Gal_2:5.
οἷς
οὐδέ
] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in Jerome and Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pelag. (?) Primas. Claudius autissidor. Condemned by Seml., Griesb., Koppe, Dav. Schulz. But the omission is much too weakly attested, and arose simply from
δέ
in Gal_2:4 being understood antithetically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance of the apostle’s principle of accommodation, that it was necessary to find here an analogue to the circumcision of Timothy (Act_16:3);
οὐδέ
stood in the way of this, and with it, on account of the construction,
οἷς
was also omitted. This
οἷς
was wanting at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and ought not to have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael.
Gal_2:8.
καὶ
ἐμοί
] With Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to preponderating testimony,
κἀμοί
.
Gal_2:9.
Ἰάκωβος
καὶ
Κηφᾶς
] D E F G, It., and several Fathers, have
Πέτρος
καὶ
Ἰάκωβος
. A transposition according to rank.
μέν
, which is wanting in Elz. and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, according to B F G H K L
à
*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on account of the
δέ
which follows.
Gal_2:11. Here, and also in Gal_2:14,
Κηφᾶς
and
Κηφᾷ
is the correct reading according to preponderating evidence. Comp. on Gal_1:18. The very ancient fiction (see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who is here spoken of, testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew name.
Gal_2:12.
ἦλθον
] B D* F G
à
, 45, 73, codd. It., read
ἦλθεν
. So Lachm.[40] Comp. Orig.:
ἐλθόντος
Ἰακώβου
. An ancient clerical error after Gal_2:11.
Gal_2:14. The position of the words
καὶ
οὐκ
(Lachm. and Tisch.
οὐχ
)
Ἰουδαϊκῶς
ζῇς
is to be adopted, with Lachm., following decisive testimony. No doubt
καὶ
οὐκ
Ἰουδαϊκῶς
is wanting in Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Agapet.; but this evidence is much too weak to induce us (with Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar terminations of the two adverbs.
πῶς
] Elz. Tisch. read
τί
, in opposition to decisive testimony.
The evidence is also decisive against the omission of
δέ
, Gal_2:16 (Elz.), which was caused by
εἰδότες
being understood as the definition of what precedes, with which view
δέ
was not compatible. The omission was facilitated by the fact of a lesson beginning with
εἰδότες
.
Gal_2:18. Instead of
συνίστημι
read, with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch.,
συνιστάνω
.
Gal_2:20.
τοῦ
υἱοῦ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
] Lachm. reads
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
καὶ
Χριστοῦ
, according to B D* F G, It. But most probably this reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the first
τοῦ
to the second, and thus writing
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
only; and, as the sequel did not harmonize with this,
καὶ
Χριστοῦ
was afterwards added. If, as Schott thinks,
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
κ
.
Χριστοῦ
was written because God and Christ are mentioned in Gal_2:19-20, the original
τοῦ
υἱοῦ
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
would have been turned into
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
κ
.
υἱοῦ
αὐτοῦ
. If, however,
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
κ
.
Χριστοῦ
had been the original text, there would have been no reason whatever for altering this into
τοῦ
υἱοῦ
τ
.
Θεοῦ
.
[40] Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to this reading that
τινί
should be read instead of
τινάς
.
CONTENTS.
Paul continues the historical proof of his full apostolic independence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, fourteen years after, he had laid his gospel before those in repute, and had been, not instructed by them, but formally acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the Gentiles (Gal_2:1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, so far was he, Paul, from giving up his apostolic independence, that, on the contrary, he withstood Peter openly on account of a hypocritical line of conduct, by which Christian freedom was imperilled (Gal_2:11-21).