Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

I. On the identity of the Journey to Jerusalem related in Acts 15, with that referred to Galatians 2:1 ff.

FIVE visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem are related in the Acts. Now the visit of Galatians 2:1 ff. must be either ( α) one distinct from all these, or ( β) identical with one or other of them.

( α) This hypothesis should not be resorted to, till every attempt to identify the visit with one of those recorded can be shewn to fail. Then only may we endeavour, as in the case of the unrecorded visit to Corinth (see below, chap. 3 § v.), to imagine some probable place for the insertion of such a visit. So that the legitimacy of this hypothesis must be tried by the results arrived at in the discussion of the other. The maintainers of it are Beza, Paley (hesitatingly; Hor. Paul., p. 71, Birks’ edn.), Schrader (der Apostel Paulus, i. 74 ff.), and Tate.

( β) The visit in question is identical with one or other of those recorded in the Acts.

1. It is not the first visit. The identity of the visits of Acts 9:26-29 and Galatians 1:18 being assumed (and it is hardly possible to doubt it), this follows as a matter of course.

2. It is not the second visit (Acts 11:29-30). For we read, Galatians 2:7, that Paul was already recognized as entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, and as having preached vv. 8, 9 together with Barnabas among the Gentiles. Now the commission of Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles dates from Acts 13:1, after the second visit.

Also, at the time of the second visit, it is wholly improbable that Paul should have held a place of such high estimation in comparison with Peter, as we find him filling in Galatians 2:8 ff.

Again, on this hypothesis, either the first visit, or his conversion, was fourteen years inclusive before this, which took place certainly before 46 A.D.; for then the famine was raging, and this relief was sent up by prophetic anticipation. This would bring, either the first visit, or his conversion itself, to A.D. 32: a date wholly improbable, whichever way we take the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1.

3. The question of identity with the third visit is discussed below.

4. It is not the fourth visit. For in Galatians 2:1, we read that Barnabas went up with Paul: but in Acts 15:39, we find Paul and Barnabas separated, nor do we ever read of their travelling together afterwards,—and evidently Barnabas was not with him when he visited Jerusalem Acts 18:18-22. Besides, the whole character of the fourth visit as there related, is against the idea that any weighty matters were then transacted. The expression merely is ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν κατέβη εἰς ἀντιόχειαν. Again, if we assume the identity of the visit in question with the fourth visit, the Apostle can hardly be acquitted of omitting, in his statement of his conferences with the principal Apostles in Galatians 2, an intermediate occasion when the matters arranged between them had been of the most solemn and important kind. This would be scarcely ingenuous, considering the object which he had in Galatians 2.

5. It is not the fifth visit. For after this visit Paul did not return to Antioch, which he did after that in question, Galatians 2:11.

6. It remains therefore, that it can only, if identical with any of the five, be the third visit. Is this probable?

(a) The dates agree. See the Chronological Table, and notes on Galatians 2:1.

(b) The occasions agree. Both times, the important question relative to the obligation of Christians to the Mosaic law was discussed: both times, the work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles was recognized. What need was there for this to be twice done? It is of no import whatever to the matter, that in Acts, the result is a public decree,—whereas in Gal., no mention of such a decree is made: the history relates that which was important for the church,—the Epistle, that which cleared the Apostle personally from the charge of dependence on man: all mention of the decree would in Gal. have been irrelevant. Similarly we may deal with the objection, that in Acts, a public council is summoned, whereas in Gal., it is expressly said that Paul laid forth to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, but κατʼ ἰδίαν τοῖς δοκοῦσιν. This entirely agrees with Acts 15:12, where Paul and Barnabas related to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine which they preached, but only the patent proofs of its being from God,— ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς σημεῖα κ. τέρατα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν διʼ αὐτῶν.

