Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:1. On Gal_2:1-10, see C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 158 ff.; Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1–10, etc., 1852; Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 1 ff. On Gal_2:1, see Stölting, Beiträge z. Exeg. d. Paul. Briefe, 1869, p. 155 ff.
ἔπειτα ] thereafter, namely, after my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia; correlative to the ἔπειτα in Gal_1:21, and also in Gal_1:18. Ἔπειτα joins the statement to what is narrated immediately before. Therefore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, Gal_1:18 (Wieseler).
διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν ] interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an interval of fourteen years: comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, διʼ ἐτῶν τριῶν ; Act_24:17. The length of this period quite accords with the systematic object of the apostle, inasmuch as he had already, up to the time of this journey, laboured for so many years entirely on his own footing and independently of the original apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end to any suspicion of his being a disciple of these apostles. As to the use of διά , which is based on the idea that the time intervening from the starting-point to the event in question is traversed [passed through] when the event arrives (comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally Bernhardy, p. 235; Krüger, § 68. 22. 3; Winer, p. 336 [E. T. 475]; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 50, and in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 162 f.; Herod. iv. 1, ἀποδημήσαντας ὀκτὼ κ . εἰκοσι ἔτεα καὶ διὰ χρόνου τοσούτου (after so long an interval) κατιόντας κ . τ . λ .; Deu_9:11, διὰ τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν … ἔδωκε κύριος ἐμοὶ τὰς δύο πλάκας ; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 12. Comp. the well-known διὰ χρόνου , Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 8. 1; διʼ αἰῶνος , Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1003; διὰ μακροῦ , Thuc. iv. 15. 3; διʼ ἔτους , Lucian, Paras. 15; διʼ ἡμέρων , Mar_2:1, and the like; also 4Ma_8:20. Following Oeder (in Wolf) and Rambach, Theile (in Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIII. p. 175), Paulus and Schott have understood διά as within, “during the 14 years I have now been a Christian;” or, as Stölting, acceding to this explanation, gives to it the more definite sense, “during a space of time which has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and is now, at the time I am writing this epistle, finished.” But against this view may be urged the grammatical objection that διά is never used by Greek authors of duration of time, except when the action extends throughout the whole time (Valckenaer, ad Herod. iv. 12; Ast, ad Plat. de Leg. p. 399), either continuously, as Mar_14:53, or at recurring intervals, as Act_1:3 (see Fritzschior. Opusc. l.c.). Even the passages which are appealed to, Act_5:19; Act_16:9; Act_17:10; Act_23:31, admit the rendering of διὰ τῆς νυκτός as throughout the night, without deviation from the common linguistic usage.[41] Moreover, how unintelligibly Paul would have expressed himself, if, without giving the slightest intimation of it (possibly by ἐξ οὗ ἐν Χριστῷ εἰμι , or in some other way), he had meant the present duration of his standing as a Christian! Lastly, how entirely idle and objectless in itself would be such a specification of time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys which he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident; but whether at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a Christian had lasted 14 years, or longer or shorter, was a point of no importance for the main object of the passage, and the whole statement as to the time would be without any motive in harmony with the context.
From what point has Paul reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the ascension of Christ (Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. Cappellus, Paulus), must at once be excluded as quite opposed to the context. Usually, however, the conversion of the apostle is taken as the terminus a quo (so Olshausen, Anger, Matthies, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 55, Stölting), an appeal being made to the analogy of Gal_1:18. Thus the three years of Gal_1:18 would be again included in the fourteen years. But πάλιν and the διά , indicating the interval which in the meantime had elapsed, point rather to the first journey to Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The πάλιν points back to the first journey, and so διὰ δεκατεσσ . ἐτῶν presents itself most naturally as the period intervening between the first journey and this πάλιν . If Paul had again written μετά , as in Gal_1:18, we might have inferred from the intentional identity of expression the identity also of the starting-point; but since he has here chosen the word διά not elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after an interval of fourteen years), the relation of this διά to πάλιν leads us to take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting-point of the reckoning. This is the reckoning adopted by Jerome, Chrysostom on Gal_2:11, Luther,[42] Ussher, Clericus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth (in the Repert. für bibl. u. morgenl. Lit. IV. p. 41), Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, Hug, Mynster, Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Rückert, Usteri, Zeller, Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, labours under an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the section beginning with Gal_1:21 (see on Gal_1:22).
