1. Passing over patent coincidences, we may single out one of a more subtle and delicate kind. It arises out of the form which the accusation brought against Paul and his companions at Tliessalonica takes in the Acts: "All these dt) contrary to tlie decrees of L'jesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (xvii, 7). The allusions in the epistles to the Thessalonians ena- ble us to understand the ground <if this accusation. It appears that the kini/dom of Christ had entered largely into his oral teaching in this city, as it does into that of the epistles themselves. He had charged his new converts to await the coming of the Son of (Jod from heaven as their deliverer (i, 10). He had dwelt long and earnestly (/rpo£i;r«/(f J' kuI dnf^iapTvpuftt^a) on the terrors of the judgment which would overtake the wick- ed (iv, 6). He had even explained at length the signs which would usher in the last day (2 Thess. ii, 6). Either from malice or in ignorance such language had been misrepresented, and he was accused of setting up a rival sovereign to the IJoman emperor.
2. On the other hand, the language of these epistles diverges from the narrative of Luke on two or three points in such a way as to establish the independence of the two accounts, and even to require some explana- tion.
(1.) The first of these relates to the composition of the Church of Thessalonica. In the first epistle Paul addresses his readers distinctly as Gentiles, who had . been converted from idolatry to the Gospel (i, 9, 10). In the Acts we are told that " some (of the Jews) believed, . . . and of the devout (Jreeks (i. e. proselytes) a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few" (xvii, 4). If for at^onivwv EWijvwv we read atjiofi'ivtDV Ka'i 'E\\i]vioi; " proselytes and (Ireeks," the difficulty van- ishes; but though internal probabilities are somewhat in favor of this reading, the array of direct evidence (now reinforced l)y the Codex Sinaiticus) is against it. But even if we retain the common reading, the account of Luke does not exclude a number of believers con- verted directly from heathendom ; indeed, if we may argue from the parallel case at Berma (xvii, 12), the '•women" were chiefly of this class; and if any diver- gence remains, it is not greater than might be expected in two independent writers, one of whom, not being an eye-witness, possessed only a partial and indirect knowl- edge. Both accounts alike convey the impression that the Gospel made but little progress with the Jews them- selves.
(2.) In the epistle the persecutors of the Thessalonian Christians are represented as their fellow-countrymen, i. e. as heathens (I'rTro twv I'Siwv (TVfi(pv\tTwr, ii, 14), whereas in the Acts the Jews are regarded as the bit- terest opponents of the faith (xvii, b). This is fairly met by Paley {Horo' Paul, ix, No. 5), who points out that the Jews were the instigators of the persecution, which, however, they were pitwerless of themselves to carry out without aid from the heathen, as may be gath- ered even from the narrative of Luke. We may add, also, that the expression icioi mii.i(pv\ircu need not be restricted to the hcatlien popidation, but might include many Hellenist Jews who must have been citizens of the free town of Thessalonica.
(3.) The narrative of Luke appears to state that Paul remained only three weeks at Thessalonica (xvii, 2). whereas in the epistle, though tliere is no direct men- tion of the length of his residence among them, the whole language (i, 4; ii. 4-11) points to a much longer period. The latter part of the assertion seems quite correct, the former nee<ls to be modified. In the Acts it is stated simply that for three .Sabbath days (three weeks) Paul taught in the svnagogue. The silence of
the writer does not exclude sid)sequent labor among the Gentile population; and. indeed, as much seems to be implied in the success of his preaching, which exasper- ated the Jews against him.
(4.) 'i'lie notices of the movements of Silas and Timo- thy in the two documents do not accord at first sight. In the Acts I'aul is conveyed away secretly from Beroea to escape the Jews. Arrived at Athens, he sends to Si- las and Timothy, whom he had left beliind at Beroea, urging them to join him as soon as possible (xvii, 14- 11)). It is eviiient from the language of Luke that the apostle ex[)ects them to join him at Athens; yet we hear nothing more of them for some time, when at length, after Paul had passed on to Corinth, and sev- eral incidents had occurred since his arrival there, we are told that Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia (xviii, u). From the first epistle, on the other hand, we gather tlie following facts: Paul there tells us that they {I'lfiur, i. e. himself, and probably Silas), no longer able to endure the suspense, "consented to be left alone at Athens, and sent Timotheus their brother" to Thessa- lonica (iii, 1, 2). Timothy returned with good news (ver. 6) (whether to Athens or Corinth does not ap- pear), and when the two epistles to the Thessalonians were written, both Timothy and Silas were with Paul (i, 1 ; 2 Thess. i, 1; comp. 2 Cor. i, 19). Now, though we may not be prepared, with Paley, to construct an un- designed coincidence out of these materials, yet, on the other hand, there is no insoluble difficulty; for the events may be arranged in two different ways, either of which will bring the narrative of the Acts into ac- cordance with the allusions of the epistle.