μadinλ teπaidevμévos, in Acts xxii. 3), who, from the nature of the case, must have been numerous (oλλoús), and earnestly devoted to the support of Judaism. He does not say (be it observed) that he surpassed many of his contemporaries of that class, as if some of them might have excelled him, but that among his many youthful associates at that period, he had absolutely no superior in his fanatical zeal for the law. If now we say "many equals" simply (as in the common version), one might be led to think of nothing more. than a parity of rank among them; or (which is a marginal reading, and nearer the truth) if we say "equals in years," we might think of the age as the only respect in which they were equal, without the idea of a personal association. The opinion entertained by many critics, that πολλοὺς συνηλικιώras were all the Jews in Palestine during the apostle's youth, his contemporaries in that wider sense, can not well be correct; first, because the construction would naturally have been πολλοὺς τῶν συνηλικιωτῶν; and secondly, because the statement merely that he surpassed many of his countrymen, or many countrymen (if so hard an expression could be used), would fall short both of what was true in the case, and what his argument would make it so pertinent that he should say. Our version depends here on the Rheims (A.D. 1582). It may be well, therefore, to replace essentially the vernacular rendering of the earlier periods. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Bishops' Bible (1584), and the Genevan have many of my companions, and Wiclif, many of myn eune eldis, probably with the same import.

Verse 18. Iwent up to Jerusalem to see Peter. • I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas.' There is no doubt here as to the meaning of ioтopioa. It is neither simply ideiv, to see, nor eπio Kéfaodai, to visit; but implies, in addition to what these words express, that the parties met and became known to each other for the first time. Though used of things more commonly, it could be applied to a person also; as in Joseph. Jud. Bel. VI., 1, 8, οὐκ ἄσημος ὢν ἀνὴρ ὃν ἐγὼ κατ' ἐκεῖνον ἱστόρησα τὸν πόλεμον. See Dr. Robinson's N. T. Lex. s. v. The best authorities

read Knoâv in this verse, and not Пéтрov. Here at JerusaΚηφᾶν Πέτρον. lem, on Aramaean ground, Paul had often heard that name applied to Peter; and it is perfectly natural that the name should come back to him, as he recalls the events of that occasion. It is not improbable that in foreign lands the Judaizers adhered tenaciously to the Aramaic name (see 1 Cor. i. 12), and hence it may be that Peter himself, in his epistles, uses the Greek form as a silent protest against them.

6

Verse 23. But they had heard only that he which persecuted us. But they were only hearing that he who persecuted us. Luther's version agrees here with the English. The idea is not, however, that they had heard,' but (ȧkoúOVTES oav) were only hearing from time to time. All that they knew of their former persecutor, rumor brought to their The participle is emphatic, as opposed to the idea of any personal acquaintance with him.

ears.

CHAPTER II.

'But not

Verse 3. But neither Titus, who was with me. even Titus.' 'AXX' oudé is a true reading. Paul's views might have been deemed erroneous or imperfect, or some of his measures objectionable; but, so far from incurring any such censure, not even Titus, who stood before them as an impersonation, so to speak, of the whole difficulty, was compelled to be circumcised. Being of heathen parentage, his submission to the rite under other circumstances might have been thought advisable, as a matter of expediency (as in the case of Timothy, see Acts xvi. 3); but now, when the Judaistic party (see the next verse) would have misunderstood or perverted the act as a sanctioning of their doctrine that men must be circumcised in order to be saved (Acts xv. 1), even that other and lower view of the rite was not urged as a reason for circumcising Titus. For the force of oudé compare Matt. xxvi. 29; Luke xxiii. 15; Acts xix. 2.

6

Verse 4. And that because of false brethren. And that because of the false brethren.' The article (Tous) before

yevdade pous points out the class as notorious for the part which they acted. The connection with the preceding verb may be obscure; but, on the whole, our version, which some would alter here, has dealt fairly with the case. According to the best view, the connective dé has its iterative use here, and repeats ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι, as negatived by ovde." He was not, I say, compelled to be circumcised οὐδέ. by the other apostles; and the reason was, that there was a party in the church who demanded it on grounds utterly subversive of the gospel as a system of grace." See Acts xv. 5. Compare dé in Rom. iii. 22, and Philip. ii. 8. There are other views of the construction and the sense; but there is no one which the later exegesis supports to a greater extent than the current one of the English versions (from Tyndale and perhaps Wiclif, onward). For a very full discussion of the point see Fritzsche, Opusc. Academ., p. 180 sq. Winer (Gram., § 63, I. 1) favors Luther's version, and would begin a new sentence here. Buttmann (Neutest. Sprachgebr., p. 329) is undecided.