(c) Nor is it any objection to the identity, that in Galatians 2:2, Paul went up κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν,—whereas in Acts 15:2, the brethren ἔταξαν that P. and B. should go up, in consequence of the trouble given by the Judaizers. How do we know that this revelation was not made to the church, and so directed their appointment? Or if it be understood that the revelation was made to Paul himself, who can say whether the determination of the brethren was not a consequence of it? Who can say again, whether Paul may not have been reluctant to go up, rather willing not to confer with flesh and blood on such a matter, and may have been commanded by a vision to do so? We have here again only the public and the private side of the same occurrence: the one, suitable to the ecclesiastical narrative: the other, to the vindication of his office by the Apostle.

(d) The result is strikingly put by Mr. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of Paul, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 546,—“The Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit: because, if so, the Apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas (Galatians 2:3-6) the liberty which was sought for the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας: therefore there would have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the same cause. Again, the Galatian visit could not have occurred after the third visit: because, almost immediately after that period, Paul and Barnabas ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles: whereas, up to the time of the Galatian visit, they had been working together.”

( γ) It seems then to follow, that the Galatian visit is identical with that recorded in Acts 15.

Those who wish to see the whole question dealt with more in detail, and the names and arguments of the champions of each view recounted, may refer to Mr. Conybeare’s Appendix I. at the end of vol. i. of Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul: or to Dr. Davidson’s Introd. vol. ii. pp. 112 ff.

II. On the discrepancy of Tacitus and Josephus regarding Felix

Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, has generally been supposed to be in error in stating that Cumanus and Felix were joint procurators before the condemnation of the former. His account is very circumstantial, but seems to shew an imperfect acquaintance with Jewish matters: whereas it is probable that Josephus was best informed in the affairs of his own country. The discrepancy is a very wide one, and if Tacitus is wrong, he has the whole history of the outbreak in Judæa circumstantially misstated to correspond. See Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 67, note.

EXCURSUS I

ON “THE CITY OF LASÆA,” AND OTHER PARTICULARS MENTIONED IN Acts 27:7-17

Since the publication of the second edition of this volume, much light has been thrown on the interesting questions connected with the topography of this passage, by letters written to Mr. Smith from the Rev. George Brown, who accompanied the yacht St. Ursula, Hugh Tennent, Esq., on a cruise in the Mediterranean, in the winter of 1855–6. I have to thank Mr. Smith for having kindly forwarded to me copies of these letters as they arrived. The substance of them is now printed as an extract from Mr. Brown’s Journal, in the second edition of Mr. Smith’s “Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,” Appendix, No. 3. I extract here such portions as regard immediately the geographical points in question, referring my readers to the volume itself for the whole account, which is most graphic and entertaining.

I. “We asked Nicephorus (the old Greek already mentioned) what was the ancient name of Lutro? He replied without hesitation, ‘Phœniki,’ but that the old city exists no longer. This of course proved at once the correctness of Mr. Smith’s conclusion. We were told further that the anchorage is excellent, and that our schooner could enter the harbour without difficulty. We next enquired the ancient name of the island of Gozzo, and he said at once, ‘Chlavda,’ or ‘Chlavdanesa’ ( χλαύδα, or χλαύδα νῆσος), a reply equally satisfactory. He told us also that there was a tradition in these parts that ἅγιος παῦλος ἀπόστολος had visited Calolimounias (the fair havens), and had baptized many people there.”

