5. PAUL IN JUDiEA AND ARABIA. The introduc- tion of Paul is connected with the death of Stephen : he was then a young man, and probably was entering for the first time on public life. At this point the subjective touch in VIII 1, "Saul was consenting unto his death," is a clear indication that Luke's authority was Paul himself. The phrase is a confession of inward feeling, not a historian's account of action ; and the words are Paul's own (XXII 20). A dramatic touch like this is, on our theory, deliberately calculated. Luke intends to set before his readers the scene at Caesareia, where Philip narrated the story of Stephen and of his own early work, and Paul interposed the agonised confession of VIII 1. The narrative from VI 9 to VIII 39 probably reproduces Philip's words very closely ; while Luke has inserted touches, as VII 58, VIII 1, and adapted the whole to his plan.1
The slight variations in the three accounts of Paul's conversion do not seem to be of any consequence. Luke did not seek to modify Paul's speeches in order to produce verbal conformity with the account which seemed to him to represent the facts fairly ; but the spirit and tone and the essential facts are the same, IX 3-18, XXII 6-16, XXVI 12-18.
Two difficulties, however, deserve notice in the account of Paul's conduct during the first years after his conver-
1 The enumeration of synagogues in VI 9, which does not agree with Luke's manner, was perhaps noted down verbatim (Expositor. July 1895, p. 35).
380 Chronology of Early Church History. Chap. XVI.
sion. In the first place, why does Luke say nothing about Paul's journey into Arabia ? But we have no authority for believing that the journey was of such importance as to require a place in this history, for Luke does not enumerate all the influences that moulded Paul's develop- ment. Paul's reference to the incident (Gal. I 17) is clear and complete in itself, if it was not a serious journey, but a small episode in his private life. " When it pleased God to call me to the work of my life, so far was I from needing counsel or instruction from Jerusalem, that I retired into Arabia, and came back again to Damascus." Damascus was at the time subject to the King of Arabia Petraea ; and the natural interpretation is that a person describing incidents of his experience in Damascus means by Arabia the adjacent country on the east. Had this excursion been an important step in the development of Paul's thought (as Lightfoot inclines to think, when he sees in it a sojourn on Mount Sinai after the style of Moses), Luke might be expected to mention it and show how much underlies Paul's words ; but, as he does not mention it, the fair inference is that there was no more in it than Paul says explicitly.
Moreover, Luke divides Paul's stay in Damascus into two periods, a few days' residence with the disciples IX 19, and a long period of preaching 20-23. The quiet residence in the country for a time, recovering from the serious and prostrating effect of his conversion (for a man's life is not suddenly reversed without serious claim on his physical power), is the dividing fact between the two periods. The division is certainly very awkwardly and insufficiently indicated ; but Luke everywhere shows similar weakness in indicating the temporal relations of events.
Sec 5. Paul in Judcea and Arabia. 381
In the second place, the accounts of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, in the third year after his conversion, are obscure. In Gal. I i8f. Paul says he went up to see Peter (evidently regarding him as the leading spirit in the development of the Church), and saw no other Apostle, except James the Lord's brother. But in Acts IX 28 f. "he was with the Apostles going in and going out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spake and disputed against the Grecian Jews ; but they went about to kill him." In weighing this account we must bear in mind Luke's intention : he conceived the Apostles as the permanent governing body in Jerusalem (p. 53), and they dwarfed in his estimation any other administrative body in the primitive Church (p. 374). Here, therefore, he speaks loosely of "the Apostles," meaning the governing body of the Church, without implying that they were all present in Jerusalem. It was one of his objects to insist on the agreement between Paul and the leaders of the Church ; and he distinctly had, and communicates, the impression that the opposition of the extreme Judaistic party to Paul was factious, and was condemned by the leaders. It therefore seemed important to him to emphasise the harmony between Paul and the Jewish leaders at this first visit ; and, though most of the Apostles were absent, yet the two real leaders were present We certainly should not naturally infer from Luke's words that the visit lasted only fifteen days ; but there is no real diffi- culty in supposing that Paul's life was at this time in danger from the first. He had deserted his former friends, and they would feel towards him the hatred that always pursues a deserter.