{245}
Gentile Christians to adopt Judaism. There is no escaping this conclusion for, after all specious reasoning to the contrary is exhausted, there remains the simple fact that Peter, when placed in a dilemma on the arrival of the emissaries of James, and forced to decide whether he will continue to live as a Gentile or as a Jew, adopts the latter alternative, and as Paul tells us "compels" (in the present) the Gentiles to judaize. A stronger indication of his views could scarcely have been given. Not a word is said which implies that Peter yielded to the vehement protests of Paul, but on the contrary we must undoubtedly conclude that he did not; for it is impossible to suppose that Paul would not have stated a fact so pertinent to his argument, had the elder Apostle been induced by his remonstrance to walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel which Paul preached, and both to teach and practice Christian universalism. We shall have abundant reason, apart from this, to conclude that Peter did not yield, and it is no false indication of this, that, a century after, we find the Clementine Homilies expressing the bitterness of the Petrine party against the Apostle of the Gentiles for this very rebuke, and representing Peter as following his course from city to city for the purpose of refuting Paul"s unorthodox teaching.
It is contended that Peter"s conduct at Antioch is in harmony with his denial of his master related in the Gospels, and, therefore, that such momentary and characteristic weakness might well have been displayed even after his adoption of liberal principles. Those who argue in this way, however, forget that the denial of Jesus, as described in the Gospels, proceeded from the fear of death, and that such a reply to a merely compromising question
{246}
which did not directly involve principles, is a very different thing from conduct like that at Antioch where, under one influence, a line of action was temporarily adopted which ratified views upon which the opinion of the Church was divided, and then abandoned merely from fear of the disapproval of those of the Circ.u.mcision. The author of the Acts pa.s.ses over this altercation in complete silence. No one has ever called in question the authenticity of the account which Paul gives of it. If Peter had the courage to make such a speech at the Council in the very capital of Judaic Christianity, and in the presence of James and the whole Church, how could he possibly, from fear of a few men from Jerusalem, have shown such pusillanimity in Antioch, where Paul and the ma.s.s of Christians supported him? If the unanimous decision of the Council had really been a fact, how easily he might have silenced any objections by an appeal to that which had "seemed good to the Holy Spirit" and to the Church! But there is not the slightest knowledge of the Council and its decree betrayed either by those who came from James, or by Peter, or Paul. The episode at Antioch is inconsistent with the conduct and words ascribed to Peter in the Acts, and contradicts the narrative in the fifteenth chapter which we are examining.(1)
The author of the Acts states that after Peter had spoken, "all the mult.i.tude kept silence and were hearing
{247}
Barnabas and Paul declaring what signs and wonders G.o.d had wrought among the Gentiles by them."(1) We shall not at present pause to consider this statement, nor the _role_ which Paul is made to play in the whole transaction, beyond pointing out that, on an occasion when such a subject as the circ.u.mcision of the Gentiles and their subjection to the Mosaic law was being discussed, nothing could be more opposed to nature than to suppose that a man like the author of the Epistle to the Galatians could have a.s.sumed so pa.s.sive, and subordinate an att.i.tude.(2) After Barnabas and Paul had spoken, James is represented as saying: "Men (and) brethren, hear me. Simeon declared how G.o.d at first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written: "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name has been called, saith the Lord who doeth these things, known from the beginning." Wherefore, I judge that we trouble not those from among the Gentiles who are turning to G.o.d; but that we write unto them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."(3) There are many reasons for which this
{248}
speech also must be p.r.o.nounced inauthentic.(1) It may be observed, in pa.s.sing, that James completely disregards the statement which Barnabas and Paul are supposed to make as to what G.o.d had wrought by them among the Gentiles; and, ignoring their intervention, he directly refers to the preceding speech of Peter claiming to have first been selected to convert the Gentiles. We shall reserve discussion of the conditions which James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians till we come to the apostolic decree which embodies them.