II. “Friday, Jan. 18th (Calolimounias).—Nothing now remained to be done but to ascertain the exact position of Lasæa, a city which Luke says is nigh to the Fair Havens.… I asked our friend the Guardiano, ποῦ ἐστι λασέα ( λάσαια)? He said at once, that it was two hours’ walk to the eastward, close under Cape Leonda: but that it is now a desert place ( τόπω ἐρήμω). Mr. Tennent was eager to examine it: so getting under weigh, we ran along the coast before a S.W. wind. Cape Leonda is called by the Greeks λέωνα, evidently from its resemblance to a lion couchant, which nobody could fail to observe either from the W. or the E. Its face is to the sea, forming a promontory 340 or 400 feet high. Just after we passed it, Miss Tennent’s quick eye discovered two white pillars standing on an eminence near the shore. Down went the helm: and putting the vessel round, we stood in close, wore, and hove to. Mr. H. Tennent and I landed immediately, just inside the cape, to the eastward, and I found the beach lined with masses of masonry. These were formed of small stones, cemented together with mortar so firmly, that even where the sea had undermined them, huge fragments lay on the sand. This sea-wall extended a quarter of a mile along the beach from one rocky face to another, and was evidently intended for the defence of the city. Above we found the ruins of two temples. The steps which led up to the one remain, though in a shattered state: and the two white marble columns noticed by Miss Tennent, belonged to the other. Many shafts, and a few capitals of Grecian pillars, all of marble, lie scattered about, and a gully worn by a torrent lays bare the substructures down to the rock. To the E. a conical rocky hill is girdled by the foundations of a wall: and on a platform between this and the sea, the pillars of another edifice lie level with the ground. Some peasants came down to see us from the hills above, and I asked them the name of the place. They said at once, ‘Lasea:’ so there could be no doubt. Cape Leonda lies five miles E. of the Fair Havens: but there are no roads whatever in that part of Candia. We took away some specimens of marble, and boarded our vessel: at four P.M., sailed for Alexandria.”

III. LUTRO. “The health-officer told me, that though the harbour is open to the E., yet the easterly gales never blow home, being lifted by the high land behind, and that even in storms, the sea rolls in gently (‘piano piano’). He says it is the only secure harbour, in all winds, on the south coast of Crete; and that during the wars between the Venetians and the Turks (the latter took the island In 1688, I think), as many as twenty or twenty-four war-galleys had found shelter in its waters. He further shewed us an inscription on a large slab which he says was found among some ruins on the point, and took us up the hill to see the traces of the site of the ancient Phœniki. The outline of its ramparts is clearly discernible, and some cisterns hollowed in the rock: but the ploughshare has been driven over its site, and it displays ‘the line of confusion and the stones of emptiness.’ ”

The inscription here alluded to was afterwards made out accurately by Mr. Brown, and is given by Mr. Smith in his Preface. It is interesting and important:

JOVI · SOLI · OPTIMO · MAXIMO ·

SERAPIDI · ET · OMNIBVS · DIIS · ET ·

IMPERATORI · CAESARI · NERVAE ·

TRAJANO · AVG · GERMANICO · DACICO ·

EPICTETVS · LIBERTVS · TABVLARIVS ·

CVRAM · AGENTE · OPERIS · DIONYSIO ·

SOSTRATI · FILIO · ALEXANDRINO · GVBERNATORE ·

NAVIS · PARASEMO · ISOPHARIA · CL · THEONIS ·

i.e. “Epictetus, the freedman and tabularius, to Jupiter, only O. M., to Serapis and all the gods, and to the irnperator Cæsar Nerva Trajanus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus: the superintendent of the work being Dionysius son of Sostratus of Alexandria, gubernator ( κυβερνήτης) of the ship whose sign is Isopharia, of the fleet of Theon.”

Now as Mr. Smith points out, we have here several points of union with the text of the Acts.

1. It appears that Alexandrian ships did anchor and make long stay, perhaps winter, at Phœnice: otherwise Epictetus, the master of one, could hardly have remained long enough to superintend this votive building, whatever it was.

2. We see the accuracy of the Alexandrian nautical language employed by St. Luke. We have here κυβερνήτης (ch. Acts 27:11) as the designation of the master of the ship; and παρασήμῳ as indicating the name or sign of it (ch. Acts 28:11).

The tabularius was the notary, or agent, of the fleet to which the Isopharia belonged. Mr. Smith quotes an inscription:

CINCIO · L · F · SABINIANO · TABVLARIO · CLASS · RAVENN ·

EXCURSUS II

ON THE READING ἑλληνιστάς IN Acts 11:20

My attention has been directed to a pamphlet by Dr. Kay, late Principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, “On the word Hellenist, with especial reference to Acts 11:19 (20).” Dr. Kay defends the received reading ἑλληνιστάς against the modern critical editors with considerable earnestness: I wish I could say that he had himself shewn the humility and impartial investigation which he demands from them, or abstained from that assumption which substantiates nothing, and that vituperation of his opponents which shakes a reader’s confidence in even the best cause. I shall deal here simply with the residuum of critical argument in his work.

