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

el us, from which it cannot be separated without harshness, and repov carries róvároo róAov with it. It seems then that St James is here called an Apostle, though it does not therefore follow that he was one of the Twelve (see the detached note, p. 95). The plural in the corresponding account Acts iz. 27, ‘He brought (Paul) to the Apostles, is also in favour of this sense, but this argument must not be pressed. 20. ièow ovariov rod esow) A form of asseveration equivalent to ‘I call you to witness,’ and so followed by ori. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. I Šuapuapripeo:6al évémov too esos. For ièot elsewhere in the New Testament is an interjection or adverb, never a verb, so that there is an objection to making it govern Gri here. Perhaps however the occurrence of toe 3rt in the Lxx, Ps. cxix. 159, Lam. i. 20, may justify such a construction here. The strength of St Paul's language is to be explained by the unscrupulous calumnies cast upon him by his enemies. See the note I Thess. v. 27. 21. In the corresponding narrative of St Luke it is related that the brethren at Jerusalem, discovering the plot against St Paul's life, ‘took him down to Caesarea and despatched him to Tarsus’ (Acts ix. 30); and later on, that Barnabas went to Tarsus and sought out Saul, and having found him brought him to Antioch, where they taught for a whole year before returning to Jerusalem (xi. 25–30). The Caesarea mentioned there is doubtless Stratomis, and not Philippi, as some maintain. Not only was this the more probable route for him to take, but St Luke's language requires it; for (1) The words karīyayov, Šćat

[ocr errors]

éorrei)\av, imply a seaport and an embarkation: and (2) Caesarea, without any addition to distinguish it, is always the principal city of the name. It appears therefore that St Luke represents St Paul as sailing from Caesarea on his way to Tarsus; and comparing this account with the notice here, we must suppose either (1) That St Paul did not go direct to Tarsus but visited Syria on the way; or (2) That he visited Syria from Tarsus, and after preaching there returned again to Tarsus where he was found by Barnabas; St Luke having, on either of these hypotheses, omitted to record this visit to Syria; or (3) That St Paul's words here ‘Syria and Cilicia’ are not intended to describe the order in which he visited the two countries. This last is the most probable supposition. Cilicia has geographically a greater affinity with Syria than with Asia Minor. See Conybeare and Howson, I. p. 130. The less important country is here named after the more important. ‘Cilicia,” says Ewald, “was constantly little better than an appendage of Syria,” Gesch. des V. Isr. vi. p. 406. At this time however it was under a separate administration. The words k\tuara seem to show that ‘Syria and Cilicia’ are here mentioned under one general expression, and not as two distinct districts. k\iuaraj Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor. xi. Io. A comparatively late word, see Lobeck Paral. p. 418. It is found in Pseudo-Aristot. de Mundo c. x, and several times in Polybius. 22. İumv dyvoo'suevos K.T.A.] ‘I remained personally unknown. A strong form of the imperfect, as drowovres joav “they kept hearing’ (ver. 23); see Winer, Ś Xlv. 5, p. 437 sq.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

rais exk\mortals K.T.A..] ‘ unknown to the Churches of Judaea’ generally, as distinguished from that of Jerusalem; comp. John iii. 22. To the latter he could not have failed to be known, as might be inferred from the account here, even without the narrative of his energetic preaching in the Acts. From Jerusalem he was hurried off to Caesarea, and there embarking he left the shores of Palestine. The other churches of Judaea therefore had no opportunity of knowing him. Judaea is here distinguished from Jerusalem, as Italy is frequently distinguished from Rome, e.g. probably Hebr. xiii. 24. The addition rais v Xplorró was necessary when speaking of the Christian brotherhoods of Judaea; for the unconverted Jewish communities might still be called ‘the Churches of Judaea.’ See the note on I Thess. ii. 14, rôv čkk\matáv row eeoo róv odorów Śv rs, 'Iověata čv Xpt a 'In or ot.

23. 3rt] introduces an abrupt change from the oblique to the direct mode of speaking, e.g. Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22.

[ocr errors]

St Paul's sojourn in Arabia.

A veil of thick darkness hangs over St Paul's visit to Arabia. Of Obscurity the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which of the inengaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must cident. have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known. “Immediately, says St Paul, “I went away into Arabia.’ The historian passes over the incident without a mention. It is a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense in the Apostle's history, a breathless calm which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life.

