[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The former, resuming the subject which has been interrupted by his defence of himself, is more after the Apostle's manner, while the latter would seem the obvious connecting particle to transcribers. On the other hand 88 may possibly have been substituted for yap here, because it is found with yyopisto (-souev) in I Cor. xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1. forw] is here only the copula. The present tense is used instead of theimperfect to show the permanenceandunchangeableness of his Gospel. Seeii. 2. karā āv6porov) “after any human fashion or standard.’ See on iii. 15. 12. ow8; yūp yo) “For to go a step farther back, neither did I myself receive it from man.’ The force of the particle oë8é is best sought for in the context. Ow8é & Yoo mapéAa3ov answers to rô ei'ayyektoróēv or épio J oux forriv, as mapá dv6porov answers to karā āv6porov. Others explain it “I as little as the Twelve,” “I in whom perhaps it might have been expected’; but such interpretations are not reflected in the context. rapā āv6porov mapéAašov) The idea in the preposition is sufficiently wide to include both the drö and 8th of ver. I. I do not think the distinction given by Winer § xlvii. p. 463, and others, between Aaps3ávew mapā Kuptov and Map24vew drô Kvpiou (I Cor. xi. 23), as denoting respectively direct and indirect communication, can be insisted upon. It is true, that while diró contemplates only the giver, mapá in a manner connects the giver with the receiver, denoting the passage from the one to the other, but the links of the chain between the two

may be numerous, and in all cases where the idea of transmission is prominent mapá will be used in preserence to dré, be the communication direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 Se£duevos tapå 'Ena'bpodirov rap' tutov: comp. Plat. Symp. 202 E. The verb mapaxapuśāvelv may be used either of the ultimate receiver or of any intermediate agent, provided that the idea of transmission be retained; i.e. it may be either (1) to receive as transmitted to oneself, 2 Thess. iii. 6, or (2) to receive so as to transmit to others. In this latter sense it is used of the Apostles, who receiving the Gospel directly from the Lord passed it to others. See I Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1, 3, and compare tapayyeMia. oùre £8,84x6mv]The authorities being nearly equally divided between oore and ow8é, I have with some hesitation retained the former in the text, as being the less regular collocation (ooo8è...otre), and therefore more likely to be altered. In this case another oore is to be understood before trapéAa3ov, the 88 of ow8é having reference to the former sentence. See Winer § lv. 6, p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315. éðiðáxónv is added to explain and enforce mapā āvéparov mapéAa3ov, and thus to bring out the contrast with & droxaxisveos: “I received it not by instruction from man but by rerelation from Christ.' For a somewhat similar contrast see Cic. pro Mil. c. 4, ‘Est enim haec, judices, non scripta sed mata lex; quam non didicinus, accepimus, legimus, verum ex natura ipsa arripuimus, hausimus, expressimus.’ I3, 14. “My early education is a

[ocr errors]

proof that I did not receive the Gos-
pel from man. I was brought up in
a rigid school of ritualism, directly
opposed to the liberty of the Gospel.
I was from age and temper a staunch
adherent of the principles of that
school. Acting upon them, I relent-
lessly persecuted the Christian bro-
therhood. No human agency there-
fore could have brought about the
change. It required a direct interpo-
sition from God.”
13. Ijkočorare] ‘ye heard, ‘I told
you, when I was with you.” The his-
tory of his past career as a persecutor
formed part of his preaching: see
Acts xxii. 2—21, xxvi. 4—23, I Cor.
xv. 8–10: comp. Phil. iii. 6, 1 Tim. i.
13. The A.W., ‘ye hare heard, gives
a wrong meaning.
dvaorpoojv trore] for the more usual
trore dvaorpoopijv, as ver. 23 & 8taškov
juās moré. Similar displacements of
words, which would ordinarily come
between the article and substantive,
are frequent in the New Testament.
See on 1 Thess. i. 1; and Winer § xx.
p. 169 sq.
'Iovóairu%) “observance of Jewish
rites.” The word does not in itself
imply any disparagement. Comp. 2
Macc. ii. 21 ross timep row 'Iověaioruod
quxoriuos dw8payatrioraoruv, xiv. 38
orópa Kai Wuxiv Uměp row 'Iověaioruow
mapage3Amuévos, and 'Iovöuičew Gal. ii.
14. Though perhaps originally coin-
ed by the heathen and, as used by
them, conveying some shadow of con-
tempt, it would, when neutralised
among the Jews themselves, lose this
idea and even become a title of ho-
nour. The case of Xptoruavós, likewise
a term of reproach in the first in-
stance, is a parallel.

