Acts 18:22

κατελθὼν εἰς κ., i.e., Cæsarea Stratonis, i.e., came down from the high sea to the coast, the shore, cf. Acts 27:5 (Acts 21:3), so in Homer, and also of coming down from the high land to the coast, see Grimm-Thayer, sub v. ἀναβὰς, i.e., to Jerusalem, the usual expression for a journey to the capital, cf. Acts 11:2; Acts 15:2 (b), Acts 25:1; Acts 25:9; Matthew 20:18; Mark 10:32, see Luke 2:42; Luke 18:31; Luke 19:28; John 2:13; John 7:8; Galatians 2:1; cf. Acts 24:1; Acts 24:22; Acts 25:6, where “to go down” is used of the journey from Jerusalem to Cæsarea. To suppose that the word is used to indicate simply that they landed in the harbour, or because the town lay high up from the shore, or because the place of assembly for the Church was on high ground, is quite arbitrary, and cannot be set against the usage of the term “going up” and “going down” in relation to Jerusalem; see Hort, Ecclesia, p. 96; Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 264; so Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Hackett, Zückler, Rendall, Page, Weiss, Weizsäcker, Spitta, Jüngst, Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Knabenbauer, and Belser, Beiträge, p. 89, who opposes here the position of Blass (and if the T.R. in Acts 18:21 is retained in [326] certainly “the going up” to Jerusalem seems naturally to follow). Blass maintains that Cæsarea is meant, but he is evidently led to adopt this view by his desire to retain the reading in, Acts 19:1, see Zöckler, in loco, and Ramsay, p. 264, and Belser, u. s., for a criticism of Blass's view. Amongst the more recent critics, Zahn, Einleitung, ii., 343, 350. combats the reasons alleged by Belser, and takes the going up and the Church mentioned to refer to Cæsarea and the Church there, not to Jerusalem. This visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem is disputed by McGiffert, although he does not deny with Weizsäcker the whole journey, but admits that the Apostle went as far as Antioch. So too Wendt is not prepared to follow Weizsäcker entirely, although he holds that as the Apostle went to Syria, Luke concluded that he must have gone up to Jerusalem (so McGiffert). On the other hand, the historical truthfulness of the journey to Jerusalem is stoutly defended by Spitta (pp. 246 248). The silence of the Galatian Epistle is admitted by Wendt to be in itself no proof against its occurrence, and still less objection can be based on the supposed variance at this time between St. Paul and the Jewish Christians of the capital. See Zöckler's note, p. 272, and also Alford, in loco. τὴν ἐκκ.: the Church at Jerusalem may be fairly regarded as indicated, the ἐκκ. κατʼ ἐξοχὴν : “primariam, ex qua propagatæ sunt reliquæ,” Bengel. If St. Luke had meant the Christians in Cæsarea, he would probably have said that Paul saluted the brethren or the disciples, cf. Acts 24:7 (see Belser, u. s., p. 90). This visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem would probably be his fourth, Acts 9:26; Acts 11:30 (Acts 12:25), Acts 15:4, and if he went on this fourth occasion to complete a vow, this fact alone would prove that the visit was not wanting in an object: see however note on Acts 18:18. ἀσπασ.: the word indicates a short stay. Blass interprets that the Apostle went up from the harbour to the city of Cæsarea, and then “went down to Antioch”. But Ramsay, p. 264, urges that it is impossible to use the term κατέβη of a journey from the coast town Cæsarea to the inland city Antioch; on the contrary, one regularly “goes down” to a coast town, Acts 13:4; Acts 14:25; Acts 16:8, etc. At the Syrian Antioch, the mother of the Gentile churches, St. Paul would find a welcome after his second journey, as after his first this so far as we know was his last visit to a place which was now no longer an effective centre for the Apostle's work, or for the supervision of his new churches.

[326] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.