36. META δέ τινας ἡμέρας εἶπε Παῦλος πρὸς Βαρνάβαν, Ἐπιστρέ- ψαντες δὴ ἐπισκεψώμεθα τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἡμῶν 1 κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν, ἐν
1 ηµων om. with ΝΑΒΟΡΕ, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Syrr. Ῥ. and H., Arm., Chrys., Tisch., W.H., Blass, R.V., Weiss, Wendt, and Hilg.
vanus, who had originally been members of the Jerusalem Church, Acts xii. 12, xv. 22, and moreover the two oldest of St. Paul’s associates, whose brotherly Christian concord had been broken for the time (when Paul chose the latter in the place of Barnabas, and rejected Mark’s services altogether), but who are now both found at St. Peter’s side in Rome (assuming that Babylon is Rome), evidently at one with him and with each other; the one the bearer of a letter, the other the sender of greetings, to Pauline Churches. If St. Paul had passed to his rest, and the leader had thus changed, the teaching was the same, as the names of Silvanus and Mark assure us, and St. Peter takes up and carries on the work of the Apostle of the Gentiles, see Dr. Swete, u. S., pp. 87, 8δ.---ἐξῆλθε, cf. Luke ix. 6, 3 John, ver. 7, where the word is used of going forth for missionary work.—rapa- δοθεὶς, cf. xiv. 26. Possibly we may infer that the Church took Paul’s view of the point at issue between himself and Barnabas, but on the other hand we cannot prove this, because the writer’s thoughts are so specially fixed upon Paul as the great and chief worker in the organisation and unification of the Church.
Ver. 41. διήρχετο, see above on xiii. 6.—Zvptav καὶ Κιλικίαν: as Barnabas had turned to Cyprus, the scene of his early labours in the Gospel, and perhaps also his own home, so Paul turned to Syria and Cilicia, not only because his home was in Cilicia, but also because he had worked there in his early Christian life andé labours, Gal., i., 21, 23. It isa coincidence with the notice in Gal. that St. Luke here and in ver. 23 presupposes the existence of Churches in Syria and Cilicia, although nothing had been pre- viously said of their foundation, whilst the presence of Saul at Tarsus is twice intimated, ix. 30, xi. 25. Moreover the commencement of the letter, vv. 22, 23, indicates that these regions had been the centre of the teaching of the Judaisers, and St. Paul’s presence, together with the fact that Silas, a prominent and lead- ing member of the Jerusalem Church, was his colleague, would doubtless help to prevent further disquiet. On the ad-
dition to the verse in the Bezan text see critical note.
Additional note (z).
Amongst recent writers on the Acts, Mr. Rendall has stated that the evidence for the identification of Acts xv. with Gal. ii. 1-10 is overwhelming, Appendix to Acts, pp. 357,359. If we cannot fully endorse this, it is at all events noticeable that critics of widely different schools of thought have refused to regard the alleged differences between the two as irreconcilable; in this conservative writers like Lechler, Godet, Belser, Knaben- bauer and Zahn, Einleztung, ii., 627, 628; scientific critics, as we may call them, like Reuss, B. Weiss; and still more advanced critics like Lipsius and H. Holtzmann are agreed. This general agreement is recognised and endorsed by Wendt, p. 255 (1899), see also K. Schmidt, ‘‘Apostelkonvent,” in Real- Encyclopadie fir protest. Theol. (Hauck), p. 704 ff. Amongst English writers Lightfoot, Hort, Sanday, Salmon, Drum- mond, Turner may be quoted on the same side (so too McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 208), (see for the points of agree- ment, Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 123; Drummond, Galatians, p. 73 ff.; Salmon, “Galatians,” B.D.?; Reuss, Geschichte des h. S. des Ν. T., p. 60, sixth edition, and very fully in Belser, Die Selbstver- theidigung der h. Paulus im Galater- briefe, p. 83 ff., 1896; for the difficulty in identifying Gal. ii. with any other visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem, cf. Salmon, Lightfoot, µ. s., and Zahn, uw. s., Felten, Introd. to Afpostelgeschichte, p. 46). But the recent forcible attempt of Professor Ramsay to identify Gal. ii. 1-10 with St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, and not with the third visit, Acts xv., has opened up the whole question again (see on the same identifica- tion recently proposed from a very dif- ferent point of view by Vélter, Witness of the Epistles, p. 231, and also by Spitta,? Apostelgeschichte, Ῥ. 184). At first sight it is no doubt in favour of this conclusion that according to Acts the journey, xi. 30, is the second made by St. Paul to Jerusalem, and the journey in xv. the third, whilst Gal. ii. 1 also describes a journey which the Apostle