δεκατεσσάρων ] emphatically placed before ἐτῶν (differently in Gal_1:18), in order to denote the long interval. Comp. Herod. l.c.
πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσ .] Paul can mean by this no other than his second[43] journey to Jerusalem, and he says that between his first and his renewed ( ΠΆΛΙΝ ) visit to it a period of 14 years had elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul had meant a third journey, and had kept silence as to the second, he would have furnished his opponents, to whom he desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the apostles, with weapons against himself; and the suspicion of intentionally incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, so far as his adversaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on occasion of a second visit to Jerusalem, here passed over, he had not come at all into close contact with the apostles (and how highly improbable this would be in itself!), he would have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very character of a journey which had had nothing to do with any sort of instruction by the apostles (comp. Gal_1:18), it would have been of the greatest importance for his object, in opposition to the suspicions of his opponents.[44] To have kept silence as to this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole historically apologetic demonstration, which he had entered upon in Gal_1:13 and still continues from Gal_1:21 (though Hofmann thinks otherwise). Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. This purely exegetical ground is quite decisive in favour of the view that Paul here speaks of his second journey to Jerusalem;[45] and considered by itself, therefore, our passage presents no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we compare it with Acts. According to the latter, the second journey (Act_11:30; Act_12:25) is that which Paul made with Barnabas in the year 44 in order to convey pecuniary assistance to Judaea; hence many hold our journey as identical with that related in Act_11:30; Act_12:25. So Tertullian c. Marc. i. 20, Chron. Euseb., Calvin,[46] Keil (Opusc. p. 160, and in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 68), Gabler (neutest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 ff.), Rosenmüller, Süskind (in Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff.), Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.) Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149), Niemeyer (de temp. quo ep. ad Gal. conscr. sit, Gott. 1827), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff.), Küchler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 1828, p. 27 ff.), Flatt, Fritzsche, Böttger, Stölting. So also Caspari (geograph. chronol. Einl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But the chronology, through the 14 years, is decisively opposed to this view. For as the year 44 A.D. or 797 U.C. is the established date of the journey in question (see Introd. to Acts), these 14 years with the addition of the three years (Gal_1:18) would carry us back to the year 27 A.D.! Among the defenders of this view, Böttger has indeed turned δεκατεσσάρων into ΤΕΣΣΆΡΩΝ ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. Fritzsche, on the other hand, has endeavoured to bring out the 14 years, by supposing the reckoning of Luk_3:1 to begin from the year of the joint regency of Tiberius, that is, the year 765 U.C., as, following Ussher, has been done by Clericus, Lardner, and others (see on Luk_3:1), and now also by Wieseler in Herzog’s Encykl. XXI. p. 547 ff., and especially in his Beitr. z. Würdigung d. Evang. 1869, p. 177 ff. It is assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His ministry in 779, and was crucified in 781; that Paul became a Christian at the beginning of 783, and that 14 years later, in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took place. But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be reckoned from Paul’s conversion, see above. Besides, the year of the conversion cannot, for other chronological reasons, be put back beyond the year 35 A.D., that is, 788 U.C. (see on Acts, Introd.). Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in Gal_3:1 did not reckon from the actual commencement of the reign of Tiberius, is nothing but a forced expedient based on extraneous chronological combinations, and finding no support at all in the plain words of Luke himself (see further, in opposition to it, Anger, rat. temp. p. 14 f., and z. Chronol. d. Lehramtes Chr. I.). The opinion, therefore, that the journey Gal_2:1 is identical with that mentioned in Acts 11, must be rejected; and we must, on the other hand, assume that in point of fact those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who consider it as the same which, according to Acts 15, was undertaken by Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference. So Irenaeus, adv. haer. iii. 13, Theodoret, Jerome, Baronius, Cornelius a Lapide, Pearson, and most of the older expositors, Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s Journ. für auserl. theol. Lit. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Einl. I. p. 192 and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, Winer, Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. tribus prim. capp., Lips. 1832), Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Lekebusch, Elwert, Lechler (apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 394 ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, Ewald, Ritschl, Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, and others.[47] This result is, however, to be based in the first instance not on a comparison of the historical references contained in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, but on διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν ; and the historical references of Acts 15 afterwards serve merely as a partial, although very material, confirmation. For the point of view, from which the journey is brought forward in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it cannot present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative of Acts, whether we take it in connection with Acts 11 or Acts 15. By the search for points of agreement and of difference, with the view of thereby arriving at a decision, far too much room is left for argument pro and contra, and consequently for the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result.
