The Acts of the Apostles

ne THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
named, nor the lame man at Lystra (xiv. 8 ?
ff.) ^
Why do we miss the names of the founders of the
church in Antioch (xi. 20 /.) ? why also the names
of the confessors under Herod (xii. 1) ? Why is it
that no names are given to the Jewish Christians,
hostile to St. Paul, who came down to Antioch (xv.
1) ? nor to the companions of St. Paul and St. Barnabas
(xv. 2)? nor to the Christian Pharisees in
Jerusalem (xv. 5) ? nor to the numerous teachers in
Antioch who laboured together with St. Paul and St.
Barnabas (xv. 35) ? Why is it that we do not know
the name of the damsel who was possessed by an evil
spirit in Philippi (xvi. 6 /.) ? nor the names of the
proetors of that city (xvi. 20 ?
ff.) nor the name of
the jailor (xvi. 23 ff.) ? nor the names of the so-called
« disciples of John " in Ephesus (xix. 1 ff.), nor of the
Asiarchs and the Grammateus (xix. 31, 35) in the
same city ? nor the name of St. Paul's sister's son in
Jerusalem (xxiii. 16) ? The answer that St. Luke
has not given their names because of their compara-
tive insignificance will suffice for the majority of the
instances ; ^ but in some cases—as for instance the
lame men in Jerusalem and Lystra, and the martyrs
under Herod—we must suppose that he did not know
* Compare on the contrary the less important case of -SIneas
(ix. 33).
2 This holds good also of the Strategi in Philippi and the Asiarchs
in Ephesus. The author indeed mentions by name, when he can,
persons in authority among the Jews and Gentiles who appear in
his history (thus even Claudius Lysias, the centurion Julius, and
Gamaliel is even characterised in v. 84 as ri/jnoi
Publius in Malta ;
irdvTi Tip \aip ; the proconsul Sergius Paulus is called dv^p avveros
[xiii. 7]), but the Strategi and Asiarchs did not come under con-
sideration as individuals.