NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF GAL. II. 5. In Acts xv. a public assembly of the Church in Jerusalem is described, while in the Galatians only private interviews with the leading Apostles are spoken of. 6. The narrative in the Epistle says nothing of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, as it is commonly called, mentioned Acts xv. Now this decision was conclusive of the very point disputed by the Judaising teachers in Galatia, and surely therefore would not have been omitted by St. Paul in an argument involving the question, had he been relating the circumstances which happened at Jerusalem when that decision was made. 231 transactions recorded are looked upon from different points of view, in the Acts, and in the Epistle; for Acts xv. contains a narrative of a great transaction in the history of the Church, while St. Paul, in the Epistle, alludes to this transaction with the object of proving the recognition of his independent authority. 5. The private interviews spoken of in the Epistle do not exclude the supposition of public meetings having also taken place; and a communication to the whole Church (avtoîs, Gal. ii. 2) is expressly mentioned. 6. The narrative in Galatians gives a statement intended to prove the recognition of St. Paul's independent authority, which is sufficient to account for this omission. Moreover if St. Paul's omission of reference to the decision of the Council proved that the journey he speaks of was prior to the Council, it must equally prove that the whole Epistle was written before the Council of Jerusalem; yet it is generally acknowledged to have been written long after the Council. The probable reason why St. Paul does not refer to the decision of the Council is this:-that the Judaising teachers did not absolutely dispute that decision; they probably did not declare the absolute necessity of circumcision, but spoke of it as admitting to greater privileges, and a fuller covenant with God. The Council had only decided that Gentile Christians need not observe the law. The Judaising party might still contend that Jewish Christians ought to observe it (as we know they did observe it till long afterwards). And also the decrees of the council left Gentile Christians subject to the same restrictions with the Proselytes of the Gate. Therefore the Judaising party would naturally argue that they were still not more fully within the pale of the Christian Church than the Proselytes of the Gate were within that of the Jewish Church. Hence they would urge them to submit to circumcision, by way of placing themselves in full membership with the Church; just as they would have urged a Proselyte of the Gate to become a Proselyte of Righteousness. Also St. Paul might assume that the decision of the 7. It is inconsistent to suppose that after the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter could have behaved as he is described doing (Gal. ii. 12); for how could he refuse to eat with the uncircumcised Christians, after having advocated in the Council their right of admission to Christian fellowship? 8. The Epistle mentions St. Paul as conferring with James, Peter, and John, whereas in Acts xv. John is not mentioned at all, and it seems strange that so distinguished a person, if present at the Council, should not have been mentioned. 9. Since in the Galatians St. Paul mentions James, Peter, and John, it seems most natural to suppose that he speaks of the well-known apostolic triumvirate so often classed together in the Gospels. But if so, the James mentioned must be James the Greater, and hence the journey mentioned in the Galatians must have been before the death of James the Greater, and therefore before the Council of Jerusalem. Council was well known to the churches of Galatia, for Paul and Silas had carried it with them there. 7. This objection is founded on a misunderstanding of St. Peter's conduct. His withdrawal from eating at the same table with the uncircumcised Christians did not amount to a denial of the decision of the Council. His conduct showed a weak fear of offending the Judaising Christians who came from Jerusalem; and the practical effect of such conduct would have been, if persisted in, to separate the Church into two divisions. Peter's conduct was still more inconsistent (see Winer, p. 157) with the consent which he had certainly given previously (Gal. ii. 7-9) to the ɛvayyéλɩov of Paul; and with his previous conduct in the case of Cornelius (see pp. 223, 224). We may add that whatever difficulty may be felt in St. Paul's not alluding to the decrees of the Council in his Epistle to the Galatians, must also be felt in his total silence concerning them when he treats of the question of eidwλó0vra in the Epistles to Corinth and Rome, for that question had been explicitly decided by the Council. The fact is, that the Decrees of the Council were not designed as of permanent authority, but only as a temporary and provisional measure; and their authority was superseded as the Church gradually advanced towards true Christian freedom. 8. This argument is only ex silentio, and obviously inconclusive. 9. This objection proceeds on the mere assumption that because James is mentioned first he must be James the Greater, whereas James the Less became even a more conspicuous leader of the Church at Jerusalem than James the Greater had previously been, as we see from Acts xv.; hence he might be very well mentioned with Peter and John, and the fact of his name coming first in St. Paul's narrative agrees better with this supposition, for James the Greater is never mentioned the NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF GAL. II. 10. St. Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus (Gal. ii.), and voluntary circumcising of Timothy (Acts xviii. 21), so soon afterwards. 233 first in the Apostolic triumvirate, the order of which is Peter, James, and John; but James the Less would naturally be mentioned first, if the Council at Jerusalem was mentioned, since we find from Acts xv. that he took the part of president in that Council. 10. Timothy's mother was a Jewess, and he had been brought up a Jew; · 1 whereas Titus was a Gentile. The circumstances of Timothy's circumcision will be more fully discussed hereafter. Thus we see that the objections against the identity of the Galatian visit with visit (3), are inconclusive. Consequently we might at once conclude (from the obvious circumstances of identity between the two visits), that they were actually identical. But this conclusion is further strengthened by the following arguments. 