The precise signification of the sentence with which (ver. 21) he concludes has been much debated, but need not detain us long. Whatever may be said of the liberal part of the speech it is obvious that the author has been more true to the spirit of the time in conceiving this and other portions of it, than in composing the speech of Peter. The continued observance of the Mosaic ritual, and the ident.i.ty of the synagogue with the Christian Church are correctly indicated; and when James is again represented (xxi. 20 ff.) as advising Paul to join those who had avow, in order to prove that he himself walked orderly and was an observer of the law, and did not teach the Jews to apostatize from Moses and abandon the rite of circ.u.mcision, he is consistent in his portrait It is nevertheless clear that, however we may read the restrictions which
{249}
James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians, the author of Acts intends them to be considered as a most liberal and almost complete concession of immunity. "I judge," he makes James say, "that we trouble not those from among the Gentiles who are turning to G.o.d;" and again, on the second occasion of which we have just been speaking, in referring to the decree, a contrast is drawn between the Christian Jews, from whom observance of the law is demanded, and the Gentiles, who are only expected to follow the prescriptions of the decree.
James is represented as supporting the statement of Peter how G.o.d visited the Gentiles by "the words of the Prophets," quoting a pa.s.sage from Amos. ix. 11, 12. It is difficult to see how the words, even as quoted, apply to the case at all, but this is immaterial. Loose reasoning can certainly not be taken as a mark of inauthenticity. It is much more to the point that James, addressing an a.s.sembly of Apostles and elders in Jerusalem, quotes the prophet Amos freely from the Septuagint version,(1) which differs widely in the latter and more important part from the Hebrew text.(3) The pa.s.sage in the Hebrew reads: ix. 11. "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old, 12. that they may possess the remnant of
{250}
Edom, and of all the heathen upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord that doeth this." The authors of the Septuagint version altered the twelfth verse into: "That the residue of men may seek after the Lord and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord who doeth these things."(1) It is perfectly clear that the prophet does not, in the original, say what James is here represented as stating, and that his own words refer to the national triumph of Israel, and not to the conversion of the Gentiles. Amos in fact prophesies that the Lord will restore the former power and glory of Israel, and that the remnant of Edom and the other nations of the theocracy shall be re-united, as they were under David. No one questions the fact that the original prophecy is altered, and those who desire to see the singular explanations of apologists may refer to some of the works indicated.(2) The question as to whether James or the author of the Acts is responsible for the adoption of the Septuagint version is felt to be a serious problem.
Some critics affirm that in all probability James must have spoken in Aramaic;(3) whilst others maintain that he delivered this
{251}
address in Greek.(1) In the one case, it is supposed that he quoted the original Hebrew and that the author of the Acts or the doc.u.ment from which he derived his report may have used the Septuagint; and in the other, it is suggested that the lxx. may have had another and more correct reading before them, for it is supposed impossible that James himself could have quoted a version which was actually different from the original Hebrew. These and many other similar explanations, into which we need not go, do little to remove the difficulty presented by the fact itself. To suppose that our Hebrew texts are erroneous in order to justify the speech is a proceeding which does not require remark. It will be remembered that, in the Acts, the Septuagint is always employed in quotations from the Old Testament, and that this is by no means the only place in which that version is used when it departs from the original. It is difficult to conceive that any intelligent Jew could have quoted the Hebrew of this pa.s.sage to support a proposal to free Gentile Christians from the necessity of circ.u.mcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law. It is equally difficult to suppose that James, a bigoted leader of the Judaistic party and the head of the Church of Jerusalem, could have quoted the Septuagint version of the Holy Scriptures, differing from the Hebrew, to such an a.s.sembly. It is useless to examine here the attempts to make the pa.s.sage quoted a correct interpretation of the prophet"s meaning, or seriously to consider the proposition that this alteration of a prophetic utterance is adopted as better
{252}
expressing "the mind of the Spirit." If the original prophecy did not express that mind, it is rather late to amend the utterances of the prophets in the Acts of the Apostles.
