What was the effect of the public ceremony described in v. 3 ? The high authority of Lightfoot answers that it constituted Barnabas and Saul as Apostles. He acknow-
Sec 5. The Mission of Barnabas and Saul. 67
ledges that Saul's " conversion may indeed be said in some sense to have been his call to the Apostleship. But the actual investiture, the completion of his call, took place some years later at Antioch {Acts XIII 2)." He considers that Barnabas and Saul were only prophets before this, and did not become Apostles until they were elevated to that rank by their " consecration to the office " at Antioch {Ed. Galat. p. 96).
Our view, on the contrary, is that Barnabas and Saul were Apostles before this. The Apostle was always ap- pointed by God and not by the Church. The proof of Apostleship lay in the possession of apostolic message and powers, conversion of others and performance of signs. It is an historical anachronism to attribute to this period such belief in the efficacy of a Church-ceremony. More- over, in XXII 17, 21, and XXVI 17, Paul claims to have been an Apostle from his conversion, and represents his work in Cilicia and Syria as an Apostolate. In Gal. I he declares that his message came direct from God at his conversion. Further, there is no sign in XIII 2, 3, that this " consecration " by the Church was more efficacious than the original Divine call : the ceremony merely blessed Barnabas and Saul for a special work, which was definitely completed in the next three years. In XIV 26 the work for which they had been committed to the grace of God in XIII 2 is declared to be fulfilled ; and they returned to their ordinary circle of duties in the Church at Antioch.
The last word in verse 3 should not be " sent them away " (as in the Authorised and Revised Versions). The Spirit sent them away (verse 4) ; and the Church released them from their regular duties and bade them ** God-speed ". The Greek verb {aireXvo-av, like the Latin dimittere) is used of
68 The Church in Antioch. Chap. III.
the superior giving his visitor leave to depart (for a visitor in the East is considered to be paying his respects, and does not presume to depart without formal permission to go), or of a host allowing his guests to depart, or of a com- manding officer giving soldiers honourable dismissal after their term of service. The correct rendering of this term will prove important at a later stage (p. 155).
Note. Date of the famine. Orosius VII 6 puts it in the fourth year of Claudius, which began January 25, A.D. 44. But Orosius's dates at this point are put one year too early owing to a mistake in adapting to Claudius's years a series of events arranged in his authority according to a different system of chronology; this kind of mistake is known to have been frequently made by ancient chroniclers, and is proved in Orosius's case by the fact that he assigns to the tenth year of Claudius a famine at Rome which Tacitus Ann. XII 43 places in A.D. 51. We therefore take Orosius as an authority for dating the commencement of the famine in 45. Josephus mentions the famine as having occurred while Tiberius Alexander was procurator of Judaea; and there is general agreement that Alexander's adminis- tration lasted from 46 to 48 : though the time when it began was not absolutely certain, July 45 is the earliest admissible date, and 46 is far more probable: his pre- decessor Cuspius Fadus was sent by Claudius in 44, and a good deal occurred during his office. But Josephus also mentions the famine in connection with Queen Helena's arrival in 45. Helena, however, seems to have remained a considerable time, and Josephus's words are in perfect accord with our view that scarcity began with a bad harvest in 45.