ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN ACTS AND OTHER BOOKS.

There is no writer in the New Testament the credibility of whose statements has been so fiercely assailed by recent unfriendly critics as have those of the author of Acts. We desire to give the charges of his enemies fair consideration, and to form an intelligent conclusion as to their merits.

Christian Baur, followed by later rationalists in general, asserts that the design of the author was not to write a truthful history, but to defend the Apostle Paul against the attacks and accusations of the Judaizing party, at the head of which they place the Apostle Peter; and that in carrying out this purpose he did not hesitate to falsify history when it suited him to do so.1 They seek to sustain the charge of falsifying history by maintaining that he frequently contradicts both himself and other writers, especially the Apostle Paul. Whether the credibility of the book can be maintained depends on the reality of these alleged contradictions, and we shall now proceed to consider those which are relied on most implicitly.

I. Contradictions of Matthew and of himself.

1. We first notice an alleged contradiction between Acts and Matthew in regard to the death of Judas. An appearance of contradiction is apparent to every reader of the two accounts; for while Matthew7 represents Judas as hanging himself (xxvii. 5), it is said in Acts that he fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and that all his bowels gushed out (Acts i. 18). But instead of being a contradiction, the latter statement is only a supplement to the former. Falling headlong would not cause a man to burst asunder, unless something had previously occurred to weaken the wall of his bowels, or unless the fall was from a great elevation. But both of these conditions are supplied by Matthew's account: for if he hung himself, this would elevate him some feet above the ground; and it' he remained hanging a day or two, which would be very probable, this would weaken the walls of his abdomen, so that a fall, whether effected by the breaking of the cord, or the limb, or the parting of his neck, would cause the result in question. The two accounts are therefore harmonious, and not only so, but the horrible result stated in the one is accounted for by the fact mentioned in the other.

But the two accounts differ also in reference to the purchase of the potter's field, and the origin of its name, Akeldama, the Field of Blood. Matthew says that it was bought by the chief priests with the money which Judas returned to them, and that for this reason it was called the field of blood; while in Acts it is said that Judas bought it "with the reward of iniquity" (the same money), and that this, together with his falling there, caused it to receive the name (Matt, xxvii. 6-9; Acts i. 18, 19). But here there is no contradiction; for if Matthew's account of the purchase is true, that in Acts is also true, with this only difference, that Judas bought the field indirectly, it being bought with his money, and in consequence of his vain attempt to return the money to the priests; and as for the name, the account in Acts only furnishes an additional and very good reason for calling the loathsome spot Akeldama. It must be admitted that the account in Acts would be misleading to persons not acquainted with that in Matthew; but Luke's first readers were not thus uninformed, and his present readers have Matthew's account before them and can combine the two if they will.2

It should be observed that while the account in Acts which we have been considering is printed in the midst of a speech made by the Apostle Peter, the words concerning Judas are an interpolation in the speech by the author of Acts. This is proved by the fact that Akeldama is translated into Greek, and this could not have been done by Peter, who was speaking to Hebrews; but Luke, writing to a Greek, would be constrained to translate this Hebrew word. It suits the purpose of skeptical writers to deny this, and to maintain that the author of Acts here puts into Peter's mouth a speech which he could not have made.3 But this assumption is equivalent to charging the author with a blunder which the most stupid writer could scarcely commit--the blunder of making Peter speak to Jews in their own tongue, and translate one of their familiar words into a foreign tongue to enable them to understand it; and in doing so to speak of the Hebrew language, which was the native tongue both of himself and his hearers, as "their language." Whether this author was Luke or some one else, if he had ordinary common sense he could not have been guilty of a blunder so gross.  

