382 Chronology of Early Church History. Chap. XVI.
On the other hand, XXVI 20 is distinctly in contra- diction with all other authorities ; but, as Dr. Blass points out, the Greek is solecistic, and his altered reading, "in every land to both Jews and Gentiles," seems to me to carry conviction with it.1
The difficulty with regard to the interval between Paul's first and second visit to Jerusalem (which we consider to have been only eleven years, whereas many take it as fourteen, Gal. II 1) disappears when we take the Greek in its real sense. Paul says to the Galatians, " Then, in the third year,2 I went up to Jerusalem . . . then, when the fourteenth year was ending ". The two reckonings go together, and are estimated from the same starting-point.
1 naaav rt ttjv x^>Pav '"'7* 'lovSatar ia not Lukan, and hardly Greek read tls ira<rav \u>pau 'lovSalois re.
8 " After three years " misrepresents the meaning.
i. HYPOTHESIS OF "THE TRAVEL-DOCUMENT".
We have seen that Luke represents himself as having
been an eye-witness of some of the incidents which he
describes ; and we have inferred, from the pointed way
in which he does this, that he was not an eye-witness
of the rest. In the parts where he had no personal
knowledge his trustworthiness depends on his authority
in each case. In a former work I have tried to show
that there lies behind the narrative of Paul's journeys a
document originating "from a person acquainted with
the actual circumstances," and therefore " composed under
St. Paul's own influence". I was careful "to express
his influence in the most general terms, and to avoid
any theorising about the way in which it was exercised " ;
and I purposely left the question untouched whether the
"Travel-Document" was composed by the author of
Acts or by a different person ; for my object then was
to show that the document was a trustworthy record of
facts, to avoid constructing a system, to investigate each
fact independently on its own evidence, and to give no
opening to the criticism that I was twisting the evidence
at any point in order to suit an idea derived from
elsewhere,
(383)
384 Composition and Date of Acts. Chap. XVII.
In the present work the reasons on which the supposition of a "Travel-Document" was founded are much strengthened ; and we must now put the question in a more precise form. What is the relation between the "Travel-Document" and the completed text of Acts? To this the answer must be that the "Travel- Document" was Luke's own written notes (supplemented by memory, and the education of further experience and reading and research). His diary, where he was an eye-witness, and his notes of conversation with Paul, and doubtless others also, were worked into the book of Acts suitably to the carefully arranged plan on which it is constructed. We have found traces of deep and strong emotion which must be understood as Paul's own feeling : the technical term for making a missionary progress through a district1 is used only by Paul (I Cor. XVI 5) and by Luke in describing Paul's work;2 while in describing the precisely similar work of other missionaries, he uses a different and a more usual Greek construction.3 This line of investigation might be carried much further so as to show that Luke everywhere follows with minute care the best authority accessible to him ; and in Acts especially Paul and Philip. As we have seen, Ch. XVI, § 2, the period in which he found greatest difficulty was that which intervened between the con- clusion of his formal historical authorities for the life of the Saviour, and the beginning of the careful narratives which he had noted down from Paul and Philip about their own personal experiences.
1 Itinerating is the modern equivalent, I am told. 8 XIII 6, XIV 24, XV 3, 41, XVI 6, XVIII 23, XIX 1, 21, XX 2. « VIII 4, 40, XI 19, IX 32, Luke IX 6.