Freethought Archives > Walter R. Cassels > Supernatural Religion 


Part 4, Chapter 7 (pp. 686-718)

[688:1] To become acquainted with.

[688:2] Dr. Ellicott remarks: "Straightway; the word standing prominently forward, and implying that he not only avoided conference with men, but did so from the very first" (St. Paul's Ep. to the Gal., 4th ed., p. 16).

[690:1] "The 'straightway' of verse 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'" (Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 83).

[690:2] Acts 9:43, 18:18, 17:7; Lightfoot, ib., p. 89, note 3.

[690:3] The difference between the vague 'many days' of the Acts and the definite three years' of the Epistle is such as might be expected from the circumstances of the two writers" (Lightfoot, ib., p. 89, note 3).

[692:2] 2 Cor. 10:14 f.; cf. Rom. 15:20.

[693:1] See p. 528 f.

[693:2] Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 85.

[693:3] Bleek, Einl., p. 364 f.; Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., vi., p. 403, anm. 1; Sendschr. d. Ap. Paulus, 1857, p. 68 f.; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 92; Neander, Planzung, p. 127 f.

[694:1] Paley, (Horae Paul. v., No. viii.) actually endeavours to show the genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians by the "undesigned coincidence" of the shortness of Paul's visit as stated by himself and the miraculous order reported Acts 22:17 f., "Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem." The fallacy, not to say unfairness, of this partial argument needs no demonstration, and, indeed, it has been well pointed out by Dr. Jowett (The Epistles of St. Paul, i., p. 350 f.).

[694:2] There was anything but unanimity on the point among the Fathers. Irenaeus identified the second Galatian visit with the third of Acts (15). It is not certain whether Tertullian agreed in this (Adv. M., 5:2-3) or placed it later (Adv. M., 1:20); Eusebius thought it the same as the second of Acts; Epiphanius identified it with the fifth of Acts (21:15); Chrysostom places it after the third of Actsl and the Chronicon Paschale interpolates it between Acts 13 and 15. It is not now necessary to enter minutely into this.

[695:1] Winer, Grammatik des N. T. Sprachidioms, 7th Aufl., § 47, i., p. 356.

[698:1] Chron. ap. Zeit., p. 79 f., p. 201 f.; Br. Pauli an d. Galater, p. 93 f.

[698:2] Paley, Evidences, and Horae Paul., ch. v., Nos. 2, 10, p. 367 f., 382 f.; Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, i., p. 75 f., 122 f. It may be well to quote the following passage from Paley, a witness whose testimony will scarcely be suspected of unorthodox partiality: "It must not be dissembled that the comparison of our Epistle with the history presents some difficulties, or, to say the least, some questions of considerable magnitude. It may be doubted, in the first place, to what journey the words which open the second chapter of the Epistle -- 'then fourteen years afterwards I went unto Jerusalem' -- relate. That which best corresponds with the date, and that to which most interpreters apply the passage, is the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, when they went thither from Antioch, upon the business of the Gentile converts, and which journey produced the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. To me this opinion appears to be encumbered with strong objections. In the Epistle, Paul tells us that 'he went up by revelation' (2:2). In the Acts we read that he was sent by the Church of Antioch. 'After no small dissension and disputation, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders about this question' (15:2). This is not very reconcilable. In the Epistle St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jerusalem, 'he communicated that Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation' (2:2). If by 'that Gospel' he meant the immunity of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know not what else it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should communicate that privately, which was the subject of his public message. But a yet greater difficulty remains -- viz., that in the account which the Epistle gives of what passed upon this visit at Jerusalem, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which are recorded in the Acts, and which, according to that history, formed the business for the sake of which the journey was undertaken. The mention of the council and of its determination, whilst the Apostle was relating his proceedings at Jerusalem, could hardly have been avoided if in truth the narrative belonged to the same journey. To me it appears more probable that Paul and Barnabas had taken some journey to Jerusalem, the mention of which is omitted in the Acts…" (Evidences, and Horae Paulinae, ch ., No 10, p. 382.)

[699:1] Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeitalter, p. 129.

[700:1] "Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of cross lights. The narratives of St. Luke and St. Paul only then cease to conflict when we take into account the different positions of the writers and the different objects they had in view" (Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, p. 224).

[701:1] Horae Paul., ch. v., No. x. See back, p. 698, note 2.