2. It is alleged that the author of Acts contradicts himself in regard to the time of the ascension.4 In Acts he certainly represents the ascension as taking place forty days after the resurrection (i. 3-9), and it is affirmed that in the Gospel he represents it as occurring on the same day as the resurrection. This is another instance in which the charge involves the grossest stupidity on Luke's part, if it is true; for both narratives are addressed to the same person, Theophilus, and the matter of the ascension is made conspicuous in both. The truth of the matter is, that in the Gospel he does not say how long the interval was, but he passes from the account of the first meeting with the Eleven to that which ended with the ascension without noting that there was an interval, reserving to his later account a statement of the details. If, when Theophilus read the first account, he had concluded that the ascension took place on the day of the resurrection, when he received the second he could but conclude that he had misunderstood the first on account of its brevity. He could not have concluded that the writer was telling two contradictory stories; for this could but discredit all that he narrated; and he certainly wrote with the hope of being believed.

3. It is claimed that Luke contradicts himself in the three accounts of Paul's conversion, it being assumed that the two which are represented as given by Paul himself were really composed by the author of the book. The specifications are these: one account has it that those who journeyed with Paul "stood speechless;" the other, "that all fell to the earth;" one, that these companions heard the voice, but saw no man; the other, that they heard not the voice (ix. 7; xxii. 9; xx vi. 14).5 As to the latter point of difference, nothing in speech is much more common than to use the word hear in two slightly different senses, one for hearing the mere sound of a voice, and the other for so hearing it as to know what is said. We hear a person speak to us, and we answer, "I did not hear you." No one accuses us of a false answer, because such is the usage of the word hear. So, in the present instance, the companions of Paul heard in the sense of catching the sound of the voice, but they heard not in the sense of distinguishing what was said. No one disposed to deal fairly with an author would think of construing this as a contradiction. As to the other point, it is easy to see that Paul's companions could have fallen to the ground at the beginning, and have stood speechless afterward; and the fact that they did not understand what was said to Paul is accounted for by this consideration. When all fell, and the companions found that they were not addressed by the person who spoke, they most naturally sprang to their feet as soon as they could use their limbs, and ran to a safe distance, where they stood speechless, still hearing the voice, and yet not hearing it.  

It must be conceded that if Luke actually wrote all three of these accounts himself, it is difficult to say why he gave the details thus differently. But if, as the narrative asserts, two of them were given by Paul in two different speeches, the difference in narration is at once accounted for, and this furnishes a very good reason for rejecting the hypothesis, baseless in itself, that Luke wrote the speeches and put them into Paul's mouth.  

II. Contradictions of Paul in Galatians.  

The most serious of the alleged contradictions in Acts, and those which are made the most of in argument by the rationalists, are those between it and the Epistle to the Galatians. We will notice them in the order of their occurrence.  

1. Paul says that after his conversion he did not go up to Jerusalem until "after three years;" but that he went into Arabia, and returned to Damascus before going up to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 15-18). Luke omits his going into Arabia, and says that "he was certain days with the disciples in Damascus," and then, when "many days were fulfilled," he went up to Jerusalem. This is treated as a contradiction, the objectors claiming that "many days" can not cover a period of three years.6 But the objection is captious: for surely when a writer intentionally uses indefinite terms it is folly to put a close restriction on his meaning. As well say that when Joshua remarks to the Israelites, "Ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season," while Moses says they were there forty years, that there is here a contradiction, because a long season is not so long as forty years. Or, taking the opposite expression, as well say of Job's remark, "Man is of few days, and full of trouble," that according to this, men in Job's time lived only a few days. But the Old Testament furnishes another example still more in point, in the case of Shimei, who, when spared by Solomon on condition that he should not depart from Jerusalem, "dwelt in Jerusalem many days," and yet, as the context shows, he went out of the city "at the end of three years" (I. Kings ii. 30-46).