2 1.a The Galatian visit could not have happened before visit (3); because, if so, the Apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas 3 the liberty which was sought for the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας; therefore there would have been no need for the Church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the same cause. And again, the Galatian visit could not have happened after visit (3); because, almost immediately after that period, Paul and Barnabas ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles; whereas, up to the time of the Galatian visit, they had been working together." 2. The Chronology of St. Paul's life (so far as it can be ascertained) agrees better with the supposition that the Galatian visit was visit (3), than with any other supposition. Reckoning backwards from the ascertained epoch of 60 A.D., when St. Paul was sent to Rome, we find that he must have begun his second missionary journey in 51, and that, therefore, the Council (i. e. visit (3)) must have been either in 50 or 51. This calculation is based upon the history in the Acts. Now, turning to the Epistle to the Galatians we find the following epochs A.-Conversion. B.-3 years' interval (probably Judaically reckoned 2 years). D.- 14 years' interval (probably Judaically reckoned=13 years). 1 See 2 Tim. iii. 15. We may remark that this difficulty (which is urged by Wieseler) is quite as great on his own hypothesis; for, according to him, the refusal happened only about two years after the consent. 2 See Winer's Galatians, pp. 141 & 144. dekatɛoσápwv 3 Gal. ii. 3-6. 4 Gal. ii. 1, 9. 5 The reading dɛкатεσσúρwv (Gal. ii. 1) is undoubtedly to be retained. It is the reading of all the ancient MSS. which contain the passage. Neander (Pfl. und Leit. i. p. 187), by mistake asserts that the Chronicon Paschale reads reσσúpwr; but the E.-Galatian visit. 1 And since Aretas was supreme at Damascus at the time of the flight, and his supremacy there probably began about 37 (see pages 81 and 100), we could not put the flight at a more probable date than 38. If we assume this to have been the case, then the Galatian visit was 38+13=51, which agrees with the time of the Council (i. e. visit (3)) as above. VI. Hence we need not farther consider the views of those writers who (like Paley and Schrader) have resorted to the hypothesis that the Galatian visit is some supposed journey not recorded in the Acts at all; for we have proved that the supposition of its identity with the third visit there recorded satisfies every necessary condition. Schrader's notion is, that the Galatian visit was between visit (4) and visit (5). Paley places it between visit (3) and visit (4). A third view is ably advocated in a discussion of the subject (not published) which has been kindly communicated to us. The principal points in this hypothesis are, that the Galatians were converted in the first missionary journey, that the Galatian visit took place between visit (2) and visit (3), and that the Epistle to the Galatians was written after the Galatian visit and before visit (3). This hypothesis certainly obviates some difficulties, and it is quite possible (see next Chapter) that the Galatian churches might have been formed at the time supposed: but we think the "fourteen years" inconsistent with this view, and we are strongly of opinion that a much later date must be assigned to the Epistle.3 2 reverse is the fact. The words of the Chronicon are : Τῷ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν δοκεῖ μοι τοὺς χρόνους τῶν ἀποστόλων τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀναλήψεως ἀριθμεῖν αὐτόν. (Chronic. ed. Bonn. I. p. 436.) The mistake has probably arisen from the words Tη Téσσapa, which relate to a different subject, in the sentence below (see Wieseler, p. 207). Aɩú, of time, means "after an interval of." (See Winer's Grammatik, p. 363, and Winer's Galat. p. 162. Also Anger, pp. 159, 160.) But it may be used, according to the Jewish way of reckoning time, inclusively; thus Jesus is said to have risen from the dead dɩù тpíwv ĥμepŵv (Ignat. ad Trall. c. 9). So in the Gospels μɛrá is used (Mark viii. 31). The fourteen years must be reckoned from the epoch last mentioned, which is the visit (1) to Jerusalem, and not the Conversion; at least this is the most natural way, although the other interpretation might be justified, if required by the other circumstances of the case. 1 2 Cor. xi. 32. 2 Especially the difficulties which relate to the apparent discrepancies between the Galatian visit and visit (3), and to the circumstance that the Apostle does not allude to the Council in his argument with the Galatians on the subject of circumcision. The MS. to which we allude is by T. F. Ellis, Esq., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 3 Since these pages were printed, we have seen, in Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the N. T. (vol. ii.), a good statement of the principal arguments for the view we have advocated. We may add also the authority of Dr. H. Thiersch, in favour of our view of this Council. See the recently published English translation of his History of the hristian Church, p. 120. POLITICAL DIVISIONS AT ANTIOCH. 235 CHAPTER VIII. ΠΑΥΛΟΣ και ΣΙΛΟΥΑΝΟΣ και ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΣ. 1 Thess. i. 1. POLITICAL DIVISIONS OF ASIA MINOR.-DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT.-PRO- LYSTRA. THE life of St. Paul being that of a traveller, and our purpose being to give a picture of the circumstances by which he was surrounded, it is often necessary to refer to the geography, both physical and political, of the countries through which he passed. This is more needful in the case of Asia Minor, not only because it was the scene of a very great portiou of his journeys, but because it is less known to ordinary readers than Palestine, Italy, or Greece. We have already described, at some length, the physical geography of those southern districts which are in the immediate neighbourhood of Mount Taurus.' And now that the Apostle's travels take a wider range, and cross the Asiatic peninsula from Syria to the frontiers of Europe, it is important to take a general view of the political geography of this part of the Roman empire. Unless such a view is obtained in the first place, it is impossible to understand the topographical expressions employed in the narrative, or to conjecture the social relations into which St. Paul was brought in the course of his journeys through Asia Minor. 2 It is, however, no easy task to ascertain the exact boundaries of the Roman provinces in this part of the world at any given date between Augustus and Constantine. In the first place, these boundaries were contin i. the journeys in Acts xvi. and Acts xviii. 3 So far as we know, the only attempt to ascertain and describe the political divisions of Asia Minor in the time of St. Paul, is that of Böttger in the first of his Beiträge (Gött. 1837.) He has brought together a great number of references, but the essay is confused, and some of his conclusions are strangely destitute of proof. |