[701:2] "Here, however, there is no contradiction. The historian naturally records the external impulse which led to the mission; the Apostle himself states his inward motive. 'What I did,' he says, 'I did not owing to circumstances, not as yielding to pressure, not in deference to others, but because the Spirit of God told me it was right.' The very stress which he lays on this revelation seems to show that other influences were at work" (!) (Lightfoot, St. P. the Gal., p. 124). Dr. Lightfoot quotes as parallel cases, suggesting how the one motive might supplement the other, Acts 9:29-30; cf. 22:17, 23:2-4, and 15:28. It is unfortunate that all these, "parallel cases" are taken from the work whose accuracy is in question, and that the first is actually discredited by the Apostle's own account, whilst the others are open to equally strong objections. See also Alford, Greek Test., ii., Proleg. p. 27, iii., p. 12; Meyer, Br. an die Gal., p. 61 f.

[702:1] Horae Paul, ch. v., No. x. See p. 698, note 2.

[703:2] Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 125.

[703:3] It has been pertinently asked: how it is possible that such a meeting could have taken place? What room could have been found to contain the assembly? (cf. Reuss, N. Rev. de Théol., 1858, ii., p. 36).

[704:1] Meyer argues, not without force, that if Paul had not by kat' idian de intended to distinguish a different communication, he must have said: anthemên autois, k.t.l., anthemên de tois dok. omitting the distinguishing kat' idian (Br. an die Gal., p. 62, anm.).

[704:2] An able and impartial critic, Reuss, attempts to reconcile the two accounts by arguing that such a question could not possibly have been laid before and decided by the whole community. He, therefore, supposes that private conferences took place. This "reconciliation," however, is excluded by the account in Acts, which so distinctly represents a large public congress, and it by no means lessens the fundamental discrepancy of the narratives (cf. Reuss, N. Rev. de Théol., 1858, ii. 334 f., 1859, iii., p. 62 f.).

[707:2] Rom. 10:12-13; cf. Gal. 3:26 f., "For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus; … There is neither Jew nor Greek; … for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus."

[707:6] The linguistic analysis will be found in the Complete Edition; vol. iii., pp. 239-241.

[708:3] Cf. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Ep. to the Gal., 338.

[708:4] Hilgenfeld argues that in speaking of "eating with them" Paul refers to the Agape, the meals of the Christians which had a religious significance. Although this is well worthy of consideration, it is not necessary for us here to go into the question (cf. Galaterbrief, p. 59 f.; Zeitschr. wiss. Th., 1858, p. 87 f.).

[708:5] die Gal., 98 f.

[712:1] "St. James and St. Luke adopt that version as not contrary to the mind of the Spirit, and indeed as expressing that mind," etc. (Wordsworth, Gk. Test., The Acts, p. 113).

[713:1] The linguistic analysis will be found in the Complete Edition, vol. iii., pp. 252-254.

[713:3] "Of the Judaisers who are denounced in St. Paul's Epistles this much is certain, that they exalted the authority of the Apostles of the Circumcision; and that, in some instances at least, as members of the mother Church, they had direct relations with James, the Lord's brother. But when we attempt to define those relations we are lost in a maze of conjecture" (Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 353).

[715:1] Apostelgesch., 246 f.

[715:2] Bleek, Einl., p. 349; Baumgarten, Apg., p. 470 f.; Ewald, Gesch. V. Isr., vi., p. 440, anm.; Gloag, Acts, ii., p. 89 f.; Lange, Das ap. Z., ii., p. 189; Meyer, Apg., p. 345 f.

[715:3] Die Apostelgesch., p. 316.

[715:4] Paulus in D. Apostelgesch., 1868, p. 227.

[715:5] Wetstein quotes Artemidorus (Oneir., 3:44): idion pasês epistolês to chairein kai errhôso legein (Ad Act. Apost., 15:2).

[715:6] This letter terminates, 5:30, with the usual errhôso, according to the Cod. Sinaiticus, E, G, and others; A and B omit it.

[716:1] Apostelgesch. p. 316.

[716:2] Apostelg., p. 345.

[716:3] Paul. in d. Apg., p. 227; comp. Reiche, Comm. in Ep. Jac., 1833, p. 1.

[716:4] Ib., p. 227 f.; cf. Grotius, Annot. in N. T. ad Ad. Ap., 15:23, who takes chairein to be the rendering of the Hebrew salutation of Peace.

[716:5] The linguistic analysis will be found in the Complete Edition, vol. iii., p. 260 f.

[718:1] Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 296.

Return to Pt 4, Ch 7      Return to Contents