1 Iren. ii. 21. 1; Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 24, 'Adlegit et alios septuaginta apostolos super duodecim,' referring for an illustration of the numbers to Exod. IV. 27, 'And they came to Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees.' See also Origen quoted above, p. 96. In the Gospel the Seventy are not indeed called 'Apostles,' but the verb droσTÉNEL is applied to them, and they are spoken of as 'seventy others' (Luke x. 1), in reference to the mission of the Twelve. In the Ancient Syriac Documents, edited by Cureton, this extension is distinctly and repeatedly given to the term; e.g. p. 3, 'Thaddeus the Apostle one of the Seventy'; p. 34, 'Addæus the Apostle one of the seventy-two Apostles.'

2 For Barnabas see Strom. ii. p. 445, 447 (ed. Potter); for Clement of Rome, Strom. iv. p. 609. Elsewhere Clement calls Barnabas ἀποστολικός, adding that he was one of the Seventy, Strom. ii. p. 489.

3 See Colossians, p. 45 sq. In the Apost. Const. (vi. 7) he is called Pirπος ὁ συναπόστολος ἡμῶν.

• Origen in Joann. Tom. IV. p. 430, ed. Delarue.

5 Η. E. i. 12 εἶθ ̓ ὡς παρὰ τούτους, κατὰ μίμησιν τῶν δώδεκα πλείστων ὅσων ὑπαρξάντων ἀποστόλων, οἷος καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Παῦλος ἦν, προστίθησι λέγων· Επειτα ὤφθη τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσι. Comp. Theodoret on 1 Cor. xii. 28. There is however no authority for the statement of the latter, 1 Tim. iii. 1, that the order

afterwards called bishops were formerly called apostles. See Philippians, p. 193 sq.

Certain early commentators on Isaiah xvii. 6 saw a reference to fourteen Apostles, making up the number by including Paul and Barnabas, or Paul and James the Lord's brother: see Euseb. in Is. xvii. 6, and Hieron. in Is. IV. pp. 194, 280, ed. Vallarsi. The Apost. Const. (viii. 46) recognise thirteen, including St Paul and excluding St James. Of really early writings the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions alone seem to restrict the number to twelve. This restriction served the purpose of the writers, enabling them to exclude St Paul. At the same time the exclusion of St James is compensated by assigning to him the title of 'bishop of bishops.'

6 Barnab. § 8, referred to above, p. 95, note 1: Justin, Dial. p. 260 c: comp. Apol. I. p. 78 4, ἀπὸ γὰρ Ιερουσαλὴμ ἄνδρες δεκαδύο τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν Kóσμov: Iren. iv. 21. 3, 'dodecastylum firmamentum Ecclesiae,' ib. Fragm, p. 843 (Stieren): Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 13 asks 'Cur autem duodecim apostolos elegit et non alium quemlibet numerum?', and refers in answer to the twelve springs at Elim, the twelve jewels on Aaron's breastplate, etc. Comp. Theodot. in Clem. Alex. p. 975 (Potter). In Clem. Hom. ii. 23 the Apostles are compared to the twelve months of the year: comp. Clem. Recogn. iv. 35. 36.

II. 1, 2. 'An interval of fourteen years elapsed. During the whole of this time I had no intercourse with the Apostles of the Circumcision. Then I paid another visit to Jerusalem. My companion was Barnabas, who has laboured so zealously among the Gentiles, whose name is so closely identified with the cause of the Gentiles. With him I took Titus also, himself a Gentile. And here again I acted not in obedience to any human adviser. A direct revelation from God prompted me to this journey.'

διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν] Are the fourteen years to be counted from St Paul's conversion, or from the visit to Jerusalem just recorded? The following considerations seem to decide in favour of the latter view: (1) The stress of the argument lies on the length of the interval during which he had held no communication with the Judaic Apostles; and (2) Individual expressions in the passage tend the same way: the use of διὰ δ. ἐτῶν, in preference to μετὰ δ. ἔτη, implies that the whole interval was a blank so far as regards the matter in hand, the intercourse of St Paul with the Twelve; and the words πάλιν ἀνέβην, again I went up,' refer us back to the former visit, as the date from which the time is reckoned. As the latter visit (supposing it to be the same with that of Acts xv.) is calculated independently to have taken place about A.D. 51, the date of the first visit will according to this view be thrown back to about A.D. 38, and that of the conversion to about A.D. 36, the Jewish mode of reckoning being adopted. For diá, 'after the lapse of,' see Acts xxiv. 17, and Winer, § xlvii. p. 475.