2. It is claimed, also, that in describing Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion Luke contradicts Paul in several particulars, and manufactures some incidents which did not occur. (1) It must be false, because incredible, that the disciples in Jerusalem, as asserted by Luke, had not heard of Paul's conversion.7 But Luke does not say they had not heard of Paul's conversion. He says, "They were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (ix. 26). They might have heard of his conversion forty times, and they might have been told all of the details of the story, without believing it; for they might have thought that the story was made up for the purpose of enabling Paul to gain their confidence, and thus to more effectually persecute them. So sudden a conversion of such a persecutor would be next to incredible in any age of the church's history. (2) It is held to be incredible that Barnabas, as Luke affirms, took Paul and brought him into the confidence of the Apostles.8 But surely this is most natural: for under the circumstances some one had to be the first to acquire confidence in him, and to influence the others, and why not Barnabas as well as any one else? (3) It is affirmed in Acts that Paul was with the disciples, going in and out, and preaching boldly in the name of the Lord; that he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists, and that they went about to kill him (ix. 28, 29); while Paul says that he was there only fifteen days (Gal. i. 18); and it is claimed that fifteen days are not enough for all that Luke relates.9 But why not? If it was his custom to preach and dispute only on Sundays as is the custom of many rationalistic critics, there would be plausibility in the objection; but the apostles, like their Master, disputed daily in the temple, and even a single week of such disputations would be enough to stir up all the strife which Luke mentions. It would be enough in some places even at the present day. (4) It is claimed that this amount of preaching in Jerusalem is inconsistent with Paul's statement, "I was still unknown by face to the churches in Judea which were in Christ" (Gal. i. 22).10 But while such preaching and disputation necessarily made him known to the brethren in Jerusalem, he might still -ay that he was unknown by face to the churches in Judea, meaning, as he certainly docs, the churches in general in that country. (5) It is again charged that thi6 want of acquaintance with the churches in Judea is contradicted by Luke in Acts xxvi. 20, where he represents Paul as saying that he preached "throughout all the country of Judea" next after preaching in Jerusalem.11 But while this preaching is mentioned next after that in Jerusalem, it is not said that it came next. No adverb of time, or any other indication of sequence is given. The words are: "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; but declared both to them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God." As there is no note of time except in placing Damascus first, it is but a fair construction to suppose that Judea is mentioned next after Jerusalem because of its contiguity, and to avoid a backward movement in thought after mentioning the Gentiles. (6) It is affirmed that the cause assigned in Acts for cutting short this visit to Jerusalem, the determination of the Hellenists to kill him, and his consequent removal by the brethren to Caesarea and thence to Tarsus, is contradicted in the twenty-second chapter, where Paul is represented as saying that he was ordered away by the Lord himself in a vision (ix. 29, 30, cf. xxii. 18-20).12 But the two causes of his departure are not inconsistent. The latter passage shows clearly that Paul was very unwilling to leave Jerusalem, by showing that when the Lord first told him to go he attempted to remonstrate against the order. This is enough to prove that the brethren could not have sent him away had he not also been commanded by the Lord.

3. Another alleged contradiction is found in the numbering of Paul's visits to Jerusalem. His second visit mentioned in Acts is the one made in company with Barnabas, when they were sent with alms from Antioch "to the brethren who dwelt in Judea." This mission led them to Jerusalem as one of many places to which they were sent, and it seems to have been the last point in Judea which they visited; for it is said that they "returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministration" (xi. 30; xii. 25). In Paul's account this visit is omitted, for he says "Then after the space of fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas," and the incidents which are mentioned show that this visit is the third mentioned in Acts (Gal. ii. 1, cf. Acts xv. 1-5). But while this is the second visit mentioned by Paul, he does not say, nor does his language imply, that it was the second in reality. Furthermore, in Galatians the aim of the apostle is to show how little opportunity he had enjoyed for learning the gospel from the older apostles; and the second visit mentioned in Acts gave him no such opportunity, seeing that under the persecution then raging the elder James had been beheaded, and Peter had fled from the city (xii. 1-3, 16, 17). The third visit in the order of time, then, was the second in the order of Paul's discussion; that is, the second in which he saw any of the older apostles; and he had no occasion at all to mention the second one of Acts.13 In the face of these obvious considerations, it is a matter of surprise that unfriendly critics insist that there is here a contradiction.