Yet it may be useful to review the speculations to which this incident has given rise, even though we cannot hope to arrive at any definite result; for, if such a review bears no other fruit, it will at least bring out more clearly the significance of the incident itself.

Of the place of the Apostle's sojourn various opinions have been held. Conjec

Arabia is a vague term, and affords scope for much conjecture. #. to 1. The Arabic translator", whose language gives him a fictitious claim o:É.i.

to a hearing on such a point, renders the passage “Immediately I went ka.
to El Belka. In like manner in Gal. iv. 25 he translates, ‘This Hagar is
Mount Sinai in El Belka, and is contiguous to Jerusalem? Now the only
district, so far as I can discover, which bears or has borne the name of
El Belka, is the region lying to the east and north-east of the Dead Sea”.
If so, how are we to account for this translation of 'Apašta by El Belka
That the same rendering of the word in both passages arose from the
translator's connecting them together in some way, can scarcely be doubted.
Was his starting-point then a misapprehension of the meaning of ovva rotxei
in the second passage, which he renders ‘is contiguous to", and arguing
from this, did he suppose that part of Arabia to be meant in both pas-
sages, which was nearest to Jerusalem 7 Or on the other hand, did he
start from some tradition of St Paul's preaching in “El Belka,’ and having
thus defined from the first passage the meaning of ‘Arabia,’ did he apply
it to the second passage also But in any case how could he talk of
Mount Sinai in “El Belka’? Was this ignorance of geography? or must we
resort to the improbable supposition that some wandering Arab tribe,
which gave its name to the country in the neighbourhood of the Dead Sea,
at one time occupied the region about Sinai At all events the tradition
here preserved about St Paul, if it be a tradition, is of little worth, as
the translator seems to have lived at a comparatively late date".

* The Arabic version of the Polyglotts, which was made directly from the Greek. The translator not unfrequently gives geographical comments. See Hug Einleit. § cix, i. p. 431. The other Arabic version, the Erpenian, translated from the Syriac, retains ‘Arabia.”

* See Burckhardt Trav. in Syria App. III, Ritter Erdkunde xII. p. 426

sq, Stanley's Sinai and Palestine pp.
95, 319.
* For this rendering however he
might plead the authority of several
ancient commentators. See the notes
on iv. 25.
* Hug l. c. states that the trans-
lator has unexpectedly revealed his
country by his rendering of Acts ii. Io,

(2) The 2. Arabia, in the widest use of the term, might extend to the gates country of Damascus, and even include that city itself. “You cannot any of you ** deny, says Justin, arguing against his Jew as to the interpretation of mascus, a passage in one of the prophets, “that Damascus belongs and did belong to Arabia, though now it has been assigned to Syrophoenicial.' Thus no very distant journey would be necessary to reach Arabia. A retirement in the immediate neighbourhood of Damascus would suffice, and such a visit, especially if it were brief, might well be passed over by the historian as a merely temporary interruption of the Apostle's long residence in that city, which was unknown to him, or which knowing, he did not care to record. Into these wild regions then, beyond the sway of Roman dominion, beyond the reach of civilization, far away from all his old haunts and associations, it is thought that the Apostle plunged himself in the first tumult of his newly-acquired experiences”. This explanation however is open to objection. It gives to ‘Arabia’ an extension, which at all events seems not to have been common, and which even the passage of Justin shows to have required some sort of justification. It separates the Arabia of the first chapter from the Arabia of the fourth. And lastly, it deprives this visit of a significance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St Paul's life. 3. For if we suppose that the Apostle at this critical moment betook himself to the Sinaitic peninsula, the scene of the giving of the law, then his visit to Arabia becomes full of meaning. He was attracted thither by a spirit akin to that which formerly had driven Elijah to the same region”. Standing on the threshold of the new covenant, he was anxious to look upon the birthplace of the old: that dwelling for a while in seclusion in the presence of ‘the mount that burned with fire,’ he might ponder over the transient glories of the ‘ministration of death,’ and apprehend its real purpose in relation to the more glorious covenant which

3) Mount inai.