We may now briefly examine the speech linguistically. Verse 13: The opening as usual is [------], but the whole phrase [------] is put into the mouth of Paul in xxii. 1, [------], and with but little variation again in xiii. 16. Cf. ii. 22. The use of the Hebrew form [------] in speaking of Peter, has been pointed out by Bleek(1) and others, after Lightfoot,(2) as a characteristic peculiarity showing the authenticity of the speech. The same form occurs in 2 Pet. i. 1, but its use in that spurious epistle is scarcely calculated to give weight to its use here.
If it be characteristic of anyone, however, its use is characteristic of the author of the third Gospel and the Acts, and in no case is it peculiarly a.s.sociated with James. In addition to the instance referred to above, and Apoc. vii. 7, where the tribe of Simeon is thus named, the Jewish form [------] of the name Simon occurs four times only in the New Testament, and they are conflned to our author: Acts xiii. 1; Luke ii.
25, 34, iii. 30. Being acquainted with the Jewish form of the name, he made use of it in this speech probably for the effect of local colouring. [------], xv. 12, xxi. 19; Luke xxiv. 35, and nowhere else except John i. 18--it is peculiar to the author, [------], Acts 11, Luke 16 times, and elsewhere frequently, [------], iii. 26, vii. 12, xi. 26, xiii. 46, xxvi. 20; Luke 10 times; Jam. iii. 17; Paul 10 times, rest frequently. [------], vi. 3, vii. 23, xv. 36; Luke i. 68,
{253}
78, vii. 16; Matth. xxv. 36, 43, Hebr. ii. 6, Jam. i. 27, that is to say 7 times used by the author and only 4 times in the rest of the New Testament; compare especially Luke i. 68, and vii. 16. [------] opposed to [------], xxvi. 17, 23. The expression [------] occurs ii. 38, iv.
17, 18, v. 28, 40; Luke ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47, and only 5 times in the rest of the New Testament. Verse 15: [------], v. 9; Luke v. 36, and Matth. xviii. 19, xx. 2, 13 only. Verse 16: In this quotation from Amos, for the i[------] of the Septuagint, the Author subst.i.tutes [------], which phrase occurs elsewhere in Acts vii. 7, xiii. 20, xviii.
1; Luke v. 27, x. 1, xii. 4, xvii. 8, xviii. 4. [------], v. 22 and 9 times elsewhere. Verse 18: [------], i. 19, ii. 14, iv. 10, 16, ix. 42, xiii. 38, xix. 17, xxviii. 22, 28 = 10 times in Acts; Luke i. 44, xxiii.
49; elsewhere only in Rom. i. 19, John xviii. 15, 16,--a characteristic word. So likewise is the expression [------], iii. 21, Luke i. 70; [------] occurs in Ephes. iii. 9, Col. i. 26. These words are added to the pa.s.sage quoted from the Septuagint. Verse 19: [------] is used 11 times in Acts; Luke i. 35, vii. 7; by Paul 18 times, Ep. Jam. twice, and elsewhere 25 times. [------], 22 times in Acts; Luke 6 times, Paul 37 times, Ep. Jam. 6, and elsewhere 44 times, [------] is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. [------], Acts 11, Luke 7, Jam. v. 19, 20, rest 19 times; the phrase [------] is a favourite and characteristic expression of the Author, who uses it ix. 35, xi. 21, xiv. 15, xxvi.
20, and Luke i. 16, and it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament except in 1 Pet. ii. 25. Verse 20: [------], xxi. 25, and Hebr. xiii. 22 only. [------] xv. 29, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20, xxiv. 13, 1 Thess.
iv. 3, v. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 11, and
{254}
elsewhere 7 times; in both pa.s.sages of the Ep. to the Thess. it is used with [------] as here. [------] is not elsewhere found. [------], vii.
