Paul's second and third missionary journeys, as described in the Acts of the Apostles (second journey, 15.36 - 18.22; third, 18.23 - 21.17), are considerably shortened, or differently presented, in the Acts of Paul. There may be a good reason for this: Wilhelm Schneemelcher has observed of the Acts of Paul that "In the extant parts there is no mention of a repeated sojourn in any one place .... Nor can we say with any confidence whether the Acts of Paul portray one major missionary journey by Paul, or whether some places were visited twice". It seems therefore as though the Acts of Paul aimed to give a total conspectus of Paul's activity, with a single mention of each place visited, rather than a strict chronological sequence, with repeat visits as applicable, as in the Acts of the Apostles.

Nonetheless, differences of emphasis previously noted between the two sets of Acts still apply. In the Acts of the Apostles Paul returns to Jerusalem and Antioch between the second and third journeys (18.21-22), and "spent some time there" (18.23). And, on completion of the third journey, Paul again heads straight for Jerusalem: "And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present" (21.17-18; see also 20.16 and 22). These visits, perhaps significantly, are not mentioned in the Acts of Paul.

Again, the Acts of the Apostles represent Paul, in his second and third journeys, as visiting synagogues and preaching about Jesus to the Jews (17.12, 10, 17, 18.5, 19, 19.8); and again - as during the first journey - hostility from the Jews is characterized in the descriptions of ...envy ... lewd fellows of the baser sort ... uproar" (17.5), "the Jews ... stirred up the people" (17.13), "When the Jews opposed themselves, and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment, and said unto them 'Your blood be upon your own heads'" (18.6), "divers were hardened, and believed not, but spoke evil of that way before the multitude" (19.9). This bias against the Jews as unbelievers is absent from the Acts of Paul: it was assuredly not any part of the real Paul's attitude, but represents the views of the second-century institutional church. We may reject it in entirety, and should note in particular the parallelism between Paul's comment at 18.6 ('Your blood be upon your own heads') and Matthew 27.25 (Then answered all the people, and said, 'His blood be on us, and on our children'"). This imagery is a travesty of the all-inclusiveness of the real Paul.

In the Acts of the Apostles Paul's journey to Rome is brought about by the fact that "the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed Festus against Paul" (25.2) and ...the Jews " laid many and grievous complaints against Paul" (25.7); to which Paul answers "I appeal unto Caesar" (25.11). There are two striking differences in the Acts of Paul - which we may be sure represent truthfully what actually happened at this point. Paul is in Corinth, not Jerusalem, when the journey to Rome is mooted. He tells the Corinthians: "Brethren, I shall set out... and sail for Rome, that I may not delay what is ordained and laid upon me, for to this I was appointed" (New Testament Apocrypha Vol. 2, p.258). More significantly, Paul's 'calling' to Rome is his own decision as a free man, not the result of self-defence against serious charges and under escort and supervision, and Paul leaves Corinth, and travels to Rome, and begins his religious activity in Rome (NTA, pp. 258-260) without any reference to the complaints initiated against him by the Jews in Jerusalem and Agrippa's and Festus's referral of his case to the Emperor in Rome. It should be evident that in fact Paul was never in Jerusalem at this stage, and that the over-riding motivational slant of the Acts of the Apostles - here as elsewhere - is to drive as deep a wedge as possible between Paul's message and traditional Judaism; this element of the Acts of the Apostles is pure invention.

Now, interestingly, Paul does eventually, in the Acts of Paul, come before the Emperor in Rome, but for different reasons. Probably some considerable time after his first arrival in the city, after "many souls were added to the Lord " , and a great number of believers came to him from the house of Caesar" (NTA, pp. 260-261), one of Nero's servants, Patroclus, a cup-bearer, dies in a fall from a high window while listening to Paul preaching, and is brought back to life by Paul (p.261) - no doubt we should understand this story as a 'factualised retelling' of an original version in which Paul converts Patroclus from the death of unbelief to new life as a believer (compare Jesus's discussion with Nicodemus in John chapter 3). Nero must have been perturbed and angered at the incursion of Christianity his imperial household, for he "issued a decree to this effect, that all who were found to be Christians " should be put to death" (p.261). And for this reason Paul meets his end: "Caesar " commanded all the prisoners to be burned with fire, but Paul to be beheaded according to the law of the Romans" (p.262). This reads like an accurate and trustworthy record of events; and, if it is, we are forced to the conclusion that the author of the Acts of the Apostles re-uses, from his own fabricated perspective, the motif of the trial of Paul before Caesar. We can, here and there, catch glimpses of the reworking of the original material. In the Acts of Paul Paul falls asleep on the boat journey from Corinth to Italy: "When they were on the open sea and it was quiet, Paul fell asleep, fatigued by the fastings and the night watches with the brethren. And the Lord came to him, walking upon the sea, and he nudged Paul and said: 'Stand up and see! " Paul, get thee up, go to Rome," (pp.258-259). In the Acts of the Apostles, somewhere between Crete and Malta, this becomes a declaration on the part of Paul to those on the ship with him: "there stood by me this night the angel of God, " saying, 'Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar'" (27.23-24).

The illogicality of the reworking of the Acts of the Apostles, is evident in the fact that Agrippa and Festus deliver Paul and others to "one named Julius, a centurion" (27.1) for onward transmission to Caesar; but, on arrival in Rome, "the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard; but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him" (28.16); and - the appearance before Caesar conveniently forgotten - "Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him" (28.30). The author or editor of canonical Acts tries to wriggle, not very successfully, out of the self-imposed straitjacket of the appearance before Caesar, imported into the narrative in this form as a result of the wholly fictitious "grievous complaints" (25.7) of the Jews of Jerusalem. Historical truth, not very edifyingly, has become, in the Acts of the Apostles, a hostage to the pressures of second-century anti-Semitism.

Dr. Martin Pulbrook
10th February 2008