[ocr errors][merged small]

country’ is a corrupt reading of U.J;
“Cyrene,' the change involving only a
slight alteration in one letter. See
Lagarde de N. T. ad vers. Orient. fidem
edendo, Berl. 1857, p. 3, referred to in
Bleek's Einl. p. 737. Such geographi-
cal notices as that of El Belka point to
a more eastern origin.
* Dial. c. Tryph. p. 305 A. See also
other authorities in Conybeare and
Howson, 1. p. 117, 118. Tertullian (adv.
Jud. c. 9 and adv. Marc. iii. 13) ob-
viously copies Justin and must not be
considered an independent authority.
The words of Justin el kal vow trpooveyé-

Amrau roi Xupopoulon Xeyouévy seem to
refer to the arrangement of these pro-
vinces by Hadrian. See Becker and
Marquardt Röm. Alterth. III. 1, p. 195
Sqq and comp. [Bardesanes] de Fato,
in Cureton's Spicil. Syr. p. 30. On
the limits of Arabia see also Ephr. Syr.
Op. Syr. I. p. 464 sq.
* See the instructive passage in
Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. vi. p. 398.
Ewald however, though he takes St
Paul into this region, guards against
the objections which I have alleged in
the text, by supposing him to travel as
far as Sinai also (p. 4oo).
* I Kings xix. 8–18. It is worth
noticing that this region is connected
with Damascus in the history of Elijah
as well as of St Paul; “Go return on
thy way to the wilderness of Damascus.’

was now to supplant it. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert, the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning and power of the law". In the rugged and barren region, whence it issued, Signifihe saw a fit type of that bleak desolation which it created and was in-gance of tended to create in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and .* associations, his spirit was attuned to harmony with his divine mission, and fitted to receive fresh “visions and revelations of the Lord.” Thus in the wilderness of Sinai, as on the Mount of the transfiguration, the three dispensations met in one. Here Moses had received the tables of the law amid fire and tempest and thick darkness. Here again Elijah, the typical prophet, listened to the voice of God, and sped forth refreshed on his mission of righteousness. And here lastly, in the fulness of time, St Paul, the greatest preacher of Him of whom both the law and the prophets spoke, was strengthened and sanctified for his great work, was taught the breadth as well as the depth of the riches of God's wisdom, and transformed from the champion of a bigoted and narrow tradition into the large-hearted Apostle of the Gentiles”. What was the length of this sojourn we can only conjecture. The Its durainterval between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem, St Paul tion. here states to have been three years. The notices of time in St Luke are vague, but not contradictory to this statement”. From Damascus St Paul tells us he went away into Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus. St Luke represents him as preaching actively in this city after his conversion, not mentioning and apparently not aware of any interruption, though his narrative is not inconsistent with such. It seems probable then that St Paul's visit to Arabia took place early in this period before he

1 A stronger argument for St Paul's Acts ir. 43, xviii. 18, xxvii. 7. Cer

visit to Sinai might be drawn from his
reference to Hagar, the supposed Ara-
bic name of Sinai (Gal. iv. 25), which
he was not likely to have heard any-
where but on the spot: comp. Stanley
Sinai and Palestine p. 50. But the
reading and the interpretation alike are
highly doubtful. See the notes there.
* The significance of Sinai, as the
holy place of inspiration, will be felt
by readers of Tancred.
* The notices of time in the narra-
tive of the Acts are these: He remain-
ed with the disciples in Damascus some
days (huépas twäs) and straightway (et-
6éws) he began to preach (éxipvaaev)...
and Saul was the more strengthened...
and when many days (huépal loaval)
were accomplishing (orxmposivro) the
Jews took counsel to slay him, in con-
sequence of which he left and went to
Jerusalem (ix. 20–26). “Huépaulkaval
is an indefinite period in St Luke, which
may vary according to circumstances;

tainly the idea connected with travös
in his language is that of largeness ra-
ther than smallness; comp. Luke vii.
12, Acts xx. 37 (ikavös k\av0.16s). In
the Lxx it is frequently employed to
translate "To “mighty," e.g. Ruth i. zo,
21. Again the wide use of the Hebrew
D"b", which St Luke is copying, allows
of almost any extension of time. Hence
to\\al huépau in the LXx denotes any
indefinite period however long; Gen.
xxxvii. 34, a Sam. xiv. 2, 1 Kings iii.
11 (‘a long life'). Even Demosthenes,
de Cor. p. 258, can speak of the in-
terval between the battles of Haliartus
and Corinth as ot troX\al huépau, though
they were fought in different years and
many important occurrences happened
in the mean time. The difference be-
tween the vague “many days' of the
Acts and the definite “three years' of
the Epistle is such as might be expect-
ed from the circumstances of the two

« 前へ次へ »