41; 6 times by Paul, and elsewhere 3: it occurs very frequently in the Septuagint. [------], xv. 29, xxi. 25; Paul 8, elsewhere 15 times.
[------], xv. 29, xxi. 25, a technical word. [------], Acts 12, Luke 11 times, rest frequently, [------], ii. 40, viii. 33, xiii. 36, xiv. 16; Luke 13 times, Matth. 13, Mk. 5, rest 5 times. [------], xv. 7, xxi. 16; Luke ix. 8, 19, elsewhere 7 times. [------], xv. 36, xx. 23, xxiv. 12; Luke viii. 1, 4, xiii. 22, and elsewhere only in t.i.t. i. 5. [------], viii. 5, ix. 20, x. 37, 42, xix. 13, xx. 25, xxviii. 31; Luke 9, Paul 14, elsewhere 30 times. [------], Acts 9, Luke 20, rest 35 times, the whole phrase [------] occurs again in the Acts, being put into the mouth of Paul xiii. 27, and [------] being used by the writer in xviii. 4.
[------], Acts 20; Luke 15, rest 22 times, [------], viii. 28, 30 twice, 32, xiii. 27, xv. 31, xxiii. 34; Luke 3, and elsewhere 22 times. This a.n.a.lysis confirms the conclusion that the speech of James at the Council proceeds likewise from the pen of the general author, and the incomprehensible liberality of the sentiments expressed, as well as the peculiarity of the quotation from Amos according to the Septuagint, thus receive at once their simple explanation.
If we now compare the account of James"s share in granting liberal conditions to Gentile Christians with the statements of Paul, we arrive at the same result. It is in consequence of the arrival of "certain men from James" [------] that Peter through fear of them withdrew from communion with the
{255}
Gentiles. It will be remembered that the whole discussion is said to have arisen in Antioch originally from the judaistic teaching of certain men who came "from Judaea," who are disowned in the apostolic letter.(1) It is unfortunate, however, to say the least of it, that so many of those who systematically opposed the work of the Apostle Paul claimed to represent the views of James and the mother Church.(2) The contradiction of the author of the Acts, with his object of conciliation, has but small weight before the statements of Paul and the whole voice of tradition. At any rate, almost immediately after the so-called Apostolic Council, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of James, his emissaries caused the defection of Peter in Antioch and the rupture with Paul. It is generally admitted, in the face of the clear affirmation of Paul, that the men in question must in all probability have been actually sent by James.3 It is obvious that, to justify the fear of so leading an apostle as Peter, not only must they have been thus deputed, but must have been influential men,
2 "Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St. Paul"s Epistles this much is certain, that they exalted the authority of the Apostles of the Circ.u.mcision; 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.
{256}
representing authoritative and prevalent judaistic opinions. We shall not attempt to divine the object of their mission, but we may say that it is impossible to separate them from the judaistic teachers who urged circ.u.mcision upon the Galatian Christians and opposed the authority of the Apostle Paul. Not pursuing this further at present, however, it is obvious that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite incompatible with the narrative that, so short a time before, James and the Church of Jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions, under which the Gentile Christians were freely admitted into communion, and which fully justified Peter in eating with them. The incident at Antioch, as connected with James as well as with Peter, excludes the supposition that the account of the Council contained in the Acts can be considered historical. The Apostolic letter embodying the decree of the Council now demands our attention. It seemed good to the Apostles and the elders with the whole Church to choose two leading men among the brethren, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and they wrote by them (xv. 23):--"The Apostles and brethren which are elders unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24. Forasmuch as we heard that certain which went out from us troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment, 25. it seemed good unto us, having become of one mind, to choose out and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26. men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27. We have, therefore, sent Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
{257}
things: 29. that ye abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well." l It is argued that the simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of hierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and originality of the epistle. Nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to a.s.sert that the author of the Acts, composing a letter supposed to be written under the circ.u.mstances, would have written one different from this. We shall, on the contrary, see good reason for affirming that he actually did compose it, and that it bears the obvious impress of his style. Besides, Zeller(2) has pointed out that, in a doc.u.ment affirmed to be so removed from all calculation or object, verse 26 could hardly have found a place. The reference to "our beloved" Barnabas and Paul, as "men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," is scarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which are made the basis of such an argument.