[41] See on these passages the Commentary on Acts. There is no cause for accusing (with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper deviation from the Greek usus loquendi. Comp. on διὰ νυκτός , Thuc. ii. 4. 1; Xen. Anab. iv. 6. 22. On the Homeric διὰ νύκτα , during the night, see Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, ed. 3.
[42] In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena 1612, I. p. 336 B), “Post annos 14, quibus si annos tres, quos supra memoravit, adjunxeris, jam 17 aut 18 annos eum praedicasse invenies, antequam conferre voluerit.” Even with this reckoning, his conversion still remains “the great event by which Paul measures for himself all Christian time” (Ewald); for the whole reckoning begins at Gal_1:18 from this event as its starting-point.
[43] Very correctly put in the Chron. Euseb., ὅ εἶπε πάλιν , δηλονότι ἑτέρα ἐστὶν ἀνάβασις αὕτη .
[44] Wieseler’s objection that Paul, according to our view of his historical argument, would also have left unmentioned the journey spoken of in Act_18:22, where by the reasoning above would fall to the ground as nimium probans, is incorrect. For if he had shown that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) he could not have received the instruction of the apostles, his task of proof was completely solved; because on occasion of his presence at that council he received formal acknowledgment and sanction as the apostle to the Gentiles. If up to that time he had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, when he had received in an official way the fullest acknowledgment as an independent apostle, there could no longer be any discussion as to his having at some subsequent date procured apostolic instruction in Jerusalem. It would therefore have been purely unmeaning, and even absurd, to have continued the history of his journeys to Jerusalem beyond the date of the apostolic council. But up to that date he could not omit any journey, without rendering his historical deduction nugatory as a proof.
[45] Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67 f., and Schott find two journeys mentioned in ver. 1 : the former obtains them from πάλιν (after 14 years I made the second journey to Jerusalem, undertaken with Barnabas); and the latter brings them out thus: “intra 14 annos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, cum Barnaba quidem (Act_11:30), posthac (Acts 15) assumto etiam Tito.” Both views are introduced into the passage inconsistently with the text. For according to Bloch’s explanation, Paul must have spoken previously of a journey made with Barnabas; and in Schott’s interpretation not only is διά wrongly understood (see above), but it would be necessary at least that instead of συμπαραλ . καὶ Τίτον the text should run, εἶτα δὲ συμπαραλ . κ . T. Nevertheless Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 99 f., has again resorted to the evasion that πάλιν is to be referred to μετὰ Βαρν . and presupposes an earlier journey already made with Barnabas (Acts 11).
[46] Among the older expositors, J. T. Major is also named as in favour of this view, whose Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are quoted by Gabler and Winer. But in the second edition of Major’s Annotata, which appeared after his death, Jena 1670, 4to, Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for the view which holds the journey mentioned in Gal_2:1 to be identical with that in Acts 15.
[47] Rückert does not come to a decision, but (in his Commentary and in the (exeget. Mag. I. 1, p. 118 ff.) denies the identity of our journey with that related in Acts 11, 12, and leaves it a matter of doubt whether the journey mentioned in Acts 15 or that in Act_18:22 is the one intended.