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

these extreme partizans, forming into
a separate sect under. Judas of Gali-
lee, took the name of ‘zealots’ par
earcellence, and distinguished them-
selves by their furious opposition to
the Romans: Joseph. Antiq. xviii.
1. 1, 6. See Ewald Gesch. des Volkes
Isr. v. p. 25 sq., p. 322, WI. p. 340.
rów marpuków uov trapabóoreov] ‘of
the traditions handed down from
my fathers.’ It is doubtful whether
the law of Moses is included in this
expression. In Josephus ék trapa-
8óorews rôv marépov (Antiq. xiii. Io. 6),
# trarpoša trapáðoats (ib. 16. 2), are the
Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished
from the written law. See also Matth.
xv. 2, 3, 6, Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13.
These passages seem to show that the
word mapá8ooris, which might in itself
include equally well the written law,
signified in the mouth of a Jew the
traditional interpretations and addi-
tions (afterwards embodied in the
Mishna), as distinguished from the
text on which they were founded and
which they professed to supplement.
15–17. “Then came my conversion.
It was the work of God's grace. It
was foreordained, before I had any
separate existence. It was not there-
fore due to any merits of my own, it
did not spring from any principles of
my own. The revelation of His Son
in me, the call to preach to the Gen-
tiles, were acts of His good pleasure.
Thus converted, I took no counsel of
human advisers. I did not betake
myself to the elder Apostles, as I
might naturally have done. I se-
cluded myself in Arabia, and, when I
emerged from my retirement, instead
of going to Jerusalem, I returned to
15. 6 dopoptoas] ‘who set me a-
part, devoted me to a special pur-

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

verb and dvaSalvew are used especially
of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the
high lands of Palestine, as karépxe-
oréau, karaśaivetv, are of leaving it. See
Luke x. 30, Acts xi. 27, xii. 19, xv. 1,
2, xxi. 15, xxv. 1, 6, 7, and especially
Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. I. In the two
last passages dwaśaivew and karağai-
wetv are used absolutely without any
mention of Jerusalem, this being im-
plied in the expressions “going up,'
‘going down.' Here the various read-
ing drij}\6ov has great claims to a
place in the text. Both words occur
in the context and it is difficult to say
in favour of which reading the pos-
sible confusion of transcribers may
more justly be urged. Perhaps how-
ever it is improbable that St Paul
should have written droMéov twice
consecutively, as the repetition makes
the sentence run awkwardly; though
in Rom. viii. 15, I Cor. ii. 13, Heb. xii.
18, 22, something of the kind occurs.
rows trpè époo droorróXovs] those
who were Apostles before me,’ pos-
sibly including others besides the
Twelve, especially James. See be-
low, p. 95, note 4. For the expres-
sion compare Rom. xvi. 7, otrues elow
into muot ev ross drogróNots of kai Tpo
éuoi, Yéyovav čv Xptorró, where how-
ever the construction is doubtful.
els Aapaaków] A danger which
threatened St Paul's life on this occa-
sion seems to have left a deep impres-
sion on his mind, and is mentioned by
him in another epistle, nearly contem-
poraneous with this, 2 Cor. xi. 32.
18–24. ‘Not till three years were
past did I go up to Jerusalem. My
object in doing so was to confer with
Cephas. But I did not remain with

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

him more than a fortnight; and of all the other Apostles I saw only James the Lord's brother. As in the sight of God, I declare to you that every word I write is true. Then I went to the distant regions of Syria and Cilicia. Thus I was personally unknown to the Christian brotherhoodin Judaea. They had only heard that their former persecutor was now preaching the very faith which before he had attempted to destroy: and they glorified God for my conversion.’ 18. oreira però arm rpta] From what point of time are these three years reckoned? Probably from the great epoch of his life, from his conversion. The ‘straightway' of ver. 16 leads to this conclusion; ‘At first I conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only after the lapse of three years that I went to Jerusalem.' "IepooróAvua) is generally a neuter plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we have traora IepooróAvpua. See A. Buttmann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms ‘IepooróMupa and ‘Ispovo axiou see the note iv. 26. ia rophoral Knopavl ‘to visit Cephas.” iorophoral is somewhat emphatic: “A word used,’ says Chrysostom, ‘by those who go to see great and famous cities.’ It is generally said of things and places; less commonly, as here, of persons: comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 1.8 dwip &v éyò kar’ exeivov torrópmara row tróAepov, and Clem. Hom. viii. 1, etc. St Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in this epistle and I Corinthians. Knqāv is the right reading here, though there is respectable authority for IIérpov. If the existing authorities are to be trusted, St Paul seems to have used the Aramaic and Greek names

indifferently. Allowance ought to be made however for the tendency to substitute the more usual IIérpos for the less common Knopas, e.g. here and ii. 9, 11, 14. In the Peshito Version Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not unnaturally adopted throughout this epistle. 8examévre] A later form for the more classical mevrekatēexa. This and the analogous forms of numerals occur frequently in the Mss of Greek authors of the post-classical age, but in many cases are doubtless due to the transcribers writing out the words at length, where they had only the numeral letters before them. The frequent occurrence of these forms however in the Tabulae Heracleenses is a decisive testimony to their use, at least in some dialects, much before the Christian era. They are found often in the LXX. St Paul's visit on this occasion was abruptly terminated. He left on account of a plot against his life (Acts ix. 29) and in pursuance of a vision (Acts xxii. 17–21). 19. ei on 'Idkošov) Is James here styled an Apostle or not ? Are we to translate, ‘I saw no other Apostle save James,” or ‘I saw no other Apostle but only James’? It will be seen that the question is not whether el us) retains its eacceptive force or not, for this it seems always to do (see note on i. 7), but whether the exception refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone. That the latter is quite a possible construction will appear from Matth. xii. 4, Luke iv. 26, 27, Gal. ii. 16, Rev. xxi. 27; see Fritzsche on Rom. III. p. 195. But on the other hand the sense of repov naturally links it with

« 前へ次へ »