καὶ Τίτον] Titus is included in the 'certain others' of Acts xv. 2, and is specially named here on account of

the dispute to which he gave rise (ver. 3). He was sent from Antioch with others whose names are not mentioned, probably as a representative of the Gentile Christians; just as on the return of the mission the Apostles of the Circumcision sent back Judas and Silas to represent the Jewish believers, Acts xv. 27. The incident would present itself all the more vividly to St Paul's mind, inasmuch as Titus was much in his thoughts, if not actually in his company, at the time when this epistle was written. See 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, 13—15, viii. 16, 23, xii. 18.

κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν] by revelation. In St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 2) he is said to have been sent by the Church at Antioch. The revelation either prompted or confirmed the decision of the Church. See the detached note, p. 125.

2.

'Arrived at Jerusalem, I set forth the principles of the Gospel, as I had preached it and still preach it to the Gentiles-the doctrine of grace, the freedom from the ceremonial law. This explanation I gave in a private conference with the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. In all this I had one object in view; that the Gospel might have free course among the Gentiles, that my past and present labours might not be thwarted by opposition or misunderstanding.'

ἀνεθέμην] The middle ἀνατίθεσθαι has the sense to relate with a view to consulting,' 'to refer,' as 2 Macc. iii. 9; see also Acts xxv. 14, T Barideî ἀνέθετο τὰ κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον, where the idea of consultation is brought out very clearly in the context, vv. 20, 26. 'Inter conferentes,' says Jerome here, 'aequalitas est; inter docentem et discentem minor est ille, qui discit.' See the notes on προσανατίθεσθαι, i. 16,

ii. 6.

ὁ κηρύσσω] ‘I preach, not ἐκήρυσε σov, 'I preached,' for his Gospel had not changed. See the note on oÚK ČσTIV, i. II.

κατ' ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν] ‘but in private to those of repute.' The foregoing avrois is best referred to the Christians of Jerusalem generally, as implied from 'Iepoσóλvμa (ver. 1). If so, this clause, which follows, is inserted not to exclude a public conference, but to emphasize his private consultations. These private communications probably preceded the general congress, which occupies the prominent place in St Luke's narrative (Acts xv. 6 sqq) and seems to be alluded to in the Acts, though not very distinctly, in the words. (xv. 4), 'They declared what things God had done with them.' The private consultation was a wise precaution to avoid misunderstanding: the public conference was a matter of necessity to obtain a recognition of the freedom of the Gentile Churches.

Tois dokovσ] 'the men of repute, of position.' See Eur. Hec. 294 λóyos γὰρ ἔκ τ ̓ ἀδοξούντων ἰὼν κἀκ τῶν δοκούν Tov, with Pflugk's note; Heracl. 897 εὐτυχίαν ἰδέσθαι τῶν πάρος οὐ δοκούντων, Herodian vi. 1 τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς τοὺς δοκοῦντας καὶ ἡλικίᾳ σεμνοτάτους K.T.A. The expression itself therefore is a term of honour, and conveys no shadow of depreciation. So far as it is coloured with any tinge of disparagement here, this is due (1) to the repetition of the word δοκοῦντες, (2) to the addition of στύλοι εἶναι, εἶναί τι, the latter especially, and (3) to the contrast implied in the whole passage, between the estimation in which they were held and the actual services they rendered to him. On the other hand, it will be seen (1) That this disparagement is relative, not absolute; a negation of the exclusive claims urged for them by the Judaizing party, not

a negation of their Apostolic rank and worth; (2) That the passage itself contains direct evidence of mutual respect and recognition between St Paul and the Twelve (vv. 8, 9, 10).

On the tense of τοῖς δοκοῦσιν see the note on ver. 6.

μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω κ.τ.λ.] • lest I might be running, or had run, to no purpose.' The kindred passage 1 Thess. iii. 5, μήπως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν, seems to show that rрéxw is here the subjunctive rather than the indicative, this being moreover the more likely mood in itself. See the note there. The use of the subjunctive (7μéxw) here, rather than the optative (rpéxo), is in accordance with the spirit of the later Greek, which prefers the more direct mode of speech in all such cases. In the New Testament the optative seems never to occur with particles of design etc; see Winer § xli. p. 360. In the second clause the change of mood from the subjunctive (rpéxw) to the indicative (dpaμov) is rendered necessary by the change of tense, since the consequences of the past were no longer contingent but inevitable : comp. iv. I 1.

Tрéxw] is a reference to St Paul's favourite metaphor of the stadium; see v. 7 and the note there. For the expression εἰς κενὸν τρέχειν comp. Phil. ii. 16, where, as here, it refers to his missionary carcer.

But what is the drift of the passage? Is it a natural expression of misgiving on the part of St Paul, who was not altogether satisfied with the soundness of his teaching, until he had consulted with the Apostles of the Circumcision? So Tertullian takes it, adv. Marc. i. 20, v. 3, and esp. iv. 2. This is perhaps the prima facie sense of the passage, slightly favoured by οὐδὲν προσανέDEVTо, ver. 6. But on the other hand such an admission would be so entirely

alien to the spirit of the passage, so destructive of St Paul's whole argument, and so unlikely under the circumstances, that this interpretation must be abandoned. The words therefore must be taken to express his fear lest the Judaic Christians, by insisting on the Mosaic ritual, might thwart his past and present endeavours to establish a Church on a liberal basis. By conferring with them, and more especially with the Apostles of the Circumcision, he might not only quiet such lurking anxiety (μnπws) as he felt, but also, if there were any lack of unanimity, win them over to his views.

3. St Paul is here distracted between the fear of saying too much and the fear of saying too little. He must maintain his own independence, and yet he must not compromise the position of the Twelve. How can he justify himself without seeming to condemn them? There is need of plain speaking and there is need of reserve. In this conflict of opposing aims and feelings the sense of the passage is well-nigh lost. The meaning of individual expressions is obscure. The thread of the sentence is broken, picked up, and again broken. From this shipwreck of grammar it is even difficult to extricate the main incident, on which the whole controversy hinges. Was Titus circumcised or was he not? This is not only a reasonable question, but a question which thoughtful writers have answered in different ways. On the whole, the following reasons seem to decide for the negative. (1) The incident is apparently brought forward to show that St Paul had throughout contended for the liberty of the Gentiles; that he had not, as his enemies insinuated, at one time conceded the question of circumcision. It is introduced by way of evidence, not of apology. (2) It is difficult to reconcile the view that Titus was circumcised with individual expressions

in the passage. St Paul could scarcely say 'we yielded no not for an hour' in the same breath in which he confessed to this most important of all concessions: he could hardly claim for such an act the merit of preserving 'the truth of the Gospel,' i.e. the liberty of the Gentile Christians, which it was most calculated to compromise. In order to maintain that view, it is necessary to lay undue stress on the words ἠναγκάσθη, and τῇ ὑποταγῇ, which from their position seem quite unemphatic: as if the former signified that the circumcision of Titus was an act of grace, not of compulsion; and the latter, that the Apostle in yielding was not doing homage to superior authority. (3) Taking into account the narrative in the Acts, both the occasion and the person were most inopportune for such a concession. There was an agitation among the Judaizers to force the rite of circumcision on the Gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas had gone up from Antioch in order to protect them from this imposition. They were accompanied by certain representatives of the Gentile Church, of whom Titus was one. No act could be conceived more fatal to the interests of St Paul's clients at such a moment, or less likely to have been permitted by him. Accordingly the vast majority of early writers take the view that Titus was not circumcised, even though in many instances they adopted a reading (the omission of ois ovde in ver. 5) most unfavourable to this conclusion. See p. 122.

St Paul is here indirectly meeting a charge brought against him. Shortly before he visited Galatia the first time, he had caused Timothy to be circumcised (Acts xvi. 3). This fact, which can scarcely have been unknown to the Galatians, for Timothy accompanied him on his visit, may have afforded a handle to the calumnies of his enemies. There was a time, they said,