(so Ewald, Renan, Zéckler, Rendall, Blass and others), was the Passover, the one which seems most reconcilable with the chronology ; others maintain Pente- cost, so Anger, Alford, Wieseler, Plumptre —see Alford, in loco, and Turner, Chron. of the N. T., p. 422; Lewin favours Tabernacles.—avaxdpww, cf. xix. 1: used by St. Luke, Luke x. 6, Matt. ii. ra, Heb. xi. 15; used also several times in LXX, Jud. xi. 39 A, 2 Sam. viii. 13, τ Kings xii. 20, Job xxxix.- 4, Sus. 14, and other instances, so in classical Greek, to return to a place, Herod., ii., δ.---τοῦ Θ. θέλ., cf. 1 Cor. iv. το, xvi. 17, James iv. 15. Not only amongst Jews and Arabs but amongst Greeks and Romans similar phrases were in vogue, see Meyer’s note on James iv. 15; see critical note on β.--ἀνήχθη, see above on xis ται
Ver. 22. κατελθὼν εἰς K., {.ε., Caesarea Stratonis, {.6., came down from the
20—23.
305
τοῦ Θεοῦ θέλοντος. καὶ ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Εφέσου: 22.) καὶ κατελθὼν
εἰς Καισάρειαν, ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατέβη εἰς
3 Αντιόχειαν.
23. καὶ ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ ἐξῆλθε, διερχόµενος
καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν Χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, ἐπιστηρίζων πάντας
τοὺς µαθητάς.
1137, Syr. Harcl. mg., Pesh. read τον δε Άκυλαν ειασεν εν Εφεσῳ: αυτος δε αναχθεις ηλθεν εις Καισ., so as to bring in the words omitted above, κατελιπεν αυτους exet—no mention of Priscilla; this would be characteristic of the Bezan
reviser, cf. ver. 26, etc.
high sea to the coast, the shore, cf. xxvii. 5 (xxi. 3), so in Homer, and also of coming down from the high land to the coast, see Grimm-Thayer, sub v.—ava- Bas, {.ε., to Jerusalem, the usual expres- sion for a journey to the capital, cf. xi. 2, xv. 2 (b), xxv. 1, 9, Matt. xx. 18, Mark x. 32, see Luke ii, 42, xviii. 31, xix. 28, John ii. 13, vii. 8, Gal. ii. 1; cf. xxiv. 1, 22, xxv. 6, where ‘‘to go down”’ is used of the journey from Jerusalem to Cesarea. To suppose that the word is used to in- dicate simply that they landed in the harbour, or because the town lay high up from the shore, or because the place of assembly for the Church was on high ground, is quite arbitrary, and cannot be set against the usage of the term “ going up” and “going down” in relation to Jerusalem; see Hort, Ecclesia, p. 96; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 264; so Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Hackett, Zockler, Ren- dall, Page, Weiss, Weizsacker, Spitta, Jingst, Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Knabenbauer, and Belser, Beitrdége, p. 89, who opposes here the position of Blass (and ifthe T.R. in ver. 21 is retained in B certainly “the going up” to Jerusalem seems naturally to follow). Blass maintains that Czesarea is meant, but he is evidently led to adopt this view by his desire to retain the read- ing in D, xix. 1, see Zéckler, in loco, and Ramsay, p. 264, and Belser, wu. s., for a criticism of Blass’s view. Amongst the more recent critics, Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 343, 350, combats the reasons alleged by Belser, and takes the going up and the Church mentioned to refer to Czsarea and the Church there, not to Jerusalem. This visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem is disputed by McGiffert, although he does not deny with Weizsacker the whole journey, but admits that the Apostle went as far as Antioch. So too Wendt is not prepared to follow Weizsacker entirely, although he holds that as the Apostle went to Syria, Luke concluded that he must have gone up to Jerusalem (so McGiffert). On the other hand, the
historical truthfulness of the journey to Jerusalem is stoutly defended by Spitta (pp. 246-248). The silence of the Gala- tian Epistle is admitted by Wendt to be in itself no proof against its occurrence, and still less objection can be based on the supposed variance at this time be- tween St. Paul and the Jewish Christians of the capital. See Zéckler’s note, p.