I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Gal_2:1 with that of Acts 11, 12, it is argued (see Fritzsche, l.c. p. 227)—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in Cilicia and Syria (Gal_1:21, Gal_2:1; comp. Act_9:30; Act_11:25 ff.). But why should not Paul, in the ἔπειτα , Gal_2:1, have also mentally included his first missionary journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts 13, 14) as preceding, seeing that he made this journey from Antioch and after its completion again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing that his object made it important not so much to write a special history of his labours, as to show at what time he had first come into closer official connection with the apostles, in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them? (2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of his labours as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal_1:23; Act_11:25 f.; comp. Act_15:23; Act_9:30) expounded his system of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the apostles for their opinion. But this is an argumentum nimium probans, since it is evident from Gal_1:16 that Paul commenced the exercise of his vocation as an apostle to the Gentiles immediately after his conversion; so that, even if the 14 years are reckoned from the conversion, there still remains this long period of 14 years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of Gal_2:1, this period is increased from 14 to 17 years; but, if Paul had taught 14 years without the approbation of the apostles, he may just as well have done so for 17 years. (3.) That the sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles (Gal_2:9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned in Acts 11, 12, because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have set them apart (Act_13:2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. But might not the ordination of the two to be teachers of the Gentiles (Act_13:2) have taken place previously, and the formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the apostles in Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period? This latter view, indeed, is supported even by the analogy of αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν (Gal_2:9), inasmuch as James, Peter, and John had been already for a long time before this apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destination formally in concert with Paul and Barnabas. (4.) That the stipulation respecting the poor (Gal_2:10) was occasioned by the very fact of Paul and Barnabas having brought pecuniary assistance (Act_11:30). But the care for the poor lay from the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and was so much an object of apostolic interest (Act_2:44 f., Act_4:34 ff., Gal_6:1 ff.), that there was certainly no need of any special occasion for expressly making the remembrance of the poor one of the conditions in the concert, Gal_2:9 f. (5.) That the apostles, according to Gal_2:3, had insisted on the circumcision of Titus,—a non-emancipation from Mosaism, which might agree with the time of Acts 11, 12, when the conversion of the Gentiles was still in its infancy, but not with the later time of Acts 15. But see the note on Gal_2:3. Even if we allow the (erroneous) idea that the apostles had required this circumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much later point (Act_21:17 ff.) required Paul to observe a completely Jewish custom, from which it is evident how much, even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles accommodated themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented to it. (6.) That in Acts 15 there is no trace of the presence of John at Jerusalem. But although John is not mentioned by name, he may very well have been included in the general οἱ ἀπόστολοι (Acts 15). (7.) Lastly, Fritzsche remarks, “Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum esse (5. Act_9:30; Act_11:25; Gal_1:18, cf. Gal_2:1; Act_11:30), quis tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria aboleverit … praefracte negare sustineat?” etc. Paul may certainly have been a long time in Syria and Cilicia, but how long, must remain entirely undetermined after what we have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments[48] it has been urged (see especially Süskind and Keil), that the conduct of Peter at Antioch (Gal_2:11 ff.) is too contradictory to the apostolic decree of Acts 15 to permit our identifying the journey in question with that made to the conference; that in the whole of the epistle Paul makes no mention at all of the authority of the conference; and lastly, that after the conference Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of circumcision than he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on these arguments; since (a) even if our journey were that mentioned in Acts 11, 12, still the reproach of inconstancy (grounded on his natural temperament) would rest upon Peter, because he had in fact at an earlier period been already divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the Gentiles to Christianity (Act_10:8 ff; Act_11:2 ff.); (b) in the principle of his apostolic independence Paul had quite sufficient motive (comp. Introd. § 3) for not mentioning the apostolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians;[49] and lastly (c) the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity of circumcision in our letter was, in his characteristic manner, adapted altogether to the polemical interest of the moment: for that he should pass judgment on the same subject, according to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom and elasticity of his mind; hence the passages cited for the freer view (Act_16:3; 1Co_9:20 ff.; Act_21:20 ff.) cannot furnish any absolute standard.
II. To prove the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, appeals have been made to the following arguments: (1) That Titus, whom Paul mentions in Gal_2:1, is included in τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν , Act_15:2; (2) That in Gal_2:2, ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγ . ὃ κηρ . ἐν τοῖς ἔθν . is parallel to Act_15:4; Act_15:12; (3) That the Judaizers mentioned in Act_15:5 are identical with the παρεισάκτοις ψευδαδέλφοις , Gal_2:4; (4) That the result of the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts 15 quite corresponds with ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος … ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι , Gal_2:3; (5) That in an historical point of view, Gal_2:11 agrees exactly with Act_15:30; (6) That in Acts 11 Barnabas still has precedence of Paul, which, however, is no longer the case throughout in Acts 15 (only in Act_2:12; Act_2:25); (7) That in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the important journey of Acts 15. But on the part of those who look upon our journey as that related in Acts 11, 12., or even in Act_18:22 (Wieseler), such grounds for doubt are urged against all of these points (see especially, Fritzsche l.c. p. 224 ff.; Wieseler, p. 557 ff.), that they cannot be used at least for an independent and full demonstration of the identity of our journey with that of Acts 15, but merely furnish an important partial confirmation of the proof otherwise adduced; to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Galatians 2 and Acts 15 present also points of difference, from which attempts have been made with equal injustice to deny the whole historical parallel, and to abandon unduly the historical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Holsten).