4. Alleged contradictions in the accounts of Paul's visit to Jerusalem during the controversy about circumcision are next in order, and on these are based some of the most serious charges which rationalists prefer against the book of Acts. The statements in Acts on the subject are briefly these: first, that Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem by the disciples in Antioch; second, that on their arrival they were received in a public meeting by the church with the apostles and elders, in which meeting they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and in which there arose certain believing Pharisees, who said that it was needful to circumcise the Gentile converts, and charge them to keep the law of Moses; third, that the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter, that after much questioning Peter made a speech in opposition to the Pharisees, that Barnabas and Paul then rehearsed what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them, that James followed with a speech in support of the same views, and that finally a letter to the brethren in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia was drawn up with the approval of the whole church, enforcing the views set forth in the speeches (xv. 1-29). The statements of Paul on the same subject are these: first, that he went up to Jerusalem on this occasion "by revelation;" second, that he took Titus with him; third, in his own words, "I laid before them the gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute;" fourth, that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised, though an effort to this effect was made by certain false brethren; fifth, that the other Apostles present, James, Peter and John, imparted nothing to him, but that on the contrary they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that the latter should go to the Gentiles, and the former to the circumcision (Gal. ii. 1-10). At almost every point these two accounts are charged with contradiction. It is held that Paul speaks the truth, but that every one of Luke's statements is false. We shall now state the specifications of this charge, and examine the evidence by which they are supported.

(1) Because Paul says that he went up by revelation, it is charged that Luke is false in saying that he and Barnabas were sent by the brethren in Antioch.14 But why should the two be considered inconsistent? Paul was an apostle, possessing equal inspiration and authority with any other apostle, and on this he insisted again and again when it was called in question; why then should he not have hesitated to go to the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem for a decision as to whether he had taught the truth, and have required a revelation directing him to go before he would comply with the wishes of the brethren? This is precisely what is implied in the two accounts when considered together; and to the suggestion, that if Paul had been sent by the brethren he certainly would have said so, it is an adequate reply that after stating the main cause of his going and the one which gave divine sanction to the proceeding, it was altogether needless to state the inferior cause which in itself would have been insufficient. Moreover, his aim in Galatians is to show his independence as an apostle, and the fact that he had been sent by the brethren in Antioch, although true, and not inconsistent with his argument, could not strengthen it, and it was therefore very properly omitted.

(2) Paul's silence in reference to the public meetings is held as proof that no such meetings took place: for, it is' demanded, how could he, in showing the results, fail to mention the large meeting "which alone could decide the question at issue"? But the very author who is the leader in making this demand himself furnishes the answer, when, on another page of his work, he says: "The Apostles had to be considered in this as the chief personages, whose attention to any matter rendered further transactions superfluous."15 It was in reality the decision of the three Apostles whom Paul mentions that settled the question on its merits; and this alone rendered a reference to any other transactions superfluous with Paul's readers: it was therefore with the utmost propriety that he omitted the public meeting, and his doing so furnishes not the slightest ground for doubting that it took place. The real purpose of the second meeting was to give the apostles an opportunity to silence the Pharisees and bring the whole church to unanimity.

(3) It is asserted, with a boldness and confidence proportionate to the want of evidence, that Paul's opponents in this visit were not "Pharisees who believed," as they are called in Acts; nor "false brethren privily brought in," as Paul styles them; but the older Apostles themselves.16 It is admitted that the representation in Acts is the reverse of this, but it is held that on this point Acts is contradicted by Galatians. On reading the passage in Galatians, we find that the "false brethren privily brought in, who came in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus," are spoken of as adversaries, while of the Apostles it is said: "They who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to circumcision." There is in this not the slightest indication of a conflict, but the most positive declaration of agreement. The agreement, too, is the result not of a protracted discussion, or of any debate at all; but of a simple rehearsal by Paul of the Gospel which he had preached. "I laid before them the gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run in vain." This last remark is accounted for by the consideration that, had the older Apostles been found in opposition to Paul, their influence in the church would have broken his down, and he would have run in vain. The whole value of the statement which he makes on the subject depends on the fact brought out, that there was no such opposition. In support of the charge under discussion, the only argument advanced which has the semblance of force is found in the demand, How could Peter have acted as he did so soon afterward in Antioch, that is, in refusing to longer eat with the Gentiles, so that Paul rebuked him before all (Gal. ii. 11-14), if he had so perfectly agreed with Paul in Jerusalem?17 It may as well be asked, How could this same Peter have denied his Lord, as he is said to lave done, so soon after declaring, 11 Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (Matt. xxvi. 35)? The very rebuke which Paul administers to him implies that he had previously agreed with Paul; for he says, personating Peter, "If I build up again those things which I have destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." This remark depends for its relevancy on the fact that Peter was now acting in opposition to his previous course, and it sustains the representation made in Acts and Galatians, that he had agreed with Paul in Jerusalem.

