For reasons why St. Paul did not refer to his second visit to Jerusalem when writing to the Galatians see on xi. 30, and Salmon, “ Galatians,” Β.Γ.Σ, p. 111; Sanday, Expositor, February, 18096, p. 92; Hort, fudaistic Christianity, p. 61; “Acts of the Apostles,” p. 30, Hastings’ B.D. and “Chron. of the N.T.,” ἐδίά., p. 423; Zahn, Einleitung, ii.,629. Further: Dr. Sanday has emphasised the fact that at the time of St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem the state of things which we find in Acts xv, (the third visit) did not exist ; that a stage in the controversy as, to the terms of admission of Gentile con- verts had been reached by the date of Acts xv. which had not been reached at the date of xi. 30; that at this latter date, e.g., there was no such clear de- marcation of spheres between St. Peter and St. Paul, and that it is not until Acts xiii. 46 that the turning-point is actually
334
38. Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου,. τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας, καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον,” μὴ συμπαραλαβεῖν τοῦτον.
1 For ηξιου D reads ουκ εβουλετο λεγωγ.
2 For µη συµπ. τουτον D reads τουτον µη ειναι συν αντοις; see on the passage Weiss, Codex Ὦ, p. 83; but if Weiss is correct, it has been well asked, how came
Paul to take Silas 2
Hilg. reads ιεναι for ειναι. συµπαραλαβειν, cf. ver. 37, but
pres. infin. ΜΑ ΡΒΟ 61, 180, Tisch., W.H.., Blass, R.V., Wendt, Weiss.
reached: henceforth St. Paul assumes his true ‘‘Apostleship of the Gentiles,” and preaches a real ‘‘Gospel of the uncircumcision”; see especially Ex- positor, July, 1896, p. 62. Of course Professor Ramsay’s theory obliges us to place Gal. ii, 1-10 before the Apostolic Conference, and to suppose that when the events narrated in Gal. 1i. took place, the journey ot Acts xiii., xiv. was still in the future. But is not the whole tone and attitude of St. Paul in Gal. ii. 1-10, placing himself, ¢.g., before Barnabas in νετ. g and evidently regarding himself as the foremost representative of one sphere of missionary work, as St. Peter was of the other, ver. 8, more easily explained if his first missionary journey was already an accomplished fact,and not still in the future ?
In the two short references to Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, it is still ‘‘ Barnabas and Saul,” so too in xiii. 1, 2, 7; not till xiii. 9 does the change come: henceforth Paul takes the lead, vv. 13, 16, 43, 45, 50, etc., with two exceptions as Professor Ramsay pointedly describes them (see above on xiii. g), and in the account of the Con- ference and all connected with it St. Luke and the Church at Antioch evi- dently regard Paul as the leader, xv. 2 (2), 22 (although the Church at Jerusalem places Barnabas first, vv. 12, 25). But in xi. 30, xii, 25 the historian speaks of “Barnabas and Saul”. The whole position of St. Paul assigned to him by St. Luke in Acts xv. is in harmony with the Apostle’s own claims and prominence in Gal. ii. 1-10; it is not in harmony with the subordinate place which the same St. Luke assigns to him in the second visit to Jerusalem. In other words, if Gal. ii. 1-10 = Acts xv., then St. Paul’s claim to be an Apostle of the Gentiles is ratified by the Gentile Luke; but if Gal. 11. 1-10 = Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, then there is no hint in Acts that Luke as yet regarded Paul in any other light than a subordinate to the Hebrew Barnabas; he is still Saul, not Paul. For the points of discrepancy ebetween Gal. ii. 1-10 and Acts xv. see
same authorities as above; one point upon which Ramsay strongly insists, viz., that a visit which is said to be ‘by revelation,” Gal. ii. 2, cannot be identified with a visit which takes place by the ap- pointment of the Church, Acts xv. 2, is surely hypercritical; it would not be the first occasion on which the Spirit and the Church had spoken in harmony; in Acts xiii. 3, 4 the Church ἀπέλυσαν sent away Paul and Barnabas, and yet in the next verse we read οἱ ἐκπεμφθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 125; Drummond, Galatians, p. 75; Turner, “ Chronology of the N.T.,” Hastings’ B.D., p. 424; cf. also Wendt, p. 258 (1899), and Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 632, who both point out that the state- ments referred to are by no means mutu- ally exclusive. On the whole question see Wendt’s 1899 edition, p. 255 ff., and Expositor, 1896 (February, March, April, July) for its full discussion by Dr. Sanday and Professor Ramsay.