The result of all the discussion is as follows:
As Paul, in accordance with his own clear words in Gal_2:1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in the passage, can mean no other journey whatever except the second which he made as an apostle to Jerusalem; and as, moreover, the διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν forbids our thinking of that journey which is related in Acts 11, 12. as the second; the journey represented by him in Gal_2:1 as his second journey must be held to be the same as that represented by Luke in Acts 15. as the third,—an identity which is also confirmed by the historical parallels to be found in Galatians 2. and Acts 15.[50] In this way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians conflicts with that of Acts;[51] but, in the circumstances, it is not difficult to decide on which side the historical truth lies. The account of Luke, as given in Act_11:12., that Paul came to Jerusalem with Barnabas to convey the moneys collected, must be described as in part unhistorical. Perhaps (for it is not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas (Act_11:30), and then, probably even before reaching Judaea (see below), induced by circumstances unknown to us, allowed Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem; and thereafter the latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned to Antioch together (Act_12:25), but Barnabas only visited Jerusalem in person. Schleiermacher (Einl. in’s N.T. p. 369 f.) assumes an error on the part of Luke as author; that, misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts 15, into two different journeys, Acts 11, 15. But the total dissimilarity of the historical connection, in which these journeys are placed by the narrative of Acts, makes us at once reject this supposition; as, indeed, it cannot possibly be entertained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions of his book in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. Credner also (Einl. I. 1, p. 315) has pronounced himself inclined to the hypothesis of an error on the part of Luke. He, however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Act_11:12.) as far as Judaea, only not as far as the capital; assuming that Paul remained among the churches of the country districts, and made the acquaintance with them presupposed in Gal_1:22-24, Rom_15:19. But, on the one hand, looking at his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, after so long an absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat of the church, especially when he had come as deputy from Antioch; on the other hand, we should expect that, in order to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of misrepresenting him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence in Judaea (comp. Gal_1:22), and mentioned it in fact with the express remark that at that time he had not entered Jerusalem itself. And, as regards the acquaintance with the churches in the country districts presupposed in Gal_1:22-24, he may have made it sufficiently during his journey to the conference. The fact itself, that Paul during the journey recorded in Acts 11 was not at Jerusalem (which is admitted by Neander, ed. 4, p. 188, following Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and has been turned to further account by Baur and his school against the historical character of the narrative of the Acts; see on Act_11:30), remains independent of the possible modes of explaining the so far unhistorical account there given.
μετὰ Βαρνάβα ] The following συμπαραλ . κ . Τίτον shows that Paul recognised himself as on this occasion the chief person, which agrees with Act_15:2, but not with Act_11:25; Act_11:30; Act_12:25.
συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον ] having taken along with us (as travelling companion) also Titus. This καὶ finds its reference in μετὰ Βαρνάβα , to which the σύν in συμπαραλ . also refers; not among others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which is not suggested by the text. Whether, however, at Act_15:2, Titus is meant to be included in καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν , must remain an open question. If he is meant to be included, then our passage serves to put the statement on the more exact historical footing, that Titus was not sent with the others by the church at Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. The idea that he was sent on the part of the opposite party (Fritzsche), cannot, on a correct view of Acts l.c., be entertained at all.
[48] As a revelation afforded to Paul himself must certainly be intended, the assertion often brought forward, that κατʼ ἀποκάλυψιν in Gal_2:2 applies to the narrative about the prophet Agabus (Act_11:28 ff.), is so evidently incorrect, that it does not merit notice. Also the special ground brought forward by Böttger, in order to confirm the identity of the journey Gal_2:1 with that described in Acts 11, 12, carries with it its own refutation. See, on the contrary, Rückert, in the Magaz. f. Exeg. u. Theol. des N. T. I. 1, p. 118 ff.