(4) The decree said in Acts to have been issued on this occasion by the apostles and elders is pronounced a forgery. This is argued, first, on the ground that if it had been issued Paul could not have failed to refer to it in his subsequent controversy with the Judaizers who continued to insist on the circumcision of the Gentile converts.18 This omission on Paul's part certainly does appear singular; but his course of argument is precisely what we should expect if all that is stated in Acts were already known to his readers in Galatia and disregarded by them. If this decree had been carried to them by Paul and Silas, as its application to Gentile Christians in general renders quite probable, and if the teachers who had supplanted Paul in their confidence (Gal. i. 6, 7) had persuaded them to disregard its teaching, as they certainly had, any appeal to it by Paul would have been useless. His only recourse was to do just what he has done in this epistle, supply them with the additional information herein contained. This not only takes away the force of the argument, but it supplies a good reason for the omission.

The same proposition is argued in the second place, from Paul's failure to cite the decree when arguing with the Corinthians against eating meats offered to idols; and this, too, when they had written to him for information on this very subject. It is argued that if this decree had been issued at all it would have been known to the Corinthians, and consequently they could not have written to Paul for information on the subject; that Paul could not, as he does in his reply to them, treat it as a matter of indifference in itself.19 It must be admitted that if the decree was in existence Paul had almost certainly made the Corinthians acquainted with it, inasmuch as they were especially liable to do what it forbids. From this it follows that they could not write to Paul for information as to the matters expressly declared in the decree; and if this is what they did write for, the argument would seem to be good. But Paul's answer shows that this was not the purport of their question. His argument meets an objection-- the objection that as an idol is known to be nothing, it could not defile a man's conscience to eat flesh which had been offered to one. Paul, without admitting the correctness of the conclusion, takes the objector on his own ground, and shows that inasmuch as this knowledge is not possessed by all men, there would still be sin in the act, because it would embolden some whose consciences were weak to eat as an act of homage, and thus it would cause them to perish (I. Cor. viii. 1-13). This shows that the question raised and discussed had the nature of an objection to the doctrine of the decree, and that the answer called for was not a statement of what was taught in the decree, but a reason why it should be observed even by those who thought they could violate it without injury to themselves. Let it not be forgotten, also, that while Paul waived the question whether those who were enlightened about idols could eat the offerings without sin, farther on in the Epistle he forbade it absolutely (x. 20, 21). It was only the eating of flesh thus offered without knowing that it was an idol offering which he allowed as innocent (x. 25-29).  

(5) We have now sufficiently accounted for the fact that Paul fails to mention the public meeting described in Acts, but it is still insisted that, as Luke was certainly acquainted with the Epistle to the Galatians, he must have had some sinister design in failing to mention the private meeting between the apostles.20 It is a sufficient answer to say that when he wrote Acts, the Epistle to the Galatians was already in circulation, and he supplies precisely those details in these proceedings which the author of the Epistle had omitted, and avoids repeating those which the Epistle contained. This is just what any sensible writer would be apt to do, and the charge of a sinister design is preposterous. The same answer applies to another charge in this connection: that there is something wrong in omitting the rebuke of Peter by Paul, which occurred soon after this conference.21 The account of it was already in the hands of the disciples, and it had been for more than five years when the book of Acts was written; and if Rationalists are right as to the date of Acts, it had been for more than forty years.22

