The Acts of the Apostles

THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS 119
Some instances of parallelism presented themselves quite
unsought for ; nothing more than this can be said.
The name of apostle is applied to St. Paul only twice
in the book (xiv. 4, 14).^ Weiss thinks that just on
this account the word in both cases must have its
more general and non-technical significance. But
this cannot be proved, for the circumstance that in
many passages the Twelve are called simply " the
Apostles " (as if there were no others) is not a safe
proof. In the book they are also called « the Eleven "
or « the Twelve," and what could have induced St. Luke
purposely to refuse to give St. Paul a name which he
himself claimed with such complete conviction ? ^
Among persons of the second rank might be num-
bered the Apostles (the Twelve), who, although they
were the witnesses of the Resurrection and formed a
most important body—indeed at the beginning the
leading and governing body— in the Primitive Community,
are yet kept in the background. But if we
would exclude these, then only Jive personages of
secondary rank come under St. Luke's consideration,
namely, Stephen, Philip, Barnabas, James, and Apollos.
Concerning the character and antecedents offour of these
the Acts gives some direct and detailed information
^ In the same passages it is also given to St. Barnabas.
2 The following conjecture is at least possibly true :—For St.
Luke, and for the authority upon whom he depends for his know-
ledge of the relations of Jerusalem and Antioch, St. Paul was as
much an apostle as the others (note that chaps, vi. and xiii., xiv.
belong to a single body of tradition and that in chap. vi. the Apostles
are called "the Twelve," while in chap. xiv. St. Paul and St.
Barnabas are called apostles) ; but the source from which St. Luke
borrowed his material for the description of the Church of Jerusalem
avoided calling St. Paul an apostle.