In the absence of better evidence, apologists grasp at extremely slight indications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us the mark of genuineness which Bleek and others(3) consider that they find in the fact,
{258}
that the name of Barnabas is placed before that of Paul in this doc.u.ment. It is maintained that, from the 13th chapter, the author commences to give the precedence to Paul, but that, in reverting to the former order, the synodal letter gives evidence both of its antiquity and genuineness. If any weight could be attached to such an indication, it is unfortunate for this argument that the facts are not as stated, for the order "Barnabas and Paul" occurs at xiv. 12 and 14, and even in the very account of the Council at xv. 12. The two names are mentioned together in the Acts sixteen times, Barnabas being named first eight times (xi. 30, xii. 25, xiii. 1, 2, 7, xiv. 12, 14, xv. 12), and Paul as frequently (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2 twice, 22, 25, 35). Apologists like Lekebusch(1) and Oertel(2) reject Bleek"s argument. The greeting [------] with which the letter opens, and which, amongst the Epistles of the New Testament, is only found in that bearing the name of James (i. 1), is said to be an indication that the letter of the Council was written by James himself.(3) Before such an argument could avail, it would be necessary, though difficult, to prove the authenticity of the Epistle of James, but we need not enter upon such a question. [------]
is the ordinary Greek form of greeting in all epistles,(4) and the author of Acts, who writes purer Greek than any
{259}
other writer in our Canon, naturally adopts it. Not only does he do so here, however, but he makes use of the same [------] in the letter of the chief captain Lysias (xxiii. 26),(1) which also evidently proceeds from his hand. Moreover, the word is used as a greeting in Luke i. 28, and not unfrequently elsewhere in the New Testament, as Mattli. xxvi.
49, xxvii. 29, xxviii. 9, Mark xv. 18, John xix. 3,2 John 10, 11.
Lekebusch,(2) Meyer,(3) and Oertel(4) reject the argument, and we may add that if [------] prove anything, it proves that the author of Acts, who uses the word in the letter of Lysias, also wrote the synodal letter. In what language must we suppose that the Epistle was originally written? Oertel maintains an Aramaic original,(5) but the greater number of writers consider that the original language was Greek.(6) It cannot be denied that the composition, as it stands, contains many of the peculiarities of style of the author of Acts;(7) and these are, indeed, so marked that even apologists like Lekebusch and Oertel, whilst maintaining the substantial authenticity of the Epistle, admit that at least its actual form must be ascribed to the general author. The originality of the form being abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any ground for a.s.serting the originality and genuineness of
{260}
the substance. That a.s.sertion rests solely upon a vague traditional confidence in the Author of Acts, which is shown to be without any solid foundation. The form of this Epistle clearly professes to be as genuine as the substance, and if the original language was Greek, there is absolutely no reason why the original letter should have been altered.
The similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third Gospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed to have beeu most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:--
A more detailed linguistic examination of the Epistle, however, confirms the conclusion already stated. Verse 23: [------], ii. 23, v. 12, vii.
25, xi. 30, xiv. 3, xix. 11, 26, and elsewhere the expression is only met with in Mark vi. 2; the phrase [------] finds a parallel in xi. 30, [------], k. t. X. The characteristic expression [------], is repeated, xi. 1, xvi. 7, xxvii. 2, 5, 7. Verse 24: [------], xiii. 46, xiv. 12, Luke vii. 1, xi. 6, cf. i. 1; Paul 5, rest only 2 times. [------], xvii.