One more incident connected with this visit to Jerusalem deserves some notice at our hands, not because it is treated as a contradiction between Acts and Galatians, but because it furnishes a striking instance of contradiction between the assailants of Acts. Renan says that Titus consented to be circumcised, but only through the representations of two intruding brethren;23 while Baur says he was not circumcised; and with reference to an interpretation of Paul's words to the effect that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, but submitted to it for the sake of peace, he says, "Nothing can be more absurd."24

III. We next consider some alleged contradictions between Acts and other Epistles of Paul.

1. It is claimed under this head that the perfect agreement between Paul and the other Apostles which is set forth in Acts is proved to be unreal by the sentiments of parties in the church of Corinth. Paul speaks of certain parties in that church whose watchwords were, respectively, "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, I am of Christ" (I. Cor. i. 12.) It is claimed that the parties of Cephas and of Christ held strong Judaistic views, in opposition to Paul's: that its leaders had come from Jerusalem with letters of commendation from some of the older Apostles, and that they could not have claimed Cephas as their leader without knowing that he was in sympathy with their views. It is also argued that if this claim of theirs in reference to Peter had been false, Paul could have refuted it by saying so, which he never does.25 From these assumptions and inferences it is concluded that there could not have been that agreement between Paul and Peter which is claimed in Acts, but that Peter was in open antagonism to Paul. This charge, and the whole theory on which it is based, involves the assumption that the question at issue between these parties was the one about circumcision and keeping the law, and of this there is not the slightest evidence. This subject does not come into view in the Epistle at all; and therefore the antagonism assumed has no appearance of an existence. The only question which comes into view in the Epistle with respect to Paul and the twelve is the one whether Paul was really an Apostle in the sense in which they were. The rebellious parties in the church at Corinth sought to break down the influence of Paul, not by arraying the teaching of the twelve against that of Paul, for there is no intimation of any such antagonism being claimed by them, but by claiming that Paul was not possessed of apostolic authority, such as he was presuming to exercise. They took the name of Peter in this discussion, if Peter's was the real name they took (see I. Cor. iv. 6), because he was certainly an Apostle, and the chief of the original twelve. As to the false teachers who headed the party, to assume that they brought their letters of commendation from Jerusalem is to assume what can not be known to be true; and if it were true, it would prove nothing as to the relation between Paul and those by whom the letters were written. Unfortunately, it was, and is, no uncommon thing for men with letters of commendation from good men to make use of them for wicked purposes.

2. The most extreme and inexcusable of all these allegations against the author of Acts is the assertion that, in contradiction to his representation of agreement between the older Apostles and Paul, Paul is the very person denounced in unmeasured terms by John in the Epistles to the seven churches of Asia. It is asked, Who but Paul and his followers can be referred to as those who were tried by the church at Ephesus for claiming to be Apostles, and found liars; by those who held the doctrine of Baalam, and taught men to eat things offered to idols; and by the woman Jezebel, who taught the disciples to commit fornication, and to eat things offered to idols?26 The obvious answer is that they were men and women whose teaching and practice were condemned by the teaching of Paul in most emphatic terms as emphatic as those employed by John. It should also be said that, according to the admission of the very men who make this charge, John had given Paul the right hand of fellowship many years previous at Jerusalem; and it is a reflection on his honor to assume that he here denounces him whom he had acknowledged as a fellow Apostle. Indeed, this charge carries a false theory to the extreme of villification and abuse, and it is unworthy of men who profess to be seeking the truth of history.  