1. The MS. evidence in his favour is ⁽²⁵⁾ (now apparently ascertained) D⁶EHL p 13, and apparently the great mass of cursives: strong, it must be admitted, but not decisive, with ^{(26) (27)} against him, and the testimony of ⁽²⁸⁾ divided (⁽²⁹⁾ reading εὐαγγελιστάς, and ⁽³⁰⁾, ἕλληνας).

2. He states that ἕλληνας is the easier word, and therefore “more likely to have supplanted ἑλληνιστάς in a few MSS., than this latter to have supplanted it in nearly all.” But it is remarkable that he did not notice the bearing on such an assertion of a fact which he himself subsequently alleges: viz. that in ch. Acts 6:1, “there is no MS. variation at all.” Does not this circumstance shew, that the alteration here has not been to ἕλληνας for the reason he supposes? Does it not further make it probable that ἑλληνιστάς being unquestioned there,— ἕλληνας, here so difficult to fit into the narrative, has been changed to that other form, which presented no such difficulty? But of this more below.

3. Dr. Kay has certainly succeeded in neutralizing the testimony of some of the versions, by noticing that the Peschito, Vulgate, and others, read the same word here and in ch. Acts 6:1. In this respect his pamphlet has done good service, and our future digests should be modified by this fact being stated,—the remaining versions being carefully examined and discriminated.

4. As to the testimony of Fathers, Dr. Kay’s argument is one so exceedingly loose and fallacious, that I can only wonder at its having satisfied himself. Chrysostom says ἵσως, διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι ἑβραϊστί, ἕλληνας αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν. Will it be credited, that Dr. K. here argues thus: “I will venture to say that if you were to strike out the word ἕλληνας, and put x in its stead, simply asking a person to determine from the sentence itself, for which of the two, ἑλληνιστάς or ἕλληνας, x had been substituted, the answer would be ἑλληνιστάς.” My answer would be the other way, seeing that the latter word would require no such explanation: but setting this aside, was there ever such a critical principle laid down, or experiment proposed, and that by one who justly censures Doddridge for the very same proposal in our text? “Strike out,”—not a dubious reading, for there is no doubt about ἕλληνας in the text of Chrysostom’s homily, but—“a difficult reading,—put x for it, and then say, according to the measure of your own apprehension and private judgment, what the word ought to be!” Truly, we may be thankful that the text of the New Testament has hitherto escaped the application of such a process.

5. In noticing the Editions, Dr. Kay has shewn singular unfairness. He has quoted a rash and foolish sentence from Doddridge, which says that “common sense would require us to adopt ἕλληνας, even if it were not supported by the authority of any MS. at all,”—and then charged all the critical Editors with having acted in this spirit, administering to them a severe admonition about ‘altering the Scriptures by conjectural criticisms,’ from Scott, who however himself believes ‘Greeks’ to be the right reading. In this, of course, the whole question is begged;—and the very reverse of our practice is charged on us. It is by no conjecture, which source of emendation I altogether repudiate, but owing to conscientious belief that ἕλληνας is the original Scripture text, that I have edited it; and consequently all Dr. Kay’s charges, and admonition, are out of place here.

6. His section ‘on the meaning of the term ἑλληνισταί,’ as ‘designating those Jews and proselytes who used the LXX version of the Scriptures in their synagogues,’ tells us no more than all knew before. But when he proceeds to ‘the suitableness of this meaning to the context’ in Acts 11:20, I cannot but think that he has missed the whole point of the narrative; and in treating of the objectors to this view, selecting myself as representing them, he has exhibited, as before, remarkable unfairness, and want of logical apprehension. I might point out both these seriatim, as indeed any reader may trace them in his pamphlet: but it may suffice to deal with two or three instances. Against ἑλληνιστάς, I have argued, that “the Hellenists were long ago a recognized part of the Christian Church:” my inference being, that, were they here referred to, there would be no case justifying the phænomena in the text, viz. a special notice like ἐλάλουν καὶ ( καί is inserted by our three most ancient MSS., ⁽³¹⁾, ⁽³²⁾, and ⁽³³⁾) πρὸς τοὺς ἑλληνιστάς, as distinguished from ἰουδαίους preceding,—a special mission of an apostle, as (for this is also implied in the text, not an hypothesis of mine) on some unusual occurrence. Now observe how this is treated by Dr. Kay:

