Note. Date of the Famine. 69
In the preceding chapter, Lightfoot's view is quoted according to his edition of Gal., where he says that Barnabas and Saul had come to Jerusalem and returned to Antioch before Herod's death. Since the chapter was in type, I notice that in a posthumous essay "printed from lecture notes " he dates the famine 45 ; but that seems hardly consistent with his edition, and as he re- published his edition without change throughout his life, it must represent his mature opinion. Perhaps he means that Paul and Barnabas brought the famine-money to Jerusalem a year or more before the famine began, which we cannot accept as a natural or a useful procedure.
i. CYPRUS AND SALAMIS. (XIII 4) THEY ACCORD- INGLY, BEING SENT FORTH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, CAME DOWN TO the harbour SELEUCEIA, AND THENCE SAILED AWAY TO CYPRUS ; (5) AND WHEN THEY REACHED SALAMIS THEY BEGAN TO PROCLAIM THE WORD OF GOD IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS ; AND THEY HAD JOHN ALSO AS A SUBORDINATE. (6) AND THEY MADE A missionary PROGRESS THROUGH THE WHOLE ISLAND UNTIL they reached PAPHOS.
The harbour is mentioned, according to Luke's common custom (XIV 25, XVIII 18, XVI 11). When he has once mentioned the harbour of any city, he omits it on a subsequent occasion (cp. XX 6 with XVI 11). The failure to name the harbour of Bercea is remarkable (XVII 14) ; doubtless there is some reason for it.
As they were able to make the harbour of Salamis, on the south coast, they were not impeded by westerly winds, which commonly blew throughout the summer (see p. 298). With such winds, they would have run for the Cilician coast, and worked along it westward with the aid of land- breezes and the current (p. 299), till they could run across to the north coast of Cyprus, as Barnabas had to do on his next journey (if the Periodoi Bamabce can be trusted). But
(70)
Sec. i. Cyprus and Salamis. Jt
they probably started on the opening of the sailing season (March 5).
John Mark is brought before the reader's notice here in a curiously incidental way. He came with Barnabas and Saul from Antioch (see XII 25); why should he not be mentioned at the outset ? A superficial view might see want of method in this apparently haphazard reference to the third traveller. But surely the object is to emphasise the secondary character of John Mark, in view of what was to happen in Pamphylia : he was not essential to the expedition ; he had not been selected by the Spirit ; he had not been formally delegated by the Church of Antioch ; he was an extra hand, taken by Barnabas and Saul on their own responsibility. This obviated the criticism that the. delegation consisted of three persons, and that Mark's retirement from Pamphylia was fatal to the official and representative character of the rest of the mission — a criticism which may probably have been actually used in the subsequent rather bitter controversy described in XV. This might have been formally and expressly set forth at an earlier stage ; but the historian briefly expresses it by saying nothing about John Mark until he appears incidentally as a supernumerary and subordinate. The silence is singularly expressive, and therefore carefully calculated.
There must have been a large Jewish colony in Salamis, with more synagogues than one. Cypriote Jews are often mentioned in Acts (IV 36, XI 20, XXI 16) ; and Barnabas himself was a Cypriote. The practice of Saul always had been to go first to the synagogues ; and up to the present time there is no reason to think that he had directly ad- dressed the Gentiles except as hearers in the synagogue.
72 Jotirney of Barnabas and Saul. Chap. IV.
His procedure here is exactly as at Damascus, where he proceeded to preach in the synagogues immediately after his conversion (IX 20). It was right that the first offer should be addressed to the Jews (XIII 46). Moreover he was always sure of a good opening for his Gentile mission among the " God-fearing," who formed part of his audience in every synagogue.