3. While Paul in the Epistle to the Romans represents the church in Rome as one of world-wide fame (i. 8; xvi. 16), it is claimed that Acts represents it as being so obscure as not to be known to the Jews who dwelt in Jerusalem so obscure that the Jews there could speak of Christianity itself "as a thing about which they had still to learn; with which they had not yet come in contact; which was known to them only by hearsay."27 This allegation would be scarcely worthy of notice were it not for the fact that so eminent a commentator as Olshausen understands the representation in Acts in the same way. 28 It is shown to be a false representation by a mere glance at the passage in Acts which is referred to (xxviii. 17-22). In response to Paul's statement about himself, the Jews are represented as saving: "We neither received letters from Judea concerning thee, nor did any of the brethren come hither and report or speak any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is everywhere spoken against." Now these words, instead of showing that the Jews were ignorant of Christianity, so ignorant that it was a thing about which they had still to learn, shows the very opposite. It shows that it was known to them, and known as a sect which was everywhere spoken against. It was Paul of whom they had not heard, and their remark does not show that they had heard nothing of him, but only that they had not heard "any harm" of him.

We have now discussed all of the principal charges of contradiction brought against the author of Acts, and the reader must judge whether any of them can be sustained. We shall hereafter institute quite a different comparison between this book and others, by which it will appear from undesigned coincidences that it is surprisingly correct in even the minutest details of its narration. 

1 Baur, Life and Works of Paul, i. (3, 10; Renan. Apostles, 26, 27; Sup. Rel., iii. 62, 64

2 As a curious illustration of the confusion into which men of genius fall when they attempt to resolve these simple narratives of the Scriptures into legends, and thus rob them of historical verity, it is well to notice the following passage in Renan: "As to the wretched Judas of Kerioth, there were terrible traditions of his death. It is said that with the price of his perfidy he bought a field in the environs of Jerusalem. There was indeed to the south of Mount Sion a place called Hakeldama (the field of blood). It was supposed that this was the property purchased by the traitor. According to one tradition he killed himself. According to another, he had a fall in his field, in consequence of which his bowels gushed out. According to others, he died of a species of dropsy, accompanied by disgusting circumstances, which were regarded as a chastisement of heaven. The desire to show in the case of Judas the accomplishment of the threats which the Psalmist pronounced against the perfidious friend, may have originated these legends. It may be that Judas retired upon his property at Hakeldama, led a peaceful and obscure life, while his former friends were conquering the world and spreading the report of his infamy." (Life of Jesus, 359, 360).

3 Sup. Rely iii. 100, 106.

4 Renan, Apostles, 20.

5 Baur, Paul, i. 60-62.

6 Baur Paul, i. 107.

7 Baur, Paul, i. 107.

8 Ib., 110, 111.

9 Ib.; Renan, Apostles, 194.

10 Renan, ib.

11Baur, ib., iii.

12 Ib.

13 Baur, the leader in opposing the view here stated, unwittingly confirms it by saying: "The apostle could not, considering his argument, in the passage, have passed over the journey mentioned in Acts xi. His object required that no communication which occurred between Gal. i. 18 and ii. 1 should be omitted, else the proof of his teaching being independent of the tuition of the rest of the apostles would be defective" (Paul i. 114). But the very consideration urged here justified him in passing over the visit of xi., seeing that on that visit he had no opportunity, as we have shown above, for instruction by the other apostles.

14 Sup. Rel., iii. 227.

15 Baur, Paul, i. 117, 118.

16 Baur, Paul, i. 119, 121, 124.

17 Baur, Paul, 1. 129.

18 Ib., 134; Renan, Apostles, 32; Sup. Rel., iii. 269.

19 Baur, Paul, i. 135; Renan, Apostles, 32, 33; Sup. Rel, iii. 270-273.

20 Sup. Rel., iii. 226.

21 Sup. Rel; Baur, Paul, i. 129.

22 Galatians was written not later than the beginning of the year 58, and Acts not earlier than 63; though according to the Tübingen School, the latter was not written till about the year 100.

23 Apostles 31.

24 Paul, i. 121, 122.

25 Baur, Paul, i., 281; Sup. Rel, iii. 307-309; II. Cor. iii. 1.

26 Sup. Rel., iii. 314; Rev., ii. 2, 14, 20

27 Baur, Paul, i. 326

28 Ib., 324-326, n.