“If this be an argument, it must mean something of the following kind:

“Some Hellenists had been converted at Jerusalem: therefore St. Luke cannot be here narrating a wonderful extension of the Christian church among the Hellenist body at Antioch.”

“ ‘Why not?’ we ask. ‘Because we have made up our mind that at this precise period a further development of the church’s constitution took place.’ It is sufficient to reply: ‘That is a mere arbitrary assumption: we are content to say with Newton, Hypotheses non fingo.’ ” Kay, p. 16.

I may safely appeal to the student of Scripture, whether this be not the very height of unfairness. I have advanced no hypothesis, but have been led into my view simply by the phænomena of the sacred text itself: by that “patient, inductive criticism,” which Dr. Kay himself desiderates. His form of stating my argument keeps out of sight the very point on which it really turns. Instead of “therefore St. Luke cannot be here describing,” he should have written, “but, from the diction and character of this portion of St. Luke’s narrative, it is not probable that he is here describing.”

7. The only other matter which I feel it necessary to notice is, the way in which he has dealt with what he has pleased to call my ‘hypothesis’ as to Barnabas being sent “not with the intent to sympathize with the work at Antioch, but to discourage it.” This last word, italicized by Dr. Kay as being mine, has neither place nor representative in my note, and is a pure misrepresentation. My words are, “probably from what follows, the intention was to ascertain the fact, and to deter these persons from the admission of the uncircumcised into the church; or, at all events, to use his discretion in a matter on which they were as yet doubtful. The choice of such a man, one by birth with the agents, and of a liberal spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished to deal, not harshly, but gently and cautiously, whatever their reason was.” This he designates as “a strange, and not very reverent hypothesis.” What Dr. Kay may understand by reverent, I am at a loss to imagine. I understand by reverence for Scripture, a patient, and at the same time fearless study of its text, irrespective of previously formed notions, but consistently with its own analogies. Now the analogy here is not with the mission of Peter and John to Samaria, as Dr. Kay represents it, nor was Barnabas sent from the Apostles and elders, as in that case: but our analogous incident is to be found in Galatians 2:12, where, as here, the Church at Jerusalem sent down messengers to Antioch on an errand of supervision. Had any one ventured to infer the character of that mission, and its possible effect even on an Apostle, he would doubtless have incurred even more strongly from Dr. Kay the charge of irreverence. But the sacred record itself has set inference at rest in that instance, and thereby given us an important datum whereby to infer the probable character of another mission from the same Church to the same Church; and our inference is, that the Jerusalem believers, whom we find ever jealous for the Judaic purity of the church, acted on this occasion from that motive. The whole character of that which is related of Barnabas’s proceeding at Antioch shews that he was acting, not in pursuance of his mission thither, but in accordance with the feelings of his own heart from seeing the work of God on his arrival.

It were very much to be wished that able men, like Dr. Kay, would study fairness in representing those who differ from them on critical points. The same motives which he assumes exclusively for his own side in this matter, have actuated also those who maintain the other reading. We deprecate as much as he can, ‘a bold alteration of texts, and a supercilious disregard of authority:’ had he dealt fairly with us, and attributed to us our own arguments, and not fictitious ones of his creation, he would have been the first to see this.

It is only waste of precious time to spend our strength in jostling one another, when we have such a glorious cause to serve, and only our short lives to serve it in. Let all our strength and earnestness be spent over the Sacred Word itself. For sifting, elucidating, enforcing it, rivalry, if our purpose be simple and our heart single, is the surest pledge of union.