Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/440

 418 the Twelve. by which they had come to the sea-coast, and thence to Antioch in Syria. But, although the general features of the narrative may be accepted as true, especially if, as suggested above, its basis js a memoir or itinerary not of Paul but of Barnabas, yet it must be conceded that this portion of the Acts has large omissions. It is difficult to believe that the passionate zeal of an apostle who was urged by the stimu lus of a special call of Jesus Christ was satisfied, for the long period of at least eleven years, with one short missionary journey, and that, with the exception of a brief visit to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30), he remained quietly at Tarsus or at Antioch (xi. 25, xiii. 1, xiv. 28). In this period must fall at least a portion of the experiences which he records in 2 Cor. xi. 24-27, and for which no place can be found in the interval between the conference at Jeru salem and the writing of that epistle. The scourging in the synagogues, the beating with the lictor s rods in the Roman courts, the shipwrecks, the &quot;night and day in the deep,&quot; the &quot;perils of robbers,&quot; and &quot;perils in the wilder ness &quot; belong no doubt to some of the unrecorded journeys of these first years of his apostolic life. A more important omission is that of some of the more distinctive features of his preaching. It is impossible to account for his atti tude towards the original apostles in his interview with them at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1-10) except on the supposi tion that before that interview, no less than after it, he was that which he had been specially called to be, the &quot; apostle of the Gentiles &quot; and the preacher of the &quot; gospel of the uncircumcision.&quot; His rela- At the end of fourteen years, either from his conversion tion to or f rom his visit to Peter at Jerusalem, the question of the relation of the communities which he had formed, and of the gospel which he preached, to the original Christian communities, and to the gospel of the Twelve, came to a crisis. His position was unique. He owed neither his knowledge of the gospel nor his commission to preach it to any human authority (Gal. i. 1, 11, 12). As Jesus Christ had taught and sent forth the Twelve, so had He taught and sent forth Paul- He was on equal terms with the Twelve. Until a revelation came to him he was apparently at no pains to co-operate with them. But between their respective disciples there was evidently a sharp contention. The Jewish party, the original disciples and first converts, maintained the continued obligation of the Mosaic law and the limitation of the promises to those who observed it ; the Pauline party asserted the abrogation of the law and the free justification of all who believed in Jesus Christ. The controversy narrowed itself to the one point of cir cumcision. If the Gentiles were without circumcision members of the kingdom of God, why was the law obli gatory on the Jews ? If, on the other hand, the Gentiles had to be circumcised, the gospel had but a secondary im portance. It seemed for a time as though Christianity would be broken up into two sharply-divided sects, and that between the Jewish Christianity, which had its seat at Jerusalem, and which insisted on circumcision, and the Gentile Christianity, which had its seat at Antioch, and which rejected circumcision, there would be an irreconcil able antagonism. It was consequently &quot; by revelation &quot; (Gal. ii. 2) that Paul and Barnabas, with the Gentile con vert Titus as their &quot;minister&quot; or secretary, went to confer with the leaders among the original disciples, the &quot;pillars&quot; or &quot;them who were of repute,&quot; &quot;James, and Cephas, and John.&quot; He put the question to them : Was it possible that he was spending or had spent his labour in vain 1 (/zr/7To&amp;gt;s . . . e opa//ov in Gal. ii. 2 form a direct question depending on avctfe/^v). He laid before them the &quot;gospel of the uncircumcision.&quot; They made no addition to it (Paul says of himself dve6f/j.r/r. and of &quot; them who were of re pute &quot; oi Sev TrpocraveOei To, Gal. ii. 2, 6), but accepted it as Paul preached it, recognizing it as being a special work of God, and as being on the same level of authority with their own (Gal. ii. 7-9). The opposition was no doubt strong; there .were &quot;false brethren&quot; who refused to eman cipate the Gentile world from the bondage of the law and there was also apparently a party of compromise which, admitting Paul s general contention, maintained the necessity of circumcision in certain cases, of which the case of Titus, for reasons which are no longer apparent, was typical. But Paul would have no compromise. From his point of view compromise was impossible. &quot; Justifica tion&quot; was either &quot;of faith &quot; or &quot;by the works of the law&quot;; it was inconceivable that it could be partly by the one and partly by the other. And he succeeded in maintaining his position at all points. He received &quot; the right hand of fellowship,&quot; and went back to Antioch the recognized head and preacher of the &quot;gospel of the uncircumcision.