Verse 5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. To whom we yielded the subjection (eiţaμev tỷ úπотay), no, not for an hour.' Our translators make τῇ ὑποταγῇ almost a tautological repetition of εἴξαμεν. It is the subjection demanded in this matter of circumcision which is meant; it is the emphasized word, therefore, and forms the punctum saliens of the verse.

Verse 6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat. But from those reputed to be something' (ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων eivaí T). It is difficult to separate from the expression εἶναί 'who seemed to be somewhat' the idea of a "covert irony" on the part of Paul, with respect to the justice of the reputation which the three apostles (see v. 9) enjoyed. See Trench, Authorized Version, p. 185. The Greek affords no ground for such a reflection on his impartiality.

Verse 8. For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles. For he that wrought for Peter in behalf of the apostleship of the circumcision (ó évepyýoas VOL. XIX. No. 73.

19

Πετρῷ εἰς ἀποστολήν) wrought also for me in behalf of the Gentiles. The dative Пerpo, and so euoí, is the dative of the person for whom, and not that of the sphere in which, the act was performed. With the latter meaning, the ev in évepynoas should be repeated before the dative, as in iii. 5; 2 Cor. iv. 12; Philip. ii. 13, etc. The translation (εἰς ἀποστοAnv), to the apostleship, limits the declaration incorrectly to the appointment to that office, and towards the apostleship (as some prefer) is needlessly indefinite. The idea is that God (ó évepyýσas, see 1 Cor. xii. 6; Phil. ii. 13) exerted his mighty power to qualify his servants for their work, and to make them successful in it. Further, our English version interpolates 'the same' as the subject of ¿výpynσe; as if the question was not whether Paul had the same evidence of his apostleship as Peter had, but whether the evidence in the two cases came from the same source. The idea is that God who accredited the commission of the one, accredited that of the other.

'But

Verse 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blamed.' The external evidence demands Κηφάς, instead of the received Πέτρος. See the testimonies in Tischendorf. The gerundial force which our version (Vulg. reprehensibilis) ascribes to the participle (kateyvwoμévos) is incorrect. Nearly all critics discard now this sense. Winer notices the error in his Gram., § 45, 1 (p. 307). See Ellicott's note in loc., and Robinson's New Test. Lex., s. v. The traditionary incorrect translation is confessedly less obscure than the correct one. How or by whom was Peter blamed? The answers are various: by his own conscience (Rückert); by his previous conduct (Windischmann); in the sight of God (Ewald); by the Gentile converts (Wieseler); by the better part of the Jews and Gentiles (Ellicott). The meaning, in any event, is not that Paul censured Peter simply because others had done so, but that he censured him with good reason because he was so palpably in the wrong as to be already condemned (as the case may be)

by the verdict of his own conscience, or by the voice of those who were still faithful. The object was to show how greatly Peter had gone astray, and not how excusable it was in Paul to expose the error.

Verse 14. I said unto Peter before them all. I said to Peter in the presence of all.' Of course ἔμπροσθεν is local here, as in Matt. v. 16; vi. 1, etc. 'Before all' in the common version, might suggest that Paul singled out Peter as the object of his censure, instead of others who were guilty of the same offence. We are to omit them' in italics, as

wholly gratuitous.

Verse 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For if the things which I pulled down, these I build up again, I make myself a transgressor.' The architectural figure in Karéλvσa and oikodoμa (see Matt. xxvi. 61; xxvii. 40; Mark xiv. 58, etc.) should be brought out in the translation of one verb as well as the other. Since the demonstrative Taûra repeats ä, the former is emphatic certainly, whether épavτóv has or has not an antithetic relation to Xpurós in v. 17. The order in English should preserve that emphasis. The meaning presents itself then more clearly to the mind of the reader. In the preceding verse the apostle repels with indignation (un) YÉVOLTO) the idea that Christ can be represented as the abettor of sin. It is not so, he affirms here anew; for (yáp) instead of having been led to do wrong by the Saviour's requiring us to give up the law, we do wrong by the opposite course, to wit, in going back to the law after having been taught to renounce it.

Verse 19. For I through the law am dead to the law. For I through the law died to the law.' The error is that of disregarding the tense of the verb (médavov). The apostle is not setting forth his present state as such, but referring to an effect of the law which at a certain time changed his relation to it as a ground of reliance; viz., that of its having led him to see the deficiency of his own righteousness, and his need of some other way of acceptance and sanctification; see iii. 19 sq., and Rom. vii. 6 sq. Thus