The Acts of the Apostles

THE SOURCES AND THEIR VALUE 197
known, in the narrative of the journey of St. Paul
and St. Barnabas with an offering for Jerusalem
(xi. 30^ ; xii. 25). I allow that the narrative does
not appear to be absolutely excluded by Gal. ii. 1 (^ta
SeKaTeco'dpwv €tu>v irdXiv dve/Bijv)} If, however, this
the Jews, and that St. Peter is represented as the apostle to the
Gentiles—I find it impossible to follow him. Again I cannot accept
his other objections that " the people of Jerusalem suffer from a
famine that had been merely prophesied," and that the same cause
moves the people of Antioch to help them, further that the delegates
from Jerusalem were not prophets but other folk. All these objections
are disposed of partly by reference to the brevity of the
narrative, partly by the fact that they do not rest upon sufficient
evidence.
1 The two journeys to Jerusalem recounted in Gal. i.-ii. are
characterised as follows : dvTjXdoy laTopTJcrat K7)dp— TrctXii' 6.vi^T]v
Kdl 6.vedifX7]v auTots (the Christians of Jerusalem) rb evayy^Xioy 5
Kr)p6(xacj iu toTs Wveaiv. We may say that he does not count the
journeys he actually took, but only those journeys that had anything
to do with his relations with St. Peter and the rest or with
his gospel. So we may decide, if hard ^pressed, nor do I wish to
maintain more than this. The identification of the journey of
Gal. ii. with* that of Acts xi. 30^, commended by Ramsay and by
others before him, that is, the reduction of the two journeys of St.
Paul and St. Barnabas recorded in the Acts to otve which took place
before the first missionary journey, I regard as an hypothesis
attractive but difficult to establish. Wellhausen has lately {loc. cit.,
s. 7 /.) again given it his sanction, but the way in which he thinks
himself bound to criticise the stories of the Acts and to throw them
into new combinations makes it scarcely possible to come to close
quarters with him. It seems to be in favour of the identification
of the journeys (that is, of the transference of xv. 1 ff. to the time
of xi. 30) that xv. 1 /. (Gal. i. 21) is concerned only with the Gentile
Christians of Syria and Cilicia, while one would expect that the
Gentile Christians in Lycaonia (the district passed through in the
so-called first missionary journey) would have been also mentioned.
But the question here in the first instance concerns an acute " ardcris
Kal ^rp-r]ais ovk oXiyrj " which had broken out in Antioch (and therefore
also affected the regions of Syria and Cilicia connected with