&quot; With in his own sphere he had perfect freedom of action ; the only tie between his converts and the original community at Jerusalem was the tie of benevolence. Jew and Gentile were so far &quot; one body in Christ &quot; that the wealthier Gen tile communities should &quot;remember the poor.&quot; 1 When Paul returned to Antioch Peter followed him, Peter and for a time the two apostles worked in harmony. Peter aild &quot; did eat with the Gentiles.&quot; He shared the common table. a Antu 1 Few passages of the New Testament have been more keenly de bated of late years than the accounts of this conference at Jerusalem Coufi in Acts xv. 4-29 and Gal. ii. 1-10. The only writers of eminence in ence recent times who think that the two accounts refer to separate events Jeru- are Caspari, who identifies the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. salen ii. 1-10 with that of Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, and Wieseler, who identifies it with that of Acts xviii. 21, 22 ; both theories are chronologically impossible. Almost all writers agree in thinking that the two accounts refer to the same event, but no two writers precisely agree as to the extent to which they can be reconciled. (1) The differences between them were first insisted on by Schwegler, Das nachapostolische Zeit- alter, 1845, vol. i. 116 ; then by Zeller, Die Apostelgeschichte, E.T., vol. ii. 8 ; Baur, Paulus, E.T., vol. i. 109 ; Hilgeufeld, Der Gala- terbrief, 1852, p. 52, and in his Einleitung in das Xeue Testament, 1875, p. 227, &c. ; Krenkel, Paulus, 1869, p. 62; Lipsins, s.v. &quot; Apostelkouvent,&quot; in Schenkel s Ribel-Lexikon, 1868, vol. i. 194; Overbeck, in his edition of De Wette s ApostelgesddcJite, 1870, p. 216 ; Prteiderer, Paulinismus, 1873, E.T., vol. ii. 5 and 234, and also in his &quot;Paulinische Studien,&quot; in the Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1883, No. 2; Weizsacker, in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Tlicol., 1873, p. 191 ; Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 2d ed. , vol. iii. 151, vol. iv. 249 ; Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, pp. 241, 292, Das E-mngelium des Paulus, p. 143; Holtzmann, &quot;Der Apos- telconvent,&quot; in Hilgenfeld s Zeitschr. f, wissensch. Theol., 1882 p. 436, 1883 p. 129 (to which articles the writer is indebted for several of the references here given). (2) The harmony of the two accounts is maintained, mostly in opposition to the above-named writers, by Neander, Gesch. d. Pflansung, 5th ed., 1862, p. 158; Ewald, Gesch. d, Volkes Israel, 3d ed., 1868, vol. vi. 470 ; Kitsch], Ent. d. altkath. Kirche, 2d ed., 1857, p. 128 ; Lechler, Das apostol. u. nachaposlol. Zeitalter, 2d ed., 1857, p. 397 ; Baumgarten, Die Apostelgeschichle, 2d ed. , 1859, i. 461 ; Pressense, Hist, des trois premiers siecles, 2d ed., 1868, vol. i. 457 ; Weiss, Lehrb. d. bib. Theol. (des N.T.), 2d ed., 1873, p. 141 ; Schenkel, Das Christusbild der Apostel, 1879, p. 38 ; K. Schmidt, s.v. &quot; Apostel-Konvent,&quot; in Herzog s lieal-Encyklopddie, 2ded. , vol. i. 575; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 123; Weudt, in his edition of Meyer s Apostelgesch., 1880, p. 311 ; Sieffert, in Meyer s Brief an die Galater, 18SO, p. 84, &c. ; Zimmer, Galaterlirief und A2)ostd- geschichte, 1882 ; Nosgen, Comm. iiber die Aposlelgeschichte, 1882, p. 287. (3) A compromise between the two accounts is attempted by Renan, SI Paul, 1869, p. 81 ; Reuss, Die Gesch. d. heil. Schr., N.T., 5th ed., 1874, p. 57 ; Keim, &quot;Der Apostelconvent,&quot; in his Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, p. 64; Grimm, &quot;Der Apostelconvent,&quot; in Studien u. Kritiken for 18SO, p. 405. The main points of difficulty in the two accounts are these. (1) The Acts say that Paul went up by appointment of the brethren at Antioch ; Paul himself says that he went up &quot;by revelation.&quot; (2) In the Acts Paul has a subordinate position ; in his own account he treats with &quot;the three&quot; on equal terms. (3) In the Acts Peter and James are on Paul s side from the first ; in Galatians they are so only at the end of the conference, and after a discussion. (4) The Acts make the conference result in a decree, in which certain observances are imposed upon the Gentiles ; Paul himself expressly declares that the only injunction was that they &quot;should remember the poor.&quot;