[49] Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 149.
[50] Accordingly, the opinions that our passage relates to a journey still later than that reported in Acts 15 fall to the ground of themselves, for the journey Acts 15 can neither be historically disputed nor can it have been omitted by Paul. Following Jac. Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Köhler (Abfassungsz. p. 8) has found our journey in Act_18:22,—a view more recently defended by Wieseler, Chronologie d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. art. Galaterbrief; but Schrader transfers it to the interval between vv. 20 and 21 of Acts 19—to the time of the composition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Against Köhler and Schrader, see especially Schott, Erörterung, p. 22 ff.; Wurm, in the Tübing. Zeitschr. 1833, I. p. 50 ff.; Anger, rat. temp. p. 153 ff. According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even the journey of Act_21:15-17 is the one intended! Against Wieseler, who is supported by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 460 ff.; Zeller, Apost. p. 218 f.; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 144 ff.; Möller on De Wette (ed. 3), p. 35 ff. Comp. also Düsterdieck in Reuter’s Repert. Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. K. I. p. 181 ff.; Holtzmann, in Schenkel’s kirchl. Zeitschr. 1860, 8, p. 55 ff.; Ebrard, and others. It is unnecessary for us here to go farther into Wieseler’s arguments from an exegetical point of view; for the supposition of some later journey than Acts 15 must at all events from Gal_2:1 appear an exegetical impossibility, so long as we allow this much at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostles—that Paul was at the apostolic council. The journey to this council cannot have been passed over by Paul in his narrative given in our passage; and consequently the journey Act_18:22—which, too, he cannot have taken in company with Barnabas (Act_15:36 ff.)—cannot have been the one intended by him. This is completely sufficient to invalidate even the latest discussions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes (Comm. crit. p. 3): “Paulus aut non affuisse in apostolorum conventu Acts 15, aut male causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeteriens, censendus esset.”
[51] Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) still contents himself with the superficial current evasion, that Paul had no need to mention the journey related in Acts 11, because it did not afford his opponents any matter for suspicion. As if his opponents were to be reckoned so innocent and guileless in their judgment, and as if Paul would not have been shrewd enough to see the use that would be made of his passing over in silence one of the journeys made by him to the seat of the apostles!
Note.
Τεσσάρων , which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bertholdt, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, Rinck, Küchler, Böhl, Matthaei (Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), Schott (in his Isagoge, p. 196, not in his later writings), Wurm, Ulrich, and Böttger, wish to read instead of δεκατεσσάρων , is a mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, confirmed by no authority whatever, not even by the Chronic. Euseb., from the words of which it is, on the contrary, distinctly evident that the chronographer read δεκατεσσάρων ,[52] but on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for that recorded in Acts 11, 12, suggested τεσσάρων .[53] See Anger, Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 160 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., has again judged it necessary to read τεσσάρων , specially because the few matters related of Paul in Acts 10-15 cannot be held compatible with his having been seventeen years an apostle, and also because so early a conversion, as must be assumed from the reading δεκατεσσάρων , does not agree with Acts 1-9, several of the narratives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, perhaps ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the conversion of the apostle; as indeed the existence of churches already established in Judaea at the time of this conversion (Gal_1:22) points to the same conclusion, and 2Co_12:2 ff., where the ἀποκάλυψις refers to the conversion, agrees with τεσσάρων , but not with δεκατεσσάρων in our passage. But when we consider the great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of Acts, the possibility of explaining the establishment of the Judaean churches even in a shorter period embracing some four years, and the groundlessness of the view that 2Co_12:2 (see on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for an unanimously attested reading.
[52] Τῷ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ ιδʹ ἐτῶν δοκεῖ μοι τοὺς χρόνους τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως ἀριθμεῖν αὐτὸν .… Καὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο δῶμεν , εὑρεθήσεται ὁ χρόνος ἀφʼ οὗ ἐβαπτίσθη καὶ ἀνέβλεψεν , ὡς περιέχουσιν αἱ Πράξεις , ἐ ́ ô η δʼ .
[53] It is therefore a pure error, when τεσσάρων is sometimes styled a varia lectio.