[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Various Readings in ii. 5.

The reading which is given in the text, ois ow88 mpès opav, is doubtless correct. Two variations however occur, which deserve notice. 1. The omission of ow8é. (1) The The negative is found in all the Greek uncial Mss (i.e. in NABCEF : GKLP) except D, in which however it is inserted by a later hand, and . apparently in all or nearly all the Greek cursive Mss. It is expressly mentioned by the Ambrosian Hilary" and by Jerome”, as the reading of the Greek copies. It is found also in the Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic, both Syriac and other versions, and was unquestionably the original reading of the Vulgate, as it appears in all the best manuscripts of this version. It was read moreover by Marcion", Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius", Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the Pseudo-Ignatius", and perhaps also by Origen", among the Greeks; and by Ambrose', Augustine", Jerome, Pelagius (in his text, though he comments on the other reading), and Primasius, among the Latins. On the other hand, it is omitted in D (both Greek and Latin), and in the Latin of E; and the text is read without it by the translator of Irenaeus”, by Tertullian”, Wictorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary, Pelagius (in his commentary), and apparently Sulpicius Severus". We have it moreover on the authority of Jerome”, of Primasius”, and of Sedulius", that the negative was not found in the Latin copies, and the same is implied by the language of the Ambrosian Hilary. In the face of this testimony, the statement of Victorinus, that it was Omitted in omitted ‘in plurimis codicibus et Latinis et Graecis, is not worthy of credit. Some few. He may indeed have found the omission in some Greek Ms or other, but even this is doubtful. No stress can be laid on the casual statement of a writer so loose and so ignorant of Greek. It appears from these facts that the omission is due to some Western Omission Ms or Mss alone. The author of the Old Latin version used one of these. * And to the Old Latin version all or nearly all the existing authorities for oil. the omission may be traced. Its absence in the Greek text of D is an exception, unless the charge of Latinising sometimes brought against this

* ad loc. ‘Graeci e contra dicunt: * ad loc. and Epist. lxxxii. (II. p.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Tertullian's charge against Marcion.

Omission how accounted for.

Ms can be substantiated. Irenaeus is also to be accounted for, but in this
case the omission may perhaps be ascribed not to the author himself, but
to his translator.
A correction however would appear to have been made in that re-
cension which was circulated in North Italy, for the negative is found both
in Ambrose and in Augustine, the former of whom used the ‘Itala” as a
matter of course, and the latter by choice".
Tertullian indeed accuses Marcion of interpolating the negative; but
no weight attaches to his assertion. The African father, not finding it
in his own Latin copy and finding it in Marcion's recension, caught at what
appeared the simplest way of accounting for the variation. He would not
stop to consider whether his own copy was correct. It was enough for him
that the text with the negative was more favourable to Marcion's peculiar
views than without it. Tertullian makes no appeal to MSS or external
authority of any kind. He argues solely on grounds of internal evidence.
The omission in the first instance is not easily accounted for. It may
have been an oversight. Or possibly the Latin translator, or the tran-
scriber of the Mss which he used, intentionally left it out, thinking, as some
later critics thought, that the sense of the passage or the veracity of the
Apostle required the omission. At all events the expedient of dropping
the negative, as a means of simplifying the sense, is characteristic of the
Latin copies. For other instances in St Paul see Gal. v. 8, Rom. v. 14,
I Cor. v. 6, [Col. ii. 18]: comp. Joh. vi. 64, ix. 27°.
The omission once made, arguments were not wanting to support it.
Tertullian found that the negative vitiated the sense of the passage.
He objected to it moreover as at variance with history, which showed that
St Paul did yield on occasions, in circumcising Timothy for instance, and in
paying the expenses of those who had taken Nazarite vows. The same
arguments are brought forward by Victorinus and the Ambrosian Hilary".
With much greater justice Jerome maintains that it is required for the
sense. But feeble as were his reasons, doubtless the authority of Tertullian,
and the prejudice thus raised against this as the reading of Marcion,
were fatal to its reception with many who otherwise would have conformed
to the Greek text.
It is not uninteresting to observe how little influence this important
various reading has had on the interpretation of the passage. The omission
or insertion of ow8é might have been expected to decide for or against the
circumcision of Titus. This however is not the case. The Latin Fathers,
who left out the negative, generally maintained that he was not circum-
cised". Several modern critics, who retain it, hold that he was.
2. The omission of ois.

Hilary. This is also the opinion of Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 3), if I understand The relative is omitted in some few texts which retain othé, and (2) The retained in some few which want ow8é; but for the most part the two are relative. omitted or retained together. Here again the Greek texts are as unanimous as in the former case. The obvious motive of this omission is the improvement of the grammar by the removal of a redundant word.

* De Doctr. Christ. c. 15.
* For these references I am indebted

to Reiche Comm. Crit. II. p. 13.
* “Litterae enim hoc indicant quia

cessit, et historia factum exclamat.'

The passage is based on Tertullian.
* So Victorinus and the Ambrosian

him rightly: though Baur, Paulus p. 122,
interprets him differently. The only
exception that I have remarked is Pe-
lagius, who however has not the same
reading in the text as in the notes.

