πρεσβυτέρων, ἀνήγγειλάν τε ὅσα 6 Θεὸς ἐποίησε per αὐτῶν. 5. ἐξανέστησαν | δέ τινες τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων πεπισ- x κ τευκότες, λέγοντες, Ότι δεῖ περιτέµνειν αὐτούς, παραγγέλλειν τε τηρεῖν τὸν νόµον Μωῦσέως. 6. Συνήχθησαν δὲ ot ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ j 3 ἰδεῖ ὶ τοῦ Ad j πρεσβύτεροι ” ἰδεῖν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τούτου.
1 Ώ, Syr. Harcl. mg. begin verse οι δε παραγγειλαντες αντοις αναβαινειν προς τους πρεσ. εξανεστησαν λεγοντες, so Blass in β, so Hilg., but with αποστολους instead of πρεσβ., Blass “male,” omitting τινες . . . πεπιστευκοτες. According to this reading the Jerusalem Christians who stirred up the disputed question in Antioch are now identified with those who rise up against Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem. A.V. margin, following Beza and some of the older commentators, make this sentence part of the narrative of Paul and Barnabas, “there rose up, said they (eXeyov),” etc. Weiss, Volter, Spitta, see here a proof of a combination of two sources. But there does not seem to be any reason why, as in T.R., the Pharisees at Jerusalem should not represent the same point of view as had been presented by the Jews who had come down to Antioch; that they did so with accentuated bitter- ness in Jerusalem is quite in accordance with the notice in Gal. ii. 4, but this fact need not exclude the previous raising of the question against the Apostles in Antioch, especially as the Jews who had come thither from Jerusalem were plainly not merely Jews but Judaisers. See Wendt (1899), following Meyer, and for a favourable judgment of the Bezan text Salmon, Introd., p. 598; see also Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft. Theol., i., 1896, and Acta Apost., p. 246, 1899; on the other hand Weiss, Codex D, p. 80, and Wendt (1899), Introd., p. 49, and on this occasion Zahn, Esnleitung, ii., p. 344.
3 After πρεσβ. 137, Syr. Harcl. mg. add συν to πληθει so Blass in B, and Hilg. The πληθος here, although not mentioned except in authorities just named, is plainly presupposed in vv. 12 and 22, and Wendt (1899) opposes the view that we have
before us in its omission elsewhere a trace of distinct sources.
probably in some smaller and more private assembly in answer to the ἀνήγγ. of ver. 4, which seems to mean that the delegates at first announced informally in Jerusalem what had happened, just as they had done in Phoenicia and Samaria, cf. παρείσακτοι ἀδελφοί, Gal. ii. 4. The Pharisees took up their remarks, objected —probably basing their teaching on the necessity of circumcision on such pas- sages as Isa. lvi. 6, ef. lit, 1 (Lumby) ; and then followed as a consequence the official assembly in ver. 6 (see Zéckler’s note, ver. 4, and im loco, p. 246, second edition). Or if we consider that a repre- sentative meeting of the whole Church is implied in ver. 4, and that the Apostles spoke before it, then the private con- ference of Gal. ii. 2 may be regarded as taking place between .the first public assembly, ver. 4, and the second in ver. 6 (Hort, Ecclesia, Ῥ. 69, cf Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 126).--αἱρέσεως, see above p. Τ48.- τῶν Φ.: the Pharisaic spirit had already shown itself in xi. 2, but this is the first definite mention in the book of the conversion of any of the Pharisees ; not strange after the conversion of the priests, see note on vi. 7, or after the
attitude of men like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathza towards our Lord, and the moderate counsels of Gamaliel.—remuo- τευκότες» believed, {.ε., that Jesus was the Messiah, and the fulfiller of the law —but still only as the Head of a glorified Judaism, from which Gentiles were to be rigidly excluded unless they conformed to the enactments relating to circumcision. How difficult it was for a Pharisee Quietist probably of the earlier part of the first century to acknowledge that the law of circumcision and of Moses could possibly be regarded as unessential we may learn from Assumption of Moses, ix., 4-6, and viii., On circumcision, and see references on ver, 1.--αὐτούς, ἐ.ε., the Gentiles, speaking generally, not the tivas ἄλλους of ver. 2 (Lekebusch), the uncircumcised companions of Paul and Barnabas, al- though in accordance with Gal. fi. 3-5 such persons would no doubt have been included.—tmpetv: only used here by St. Luke of keeping the law, and only else- where in James ii. το in a similar phrase, cf. Mark vii. 9, John ix. 16, of keeping the law of the Sabbath; Matt. xix. 17, of keeping the commandments; Tobit xiv. ο (S, al.), Jos., Ant., xiii., το, 6.