discrepancy between Gal. ii, 1 sq., and Acts xv, such that it is dif- ficult to see how they can relate to the same fact, al- though the incongruity in the latter case has been deemed by Baur (PaidtUj p. 120 sq.) so great as to fur- nish an argument in support of his p<^tion that the Book of Acts is the work, not of a companion of Paul, but of some much later hand (in the second century). Wieseler, to evade this conclusion, gives up the as- sumed idientity of Gal. ^ 1, with Acts xv, and labors to show that it was the visit of xviii, 22, a hypothesis which needs no discussion, unless we are prepared to say that the apostle was not even present' at the coun- cil. Acts XV ; for that a council was held is not denied, even by those who contend that the account given of It in the Acts is not authentic ; and, If Paul was pres- ent at it, it is impossible to explain his passing it by in silence, as if it had no bearing upon the point which he is ooneemed to substantiate. The time of Acts xii being defined to A.D. 44, a term of 17 years, the sum of the 3 and the 14, supposed to be consecutive, would lead to A.D. 27, which cannot possibly be the year of PauFs conversion ; and, if both terms are supposed to be dated from the same epoch, it would follow that the conversion took place A.D. 80, a date still too early ibr those who assign the Grudfixion to that or to a later year. But it is not too early if the year of the Pas8i<m be A.D. 29; and it is in exact accordance with the most ancient traditions recorded by ecclesiastical writers, according to which the martyrdom of Stephen took place within a year after the Ascension, and Paul's conversion, which clearly was not much later, in the year after the Ascension, L e. in this year 80 (Browne, Ordo SacL § 102). On the other hand, this ^ date of Paul's conversion is equally compatible with tiie reibrence of the second visit in question to Acts XV, which took place A.D. 47 ; the reckoning of the 14+8 yean of Gal. i being in that case continuous from the conversion in A.D. 80. On either view, however, there is clearly an error in the ordinary chro- nology, which brings down the conversion to A.D. 84, and yet dates the visit of Acts xi in A.D. 44, and that of Acts XV in A.D. 46 ; a system which there is other and independent reason to suspect (see Meth, Quart, Meviem, July, 1850, p. 500). See Paul. The chrono- logical difficulty, which would present itself as soon as the ancient date of the Passion was abandoned for a later year, has indnced the conjecture, seemingly as ' early as the Chron, iVwe*. p. 486, ed. Bonn, that for 14 should be read 4 (AIA' A' for AI' lA*); see Meyer