This assumed necessity of altering the text somehow, in order to correct the grammar, may have been the first step towards the more important omission of the negative.

The later visit of St Paul to Jerusalem.

The later of the two visits to Jerusalem mentioned in the Epistle has The same from the earliest times been identified with the visit recorded in Acts xv. With the This view is taken by Irenaeus', the first writer who alludes to the subject; Y. 3. and though it has not escaped unchallenged either in ancient” or modern days, the arguments in its favour are sufficiently strong to resist the pressure of objections to which it is fairly exposed”.

I. In support of this view may be urged the positive argument from Argu- . the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from *. . the difficulty of finding any equally probable solution, or indeed any pro- #.oi. bable solution at all besides.

(i) The later visit of the Galatian Epistle coincides with the third visit (i) Posiof the Acts, when the so-called Apostolic Council was held, in all the most § important features. The geography is the same. In both narratives the io communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch : in both the circumhead-quarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina-stances. tions are carried on in the latter: in both the Gentile Apostles go up to Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to Antioch again. The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St Paul places the event

15 or 16 years after his conversion: St Luke's narrative implies that they

* Iren. iii. 13. 3 ‘Si quis igitur diligenter ex Actibus Apostolorum scrutetur tempus de quo scriptum est, Ascendi Hierosolymam, propter praedictam quaestionem, invenieteos, quipraedicti sunt a Paulo, annos concurrentes etc.” So also apparently Tertullian, adv. Marc. v. 2, 3.

* This visit is placed after the third in the Acts by Chrysostom, but not further defined. It is identified with the fifth by Epiphanius Haer. xxviii. 4, p. 112. The Chron. Pasch. (I. p. 435 sq. ed. Dind.) places it after the incidents of Acts xiii. 1–3, and before those of Acts xv, thus apparently interpolating it between the second and third

visits of the Acts.
* The view adopted is that of most
recent critics. It is well maintained by
Schott, De Wette, Conybeare and How-
son, Jowett, and others. The argu-
ments in favour of the second visit of
the Acts are best stated by Fritzsche
Opusc. p. 223 sq. The fourth visit of
the Acts finds its ablest champion in
Wieseler, Galat. p. 553 sq. The fifth
visit has been abandoned by modern
critics, as the epistle was clearly writ-
ten before that time. Some few, e.g.
Paley Horae Paulinae ch. v. no. Io,
suppose this to be a journey to Jerusa-
lem omitted in the Acts.

took place about the year 51 *. The persons are the same : Paul and Bar-
nabas appear as the representatives of the Gentile Churches, Cephas and
James as the leaders of the Circumcision. The agitators are similarly
described in the two accounts: in the Acts, as converted Pharisees who
had imported their dogmas into the Christian Church; in the Epistle, as
false brethren who attempt to impose the bondage of the law on the
Gentile converts. The two Apostles of the Gentiles are represented in
both accounts as attended : “certain other Gentiles’ (ić atrów) are men-
tioned by St Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is named by St Paul. The subject of
dispute is the same; the circumcision of the Gentile converts. The cha-
racter qf the conference is in general the same; a prolonged and hard-
fought contest”. The result is the same; the exemption of the Gentiles
from the enactments of the law, and the recognition of the Apostolic com-
mission of Paul and Barnabas by the leaders of the Jewish Church.
A combination of circumstances so striking is not likely to have oc-
curred twice within a few years.
(ii) Nor indeed can this visit be identified with any other recorded in
St Luke. It has been taken by some for instance for the second visit of
the Acts. To this supposition the date alone is fatal. The second visit of
the Acts synchronizes, or nearly so", with the persecution and death of
Herod, which latter event happened in the year 44. But at least 12 or 13,
probably 15 or 16 years, had elapsed since St Paul's conversion, before he
paid the visit in question. And no system of chronology at all probable
will admit of so early a date for his conversion as would thus be required.
But again, according to the narrative of the Acts St Paul's Apostolic mis-
sion commenced after the second visito, whereas the account in the Epistle

(ii) Negative. Difficulty of other solutions.

[ocr errors]

order, which is not directly chronolo-
gical. Having mentioned in (1) St
Paul's mission to Jerusalem, the writer
is led in (2) to describe the condition
of the Church there, kar’ exelvoy roy
Kalpów. This obliges him to pass on to
(3) in order to show that God defeated
the purposes of man, the persecutor dy-
ing ignominiously, and the persecuted
Church continuing to flourish. He then
resumes the subject of (1) in (4). Thus
it may be assumed, I think, that the
Church was suffering from Herod's
persecutions when St Paul arrived, but
not that Herod was already dead. In
other words, the chronological order
was probably (2), (1), (4), (3).
* His career as an Apostle com-
mences with Acts xiii. He had before
this held a subordinate place, and his
preaching had been confined to Damas-
cus (ix. 22), Jerusalem (ix. 28), and the
neighbourhood of Tarsus and Antioch
(ix. 30, xi. 25 sq.; comp. also Gal. i. 21).

« 前へ次へ »