A further question arises as to the position to be assigned to the incident in Gal. ii. 11-14. Professor Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 157 ff., supposes that it took place before the Apostolic Conference, and finds a description of the occasion ot the incident in Acts xv. 1, Acts xv. 24, Gal. ti. 12, i.e., in the words of three authorities, St. Luke, the Apostles at Jerusalem, and St. Paul himself; the actual conflict between St. Peter and St. Paul took place after the latter’s second visit to Jerusalem, but before his third visit. The issue of the conflict is not described by Paul, but it is implied in the events of the Jerusalem Conference, Acts xv. 2, 7. Barnabas had wavered, but had afterwards joined Paul; Peter had been rebuked, but had received the rebuke in such a way as to become a champion of freedom in the ensuing Conference, employing to others the argument which had convinced himself, cf. Acts xv. το, Gal. ii. 14. Mr. Turner, “ Chronology of the N.T.,” Hastings’ B.D., i., 424, is inclined to adopt this view, which identifies the two Judaising missions from Jerusalem to Antioch, Gal.
38—39.
335
40. ἐγένετο οὖν παροξυσµός, ὥστε ἀποχωρισθῆναι αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλω», tov! τε Βαρνάβαν παραλαβόντα τὸν Μάρκον ἐκπλεῦσαι εἰς Κύπρον -
1 D amplifies after αλληλων τοτε Β. παραλαβ. τον Μ. επλευσεν εις Κ., So Blass
and Hilg.
ii. 12 and Acts xv. 1, while he still main- tains the ordinary view that Gal. ii. 1-10 = Acts xv. This, as he points out, we may easily do, whilst Gal. ii. 11-14 may be allowed to precede Gal. ii. 1-10 in order of time, and 1Π the absence of the ἔπειτα in Gal. i. 18, 21, ii. 1 there is nothing to suggest that the chronological series is continued. It may be noted that Paley, Hore Pauline, v., 9, had re- marked that there is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the dispute at Antioch was prior to the Conference at Jerusalem. Moreover it may be fairly urged that this view puts a more favour- able construction on the conduct ot St. James and St. Peter in relation to the compact which they had made with Paul at the Jerusalem Conference. But on the attitude of St. James and the expres- ‘sion ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ιακώβου, see Hort, Fudaistic Christianity, p. 79; Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 12; Drummond, Galatians, p. 85; and with regard to the conduct of St. Peter, see Hort, µ. s., p. 76; Light- foot on the collision at Antioch, Gala- tians, p. 125 ff.; and Salmon, ‘ Gala- tians,’’ B.D.?, p. 1114; Drummond, x. s., p. 78: a bn Zahn’s position that the dispute between Peter and Paul took place be- fore the Apostolic Conference, when the former betook himselt to Antioch after his liberation, Acts xii. 5 Π., a view put forward also by Schneckenburger, Zweck der Apostelgeschichte, p. tog ff., see Neue Kirchl. Zeitschr., p. 435 ff., 1894, and Belser’s criticism, Die Selbstverthet- digung des h. Paulus im Galaterbriefe, ‘p. 127 ff., 1896 (Biblische Studien).
Wendt, pp. 211, 212 (1899), while declining to attempt any explanation either psychological or moral of St. Peter’s action in Gal. ii. 11-14, points out with justice how perverse it is to argue that Peter could not have previously -conducted himself with reference to Cor- nelius as Acts describes when we re- ‘member that in the incident before us Barnabas, who had been the constant companion of St. Paul in the Gentile mission, shared nevertheless in St. Peter’s weakness.
Additional note (2), cf. ver. 29.
A further question arises as to why the particular prohibitions of the Decree are
Weiss sees in τοτε a characteristic of D; cf. ii. 37.
mentioned. According toa very common view they represented the Seven Precepts of Noah, six of which were said to have been given by God to Adam, while the seventh was given as an addition to Noah. The Seven Precepts were as follows: (1) against profanation of God’s name; (2) against idolatry; (3) against fornication; (4) against murder; (5) against theft; (6) to obey those in autho- rity; (7) against eating living flesh, {.ε., flesh with the blood in it, see Schirer Fewish People, div. ii., vol. ii., Ρ. 318, E.T.; Hort, Fudaistic Christianity, p. 69. No doubt there are points of con- tact between these Precepts and the four Prohibitions of the Decree, but at the same time it would seem that there are certainly four of the Precepts to which there is nothing corresponding in the Decree. The Precepts were binding on every Gér Toshav, a stranger sojourning in the land of Israel, but it has been erroneously supposed that the Gér Toshav = ocBopevos, and thus the con- clusion is drawn that the idea of the four prohibitions was to place Gentiles on the footing of σεβόµενοι in the Christian community. Against this identification of the (ἐν Toshav and the oeBopevos Schirer’s words are decisive, u. s., pp. 318, 319. But if this view was valid historically, the position of the Gentile Christians under such conditions would have been far from satisfactory, and we cannot suppose that Paul would have regarded any such result as a success; still circumcision and the keeping of the law would have been necessary to entitle a man to the full privilege of the Christian Church and name. Ritschl, who takes practically the same view as Wendt below, admits that in a certain degree the Gentile Christians would be regarded as in an inferior position to the Jewish Christians, Altkatholische Kirche, pp. 131, 133, second edition.