τὴν Συρίαν, ἐγένετο γνώμη τοῦ ὑποστρέφειν διὰ Μακεδονίας. 4. συνείπετο δὲ atta! ἄχρι τῆς Actas” Σώπατρος 5 Βεροιαῖος. Θεσσα-
1 συνειπετο δε αντῳ, Blass follows D and also inserts προηρχοντο, whilst D omits
verb altogether, Syr. H. mg. reads συνειποντο.
Apparently D takes µεχρι της A.
with εξιεναι, and the names may have been taken with προηρχοντο if Blass is right in regarding this as original; see his Proleg., p. 27.
2axpt της Ασιας om. $B 13, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Aethpp., so Tisch., W.H. text, R.V. marg., Weiss; but retained ADEHLP, Syr. P. and H., Arm., Chrys. ; (Gig.,
Wer.) Blass in B (µεχρι); see also W.H., App., p. 97.
Wendt also considers that
it is probably to be retained, see note in comment.; cf. προελθ., 1. 5.
3 After Σωπατρος ΝΑΒΡΕ, Vulg., Boh., Syr. H. mg., Arm., Origiat-, so Tisch., Alford, W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Blass add Πνρρον.
Paul, St. Luke, and the whole company, although Wendt justifies the distinction by pointing out that in νετ. 13 jets is used exclusive of Paul (cf. xxi. 12).
Mr. Askwith, u. s., p. 93 ff., has recently argued that ἡμεῖς in νετ. 6 in- cludes not only St. Luke and St. Paul, but with them the representatives of Achaia (who are not mentioned by name with the other deputies) who would naturally be with St. Paul on his return from Corinth, vv. 2, 3, and he would not travel through Macedonia unaccompanied. In 2 Cor. viii. St. Luke, ‘the brother,’’ according to tradition, whose praise in the Gospel was spread through all the Churches, had been sent to Corinth with Titus and another ‘‘ brother,” and so naturally any representatives from Achaia would come along with them, pp. 93,94. No names are given because St. Luke himself was amongst them, and he never mentions his own name, p. 96. The fact that Timothy and Sopater who had been with the Apostle at Corinth when he wrote to the Romans (chap. xvi. 21, if we may identify Σωσίπατρος with the Σώπα- τρος Πύρρου Βεροιαῖος, Acts xx. 4) are amongst those who waited at Troas is accounted for on the supposition that Timothy and others might naturally go across to inform the Asiatic delegates of Paul’s change of plan, and would then proceed with these Asian representatives to Troas to meet the Apostle (p. 94). The presence of Aristarchus and Secundus at Troas is accounted for on the ground that St. Paul, on his way to Achaia, did not expect to return through Macedonia, and so would naturally arrange for the Macedonian delegates, who were not accompanying him into Greece, to meet him somewhere. And the delegates from Thessalonica would naturally cross to Troas with the intention of proceeding to Ephesus (or Miletus), where St. Paul would have touched even if he had sailed
for Palestine from Cenchrez (cf. Acts xviii, 18, 19), p. 95. But against this it may be fairly urged that there is no reason to assume that the Macedonian delegates did not accompany Paul into Greece ; Timothy and Sosipater had evidently done so, and all the delegates mentioned seem to have been together in St. Paul’s company, συνείπετο αὐτῷ, ver. 4. In the uncertain state of the text it is difficult to come to any decision on the passage. The words ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας may easily have been omitted on account of the supposed difficulty con- nected with the fact that two at least of St. Paul’s companions who are named, Trophimus and Aristarchus, went further than Asia, cf. xxi. 29, xxvii. 2, while on the other hand it is somewhat hard to believe that the words could be inserted by a later hand.
On “The Pauline Collection for the Saints and its importance,” and the re- presentatives of the Churches in the different provinces, see Rendall, Ex- positor, November, 1893 ; Ramsay, δὲ. Paul, p. 287, and “Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D.; Wendt, p. 325 (1899) ; Hort, Rom. and Ephes., pp. 39 ff. and 173. Nothing could more clearly show the immense importance which St. Paul attached to this contribution for the poor saints than the fact that he was ready to present in person at Jerusalem the members of the deputation and their joint offerings, and that too at a time when his presence in the capital was full of danger, and after he had been expressly warned of the peril, cf. Acts, xxiv. 17, Rom. xy. 25. On the suggestion for the fund and its con- summation see 1 Cor. xvi. 1-8, Acts xx. 16, 2 Cor. viii. 1Ο, ix. 2: A.D. 57-58, Ren- dall, Lightfoot; 56-57, Ramsay. Such a scheme would not only unite all the Gentile Churches in one holy bond of faith and charity, but it would mark their solidarity with the Mother Church