340
yap dmayvtes! τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ, ém Ἕλλην ὑπῆρχεν.
4.7 ὡς δὲ
διεπορεύοντο τὰς πόλεις, παρεδίδουν αὐτοῖς φυλάσσειν τὰ δόγµατα τὰ κεκριµένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν
Ἱερουσαλήμ.
ε 4 » > / a a , ‘ 5. at μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησίαι ἐστερεοῦντο τῇ πίστει, καὶ
ἐπερίσσευον τῷ ἀριθμῷ καθ ἡμέραν.
1S9ABC 13, 31, 180, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Aethwi.; W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt read οτι Ελλην ο πατηρ avrov υπηρχεν; Blass, Hilg., Tisch. follow T.R. (DEHLP).
2 D, Gig. read διερχοµενοι δε τας πολεις; D, Syr. Harcl. mg. continue εκηρυσσον αντοις µετα πασης παρρησιας τον κυριον Incouv Χριστον, and D adds apa παραδι- δοντες και τας εντολας των αποστ. . .., see Weiss, Codex D, Ρ. 85, who regards the addition as made to account for the growth of the Church described in ver. 5, but also cf. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 158.
Blass, cf. Godet, Epitre aux Romains, i., ΡΡ. 43, 44; Hort, fudaistic Christianity, pp. 85-87; Knabenbauer, in loco. ‘* There is no time in Paul’s life when we should suppose him less likely to circumcise one of his converts,” says McGiffert, u. s., p. 233, but there were converts and converts, and none has pointed out more plainly than McGiffert that the case of Titus and that of Timothy stood on totally different grounds, and none has insisted on this more emphatically than St. Paul himself: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ Τίτος, Gal. 1.3. The case of Titus was a case of principle: Titus was a Greek, and if St. Paul had yielded, there would have been no need for the Apostle’s further attendance at the conference as the advocate of freedom for the Gentile Churches. In the νγοτάς Ἕλλην ὤν, Gal. ii. 3, there may have been a tacit allusion to the different position of Timothy, whose parentage was different, and not wholly Gentile as in the case of Titus. For a defence of the historical nature of the incident as against the strictures of Baur, Zeller, Overbeck, Weizsacker, see Wendt, 1898 and 1899, who regards St. Paul’s action as falling under the Apostle’s own principle, r Cor. ix. 10.--ὑπῆρχεν: Blass translates fuerat, and sees in the word an intimation that the father was no longer living, otherwise we should have ὑπάρχει, cf. Salmon, Hermathena, xxi., Ρ. 229.
Ver. 4. A proof of St. Paul’s loyalty to the Jerusalem compact. The decree had not been delivered in Syria and Cilicia (where the letter had been already received), but in Galatia St. Paul delivers it. Wendt regards vv. 4 and 5 as in- terpolated by the author, who desires to give a universal importance to the decree which had previously been read to a few specified Churches (so too Spitta, Jingst, Hilgenfeld, Clemen, who refers
the verses to his Redactor Antijudaicus). But St. Paul might well feel himself bound to deliver the decree to the Churches evangelised by him before the conference in Jerusalem. Weiss, therefore, is pro- bably right in pointing out that as no mention is again made of any similar proceeding, the action was confined to the Pauline Churches which had been previously founded, Churches which were, as it were, daughter Churches of Antioch. —8dypata: in the N.T. only in Luke and Paul (cannot be supported in Heb. xi. 23), and only here of the decrees of the Christian Church relative to right living, cf. Ignat., Magnes., xiii., 1; Didaché, xi., 3. In 3 Macc. i. 3 it is used of the rules and requirements of the Mosaic Law, ¢/. its use by Philo, see further Plummer on Luke ii. 1, and Grimm, sub v. Dr. Hort refers the word back to xv. 22, ἔδοξεν, and so κεκρ. to κρίνω, xv. 19 (cf. xxi. 25), used by St. James. In these expressions he sees ‘more than advice,” but “less than a command,” and so here he regards ‘‘resolutions ’’ as more nearly expressing the force of this passage, Ecclesia, pp. 81, 82; see however above on xv. Ig.